Bent Larsen (1935–2010)

Bent Larsen, who died yesterday, changed my life. More than any one else he directed the course of how I played chess. I spent my short career playing 1.b3 - Larsen's opening and the older, but closely related 1.f4. If you were to tempt me to play right now, that too is what I would choose.

Oh. Let me add one confession, which Tal would have enjoyed, though I don't know about Larsen. Occasionally since I formally gave up my chess ambitions I have been forced back to the tournament table. I show more came upon the idea that both 1.b3 and 1.f4 went with an eventual e3. Now, I was way, way out of my depth playing tournaments years after I'd given up and I needed an edge. What about this for an idea....start with 1.e3 and it would look like I didn't have a clue. Especially if I acted really girly about it. Pick up the e pawn, put it on e4 (as you would), DON'T take your fingers off, uncertainly pop it back a square. Ummm....e4? Or e3. When I finally left it there on e3 I hoped that I looked like a patzer. I mean, even more than I was.

You will be greatly missed, Bent Larsen. show less

Bent Larsen, who died yesterday, changed my life. More than any one else he directed the course of how I played chess. I spent my short career playing 1.b3 - Larsen's opening and the older, but closely related 1.f4. If you were to tempt me to play right now, that too is what I would choose.

Oh. Let me add one confession, which Tal would have enjoyed, though I don't know about Larsen. Occasionally since I formally gave up my chess ambitions I have been forced back to the tournament table. I show more came upon the idea that both 1.b3 and 1.f4 went with an eventual e3. Now, I was way, way out of my depth playing tournaments years after I'd given up and I needed an edge. What about this for an idea....start with 1.e3 and it would look like I didn't have a clue. Especially if I acted really girly about it. Pick up the e pawn, put it on e4 (as you would), DON'T take your fingers off, uncertainly pop it back a square. Ummm....e4? Or e3. When I finally left it there on e3 I hoped that I looked like a patzer. I mean, even more than I was.

You will be greatly missed, Bent Larsen. show less

Bent Larsen, who died yesterday, changed my life. More than any one else he directed the course of how I played chess. I spent my short career playing 1.b3 - Larsen's opening and the older, but closely related 1.f4. If you were to tempt me to play right now, that too is what I would choose.

Oh. Let me add one confession, which Tal would have enjoyed, though I don't know about Larsen. Occasionally since I formally gave up my chess ambitions I have been forced back to the tournament table. I show more came upon the idea that both 1.b3 and 1.f4 went with an eventual e3. Now, I was way, way out of my depth playing tournaments years after I'd given up and I needed an edge. What about this for an idea....start with 1.e3 and it would look like I didn't have a clue. Especially if I acted really girly about it. Pick up the e pawn, put it on e4 (as you would), DON'T take your fingers off, uncertainly pop it back a square. Ummm....e4? Or e3. When I finally left it there on e3 I hoped that I looked like a patzer. I mean, even more than I was.

You will be greatly missed, Bent Larsen. show less

Loved this book when I played. Carried it around for a long time. It gave me my taste for Suttles.

Larsen was a writer who knew the dangers of being one.

The worst case was when I wrote my 50 Selected Games. My wife brought the English MS to the post office just the day I left for Puerto Rico. At Puerto Rico, I had original ideas – that was not the trouble – but in some games I suddenly realized that I had played stupidly and my opponent had played stupidly and that this game should

show more

never be published – and then I lost all interest and played terribly. I became too much of a perfectionist. I lost many games because of this.

And this, such an interesting observation:

In England chess writing is a special thing; English players write when they are 20 – it is too young. It is very bad for their chess. In other countries they do not become writers so early.

I've been wondering, since reading these comments, if it is necessarily true: it is certainly often true.

Surely it partly depends on what one is writing. A book of games - or hands in bridge - where publishability depends on aesthetic or such like considerations - yes, I can quite see the distractability quotient there.

But what about if one is writing, for example, a 'how to play' book. My own experience - and I'm talking about bridge, not chess - is that the process of writing, and therefore thinking about, the most basic elements of the game really makes you play well. Hmmm. Let me put that somewhat differently. I'm sure it is possible to write badly about how to play and this certainly won't help you play better.

But if you think profoundly, in the deepest analytical way, about what is happening at that basic level, it is fantastic for your own game, I promise you!

Part of becoming a good player is hardwiring the sort of information I'm talking about. Nonetheless, the process of conscious consideration of it doesn't conflict with the hardwiring, it seems to complement it. show less