Schachnovelle - S. Zweig

I stumbled upon the book by chance, I thought I had read something by the same author - this is not the case. I got confused with an author of German gialli, all I know of the name is now that it isn’t Stefan Zweig.

The book is some kind of parabola. Two archetypes of chess players/thinkers are dargestellt and compared: the chess master is a methodical man, extremely gifted in chess but otherwise ignorant to the point that he can barely read. He is presented as narrow minded in more than one aspect: greedy, arrogant, full of pride; the second player express the idea of the fully ausgebildet man, knowledgeable of the arts and sciences, elegant, courteous.

This second man happens to be able to play chess in his head (I say it in one sentence, but the reason of this takes up most of the book and is perhaps the main point, I just don’t think so), the main downside being that he is hostage of his mind, in a way. In the final game, it is enough for the master to take up all the available time to make his moves for his gegner to completely crash - he can’t stop himself from computing several different outcomes and possibilities.

In the first game between the master and the ausgebildet, the ausgebildet wins, just because he can play the game better; in the second, the master wins, because he takes into account the randbedingungen, which have nothing to do with the game itself.

The issue is not new. The best way to study for an exam - any exam - is to spend 50% of the time studying the subject and 50% studying the randbedingungen. Who is the examiner, what do they like to hear? Do they grow bored over time, so that if you get examined later they will not focus on details? Are there things they assume, so that you can say “It is easy to see that X” and they’ll buy it because it is easy for them? Or do they hate to hear this, and you should be careful not to say it?
None of these questions have to do with the subject per se, but failing an exam often has to do with not having answered them correctly. What good is being a genius at chess if you can be crushed simply by the opponent systematically taking time to move? If you are an albatros, you have to know you are an albatros, and be wary of sailors.