Scrumpymanjack wrote:
Better a decade late than never? or maybe not. Anyhow, what does "good at chess" mean? Is there a definition that we can all agree on? Surely, good is a subjective description. I am 2000 in bullet on this site and generally hang out at 1900 in blitz. Is that "good"? Not in my book. I find that the more I know about chess, the more I realise how bad I really am. So again, I'm not sure what good at chess really means.
Likely, there's no such thing as "good at chess" by your existential ponderings. Like all games, there's "better," and "better than most," and "the best during time period X," and everything in between. (Sorry, I don't know how to properly quote and respond.)
For some reason this popped into my head after ten years. Now that I started dabbling in chess this story seems even more unlikely than when I first heard it, and i suppose the reason I remembered it is because it sounded unbelievable the first time.
I know comedians that insist on doing bits in real life conversation - and I suspect Richards is one of them, doubly so if there's a camera around.