More Interviews: Anand and Timman
Another Anand interview can be found here (HT: Jaideepblue), while (HT: Brian Karen) a Jan Timman interview can be read here in its original Dutch or in some form of English on this translation page. Timman comes across as a pretty crotchety fellow in this interview, even citing as his own some ugly comments made by Mssrs. Kasparov and Topalov.
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Monday November 3, 2008 at 10:51pm
They either lose something, mess up because of grammar or just can't break the language barrier..
The last bit.. in dutch: ‘En Loek van Wely is slecht verstaanbaar, je kunt niet veel van hem verwachten.’
Translated as "And Loek van Wély is understandably bad, you can not expect much from him."
Actual meaning in english:
"And Loek van Wély is hard to understand (when he's speaking).
Maybe I'll translate it later and send it to Dennis for all to read :D
Is "slecht verstaanbaar" an idiomatic phrase? Otherwise it's hard to understand why it would mean "hard to understand", at least in a speaking context, given the two succeeding sentences. (They are translated "I find it remarkable that he is making such poor results. At his age I was at the top.")
The prior context is a little ambiguous. He speaks of several young Dutch players, but says they "do not have the look of a Hein Donner". Is this a comment about Donner as a one-time top chess player, or as a controversially colorful character? The latter interpretation would confirm the van Wely-as-public figure translation of "slecht verstaanbaar", while the former, especially in conjunction with the remark about vW's results, confirms a chess translation/interpretation.
Most dictionaries will give 'to understand' as the translation. While that's true in most cases I think, there are exceptions the dutch has 4 meanings for verstaan.
1. "Hearing/understanding something/someone clearly"
2. There is an expression in which verstaan means "what is meant [by].."
3. There is another expression in which it it means "knowing"
The fourth is archaic and no longer used.
Which means Timman said van Wely isn't speaking clearly (enough), making him hard to understand. He does hop from subject to subject in the interview. After that Timman does make a comment about van Wely's poor results, that bit is correct.
"Uitstraling" is another word that doesn't quite translate either. "Look" doesn't cut it. "Aura" comes closest to the actual meaning (uit = out or outward, straling = radiation).
Notability is a word I might've used.
The last two paragraphs according to me:
"The current generation (of dutch players) leads an anonymous (chess) life, says Timman. "It's good that Jan Werle won the tournament in Liverpool. But beyond that I don't see any grand achievements by dutch players. They (the current generation) don't captivate. Smeets and Stellwagen are intelligent, nice young men. But they lack the aura of someone like Hein Donner.
And van Wely does not speak clearly, making him hard to understand (in conversation), you can't expect too much of him (as an icon/hero). I find his current bad results remarkable. At his age, I was at the top."
I hope that clears it up.. I agree that the last sentence seems a bit strange in relation to the rest of the last two paragraphs, only Jan (and maybe his interviewer) could explain that I think.
His remarks on his Dutch colleagues are not entirely clear to me though. I suspect the interviewer is to blame; he might have cut quite a lot.
Perseus is completely right on the meaning of "slecht verstaanbaar". "Slecht" in Dutch does not always refer to evil; it can sometimes mean "hard" as well.
Timman referring to Donner indeed is pointed at his "controversially colorful character". Timman probably meant that Stellwagen ea are not able to do as much for Dutch chess as Donner has done exactly for this reason. Some 30 years ago Donner was a minor national celebrity.
Me being Dutch I obviously have read the Dutch version. De Volkskrant used to have a very reliable reputation quite a long time ago, but since about 15 years it has exchanged hard facts for sensationalism to some extent. I don't read the paper anymore.