..I had no idea there was a Chess World Championship going on.. BBC Sport does not seem to have any section dedicated to the coverage of chess, at least no section that is easily detectable on its pages, despite the fact than an Englishman, Nigel Short, was a leading player of the game not too long ago.. An Indian has won a 'World Championship', an individual to whom such success is not a flash in the pan - he has been a world-leader in this game for many years now and has won several Chess 'oscars' and has been- and is the World Number 1.. he had been unbeaten throughout this championship and that too in a tough field.. And I had no clue all this had happened!!
Is it because the World Championship in Chess has always remained a subject of ridicule, with all and sundry organising a 'World Championship' and calling someone the World Champion? Maybe, or rather must be, for I cannot think of any reason other than that for the World Champinship of this lovely game to have received such a lukewarm reception. But at least, as far as I have read, there seems to an air of the genuine about this championship with most top players including Kramnik and Leko participating. And that is something!
Will FIDE ensure that there is order in the organisation of the game and its World Championships and also ensure that these tournaments get more publicity than they do, in the interest of people like me who follow the game casually, but with a lot of interest!
And congratulations, Vishy Anand!
Monday, 1 October 2007
Sunday, 23 September 2007
The Norfolk Broads
So, I took a completely disorganised trip eastward, to the Norfolk Broads, yesterday, again a Saturday. Generally I take great pleasure in planning trips out of Cambridge carefully and well in advance, irrespective of how well the plans work out! But the trip described last, to Bury St Edmunds and the one described here, to the Norfolk Broads were totally arbitrary. The present one the most random trip I have taken since I practically had no idea where I was to go!
So, what are the Norfolk Broads? I would rather not explain in detail but point you to the appropritate Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broads.
It would resemble in many ways the scenes that you would get to see on the boat rides back home in South of India, but here, there is one difference: while the rivers, obviously, were formed by natural forces, the depressions that are now the lakes were dug out by hand in medieval times!!!
My first port of call was this place called Hoveton and Wroxham. It was a 15 minute train ride from Norwich. But thanks to some engineering works on the rails between Ely and Brandon, the trip involved several changes involving buses and trains. But somehow, I did get to Hoveton and Wroxham. This place is called the capital of the Broads because it is supposed to be pretty much the gateway to the Broads. Well, true, but only if you had a car to drive around or had the time to rent a boat all for yourself and take it around. Public transport was pretty much non-existent and even the brochure supplied by the Broads authority had no practically useful information on getting around by public transport. And given all these limitations, I did take a guided river tour on the river Bure lasting an hour and a half covering the Wroxham and Salhouse Broads. The commentary during the tour was very very good and mentioned how the waters here were pretty much polluted in the 70s and it required a concerted effort in the form of legislation and implementation to clean it all up. During this tour, one gets an opportunity to see a variety of water birds! And one can also easily observe the presence of quite a few thatched houses!
Following this tour, I walked around this little reserve park in Hoveton, where one might get to see birds amidst the reeds, but I did not see any. In all probability, the large dogs that were being walked by quite a few of the toursists (or locals) might have scared the birds away!
And then I took the train back to Norwich and realised it was still too early. Then I decided to go to the Broads in Suffolk and decided to choose between the train that went to the east-most coast of England - Lowestoft and that which went to Great Yarmouth. I plumped for the former and went on the train and only to get down at one random station called Oulton Broads North, a short while from Lowestoft. I walked around this Oulton, which was totally deficient in any kind of sign-posts, but somehow reached the banks of river Waveney. I decided I did not have the time to take another guided river tour, but walked for a while along the banks, seeing several swans and boats and dogs. And then it was time to take the train back to Norwich and then to Cambridge. This particular train route between Lowestoft and Norwich is quite pretty and one does get to see several marshes.
So that is about it for today.
So, what are the Norfolk Broads? I would rather not explain in detail but point you to the appropritate Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broads.
It would resemble in many ways the scenes that you would get to see on the boat rides back home in South of India, but here, there is one difference: while the rivers, obviously, were formed by natural forces, the depressions that are now the lakes were dug out by hand in medieval times!!!
My first port of call was this place called Hoveton and Wroxham. It was a 15 minute train ride from Norwich. But thanks to some engineering works on the rails between Ely and Brandon, the trip involved several changes involving buses and trains. But somehow, I did get to Hoveton and Wroxham. This place is called the capital of the Broads because it is supposed to be pretty much the gateway to the Broads. Well, true, but only if you had a car to drive around or had the time to rent a boat all for yourself and take it around. Public transport was pretty much non-existent and even the brochure supplied by the Broads authority had no practically useful information on getting around by public transport. And given all these limitations, I did take a guided river tour on the river Bure lasting an hour and a half covering the Wroxham and Salhouse Broads. The commentary during the tour was very very good and mentioned how the waters here were pretty much polluted in the 70s and it required a concerted effort in the form of legislation and implementation to clean it all up. During this tour, one gets an opportunity to see a variety of water birds! And one can also easily observe the presence of quite a few thatched houses!
Following this tour, I walked around this little reserve park in Hoveton, where one might get to see birds amidst the reeds, but I did not see any. In all probability, the large dogs that were being walked by quite a few of the toursists (or locals) might have scared the birds away!
And then I took the train back to Norwich and realised it was still too early. Then I decided to go to the Broads in Suffolk and decided to choose between the train that went to the east-most coast of England - Lowestoft and that which went to Great Yarmouth. I plumped for the former and went on the train and only to get down at one random station called Oulton Broads North, a short while from Lowestoft. I walked around this Oulton, which was totally deficient in any kind of sign-posts, but somehow reached the banks of river Waveney. I decided I did not have the time to take another guided river tour, but walked for a while along the banks, seeing several swans and boats and dogs. And then it was time to take the train back to Norwich and then to Cambridge. This particular train route between Lowestoft and Norwich is quite pretty and one does get to see several marshes.
So that is about it for today.
Saturday, 8 September 2007
The Saturday
Today was a Saturday with a difference. Because the internet connection at home was not functioning, there was little I could do at home. I decided to roam around Cambridge. Cambridge was not without incident - I saw this fellow, dressed in black standing on a chair with a display board next to him, berating scientists and evolution and arguing that everything was designed intelligently by God. He even had a reason - Boeing 747 and 777 are similar, but they were both independently designed by a man; therefore just because scientists observe similarity between species at the molecular level it should not be taken as proof for evolution; in fact, as the Boeing example illustrates, every form of life is an independent creation! There was some crowd around him, and to them, this was good entertainment. There was laughter - they were laughing on Mr. Black's face! But Mr. Black was determined to put his point across. There was an elegant looking Englishman who walked up to him, tap-tapping his cane on the pavement and asked him, "are you being serious?", and walked away, with a mischievous smile on his face. There was this totally shaggy fellow, with a beard that resembled the hair of an electrocuted cartoon character, who chose to argue openly with Mr. Black. Mr. Black was showing a 3D drawing of a eukaryotic cell and saying, "scientists describe that this is how a cell looks like", offending me, a bacteria man, and continued, "but they dont know how it came about because it was put there by God!". Our Mr. Shaggy was not to be deterreed - he said, "this evolved from cellular forms that were much simpler". Mr. Black asked, "how do you know that?". I was tempted to retort, but the man standing next to me said, "common sense mate" and walked away and I followed his example, moving on!
And then, once again, I had to decide what I wanted to do. I had a brain wave. I walked along to the railway station, looked at the time table and decided to go down to Bury St. Edmunds or St. Edmundsbury in Suffolk, a forty minute train ride away. This place is known as 'Shrine of a King, Cradle of the law'. Shrine of a King because this was where King Edmund, the last king of East Anglia was buried; Cradle of the law because this was where, in early 13th century, a resolution was taken to get ratified the Magna Charta, the fore-bearer of today's English legal and democratic systems. This little town has a ruined Abbey, where the above event took place, located in a supposedly beautiful garden and I decided to see this place for myself. And that is what I did. I must confess that this town is very pleasant. The market is exceptional; for the first time in England, I saw shopkeepers shouting their voices hoarse to advertise their wares, akin to our Indian markets. And I even managed to buy a massive bowl full of green, seedless grapes - should have been around a kilo - for a pound! Cannot imagine getting such value in the Cambridge market! The abbey itself, as said earlier, is in ruins. All that remains is a series of bits of stone walls sticking out of the ground; and in some instances, these bits were large enough to form recognisable shapes. There is a little wall on which was posted a board saying, "Lecture room". I wonder!!! The garden in which this abbey is located is beautiful and is a colour riot, with a large variety of flowering plants aesthetically arranged. This meant that I had a good time with the camera before returning home to find that the internet had started working - a pleasant surprise!
The Abbey ruins (1)
The Abbey ruins (2)
A board describing the historic event
Just a pic I liked
The Abbey garden (1)
The Abbey garden (2)
The Abbey garden (3)
And then, once again, I had to decide what I wanted to do. I had a brain wave. I walked along to the railway station, looked at the time table and decided to go down to Bury St. Edmunds or St. Edmundsbury in Suffolk, a forty minute train ride away. This place is known as 'Shrine of a King, Cradle of the law'. Shrine of a King because this was where King Edmund, the last king of East Anglia was buried; Cradle of the law because this was where, in early 13th century, a resolution was taken to get ratified the Magna Charta, the fore-bearer of today's English legal and democratic systems. This little town has a ruined Abbey, where the above event took place, located in a supposedly beautiful garden and I decided to see this place for myself. And that is what I did. I must confess that this town is very pleasant. The market is exceptional; for the first time in England, I saw shopkeepers shouting their voices hoarse to advertise their wares, akin to our Indian markets. And I even managed to buy a massive bowl full of green, seedless grapes - should have been around a kilo - for a pound! Cannot imagine getting such value in the Cambridge market! The abbey itself, as said earlier, is in ruins. All that remains is a series of bits of stone walls sticking out of the ground; and in some instances, these bits were large enough to form recognisable shapes. There is a little wall on which was posted a board saying, "Lecture room". I wonder!!! The garden in which this abbey is located is beautiful and is a colour riot, with a large variety of flowering plants aesthetically arranged. This meant that I had a good time with the camera before returning home to find that the internet had started working - a pleasant surprise!
The Abbey ruins (1)
The Abbey ruins (2)
A board describing the historic event
Just a pic I liked
The Abbey garden (1)
The Abbey garden (2)
The Abbey garden (3)
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
City of Bath (3)
In this final post with respect to my day trip to Bath, I shall make a few comments on what I call the 'arc architecture zone' of Bath and conclude this series with a few more inane comments.
What is this Arc Architecture zone? Within a space of a few hundred meters, one can find two impressive examples of architecture, one of which is circular in shape, reminiscent of Circus Maximus, (which I have seen only in comics describing the Adventures of Asterix), and hence termed "Circus". Several English luminaries, including Lord Clive of India resided in this all important circus (pardon the pun). While the centre of Circus Maximus would have seen Obelix bashing up the lions and in the event of a less well-covered person being the centre of attraction, the lions gobbling up this person, this circus is more serene and sedate, with a little green space and a tree marking the centre of the circle defining the construction.
The second building was constructed following the successful completion of the Circus and built in the 1760s - does not matter, at least to me, when exactly. This building is called the Royal Crescent and is the most privileged address in all Bath; and as one might imagine, only the really wealthy can afford to own this address. Royal Crescent 1 is a museum maintained by a private body called the Bath Preservation Trust and is dedicated to exhibiting the various features of an aristocratic home in Georgian England. Royal Crescent 1 was some sort of an inn where the wealthy would stay with their sons and daughters of marriageable age; the bringing together of so many wealthy eligibles would have resulted in a number of honorable unions one would expect; but to me, living in this Georgian house would not have been a pleasurable experience. Why? Simply because there was no plumbing available to that building in those days and some specially constructed cupboards served the purpose of toilets! Ladies had to bring water in pails from the river Avon, a mile away and I cannot imagine the feelings of the slaves whose duty it was to keep these cupboards clean!
Coming back from Georgian toilets, what experiences of mine can I share with you here? The first thing that struck me was the politeness of the person at the ticket counter who informed me that photography was not permitted inside the museum. The contrast it represented, with the manner in which this obnoxious chap at Mahabalipuram 'informed' me that tripods were not to be used there, prompting me to not resist the temptation to present a rude retort, was striking. In this museum, every room was populated by an individual who, with the exception of one old lady who did not seem to know much, made it a point to describe to every visitor, salient aspects of what one saw before him / her. One of the ladies was particularly well informed and made a lot of comments on what might have been the life of those who took residence there. Yet another old lady, manning yet another room, and with such wrinkles on her face as would have contributed more than ideal features to a black and white portrait photograph, must have felt lonely for she chose to talk to us a lot on Georgian life; it was she who made it a point to stress on the lack of plumbing in the house in those days, and thanked modernity for having provided the house with good water supply today. She might have been partially hard of hearing, as she kept misinterpreting any question that my friend asked of her; nevertheless, she was as interesting and as genial and as informative as they come - possibly she is from the Georgian age!
With that I would just list a few places that we did not give the attention it deserved or did not visit at all. One is Walcott street, with a range of strange shops, including an antique and a glass-blowers that are worth visiting - both these places were closed for the day by the time we managed to get there. Other places include a series of museums; a couple that attracted my attention were a museum in honour of this chap who first discovered Uranus and said something of having seen farther into space than anyone else and a postal museum situated near where the first ever stamped snail mail was sent!!
With that, I rest my case in favour of Bath!
The Circus
Royal Crescent
No. 1 Royal Crescent
A scene on Wallcott street
A scene off Wallcott street
What is this Arc Architecture zone? Within a space of a few hundred meters, one can find two impressive examples of architecture, one of which is circular in shape, reminiscent of Circus Maximus, (which I have seen only in comics describing the Adventures of Asterix), and hence termed "Circus". Several English luminaries, including Lord Clive of India resided in this all important circus (pardon the pun). While the centre of Circus Maximus would have seen Obelix bashing up the lions and in the event of a less well-covered person being the centre of attraction, the lions gobbling up this person, this circus is more serene and sedate, with a little green space and a tree marking the centre of the circle defining the construction.
The second building was constructed following the successful completion of the Circus and built in the 1760s - does not matter, at least to me, when exactly. This building is called the Royal Crescent and is the most privileged address in all Bath; and as one might imagine, only the really wealthy can afford to own this address. Royal Crescent 1 is a museum maintained by a private body called the Bath Preservation Trust and is dedicated to exhibiting the various features of an aristocratic home in Georgian England. Royal Crescent 1 was some sort of an inn where the wealthy would stay with their sons and daughters of marriageable age; the bringing together of so many wealthy eligibles would have resulted in a number of honorable unions one would expect; but to me, living in this Georgian house would not have been a pleasurable experience. Why? Simply because there was no plumbing available to that building in those days and some specially constructed cupboards served the purpose of toilets! Ladies had to bring water in pails from the river Avon, a mile away and I cannot imagine the feelings of the slaves whose duty it was to keep these cupboards clean!
Coming back from Georgian toilets, what experiences of mine can I share with you here? The first thing that struck me was the politeness of the person at the ticket counter who informed me that photography was not permitted inside the museum. The contrast it represented, with the manner in which this obnoxious chap at Mahabalipuram 'informed' me that tripods were not to be used there, prompting me to not resist the temptation to present a rude retort, was striking. In this museum, every room was populated by an individual who, with the exception of one old lady who did not seem to know much, made it a point to describe to every visitor, salient aspects of what one saw before him / her. One of the ladies was particularly well informed and made a lot of comments on what might have been the life of those who took residence there. Yet another old lady, manning yet another room, and with such wrinkles on her face as would have contributed more than ideal features to a black and white portrait photograph, must have felt lonely for she chose to talk to us a lot on Georgian life; it was she who made it a point to stress on the lack of plumbing in the house in those days, and thanked modernity for having provided the house with good water supply today. She might have been partially hard of hearing, as she kept misinterpreting any question that my friend asked of her; nevertheless, she was as interesting and as genial and as informative as they come - possibly she is from the Georgian age!
With that I would just list a few places that we did not give the attention it deserved or did not visit at all. One is Walcott street, with a range of strange shops, including an antique and a glass-blowers that are worth visiting - both these places were closed for the day by the time we managed to get there. Other places include a series of museums; a couple that attracted my attention were a museum in honour of this chap who first discovered Uranus and said something of having seen farther into space than anyone else and a postal museum situated near where the first ever stamped snail mail was sent!!
With that, I rest my case in favour of Bath!
The Circus
Royal Crescent
No. 1 Royal Crescent
A scene on Wallcott street
A scene off Wallcott street
Thursday, 30 August 2007
City of Bath (2)
Having spoken a bit about having walked on pavements lining a great bath, where ancient Romans would have walked once: the differences being in the reasons for walking, and the attire worn and equipment carried, I will now proceed to describing the Jane Austen Centre, which was our next stop.
To make things clear straight up, I must confess I have never read Jane Austen, having just started Pride and Prejudice, which is not one of her 'Bath novels', but one which, as can be gathered from its first ten pages, is based in Hertfordshire, one of Cambridgeshire's neighbours and so, closer to home. That being an aside, how would I describe my time at Jane Austen's centre?
There were old people there, and old ladies, talking in hushed voices, talking in learned voices - they are well-versed in Jane Austen. And when this lady, another old one at that, was giving a lecture introducing the author's works and acting and speaking as some of her characters in the Bath novels (Northanger Abbey and Persuasion), the learned ladies in the audience would nod their heads, looking serious, understanding; while I, looking totally blank, but interested, just made it a point to read these books at some point. There was some description of the author's family circumstances and how it would have affected the text of these novels of hers, but I do not see fit to make any comments on that, as the best I can do at the moment is to read these books and be able to appreciate what was told by the lady there.
The end of the lecture was followed by a visit to the exhibition; which included a special display of costumes used in the movie Persuasion, which again, I have not seen. The costumes looked rather rich and soft and most importantly, pointed to the extremely sleek physique of the ladies who would have worn this and, assuming that the movie makers had been faithful to the original novel, could be a reflection of how the author would have described her characters. And yes, I must not forget to mention that the above point is not mine, but was being made in serious earnest by one of the learned ladies visiting the exhibition - not just learned, but with strong powers of observation that, given all my known strengths, have always eluded me.
Yet another exhibit that is worth describing here is a large-scale reproduction of one of the author's letters to her sister. The edge of the paper was bent and it was mentioned in the label that this had been done to demonstrate that it was OK to write on both sides of a paper in those days - I dont know, but what is the big deal? I generally write on both sides of a paper, particularly if the paper is of a good quality and too expensive to be wasted for etiquettes I am unaware of - not that I would change, even if it is not considered right to write on both sides of paper
And finally, the most important thing that I noticed about the whole exhibition was something from this letter - however much I tried, I could not follow a single word of her writing - such handwriting! Obviously, some publisher would have managed to read it and publish her works, but well, if he were alive today, he could be an Indian pharmacist, capable of deciphering the mangled whatever that doctors write, in the name of prescription!
A view of the exhibits at Jane Austen Centre
Costumes at the exhibition
A letter from Jane Austen to her sister
(To be continued).
To make things clear straight up, I must confess I have never read Jane Austen, having just started Pride and Prejudice, which is not one of her 'Bath novels', but one which, as can be gathered from its first ten pages, is based in Hertfordshire, one of Cambridgeshire's neighbours and so, closer to home. That being an aside, how would I describe my time at Jane Austen's centre?
There were old people there, and old ladies, talking in hushed voices, talking in learned voices - they are well-versed in Jane Austen. And when this lady, another old one at that, was giving a lecture introducing the author's works and acting and speaking as some of her characters in the Bath novels (Northanger Abbey and Persuasion), the learned ladies in the audience would nod their heads, looking serious, understanding; while I, looking totally blank, but interested, just made it a point to read these books at some point. There was some description of the author's family circumstances and how it would have affected the text of these novels of hers, but I do not see fit to make any comments on that, as the best I can do at the moment is to read these books and be able to appreciate what was told by the lady there.
The end of the lecture was followed by a visit to the exhibition; which included a special display of costumes used in the movie Persuasion, which again, I have not seen. The costumes looked rather rich and soft and most importantly, pointed to the extremely sleek physique of the ladies who would have worn this and, assuming that the movie makers had been faithful to the original novel, could be a reflection of how the author would have described her characters. And yes, I must not forget to mention that the above point is not mine, but was being made in serious earnest by one of the learned ladies visiting the exhibition - not just learned, but with strong powers of observation that, given all my known strengths, have always eluded me.
Yet another exhibit that is worth describing here is a large-scale reproduction of one of the author's letters to her sister. The edge of the paper was bent and it was mentioned in the label that this had been done to demonstrate that it was OK to write on both sides of a paper in those days - I dont know, but what is the big deal? I generally write on both sides of a paper, particularly if the paper is of a good quality and too expensive to be wasted for etiquettes I am unaware of - not that I would change, even if it is not considered right to write on both sides of paper
And finally, the most important thing that I noticed about the whole exhibition was something from this letter - however much I tried, I could not follow a single word of her writing - such handwriting! Obviously, some publisher would have managed to read it and publish her works, but well, if he were alive today, he could be an Indian pharmacist, capable of deciphering the mangled whatever that doctors write, in the name of prescription!
A view of the exhibits at Jane Austen Centre
Costumes at the exhibition
A letter from Jane Austen to her sister
(To be continued).
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
The City of Bath (1)
It was the end of a week that presented weather that was (1) disgusting (2) horrible (3) disastrous (4) .... (5) £$%@^!%*@. I would not really go into the details of why it was all that and more, but focus on the positives. The weather God, I am so thankful to him, condescended to shoo away the grey clouds and the wind and the rain; and allowed his bright colleague, the Sun God to show his face; but only just for the duration of the weekend and the bank holiday Monday. No complaints though - He had been timely in being nice. And that meant I had the elements working very well to enable me to take a westward trip to Bath, a UNESCO World Hertage City. And I took the train despite taking a pledge a few months back never to travel by train in the UK following a one-in-my-lifetime-yet incident that predates this blog.
Bath does not contain a single building that, to me at least, is awe inspiring as the Taj Mahal or the Brihadeeshwara temple; neither does it contain a single building as intriguing as Gaudi's Sagrada La Familia. But it is for no reason that the city, as a whole, has been elected a World Heritage Site; and UNESCO uses an more scientific mechanism to make these lists than that private body that asked everyone to vote for the Seven Wonders - even those who had been unfortunate enough not to have seen any of the nominees! The visit Bath website states that there are over 5000 'listed' historic buildings in this city - some number I say!
The first site we visited was the Roman Bath Complex, comprising a number of open baths, large and small and ruins of ancient temples. While the state of this complex speaks volumes about the maintenance efforts (which should definitely be well-funded by the non-trivial admission fee), I must express my disappointment at the non-aesthetic look of the facilities where one gets the opportunity to view ruins of the temple to Sulis Minerva, a hybrid God - the Celtic Sulis and the Roman Minerva. It is definitely amazing that over a million litres of water bubble (or is it bubbled, I can't remember) out of these springs every day; and these Romans, who, hopefully, should have looked like something out of today's fancy dress competitions, were smart enough (smarter that I can imagine myself to be) to build drainage systems to take out this large excess of bubbling out out into the river Avon.
(To be continued)
Bath does not contain a single building that, to me at least, is awe inspiring as the Taj Mahal or the Brihadeeshwara temple; neither does it contain a single building as intriguing as Gaudi's Sagrada La Familia. But it is for no reason that the city, as a whole, has been elected a World Heritage Site; and UNESCO uses an more scientific mechanism to make these lists than that private body that asked everyone to vote for the Seven Wonders - even those who had been unfortunate enough not to have seen any of the nominees! The visit Bath website states that there are over 5000 'listed' historic buildings in this city - some number I say!
The first site we visited was the Roman Bath Complex, comprising a number of open baths, large and small and ruins of ancient temples. While the state of this complex speaks volumes about the maintenance efforts (which should definitely be well-funded by the non-trivial admission fee), I must express my disappointment at the non-aesthetic look of the facilities where one gets the opportunity to view ruins of the temple to Sulis Minerva, a hybrid God - the Celtic Sulis and the Roman Minerva. It is definitely amazing that over a million litres of water bubble (or is it bubbled, I can't remember) out of these springs every day; and these Romans, who, hopefully, should have looked like something out of today's fancy dress competitions, were smart enough (smarter that I can imagine myself to be) to build drainage systems to take out this large excess of bubbling out out into the river Avon.
(To be continued)
Saturday, 18 August 2007
The garbage bin as a tourist attraction
This afternoon, as usual was cloudy but thankfully, not too cold or wet. Thus, I was provided with the weather that was sufficiently amiable for me to take my walk around town. And it not being too bright meant that I had nice soft light to take a few photos. It was not just me who was out and about - there was a decent camera-sporting crowd roaming around the historic streets - punting on the river would have been an extreme vocation, given that the cloud could crack at any time - it is a different matter altogether that it did not for the next several hours! Tourist crowds on Cambridge streets are generally mobile, but there was a particular sight which was attracting attention. What could it be, at this location, that I had so miserably failed to notice?
Well, the answer is, it was a garbage bin!
Why would a garbage bin attract attention? It was no ordinary bin. A particular individual had taken residence in it!! Now, a bit of description: This bin had a lid on it and a large uniform cut was made around its circumference to enable dumping of rubbish. But, this window for the litter was not 'available'. A portion of a guitar, with the tuning pegs leading the way, was sticking out of it and some form of music was issuing out of it. The face of the occupant of the litter bin was invisible. Well, you got it right - it was an ingenious musician who has chosen such a singular method to attract attention and more than a few pennies. And this man was hugely successful in these endeavors. I wonder how many digital camera sensors today would have been ingrained with images of this famous litter bin and its faceless resident!
Well, the answer is, it was a garbage bin!
Why would a garbage bin attract attention? It was no ordinary bin. A particular individual had taken residence in it!! Now, a bit of description: This bin had a lid on it and a large uniform cut was made around its circumference to enable dumping of rubbish. But, this window for the litter was not 'available'. A portion of a guitar, with the tuning pegs leading the way, was sticking out of it and some form of music was issuing out of it. The face of the occupant of the litter bin was invisible. Well, you got it right - it was an ingenious musician who has chosen such a singular method to attract attention and more than a few pennies. And this man was hugely successful in these endeavors. I wonder how many digital camera sensors today would have been ingrained with images of this famous litter bin and its faceless resident!
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
The Oval and History
It was Sunday afternoon, the 12th of August, and the weather in Cambridge was not exactly sunny, though did not possess any property worth complaining about. But I was complaining, not about the weather, but about Rahul Dravid not enforcing the follow-on against England. It is a different matter altogether that before long, I had learnt to look upon the decision in better light. After all, India, with all its passion for the game of cricket, got what it really wanted - a series win, more than a win at the Oval. And as the captain of the English team, Micheal Vaughan and the venerable Geoffrey Boycott said, Dravid is not to be faulted for taking such a decision, however negative it might have been, under the prevalent circumstances. Vaughan even went to the extent of declaring that he would have taken the same decision had he been in Dravid's position. And, possibly, this decision might have meant that the game really went into the fifth day, the 13th of August, and ultimately, the distance. But all that mattered to me was that my ticket for the fifth day of play at the Oval was not to be wasted and I was guaranteed to witness a historic moment: an Indian cricket team winning a test series in England!!
And so, the day arrived, with England needing another 444 runs to win the game and India requiring 10 wickets for the win. Given the way the pitch was playing, the likely result was a draw and I did not care, as long as I got to see Kevin Pietersen present a masterclass and Dravid lift the Pataudi trophy. And I did get to see both. I will not dwell too much on the game - I shall leave it to the experts and more importantly to those who write largely uncharitable matters on the Indian team, come what may; to those to whom an Indian win is born out of sheer luck and a loss being due to the miserable 'non-talent' of the country's national cricketers.
The following is simply a collection of thoughts I had that would describe my experience at the Oval.
We had a rather nice place to be seated - located along the central normal to the pitch and pretty much at the ground level, which was particularly exciting to me as that meant I was at the ideal height to get some good snaps! Though it was a bit of a shame that India had set an attacking field for most of the game and as a result there was rarely a fielder close to the boundary and hence to the stand where I was.
Though I did get opportunities to see a few of the team members close up. Zaheer Khan was the first - he was stationed at the boundary for a short while. And he did look very serious and unmindful of and unresponsive to the chants of the goodly crowd. And more than often, he turned to face the stands, only to take a look at the replays being shown on the big screen that was right behind us. And during such moments, he offered opportunities to take photographs, though his facial expressions were not very inviting.
There were moments when RP Singh found himself close to my stand, but did not evoke any excitement from the crowd. And ditto was Dinesh Karthik whose forays to the stands were when he was chasing balls coming off the English bats.
The man of the moment, invariably, was Sachin Tendulkar, who stayed close to the rope for quite a while and showed me why he has always been dear to the masses. His every approach to the boundary was greeted by loud chants from the crowd and more often than not, he made it a point to turn, give a smile, wave his hands, either mutedly or vigorously as his instincts might have instructed him. And the smile seemed a rather permanent characteristic describing his features and thus endearing him to me and the crowd. It is quite something, having to put up with the adulation and blind debasement (to say the least) that he gets to face from the fickle minded Indian cricket lover. The response he received was something not offered to even the greatest Indian cricket captain ever, Sourav Ganguly, who did spend a short while at the boundary ropes.
Here, let me describe the English crowd that surrounded us. This, to them, must have been a time to spend and have fun. If you have seen Obelix stack up helmets that are spoils of war between him and the Roman legions, you would have immediately linked it to the activities of the chap sitting right in front of me - he was drinking pint after pint of beer, available for purchase, at the stadium, and stacking up the empty plastic cups. And at the end of it all, the pile of plastic glasses did reach a non-trivial height. And in contrast were the three of us, writing out banners (our wishes were not always granted) and showing them off and some Mr. Singh sitting next to me who did not seem to have much knowledge of the game and kept asking me strange questions that were totally unbecoming of an Indian (read cricket crazy).
And then, when it was all over - I must admit I did not give much attention to the proceedings on field, except to cheer the moments and personal landmarks (Pietersen's classic century, a beautifully positive half-century from Ian Bell, 2000 test runs to both Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood and of course the wickets that fell) - I did stay back to listen to the men who matter give their interviews. Anil Kumble received his first ever Man of the Match award for his batting. James Anderson, much to my surprise, was awarded the England Man of the Series. And to no one's surprise, Zaheer Khan was made the India Man of the Series. Michael Vaughan made a short speech on the performance of his "young" team. A rather irked Dravid made to justify his decision regarding the follow-on and yet managed a lovely answer that should have been posted on every news site worth its name.
And then it was champaign time and time for the victorious (in the context of the series) Indian team to flaunt their trophy, and time for me to catch a priceless snap: a pretty close-up portrait of a still serious-looking Mr. Dravid waving his hands and the great Sachin Tendulkar sporting a body language spelling excitement, but unfortunately facing away from the camera, on the same 3000 x 2000 pixel frame!
And today, when browsing a website, I did read comments from viewers from India claiming that it was just luck that India won the series - England did deserve to win at Lord's. It did put me off - I say, let us cherish the moment - these guys played so well, as a team and minus a coach - and dominated two of the three tests. And luck and the much talked-about umpiring decisions are part and parcel of every sport and are factors that contribute to the outcome, but that is what they are: part and parcel of the game and the game will not be without them! And I cannot but affirm that luck is of such primary importance that I dont think I would be doing the science I (and may be most other supposedly super-smart scientists) do in its absence!
And so, the day arrived, with England needing another 444 runs to win the game and India requiring 10 wickets for the win. Given the way the pitch was playing, the likely result was a draw and I did not care, as long as I got to see Kevin Pietersen present a masterclass and Dravid lift the Pataudi trophy. And I did get to see both. I will not dwell too much on the game - I shall leave it to the experts and more importantly to those who write largely uncharitable matters on the Indian team, come what may; to those to whom an Indian win is born out of sheer luck and a loss being due to the miserable 'non-talent' of the country's national cricketers.
The following is simply a collection of thoughts I had that would describe my experience at the Oval.
We had a rather nice place to be seated - located along the central normal to the pitch and pretty much at the ground level, which was particularly exciting to me as that meant I was at the ideal height to get some good snaps! Though it was a bit of a shame that India had set an attacking field for most of the game and as a result there was rarely a fielder close to the boundary and hence to the stand where I was.
Though I did get opportunities to see a few of the team members close up. Zaheer Khan was the first - he was stationed at the boundary for a short while. And he did look very serious and unmindful of and unresponsive to the chants of the goodly crowd. And more than often, he turned to face the stands, only to take a look at the replays being shown on the big screen that was right behind us. And during such moments, he offered opportunities to take photographs, though his facial expressions were not very inviting.
There were moments when RP Singh found himself close to my stand, but did not evoke any excitement from the crowd. And ditto was Dinesh Karthik whose forays to the stands were when he was chasing balls coming off the English bats.
The man of the moment, invariably, was Sachin Tendulkar, who stayed close to the rope for quite a while and showed me why he has always been dear to the masses. His every approach to the boundary was greeted by loud chants from the crowd and more often than not, he made it a point to turn, give a smile, wave his hands, either mutedly or vigorously as his instincts might have instructed him. And the smile seemed a rather permanent characteristic describing his features and thus endearing him to me and the crowd. It is quite something, having to put up with the adulation and blind debasement (to say the least) that he gets to face from the fickle minded Indian cricket lover. The response he received was something not offered to even the greatest Indian cricket captain ever, Sourav Ganguly, who did spend a short while at the boundary ropes.
Here, let me describe the English crowd that surrounded us. This, to them, must have been a time to spend and have fun. If you have seen Obelix stack up helmets that are spoils of war between him and the Roman legions, you would have immediately linked it to the activities of the chap sitting right in front of me - he was drinking pint after pint of beer, available for purchase, at the stadium, and stacking up the empty plastic cups. And at the end of it all, the pile of plastic glasses did reach a non-trivial height. And in contrast were the three of us, writing out banners (our wishes were not always granted) and showing them off and some Mr. Singh sitting next to me who did not seem to have much knowledge of the game and kept asking me strange questions that were totally unbecoming of an Indian (read cricket crazy).
And then, when it was all over - I must admit I did not give much attention to the proceedings on field, except to cheer the moments and personal landmarks (Pietersen's classic century, a beautifully positive half-century from Ian Bell, 2000 test runs to both Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood and of course the wickets that fell) - I did stay back to listen to the men who matter give their interviews. Anil Kumble received his first ever Man of the Match award for his batting. James Anderson, much to my surprise, was awarded the England Man of the Series. And to no one's surprise, Zaheer Khan was made the India Man of the Series. Michael Vaughan made a short speech on the performance of his "young" team. A rather irked Dravid made to justify his decision regarding the follow-on and yet managed a lovely answer that should have been posted on every news site worth its name.
And then it was champaign time and time for the victorious (in the context of the series) Indian team to flaunt their trophy, and time for me to catch a priceless snap: a pretty close-up portrait of a still serious-looking Mr. Dravid waving his hands and the great Sachin Tendulkar sporting a body language spelling excitement, but unfortunately facing away from the camera, on the same 3000 x 2000 pixel frame!
And today, when browsing a website, I did read comments from viewers from India claiming that it was just luck that India won the series - England did deserve to win at Lord's. It did put me off - I say, let us cherish the moment - these guys played so well, as a team and minus a coach - and dominated two of the three tests. And luck and the much talked-about umpiring decisions are part and parcel of every sport and are factors that contribute to the outcome, but that is what they are: part and parcel of the game and the game will not be without them! And I cannot but affirm that luck is of such primary importance that I dont think I would be doing the science I (and may be most other supposedly super-smart scientists) do in its absence!
Saturday, 11 August 2007
The rationale
Finally, I have opened my own blog. And I want to justify this decision of mine with my first entry.
The answer is simple - I have started thinking a bit, about entities beyond biology, computational biology, genomics, microbiology, Skype, Yahoo and British Airways.
What am I thinking about? When I was in school, I used to write short stories, that would, in the eyes of anyone reasonable, border the inane. Now, may be, I could write better literature, if you call it that. But I rarely can commit the time and energy towards it. So, as a replacement, I have taken to reading some classic English literature that allows me to think about the various subjects described in the book concerned. Further, in recent months I have taken to photography, which has allowed me to see things from different perspectives. And having seen a country not my own for close to two years now, I rather reflect on society just a bit. And having not watched much cricket in recent years, I also feel that I am in a promising position to add, in a lay manner, to the whole sack of unlearned and uncharitable comments made on Indian cricket by learned persons.
I do not intend to bring any biology into these blogs, and if I do breach this promise, I would like to hope that it is because it has connotations beyond science.
In short, I hope to make this blog an eclectic mix of everything as far removed from my primary vocation as possible.
The answer is simple - I have started thinking a bit, about entities beyond biology, computational biology, genomics, microbiology, Skype, Yahoo and British Airways.
What am I thinking about? When I was in school, I used to write short stories, that would, in the eyes of anyone reasonable, border the inane. Now, may be, I could write better literature, if you call it that. But I rarely can commit the time and energy towards it. So, as a replacement, I have taken to reading some classic English literature that allows me to think about the various subjects described in the book concerned. Further, in recent months I have taken to photography, which has allowed me to see things from different perspectives. And having seen a country not my own for close to two years now, I rather reflect on society just a bit. And having not watched much cricket in recent years, I also feel that I am in a promising position to add, in a lay manner, to the whole sack of unlearned and uncharitable comments made on Indian cricket by learned persons.
I do not intend to bring any biology into these blogs, and if I do breach this promise, I would like to hope that it is because it has connotations beyond science.
In short, I hope to make this blog an eclectic mix of everything as far removed from my primary vocation as possible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
