|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-31-11
 | | Marmot PFL: g4 a mistake? certainly not - http://www.ajschess.com/lifemastera... |
 |
| Aug-31-11 | | DrMAL: <Marmot PFL> OK, I had to have a laugh so I clicked on the link. This one is amusing (among the usual overly used punctuation), "8.Bg2!?, The problem with this move [Bg2] is that it leaves c4 unguarded." Actually, 8.Bg2 is the main move. Opening Explorer Enough on AJ's usual trash. The funny thing about <Ulhumbrus> posting "6.g4 is a mistake" in this particular game is that, after this game, Kasparov considered Keres Attack so dangerous that he purposely adopted Najdorf move order (5...a6 after 4...Nf6) into Scheveningen to AVOID it! For example, Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985 cheers. |
|
| Aug-31-11 | | Everett: <Ulhumbrus> and everyone else; IMHO this is a great topic. How many years have the "blind followed the blind" in many openings, from the world champs on down? This is a healthy debate, and I give you, <Ulhumbrus>, a lot of credit for respectfully making your points. Now since computer opening books go so far into the middlegame, is it possible they would never consider <6..Nc6 7.g5 Nd7 8.Be3 Nb6>, and only consider the main line 6..h6? Just an aside, has anyone turned off their computers opening book and compared 6..h6 to 6..Nc6? This wouldn't be proof of anything, but it could add to the discussion. I can't turn off my opening book but Stockfish on the Iphone seems to find <Ulhumbrus'> line playable. |
|
Aug-31-11
 | | perfidious: <Everett> Long ago, I gave up debating with <Ulhumbrus> as I tired of his bald assertions, which I might question, after which he'd come up with some other line of dogma. No room for reason there, and I never saw anything resembling a 'respectful' manner. Maybe he's changed-it would be most welcome. |
|
Sep-01-11
 | | Ulhumbrus: <DrMAL: <Ulhumbrus: it does not follow at all that the masters would concur in describing as silly the word mistake for g4, as the word may in time turn out to be right> Well, FOR NOW Keres Attack with 4.g4 has NOT been shown to be a mistake. Perhaps 1.e4 will be shown to be a mistake as well. So far, you have not shown anything, therefore calling 4.g4 Keres Attack a mistake is indeed SILLY. > No, calling it a mistake for no reason is silly. I have however given a reason, and a good one, a reason which you have made no attempt to contest, and it is silly for you to ignore that reason and to call it silly <Others on here have also tried to persuade you to let go of it,> This suggests that you would like to persuade me to let go of it, getting away with the silliness of describing unwarrantedly my opinion as silly <but clearly you seek to argue endlessly without any real evidence whatsoever> By "evidence" you mean theory. You suggest quite wrongly that an argument must based on variations. In fact I did provide some alternative moves to the theory. My argument does not however consist only ( or even mainly) of moves upon which improvements may be found later, but of something more reliable, a position evaluation. As for you, you have persisted in repeating the silly assertion that my present opinion is "silly" without giving any answer to my argument for that opinion. Are you incapable of forming your own evaluation of a variation, then? If so, that auggests you are not qualified to have any reliable idea of whether my opinion is silly. <so good luck with that, cheers.> I think that by now either you have understood my srgument or else you are trying (unsuccessfully in the eyes of anyone who understands the messages up to now)_to defend yourself by being wilfully obtuse. In either event I think that I have now given you enough of my time. |
|
Sep-01-11
| | Ulhumbrus: <Everett> I don't know what the final verdict of masterly experience will be, but consider the following question: The move g4 starts a pawn attack on Black's King side, and so begins a plan to mate Black. Can White claim to possess a positional advantage great enough to justify so high an aim? My present answer is no, but this may be not the eventual verdict of history. |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | solskytz: From what I generally see, in the evolution of a chess player until about 1800 he tries to learn and master all of the 'general principles'. After that point, more or less, his chess eye starts to sharpen, he begins to learn variations, to calculate more concretely, and to judge the balance of chess values more and more on the basis of the individual position; of what actually exists on the chessboard, right in front of his eyes, in this moment. Sometimes when you hear two people arguing, one is 1800 (or a little less) and the other stronger; the stronger player will try to convince the 1800 to look into specifics, to analyze variations, to see what's really going on, what's going to happen - and in this wise get a 'feel' for this individual position. For the 1800 player it may be too hard to look at so many variations... he rather protects himself from this 'barrage of information' through quoting a general principle or two, and for him that 'solved the problem'. In actual games this also works well for him - but only against players of his own level, not against stronger opponents, who have a habit of calculating variations with precision. |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | solskytz: and now a little more specifically - to say that 6. g4 wants to checkmate, is oversimplification... give a little bit of credit to the game of chess, and for strong players who play with a little more subtlety. I'm not going to mention here every other possible motive for this move, but just as a little example, how about making it necessary for black to worry all the time about a mating attack? That's also a valid purpose... hinting at an attack... ever heard of 'the threat is stronger than its execution'? That's certainly a valuable principle to know... and if you know when and how to apply it, then you are beginning to be a chess artist, and the road to levels above 1800 starts to open... by trying to provoke, or bully an opponent, you sometimes get it full blast in your face, which then motivates you to work on your calculating abilities... that's the road to improvement. Black will need to keep in mind the possibility of being attacked on the K-side, and of course, if conditions later ripen for it, a full scale K-side attack can and will be undertaken by white. And what about the price to pay, the weakening of the K-side pawn structure? Of course you are right there - in roughly equal positions, by definition you never get something for nothing... as otherwise the position wasn't equal to start with. From this point onward a lot depends on the quality of play from both sides, and 6. g4 definitely sharpens a position. You can also say about a move like this that it is double edged, adds more life to the position, and makes many more calculations necessary later - which is exactly what the 1800 player doesn't like, and exactly why stronger players, when playing against him, will create such positions against him... |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | Everett: <perfidious: <Everett> Long ago, I gave up debating with <Ulhumbrus> as I tired of his bald assertions, which I might question, after which he'd come up with some other line of dogma. No room for reason there, and I never saw anything resembling a 'respectful' manner. Maybe he's changed-it would be most welcome.> I'm trying to observe more than debate here anyway, but I see your point. It is remarkable to see how many kibitzers seem a bit tweaked by his opinions. And they are just that; opinions. Why people feel the need to "disabuse" him of such notions is probably a waste of time. Are people tweaked because he is disrespecting theory, or masters of the past, or whatever, simply because he does not agree with them? My question is, why are we, as a group, so attached that we feel the need to defend 6.g4? I mean, it is so early in the game that I imagine there are lots of possibilities. |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | Everett: <Ulhumbrus: <beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus> An early g4 push is used in many openings, and the purpose is not necessarily only a quick attack for <checkmating Black>. Other possible purposes could be gaining space or indirectly influencing control of the center, among others.> That is different. If g4 can be said to have an aim that is less ambitious than checkmate, and which is proportionate to such degree of advantage as White can claim,it could be sound. On the other hand, to expose White's King side in this way may pay too high a price for more space or for influencing the centre.> I think this is the crux of the discussion. Is <Ulhumbrus> setting up a "straw man" argument by limiting the role of 6.g4 to checkmate the black king? There are other purposes, especially in Q-pawn openings as demonstrated by Botvinnik and others. Still, I think his logic is sound. Does not 6..h6 provide a hook for White. In essence, does Black not meet White halfway on the K-side? Isn't it Lasker, following Steinitz, who talks about limiting pawn moves on the wing upon which the attack is coming? In this light, what <Ulhumbrus> is saying is not so bizarre. |
|
Sep-01-11
| | Ulhumbrus: <Everett> I suggest that one reason for what Lasker calls Steinitz's principle of proportion - that the aim of the plan should be proportionate to the advantage- is that an attacking move which has a higher aim makes as well a greater concession to the opponent. It exposes one's position more to counter-attack. The move g4 which plays for mate exposes as well White's King to attack. To justify such exposure White needs sufficient advantage, just as he would need sufficient advantage in order to play an attack which exposes him enough to counter-attack. It is doubtful whether a player will expose himself greatly - in other words, make a large concession in this way- for a relatively lesser gain which is why the aim is unlikely to be modest, for that would make it unprofitable. You don't stick your leg into the mouth of a crocodile for a few copper pennies, do you? So the aim of the exposure, the prospective gain, has to be high enough to make the exposure profitable. As for messages which appear to be provocations, I am reminded of the saying "Don't feed the trolls" |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | Everett: <Ulhumbrus> I can only hope you realize you are preaching to the converted. ;-) |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | solskytz: <Ulhumbrus> I certainly meant no offense, and please allow me to apologize in case any was taken |
|
| Sep-01-11 | | beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus>
I disagree with the following premises:
<The move g4 which plays for mate>
It plays to dislodge the f6 knight and thus influence control of d5, and also to gain scope for White's pieces. I don't see any signs of White going for a quick mate here.<exposes as well White's King to attack>
Not so seriously if White's planning to castle queenside, as happens in this game. |
|
Sep-02-11
| | Ulhumbrus: <beatgiant: <Ulhumbrus>
I disagree with the following premises:
<The move g4 which plays for mate> It plays to dislodge the f6 knight and thus influence control of d5, and also to gain scope for White's pieces. I don't see any signs of White going for a quick mate here.> The move g4 begins a pawn attack on the King side. One example of where the advance g2-g4 leads to a King side attack after the further pawn moves g5 and h4 followed by g6 and h5 but from a different opening variation is the game Tal vs D A Mohrlok, 1962As I indicated in my previous message, because it exposes White's King side, the aim or prospective gain has to justify what is a major concession, so it has to be high enough. It has to make worthwhile White's playing such a move. <exposes as well White's King to attack> <Not so seriously if White's planning to castle queenside, as happens in this game.> seriously enough before White has castled, and possibly even after as it may give Black the makings of a Queen side attack. Not to mention that it loses at least one tempo for development. However Black may have not found the right way to handle it yet. The final verdict of masterly experience has yet to be heard. At the risk of repetition, if you are going to play a move like g2-g4 in any opening, you will want it to be worth your while. |
|
| Sep-02-11 | | solskytz: At the risk of repetition, why don't we apply the rule of threefold repetition to kibitzing as well? (this post would make my daughter laugh. If you don't share the same sense of humor I assume no responsibility. I generally stop at one apology per CG user) |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | DrMAL: <goldenbear: <Ulhumbrus> You don't usually say stupid things, but that was a stupid post the whole way through.> Looking at his other posts, actually he almost always writes totally stupid things. So much so, I have ignored him. |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | solskytz: I prefer to slightly make fun of the person in situations like that. Sometimes he laughs also and changes attitude |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | DrMAL: I'm just tired of reading his idiotic posts on other pages too, it gets annoying to look at the trash, so enough is enough. |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | solskytz: Well, as far as I'm concerned, up to this point nobody's yet managed to make me put them on ignore - maybe it will happen one day, you never know... |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | goldenbear: <DrMAL> How can that have been a stupid post on my part? It initiated a two pages worth of discussion! |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | DrMAL: <goldenbear> I think maybe you misunderstood me, I was replying to your comment regarding Ulhumbrus, he really DOES usually say (write) stupid things (holy cow!). |
|
| Sep-07-11 | | goldenbear: <DrMAL> Oh, I see. Anyhow, I wasn't going to disagree with you, I say my fair share of stupid things, but I just didn't think that was one of them. |
|
Sep-08-11
| | perfidious: <Everett: ...My question is, why are we, as a group, so attached that we feel the need to defend 6.g4? I mean, it is so early in the game that I imagine there are lots of possibilities.> There are indeed, and I've never even had a game with 6.g4 in my life, so I'm taking neither side as to the merits of the idea. It's an interesting line, and I explored it a little in the mid 1980s when thinking of playing the Scheveningen Sicilian as Black. |
|
Aug-04-12
 | | lost in space: <<perfidious:> <Everett: ...My question is, why are we, as a group, so attached that we feel the need to defend 6.g4? I mean, it is so early in the game that I imagine there are lots of possibilities.>
There are indeed, and I've never even had a game with 6.g4 in my life, so I'm taking neither side as to the merits of the idea. It's an interesting line, and I explored it a little in the mid 1980s when thinking of playing the Scheveningen Sicilian as Black.> The same with me (for me early 80ties) and 6. g4 was the move I feared most. At that time I thought 6...a6 would be the best answer, today I play 6...h6 and - if needed ...h5 later. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
Times Chess Twitter Feed
|
|
|
button will automatically play the moves for "hands free" viewing.