< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-13-17|| ||eykca: not a model game of the ol' King's Gambit...|
|Jul-13-17|| ||offramp: <eykca: not a model game of the ol' King's Gambit...> |
I think it is pretty standard. If you look at
Vienna (1903) which was a King's Gambit theme tournament, you'll see that Black outscored White.
The idea of the KG is for White to give up a pawn so as to have the honour of being subjected to a strong attack. It's just a crappy opening considering the alternatives, like the Scotch or Goering.
|Jul-13-17|| ||Richard Taylor: <offramp> That is not the case. They are not "almost always garbage" they included some of the best games played. This is not a typical example. Grandmasters study correspondence games for opening ideas. |
I played for some time. Before computers it was the case to some extent. So once I overlooked mate in one in the NZ Championships but I also played some good games. I won a brilliancy prize in one tournament that GM Murray Chandler put into his (large in those days) weekly NZ Listener Chess Column which had games of all kinds. Chandler, and earlier Keres and Alekhine played Correspondence chess.
It is (or was) a great way to get to know people. Notes were passed back and forth.
But you underestimate the difficulties of chess in general. It is still possible to make errors. But Purdy and others of his strength made far fewer than most.
I think you are meaning that despite all the time gross errors can be made and that is true, but also true of any time control.
I beat IM Russell Dive twice in correspondence chess, I lost mostly to a player called Chapman who was very good as well as for example IM Paul Garbett who I beat once (and I have had two draws against and some interesting loses I have to concede).
The main problem with correspondence chess (it is still played despite computers) is the time spent analysing games.
|Jul-13-17|| ||Richard Taylor: I have Purdy's Book 'How Purdy Won' and he talks about this game in there. I'll quote from it later...|
|Jul-13-17|| ||newzild: <Offramp> Playing the King's Gambit, White scores 46 per cent to Black's 37 per cent in the database.|
Fischer, Spassky and Bronstein played it with success.
So perhaps the opening is not quite as bad as you make out.
|Jul-13-17|| ||offramp: <Richard Taylor> here is another way of looking at this game.|
In both G B Fraser vs J Birks, 1896 and Keres vs J Vilkins, 1932 there are the following opening moves:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nc3 Qh4+ 4. Ke2 d5 5. Nxd5 Bg4+ 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d4 O-O-O 8. Kd3.
click for larger view
Keres vs J Vilkins, 1932 was also the same as this game: 8...f5.
click for larger view
So we are up to move 9 and we are still in theory. Both those 2 other games were correspondence games, and MUSY have been known by both players.
White's <next move> is a blunder.
9. Qe2?? <(9. Nxh4 may be the best.)>
The game is essentially over after ½ a move!
I haven't seen anything like that since old leather-arse died.
|Jul-13-17|| ||offramp: <newzild: <Offramp> Playing the King's Gambit, White scores 46 per cent to Black's 37 per cent in the database.
Fischer, Spassky and Bronstein played it with success.|
So perhaps the opening is not quite as bad as you make out.>
Since 1970 the figures are different.
White scores 51.3% and Black 48.7%.
That is based on games in the chessgames database.
|Jul-13-17|| ||offramp: Or to put it in the same way that Newzild expressed it, since 1970 the KGA has scored like so: White 41.92% Black 39.26% Draws 18.8%.|
I suppose it is not far off the expected score for White in the initial position.
|Jul-13-17|| ||Richard Taylor: Of 8. Kd3 Purdy has "8. Kd3? Correct is 8 c3 but 8. ... f5 gives Black an advantage. A game Keres-Kunerth, 1936, continued from there 9. Qd3 [I have to translate the old English notation into algebraic, but I learned with that system ] Nf6 10. Nxf6 gxf6 11. Bxf4 gxf6 12. Qxe4 Bh6. Crowl had played 8. c3 against Goldstein [the English Master M.E. Goldstein against which Crowl won a match using this Gambit as that was the idea, he played it in every game as White, as arranged, and won 3.5-1.5], who answered with 8...Nf6, and lost."|
The above can be improved upon. Kurneth had instead 12 ... Bd6 and 13. Bxd6 Rhe8 14. Kd3 Qh5 15. Qf4 Rxd6 which is better for Black but the game is still complex and playable.
|Jul-13-17|| ||Richard Taylor: I by-passed your comments <offramp> and as you see Keres, who played a lot of correspondence games AND he said, in a comment to a game he played when Lombardy essayed a KG against him (which he accepted) that it was only fashion that meant it wasn't played. In fact there is nothing wrong with the King's Gambit or the Evans Gambit. |
The results don't meant that much. Often they follow inferior lines and keep doing so until someone comes up with something new.
I think it is also a question of style though, I tried only in two corresp. games and lost them both. But I did once prepare it against a strong player (OTB) who I knew would play 2 e5 but he declined it with 2. ... Bc5. (I lost as I had studied it till 3 am and didn't think it wouldn't be accepted! )
But this is the point. If a player, even a GM, found he or she was in his or her element with Gambits etc then they would be wise to play them as they are difficult to play against. Especially if that player could move from say a KG back to a Scotch or some other opening, even a Scotch Gambit. That player would be formidable if the player could also play well in the "quieter lines".
So far OTB I play mostly the main lines or lines I understand. But Karpov for example, if he needed a win, would play the Keres attack against the Schevenegin (however that is spelt) an won some great games with it.
I think there will be a return to Gambits. Wei Yi (as a randomly taken example) plays very dynamic and aggressive chess as well as "quieter" games. He might essay the odd KG who knows...but it probably would be a mistake to play unsound and really outre lines except maybe for surprise value. But I think that 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 is the start of an interesting opening. There are also the lines of the KG declined.
|Jul-13-17|| ||Richard Taylor: This game by Keres shows how even Keres went wrong in resigning a won position! Such things skew the stats also.|
Keres vs W Kunerth, 1936
The end position is:
click for larger view
And White is better. If Black is not careful he will lose. With best play White in fact retains a small advantage. This seemed to be a reaction to the game by Kibitzers on here and it seems correct but I am using Komodo, albeit a free version, and it also agrees...
.... 13. Bxh6 Rhe8 14. Kd3 Qh5 15. Qf4 Qg6+ 16. Kd2 Re4 17. Nh4 Qe8 18. Re1 Rxe1 19. Qxg4+
And this position
click for larger view
is a little better for White.
|Jul-13-17|| ||Richard Taylor: One advantage of computers is we can examine games where it looks lost or "bad" and even famous wins by famous players, or major lines in some cases, and find there are errors there. |
That said, in general, for example, I think that teaching such Gambits and having too much of a mentality that everything is solved in chess by aggression, tactics etc is a myth. For some players the quieter lines lead to deep, very beautiful games so they avoid these sharp gambits or lines more as a way of dealing with the complexities. Or they find these more 'normal' lines suit their style which is good.
But there is a place for Gambits for sure!
|Jul-13-17|| ||offramp: <Richard Taylor: This game by Keres shows how even Keres went wrong in resigning a won position! Such things skew the stats also.
Keres vs W Kunerth, 1936>
That is another correspondence game. And Keres resigns in a won position? Is this supposed to make me change my mind that corres games are garbage?
|Jul-13-17|| ||ughaibu: It's not clear whether it's "a won position" or a position that's "a little better for white"?!?|
|Jul-13-17|| ||catlover: It seems like this line of the King's Gambit is Purdy Controversial.|
|Jul-13-17|| ||offramp: Another thing that "skews the figures" is the performance of poor old NN. |
He defended the Kings Gambit Accepted 113 times, scoring +5 -105 =3.
|Jul-13-17|| ||ColeTrane: ...looks like white is at least down a minor piece, so what's all this talk about resigning a won game guys...?|
|Jul-13-17|| ||TheTamale: Crowl's goal was to have his king on the 7th rank by move 10.|
|Jul-13-17|| ||PawnSac: < Richard Taylor: The main problem with correspondence chess (it is still played despite computers) is the time spent analysing games. >|
well yes and no. If you are playing a tournament with half dozen games going simultaneously, yes.. but its also good for deep prep and testing of lines for OTB play. That i think is its greatest value. Great for endgame study too.
|Jul-13-17|| ||kevin86: White's king is exposed, white loses.|
|Jul-13-17|| ||morfishine: I've played the White side of the KG dozens of times and only remember the wins|
|Jul-13-17|| ||RandomVisitor: 7.Nxc7+ Kd8 8.Nxa8 Ne5 9.Qe1 Nxf3 10.Qxh4+ Nxh4+ 11.Ke1 f3, but black has a small advantage|
|Jul-14-17|| ||RandomVisitor: After 7.Nxc7+
click for larger view
Stockfish_17061704_x64_modern: <17 hours computer time>
<-0.56/54 7...Kd8 8.Nxa8 Ne5 9.Qe1 Nxf3 10.Qxh4+ Nxh4+ 11.Ke1 f3> 12.gxf3 Bxf3 13.Rg1 Bxe4 14.Be2 Nf5 15.d3 Bc6 16.Bf4 Nge7 17.Rf1 Nd5 18.Bb8 Nd4 19.c4 Bb4+ 20.Kf2 Re8 21.Bh5 Nf6 22.Bxa7 Nxh5 23.Bxd4 Nf4 24.Bb6+ Kc8 25.Rg1 Re2+ 26.Kf1 Bg2+ 27.Rxg2 Rxg2 28.Be3 Rxh2 29.Kg1 Rh4 30.Nb6+ Kd8 31.Rd1 f5 32.d4 Be7 33.c5 Bg5 34.Bxf4 Bxf4 35.Nd5 Bh6 36.Kg2 g6 37.Kg3 Re4 38.Nc3 Rg4+ 39.Kf2 Bg5 40.b4 h5 41.b5 Bf6 42.Ne2 Kd7 43.b6 Kc6 44.a3
|Jul-17-17|| ||Richard Taylor: <offramp: <Richard Taylor: This game by Keres shows how even Keres went wrong in resigning a won position! Such things skew the stats also. Keres vs W Kunerth, 1936>
That is another correspondence game. And Keres resigns in a won position? Is this supposed to make me change my mind that corres games are garbage?>|
Well put! Lol!
But Keres and Alekhine (as only ONE example) played many correspondence games and these helped them. The game here was put in print by Purdy knowing that it was unusual, and in fact analysis shows it is not as lost as it looks at one stage. It is a risky opening. But Purdy is acknowledged as a great player in correspondence and elsewhere. Correspondence chess as I played meant I could analyse positions or play openings I didn't play OTB etc. So I enjoyed it.
After a while I found chess in general including correspondence was taking up too much time in my life so I stopped chess virtually altogether for about 12 years or so. But GM Murray Chandler's "spiel" when he showed my prize winning game game also talked of his own adventures playing correspondence chess.
If errors are made in correspondence chess thousands more are made OTB.
You play some online correspondence games, even use snail mail, play about 8 or so and then report back to me how well you went. I challenge you. I bet you will soon be outclassed. It is very difficult as one gets into the higher rated levels. Whether one is facing a computer these days is problematic but for example, in NZ, Mark Noble says he doesn't care if his opponents use computers. He concentrates on correspondence play. If the Internet failed and we had to use the old mail people in places a long way from chess centres can play. Also some people can allocate some time to corresp. chess as they cant get much time for OTB games at a Club or Tournaments.
I think your thesis re correspondence chess is seriously flawed....
|Jul-17-17|| ||Richard Taylor: <PawnSac: < Richard Taylor: The main problem with correspondence chess (it is still played despite computers) is the time spent analysing games. >
well yes and no. If you are playing a tournament with half dozen games going simultaneously, yes.. but its also good for deep prep and testing of lines for OTB play. That i think is its greatest value. Great for endgame study too.>|
It depends. I had a wife and three children and I was also playing OTB chess in the mid 80s. It didn't help that my wife hated me playing chess. She hated and as far as I know still hates chess. We are divorced. She used chess as one of the levers but it was only one.
But it was true that I was neglecting both her and my family. Chess for a time became an obsession and i stopped playing for at least 12 years (with the odd tournament where I didn't win many games and very little study).
I still feel that while chess has many beautiful aspects, it is inherently a waste of time (especially for me as I am not a strong player so I don't want to devote time to studying endings and openings to the degree necessary to improve): perhaps if I was younger. But I play at a Club among mostly quite weak players and at my age am thinking of stopping chess altogether.
But for younger players, it used to be great to play correspondence chess. I suppose with computers it is still playable.
Now Purdy didn't play anymore (with a few exceptions) after winning the world championship as he didn't spend enough time with his family. He did play OTB.
I believe the reason GM Murray Chandler has stopped chess is that when he plays he feels obligated to study opening etc very much and this is now too much of a commitment.
But he keeps an interest in chess and like me plays over some games, sometimes I study the openings etc and strategy but it is mainly as a theoretical exercise. I have no illusions I will improve. But I enjoy playing over good or interesting games of chess.
And I agree that for those with the ability and time it can be good to try openings and practice ending ideas etc
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·