< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|Dec-26-04|| ||refutor: you disagree that 2600s pound 2300s tactically? i beg to differ...a GM should always crush an IM tactically...lemme find a quote|
Nick DeFirmian - ""...one other thing is the GMs superiority in tactics. For example Christiansen can find tactics in any position. If you're a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area. "
i'm not the only one who feels this way ;)
|Dec-26-04|| ||tex: <refutor> I guess when you are 300+ it means you are 300+ in every aspect of the game. I just belive higher rated players have a tendency to use their higher positional skill to win against weaker oposition because it carries less risk than tactical
mayhem. You can always lose due to a blunder, or your opponent can have a moment of enlightment and find some tactical counter-punch and win whit One-shot-wonder (it happens all the time in boxing).
Check that Woyo guy in US - he's a GM, travels around country, beats 2000+ to earn money and he plays nothing but superpositional openings aginst them, on purpose.
<RisingChamp> Would you like to play game? I always resign when I am piece down (refutor can confirm that). |
|Dec-26-04|| ||azaris: <refutor> Of course things depend on who's playing who. For a recent example of a GM crushing an IM tactically, see Onischuk vs A Zatonskih, 2004.|
But I have also heard GMs say that the real difference between a strong GM and the average IM is that they are able to evaluate positions much more deeply and accurately.
|Dec-27-04|| ||RisingChamp: Sure I would like to play Tex-where do you wish to play though? |
|Dec-29-04|| ||tex: Well I play on schemingmind.com, which is a correspondence chess site. I can play a live game too somewhere else. |
|Mar-31-05|| ||Backward Development: some quotes relative to the debate:
One of the main aims has been to highlight the differences in approach between a Grandmaster and a weaker player, and to try and narrow the gap. To some extent this comes down to technical matters - more accurate analysis, superior opening knowledge, better endgame technique and so forth; but in other respects the difference goes deeper and many readers will find that they need to rethink much of their basic attitude to the game. One example of this would be the tremendous emphasis which is placed on the dynamic use of the pieces, if necessary at the expense of the pawn structure, or even of material. This is no mere question of style; it is a characteristic of the games of all the great players. Peter Griffiths
It is often supposed that, apart from their "extraordinary powers of memory", expert players have phenomenal powers of calculation. The beginner believes that experts can calculate dozens of moves ahead and he will lose to them only because he cannot calculate ahead so far. Yet this is utter nonsense. From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot's experiments) supports me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives. They tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation. Of course there are times when intense calculation is called for, and often the master is better at dealing with these situations than the amateur. No wonder, he has had more practice than the amateur, but all the same his innate calculating ability need not be any greater. Most of the time it is something quite different that is required in chess, something more akin to "understanding" or "insight". David Norwood
Where a mediocre chess player sees ten moves to continue his game, a master may see only two or three. He discards the others as not of sufficient merit. The further the master progresses in skill and foresight the more he is restricted in his choice of moves. It is very similar in other machees. If a mediocre pianist plays a piece before a musical audience he will imagine that he is able to execute his task in a variety of styles. But for Rosenthal or Paderewski only one way of rendering the piece will exist. The higher the class of the artist, the less is his liberty. Emanuel Lasker
It may be that stronger players actually consider more 'stupid' moves than weaker ones - dismissing most of them, but not ruling them out without a glance! It may be that this is the only possible explanation for, say, some of Tal's moves. Simon Webb
|Mar-31-05|| ||Abaduba: To look just at experience in the question of tactics v. position is missing another important factor: age|
A friend of mine, who is ~1900 and plays in tournaments pretty often, tells me that when he plays kids and teenagers that are 1500-1800, they are generally all tactics, using e4 and sicillian exclusively. Adults who haven't gotten beyond that level are usually d4 or c4 players who depend on positional play and endgames and avoid tactics like the plague. Obviously, there are lots of exceptions, but these are the trends he sees.
As for zorro and refutor, you both have a point- an IM can probably beat an expert any way s/he wants, but it seems that all but the most aggressive find it safer to play a quiet game since there's always a chance in a complicated game that the IM will drop a rook (don't laugh; a friend of a friend had 2 IM's drop rooks to him in the same tournament) and get a freak loss. An endgame is practically a point in the bank. IM vs GM is a totally different story.
I'm not anywhere near as knowlegable as deFirmian, but I'd like to point out that we shouldn't necessarily assume that the IM should get crushed at all: after all, the difference between the two titles may be as little as one norm for an up-and-coming player; every GM was an IM once, and they made GM by beating GM's.
|Apr-08-05|| ||dragon40: OK..what are your guy's opinions of the Marshall Defense to the QGD <1.d4,d5; 2.c4, Nf6>?
I have faced this allot lately at the club level and it just does not impress me at all! By making pretty basic and straight forward moves, White seems to get a very comfortable game, as well as a decent space advantage! I wonder what the appeal is to Black, aside of not have a ton of theroy for the other, more usual versions of the QGD.
|Apr-08-05|| ||RisingChamp: That is the advantage I suppose because in the State Chess Championships I was just playing I saw quite a few strong(2200+) players playing it.B.T.W contrary to the belief expressed above Timothy Taylor (IM)in his article on how to beat much weaker players advocates quickly attacking in order to exploit the weaker players nerves.I think it works-when stronger players attack it does psych out weaker players and if for some reason an (IM) is worried abt hanging rooks he shouldnt play chess.Taylor in fact gives an example of when he tried quite maneuvring and the net result was he confused himself and gifted a 2028 USCF player a piece and lost. |
|Apr-08-05|| ||RisingChamp: And one of the facts of modern day chess is that nobody over 2100 is "easy to beat" you have to sweat it.I know because I saw Sasikiran(2657) sweating it out in a desperate battle against a 2000 rated player in the first round of an International open he won in Delhi earlier this year,all the other GMs were doing the same and a couple of GMs lost to 2000 players.I think it is much easier for an 1900 to beat a 1600 than for a 2500 to beat a 2100. |
|Apr-08-05|| ||dragon40: <risingchamp> I can buy the less theroy part, and it has really taken off at the club levels and a few of the sites that I play on.
Still, seems White gets a prety good game for little investment...but who knows, maybe it's set for a big take off, as the Tchigoins QGD or the Albin Counter-Gambit was once Moro began playing it against his fellow Gms as well?!
I am learning now and trying to concentrate on playing the board and position, NOT the person on the other side of the board! I dont look at their ranking, title or anything if I can avoid it and just try and play my game. It has helped! |
|Apr-08-05|| ||dragon40: <risingchamp> I agree! I think anyone can beat anyone on a given day...you never ever know!! |
|Apr-18-05|| ||Abaduba: <dragon40>
The Marshall is tricky but against a prepared opponent should get a big advantage.
After 1.d4 d5 2. c4 f6 3. cxd5 xd5, if White plays 4. e4?!, (s)he is committing the e pawn too early and will probably only get equality.
Soltis recommends: 4. f3!:
4. ... g6 5. e4 b6 is a Neo-Gruenfeld where Black is cramped and behind in development, or
4. ...f5 5. b3! c6 6. bd2 b6 (forced, to protect b7 and avoid the fork on e4) 7. e4 g6 8. d5 b8 9. a4 a5 10. e5 bd7 11. b5 and Black is terrible.
|Aug-26-05|| ||Happy Bishop: For those interested in playing drawish lines with Queens Gambit Declined see this games, real masterpieces, i look them and ask to myself ¿how this folk was able to draw this game?|
M Makarov vs Kramnik, 1991
Gelfand vs Kramnik, 1993 Slav
Kramnik vs Anand, 1993 Slav, Exchange Variation
Kramnik vs Aleksandrov, 1991 Ragozin Variation
Kramnik vs Spassky, 2001 Tartakower
|Aug-26-05|| ||yoozum: <I think anyone can beat anyone on a given day...you never ever know!! >|
I am of the opinion that Hydra will beat me 100% of the time, lol.
|Aug-26-05|| ||TIMER: <Risingchamp> Statistics play a part: a 2400 is expected to score about 80% against a 2150, so there is between 20 and 40% chance of them not winning. Supposing it is 70% win, 20% draw, 10% loss. Then if two games are played, there is 51% chance the 2400 fails to win atleast one of the two games. There is a correlation between player strength and drawing likelihood too. |
I used to be all or nothing (due to perfectionism and time trouble,giving the higher rated players too much respect constantly thinking "I must have missed something somewhere? They must be planning something for that?") so won a few games against much higher rated players but then losing ones I should have drawn. I have learnt that it is better to trust your instincts more to save time and effort, and perform with more stability and consistency.
|Sep-25-05|| ||Averageguy: What do you suggest as a weapon against the QG? It often gives me all sorts of problems.|
|Sep-25-05|| ||offramp: I say accept the gambit. I think black has an easier time of it. You might get something like A Afifi vs Beliavsky, 1985.|
|Sep-25-05|| ||who: <yoozum> not 100%. Sometimes there are blackouts. So you see anyone has a chance.|
|Sep-25-05|| ||TIMER: <who> Chess is like multiple choice (but with 20 or 30 choices each move) so theoretically even someone making random moves has a chance to beat anyone/thing, obviously the remotest of chances, but still a chance.|
|Sep-25-05|| ||DutchDunce: <avgguy> I assume you mean on the white side since you wouldn't be playing it as black if it gave you problems?|
On the white side against 1.d4 d5 you can also try 2.Bg5 if you really want to avoid the beaten path.
|Sep-25-05|| ||who: <timer> that would be true if the moves were played truly randomly. But a wrong move may seem alluring to an inexperienced eye and this means even in a google tries the patzer will never win.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||acirce: If both sides play purely randomly, what are the chances that the game will be decisive? Let's assume that threefold repetition or 50 moves without pawn moves or captures means draw. I guess this must have been tested empirically.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||TIMER: <acirce> I don't know but I would instinctively guess that it would be extremely unlikely to happen upon a checkmate if moves are random, usually this requires some organisation, so a draw would be very likely after hundreds of moves.|
|Sep-26-05|| ||acirce: Yes, a random move giving checkmate is very unlikely but on the other hand the games would tend to be extremely long so there might be some room for that to happen. If this hasn't been tested empirically already it would be fun to see the results.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·