< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Dec-27-09|| ||kingscrusher: There is something painfully wrong with the book "Think Like a Grandmaster" - and in my view it is the seperation presented between Assess/Plan and between Calculation. I think they should all be integrated and this is a view which Tisdall shares in his book which critques Kotov.|
In the extreme, why would a mass of variations which don't prove anything (e.g. which knight outpost is better and more exploitable to opponent or you) be useful to anyone?!
Tisdall would calculate some moves and link it to the actual question. E.g. Ahh Nd5 and then this might haappen - blah blah, therefore maybe Nf4 is better. I.e. the hypothesis is integrated with the testing of the hypothesis.
If you take the Kotov "system" literally, apparently a GM has three distinct independent stages:
1) Assess position
2) Form plan
3) Perform a mass of calculations
I simply don't buy into this. I think 1) and 2) need always to be aware of the exploitability element from both sides. I.e. the static and dynamic considerations should naturally be combined at all times.
Here is an analogy: You want to shave your face. Do you do this:
1) Assess where to shave
2) Plan the shaving route
3) Give the instructions for shaving using the assessment and plan to a robot who will do a mass of calculations to do the shaving for you.
Or do you:
Look at the mirror when shaving and make sure you don't cut yourself at any point. You are aware where you want to shave, and make sure you don't bleed to death in the process through severe cuts.
This is the subject of a video I'm planning, which is an extension of this one:
"An ineffective knight outpost chooser"
|Dec-27-09|| ||kingscrusher: And no, my post is not hugely influenced by Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance where the seperation of internal vs external quality is discussed greatly. But yes there does seem to be some divorce similarities between Kotov's seperation of calculation from the perceptive look and feel of the position (assess/plan) as if they are completely divorced from each other.|
|Dec-27-09|| ||kingscrusher: Please btw can we have more of Kotov's games to see if he actually did what he preached. I think judging from his Hastings congress games, his play was actually very positional - e.g. playing the English opening. |
If one has really mastered the art of calculation like a computer with "trees of analysis" wouldn't one pick sharp battles and sharp tactical openings?!
Or perhaps destroying counterplay and playing positionally is just what Kotov did in practice. Whilst preaching about masses of variations to everyone else.
|Dec-27-09|| ||kingscrusher: Kotov won Hastings in 1962 according to Wiki. this concurs with the PGN of the event which can be obtained from:|
It would be good if Chessgames.com could get these PGN downloads and incorporate them, as there are many Kotov game examples here e.g.
[Event "Hastings 6263"]
[White "Kotov, Alexander"]
[Black "Hollis, Adrian"]
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 e6 6. d4 O-O 7. a4 b6 8. cxd5
exd5 9. a5 Nc6 10. axb6 cxb6 11. Bb5 Bd7 12. O-O Na5 13. Qa4 Bxb5 14. Qxb5 Qd6
15. b3 Rfc8 16. Bd2 Bf8 17. Na4 Qc6 18. Qxc6 Rxc6 19. Nxb6 axb6 20. b4 Ne4 21.
Be1 Nc3 22. Ne5 Rc7 23. Nd3 Raa7 24. bxa5 Rxa5 25. Bxc3 Rxc3 26. Nf4 Ba3 27.
Rfb1 Bb2 28. Rxa5 bxa5 29. Kf1 Rb3 30. Nd3 Rxd3 31. Rxb2 a4 32. Ke2 Rc3 33. Rb5
Rc2+ 34. Kf3 a3 35. Rxd5 a2 36. Ra5 Kf8 37. Ra7 Ke8 38. h4 h5 39. e4 Rb2 40. g3
Rc2 41. Ke3 Rb2 42. e5 Rc2 43. d5 Rb2 44. f4 Rb3+ 45. Kd4 Rxg3 46. Kc5 Rf3 47.
Kd6 Kf8 48. Rxa2 Rxf4 49. Ra8+ Kg7 50. e6 fxe6 51. dxe6 Rxh4 52. e7 Re4 53.
e8=Q Rxe8 54. Rxe8 Kf6 55. Rf8+ Kg5 56. Ke5 Kg4 57. Ke4 h4 58. Ke3 Kg3 59. Rg8
h3 60. Rxg6+ Kh2 61. Kf2 1-0
|Dec-27-09|| ||Karpova: <kingscrusher: Kotov won Hastings in 1962 according to Wiki. this concurs with the PGN of the event which can be obtained from:>|
He tied for first with Gligoric (both 6.5/9) ahead of Smyslov (6.0/9).
|Dec-27-09|| ||kurtrichards: In Moscow,1948,16th Soviet Championship, Alexander Kotov tied for first place with David Bronstein. They both garnered 12 points.|
|Mar-04-10|| ||Gypsy: <... He achieved the GM title in 1950 by qualifying for the Candidates Tournament in Budapest ...> |
Actually, Kotov was already qualified for the IGM title by the virtue of holding a GM of USSR title. In turn, he got that title for finishing 2nd in the 1939 USSR Champinsghip in Leningrad. In 1950, all GM USSR titles were summarily converted to IGM.
|Mar-04-10|| ||HeMateMe: Was Kotov Spassky's trainer for awhile? Or, am I thinking of< Bondarevsky or Toulash?> I know one of these very tactically sharp people worked with a young Boris, not sure which one, or for how long?|
|Mar-04-10|| ||TheFocus: Vladimir Zak in early years and then Tolush and then Bondarevsky. He had other trainers too, but these were the main ones.|
|Aug-12-10|| ||paavoh: @kingscrusher: Some of those have been added, e.g. Kotov-Hollis, 1962, 1-0|
Kotov vs A Hollis, 1962
|Sep-30-10|| ||rapidcitychess: Thought process in my brain: (In chess! Anything else would be edge pushing to the reader!)|
Maybe I have some kind of gift, but I can usually tell what works and what doesn't really quickly. Yes, some games can be won Capablanca style "I look one move ahead- the best one." In speed games, (and when I move too fast, one problem I have on the internet.) that works. I win lots of games that way.
But in a 90/30 moves game, I usually look if my opponent is doing anything with his move. So first step is: Assess opponents threat.
So once we identify what my opponent wants to do, I try to combine my plan with stopping his. See "My System". Of course, tactics predominate over plans, so we figure that out first.
If the threat is tactical in nature, then we either resolve the treat, counter it, or ignore it. See "Looking for Trouble" by Dan Heisman.If we can meet the tactical threat with combination of our plan, then do so.
If there is no threat, then it is a quiet move. Piano, if you will. Now we can assess the position after ridding ourselves of threats. Of course, if the threat is of position of nature, we are able to assess the position. Still remember that tactics are better than positional things, or at least in short term.
Now we must find a plan, or reassess our old plan. After this we break in to hardcore analysis.
Now we find candidate moves.
This is were I can find moves very quickly.
Now check for tactical errors in the moves, and then analyze a little bit in to each one, and then narrow in down a little, the go in as far as I can depth-wise, assess that position, then go backwards to look for improvements for both sides, and finally blunder-check.
Now I play my move, and hit my clock.
Just my way. When I take my time, I can really play well.
|Nov-25-10|| ||parisattack: <kingscrusher: There is something painfully wrong with the book "Think Like a Grandmaster" - and in my view it is the seperation presented between Assess/Plan and between Calculation. I think they should all be integrated and this is a view which Tisdall shares in his book which critques Kotov.>|
Kotov's approach did not work for me. I did not find his books realistic for my level of (in)competence at the board.
Except for his Essential Knowledge the same goes for Averbakh's admittedly impressive tomes on the endgame, either.
That said, I was thinking how many great players the Soviet Union had in the 1940s-1950s who now seem underappreciated and understudied... Kotov, Boleslavsky (especially), Lilienthal, Averbakh ... even lessor lights such as Lutikov. There games can be a goldmine of learning and enjoyment.
Too many great games for one lifetime!
|Feb-13-11|| ||wordfunph: The title of Grandmaster has been significantly devalued. Alexander Kotov once introduced to Max Euwe a grandmaster who had held the title for over a decade. "Who was that?" asked the then President of FIDE when the grandmaster had left us. "An international grandmaster," was my reply, "you yourself awarded him the title."|
(Source: Train Like a Grandmaster by Alexander Kotov)
|Feb-13-11|| ||plang: <That said, I was thinking how many great players the Soviet Union had in the 1940s-1950s who now seem underappreciated and understudied... Kotov, Boleslavsky (especially), Lilienthal, Averbakh ... even lessor lights such as Lutikov. There games can be a goldmine of learning and enjoyment.>|
People forget how close Boleslavsky came to qualifying for a title match with Botvinnik in 1951. His playoff match with Bronstein could not have been any closer. Lilienthal was a great positional player - very under-rated.
|Apr-05-12|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "When you have finished analyzing all the variations and gone along all the branches of the tree of analysis you must first of all write the move down on your score sheet, before you play it." >
|Apr-15-12|| ||backrank: <James Demery: How could Kotov`s highest rating be 2203? Wasn`t he a GM? I thought he was one of the strongest players in the world right after WW 2?>|
Very strange indeed. Almost as strange as the fact that Kotov was obviously able to play a game as late as in 2006, more than 25 years after his own death :)
Very probably, the reason for both is simply the existence of another player with the same name.
But thank you, chessgames.com for such everlasting delights, not mentioning all the wrong game scores, duplicate games, important missing games, etc. :)
|Aug-12-12|| ||brankat: R.I.P. GM Kotov.|
|Jun-06-13|| ||perfidious: <Penguincw: Quote of the Day from 5th April 2012:|
< "When you have finished analyzing all the variations and gone along all the branches of the tree of analysis you must first of all write the move down on your score sheet, before you play it." > -Kotov>
It is now illegal under FIDE rules to write down one's move before having played it; I knew a strong player who was wont to write down his move as a means of distracting his opponents.
|Aug-12-13|| ||Jamboree: As useful as Kotov's ideas were, there are still two key concepts that I employ which Kotov doesn't mention at all. These two concepts are often the difference between being a middle-level player and being a dangerous and good player.|
The first concept, which was well outlined (I recently discovered, though I have been thinking this way for many years) in a training video by Maurice Ashley is to NOT look at what your opponent's most recent move DOES, but rather at what it UNdoes. Every time any piece moves, it abandons its previous position, and in so doing un-protects something, or ceases to have certain moves available to it. So before you think about anything else, first look to see if your opponent's move has created any weaknesses, unprotected something, or allowed a previously impossible combination. Only after digesting all of that, THEN look to see what threats his move created against you.
Most people are so panicked about the threats that they neglect to look for the opponent's newly created weaknesses.
The second analytical technique I use which Kotov (and everyone else) completely ignores is to calculate moves in REVERSE order of likelihood and logic -- especially in sharp positions. Thus, when it's my turn to move and the position is dangerous and unbalanced, I initially very quickly consider all the WORST and most RIDICULOUS moves I could make -- just to ensure that I'm not missing some brilliancy.
So, the first moves I consider in any position are ways to sacrifice my queen for no apparent reason. Next, if one of my pieces is attacked, I ponder what would happen if I just allowed it to be captured. Then I see what would happen if I walked my king directly into danger. Then I ponder ways to give away material purposely. Etc. 99% of the time, I very quickly confirm (in a matter of seconds in a blitz game, or maybe a minute or two in a tournament game) that these terrible-seeming moves are indeed terrible. Ah, but that remaining 1% -- that's when the magic happens. You see a brilliancy that no one else even considered.
If no brilliancy manifests, then little by little I eliminate all the self-evidently bad moves until I am left with a small number of "good" candidate moves, and I can concentrate on those without any nagging feeling that I'm missing something.
You'd be surprised how often I find unexpected and disorienting replies in my games that really keep my opponents off-balance.
I attribute my advance from expert-level to master-level to these exact two calculating techniques. Combine them with Kotov's ideas, and hey -- a person could really get strong!
|Aug-12-13|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<Jamboree>
Re. your second point, I have a vague recollection that Kotov wrote looking at sacs was the starting point for Tolush. Satisfied there were none that worked, Tolush would begin to analyse. Possibly the same approach you use?
Re. the first point, I think Dan Heisman mentions it with his "safety" at chesscafe. The idea being: has my opponent, with his last move created a positional or tactical threat I need to prevent -- prophylactic thinking with Dvoretsky. But, also importantly, if there is no threat I must meet, has my opponent created new opportunities for me?
|Aug-12-13|| ||Nosnibor: I first met Kotov following his victory in the Hastings Tournament of 1962/63.He came to my home town of Leicester and played 30 games simultaneously .His result was +16,=10,-4(70%).My game went as follows:-White: A Kotov Black: J K Robinson.Grunfeld Defence.1.d4 Nf6,2c4.g6,3Nc3,d5,4Bf4,c6,5e3,Bg7.6Nf3,0-0.7Qb3-
,Nb6.Draw agreed.1/2-1/2.I was still a teenager when I played my illustrious oppenent!
|Oct-15-13|| ||Johnny5Chess: Kingscrusher- Kotov never said to not play positionally. In fact, in the book think like a grand master he had an entire section dedicated to figuring out positions non-tactical in nature. All Kotov asserts is that we should strive to calculate as much as humanly possible to clearly understand a position and to avoid blunders. His book can be summed up in three words, don't be lazy.|
|Dec-07-13|| ||Penguincw: Quote of the Day
< "If you study the classic examples of endgame play you will see how the king was brought up as soon as possible even though there seemed no particular hurry at the time." >
Activating the king in the endgame is very important.
|Dec-19-13|| ||Yopo: [Event "?"]
[White "Nezhmetdinov,Rashit "]
[Black "Kotov,Alexander "]
1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. h3 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 Nf6 6. g3 e6 7. Bg2 Nxe4
8. Nxe4 dxe4 9. Qe2 f5 10. O-O Qf6 11. d3 exd3 12. Qxd3 Nd7 13. Be3 Bc5 14. Rad1 Ne5
15. Qb3 Bxe3 16. Qxe3 Nf7 17. Rfe1 e5 18. Qc5 h5 19. Rd3 Rh6 20. Red1 Qe6 21. Qb4 b6
22. Qd2 h4 23. gxh4 Rxh4 24. Rd7 Kf8 25. Qc3 Rh6 26. Qa3+ Kg8 27. Re7 Qf6 28. Rdd7 Rf8
29. Qb3 Rg6 30. Kf1 e4 31. a4 a5 32. c3 b5 33. axb5 cxb5 34. h4 b4 35. cxb4 axb4
36. Qxb4 Ne5 37. Qb3+ Kh7 38. Rc7 Qa6+ 0-1
|Mar-14-14|| ||capafischer1: jamboree, I find it strange for you to criticize gm kotov. Let me see, you are a master right? Kotov was a 3 times winner of Russian championships and several hundred points higher than you. Plus, he was a fantastic writer and a second of world champion spassky. Yet if your training methods were superior you would be much higher rated. But the exact opposite has happened. You see my point.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·