chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

Dionysius1
Member since May-08-11 · Last seen Dec-12-18
Decided to post on cg again without getting too fond of it. Welcome to anyone who visits my forum! I don't look much like my avatar, but that's pretty much how I think I am.
>> Click here to see Dionysius1's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   Dionysius1 has kibitzed 1601 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Dec-11-18 Caruana vs Nakamura, 2018 (replies)
 
Dionysius1: Although semi finals are now sold out. Sorry these details are coming to you in bits and pieces. I'm just catching factoids while I work.
 
   Dec-11-18 Hoang Thong Tu vs J Gonzalez Garcia, 2008 (replies)
 
Dionysius1: Has the database run out of puzzles with more conclusive results <cg>? I don't want to find the solution and be left thinking "but surely there's something better than a clever forced trade to a better endgame". Particularly at the beginning of the week!
 
   Dec-11-18 10th London Chess Classic (2018) (replies)
 
Dionysius1: Go on then <Junbalansag>. Why Wesley So rather than any of the others who weren't invited, and how would you make the odd number work in this format? Or who would you leave out?
 
   Dec-10-18 Tal vs A S Segal, 1952 (replies)
 
Dionysius1: I think <Honza> has the solution.
 
   Dec-08-18 Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1954
 
Dionysius1: This is what shook me about this game. As far as I understand things, the assessment of a position when White has a ♕ and Black has 3 minor pieces is whether Black can coordinate the pieces quicker than White can really start causing trouble with the ♕. How quickly ...
 
   Dec-06-18 S Slipak vs T Gibson, 2008 (replies)
 
Dionysius1: Hmm. Borderline worthy puzzle in my view. When Gibson sacrifices the ♕ for the ♖ he's two pawns down, and Slipak still has to win the game. It's not exactly a knock out.
 
   Dec-04-18 Magnus Carlsen (replies)
 
Dionysius1: Hi <Perfidious>. No I don't!
 
   Dec-04-18 Geller vs Euwe, 1953
 
Dionysius1: A frightful pun. How dare Euwe!
 
   Dec-03-18 R Martyn vs Wei Ming Kevin Goh, 2008 (replies)
 
Dionysius1: 22.♔f2 = . The weaknesses on e2 and h2 are easily defended by shuffling the K between f2 and g1.
 
   Nov-30-18 M Turov vs A Gaifullin, 2018
 
Dionysius1: 18. ♘c4 would have been a lot better if White is playing on
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Thanks - it's great to read your comments! I go for 10 correct solutions in a row, or how many can I solve before the kettle boils. Lessons I'm learning: forks etc don’t have to be of pieces – they can be a fork of a piece and a positional advantage. Some wins are opportunistic – all my pieces can be aimed at the opposing king side, but he’s got a loose piece on the queen side. The solution is nearly always simpler than I think it is.

Someone asked me recently “how can people play blindfold simultaneous?" I think for grand masters chess might be like a language and a game be like a conversation. We can all keep more than one conversation going at a time can’t we?

Mar-27-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <Dionysius1> Pins and forks can involve squares and not just pieces. In your game, 21 ... Rd8 pins the Bd5 against the d1 square due to the weak back rank.

1) Spassky vs Averkin, 1973 after 25 ... Rb6:


click for larger view

Spassky spots a potential fork between a mate threat on g7 and the c7 square with Qe5, but the immediate 26. Qe5 allows 26 ... Bf8 or 26 ... g6 by Black which hold. So instead 26. Bc7! (Pin) Rxc7 27. Qe5 (Fork) g6 28. Qxc7 won the exchange.

2) A Schwarz vs Albin, 1899 after 13. exd4:


click for larger view

13 ... Ne3 forks the Qd1 and the Bf1 but also the c2 square, then 14. Qc1 Nc2+ forks the Ke1 and the Ra1. Two Knight forks in a row is an Extended Knight Fork.

Study tactics! =)

Mar-31-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Something that studying tactics doesn't seem to help with is being ready for my opponents' tactics.

Puzzles always imply "what can you do to win?" not "what tactics does your opponent have?" And it is significant that in puzzles you're always sitting behind the pieces which have the winning tactics.

I might, if I chose to make the time for it, take a game which is won on a puzzle style tactic, take it back a few moves before the tactic and ask myself "if I was the opponent, when could I have spotted this, and stopped it (and how)?"

Otherwise the results of my games are just likely to be based on who spots their tactical opportunity first!

Apr-01-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: Not only that.
What about positions that have no trick/shot?

You need to be able to calculate just to play a complex move that is equal.

Apr-02-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Yes, maybe it is another version of just being able to calculate. I just need to be able to focus on my opponent's intentions more. My temptation with developing a puzzles mentality is to assume the other side is just there to cooperate.
Apr-03-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: I was watching this game live
and thought of your forum.

Jennifer R Yu vs A Sharevich, 2017

Black missed the shot 17...Rxb2+

It's funny, in a game, it would probably be the only move I'd look at. (unless I couldn't make it work)

As a puzzle, it would probably be the last move Id look at, because they usually dont make it obvious.

Jan-20-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: I love the way top players can visualise future positions as clearly as they can see the position on the board.

I'm working on it as part of my overall programme to increase my personal efficiency. But golly it's hard - I hope it gets easier. Yesterday I saw Carlsen and Svidler analysing after their Tata 2018 game, and Svidler obviously found it easier to look away from the board to imagine an upcoming position.

We all do it a bit, but to be able to really anchor it so that the position in 6 moves is as clear in my head as the current position would be great. Then I could really begin to evaluate the resulting positions. Not so difficult for solving puzzles but for playing otb chess it'd be great. My chess team number one Chris Ross is blind so he can do it all the time.

Jan-22-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: I'm trying to work out the best way to talk about computer analysis when discussing a game on any of these threads.

I've been disproportionately annoyed when I quote a computer engine line that illustrates some point I want to make and someone gets snitty about "oh, I rely on my own analysis".

If we're analysing a game surely it's ok to give a line I wouldn't have thought of on my own?

Maybe the reaction because of people who denigrate GMs with "what a clod - he didn't see this line".

But I'm stubborn - I don't want to forever put in a caveat that goes "I know I would never have thought of it myself, but stockfish says...". I shouldn't have to - I'm just not interested in making you think I'm better than I am by claiming search engine analysis as my own, and anyone who even bothers to look up my profile will know I'm not good enough to be confused with a search engine anyway.

So what the heck people? What are/should be the rules of engagement when we're discussing games and bring engine analysis into it?

Jan-23-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: The only benchmark should be if the
analysis is correct.

So I would say:

Stockfish says: (insert analysis here)

<Stockfish says:> Lets them know you are not pretending it's yours.

If they say:

<oh, I rely on my own analysis>

I would ask how it differs?

Jan-23-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: I agree with you and I'll do that too.

Even so some people are going to dislike the intrusion of computer analysis.

I have some sympathy because I like to think of chess as an art form, and that makes it intrinsically human. But there's no reason that I can see for not accepting a computer as a training tool, to help us be better artists.

Feb-23-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: On the back of an annoying loss yesterday evening I have good news! They say that the tragedy of chess is that the pain of losing is greater than the joy of winning. Well, as I get older I find that that no longer holds. I was able to shrug off the loss tonight (silly of me falling for a mate in 2 when I had my queenside attack all ready for when I'd sat out his unsound attack on my castled king). Only his arrogance after the game irritated me a little, but what can you do? Chess is eternal, arrogance is temporary. :-)
Feb-26-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Fusilli: <...the pain of losing is greater than the joy of winning. Well, as I get older I find that that no longer holds.>

Ha! I said that! And I agree with your sentiment! Well, losing is still painful, but not the end of the world, like it was when I was 20. And winning is more joyful now, not just a relief.

Feb-27-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Hi <Fusilli>. Good to know. And since you're 12 years my junior, it's nice the effect can start so young!
Mar-23-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Darn - I get the feeling from watching the Candidates matches and listening to Jan and Peter's commentary, that the chess they're talking about hasn't anything to do with the chess I play.

It's not that their chess is so much better than mine, it's more that

1.They play on principles I've never learnt, so I can't assess the positions they're in or know what lines to look for

2. Their depth of calculation is so much more than I go, that I can't follow their lines far enough to even see the point they're trying to make

3. It's more as if they (or maybe just the computers) are treating chess as a mathematical puzzle, not a human game with warmth and hopes and fears like it was when I played at school and university. And I hate mathematical puzzles

Coupled with the rough gamesmanship I've encountered over the last year when playing over the board chess, I wonder how much longer sheer habit will keep me playing or pretending to follow chess.

I've had opponents gloating when they won even when they know it was lucky, or won on time in a losing position. And why do my opponents adopt the mannerisms of Kramnik or Carlsen at a press conference when we analyse games afterwards? We're all bottom feeders - 1500-1700 ELO. I say our only chance is to just enjoy it all and treat success and failure lightly. Some chance!

Mar-24-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Dionysius1:

Darn - I get the feeling from watching the Candidates matches and listening to Jan and Peter's commentary, that the chess they're talking about hasn't anything to do with the chess I play.>

Is that their fault?

<3. It's more as if they (or maybe just the computers) are treating chess as a mathematical puzzle, not a human game with warmth and hopes and fears like it was when I played at school and university. >

It's up to you to personalize your chess.
To make it your own.
To make it what you believe and what you stand for.

<or maybe just the computers>

<treating chess as a mathematical puzzle, not a human game>

I just started a tournament on Gameknot.
I'm also playing other games.
In spite of all the computer talk,
I see all the same mistakes that were
happening in the 1970's when I started
playing chess.

You have to develop "your" narratives
of chess. Who and what you are.
What openings/lines you play, and
what you stand for.

Setting up some position and saying
the computer likes this line is really
irrelevant.

Id be willing to bet your games as a
1300, 1500, 1700, look exactly like
my games in the 70's as a 1300, 1500, 1700.

(when it comes to mistakes and misplayed positions)

Mar-24-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Hi <diceman>. And thanks - always nice to read you. <Their fault?> No - I don't think fault comes into this.

<mathematical puzzle>. My point, which I may have phrased badly if it ;ooked ;ike I was implying somebody as at fault, was only that at the top levels chess analysis is so thorough that it is approaching the intellectual level of a mathematical puzzle, whereas I like chess as a relaxing pastime, approaching it with a sense of humour and no ambition other than to have a good time a few evenings a month, maybe get some fun out of following the professionals and spot a combination once in a while that appeals to my aesthetic sense.

Interesting point about developing my own narratives of chess. That's pretty much what I try to do. I was just musing on whether my watching top level chess worked for me or against me in that effort - probably against. And whether playing chess in the local leagues was a good way to do that - probably not.

Mar-27-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I had a thought about modern players.

At first I thought, "These players must dread sitting down day after day knowing they are in for a tedious Berlin or Catalan."

But then I thought NO, OFFRAMP...NO!!

In between serious games these players play scores or even hundreds of ultra-rapid games that are as interesting as a snowstorm in Death Valley, so chess does not get boring for them.

Mar-27-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <offramp: I had a thought about modern players.

At first I thought, "These players must dread sitting down day after day knowing they are in for a tedious Berlin or Catalan.">

Yes but, they can make a living off that, so maybe not.

Apr-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: I've got one more league game to play, so unless something worth posting about happens next Thursday, I'm putting this in mothballs for the Summer.

I'm not sure I will want to play next season (right now I don't but that's a familiar feeling and not necessarily fixed).

But with the World Championships coming up in November I'll be sure to look in again at chessgames.com

Have a good summer, and here's to November!
Dion

Aug-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: Hello <Dionysius1>! Yes, tactics are what keeps us interested in playing chess I think. Thats where all the fun is. But I too grew tired of all the tactics training. These days I focus on one simple strategy: Quick development of pieces. Mass counts even if the pieces are not on their best squares (yet). Then I like to turn them loose in one big avalanche

The tactics take care of themselves

:)

Oct-07-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: < Dionysius1: I love the way top players can visualise future positions as clearly as they can see the position on the board.

I'm working on it as part of my overall programme to increase my personal efficiency. But golly it's hard - I hope it gets easier. >

I think playing "blindfold" chess will help with this.

Oct-08-18  parisattack: You might also give Practical Chess Analysis by Buckley a look-see. It has some basic visualization exercises.
Oct-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Lev Alburt's multi-volume course had visualization lessons too.

It's a great course - wish I still had my set.

Oct-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <thegoodanarchist:

Lev Alburt's multi-volume course had visualization lessons too.

It's a great course - wish I still had my set.>

Do you need a set with visualization lessons? :)

Oct-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Well, I've never <needed> a single one of the chess books that I enjoyed so much.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Take the Premium Membership Tour
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC