I appreciate the compliment and the good advice. Stepping away every now and then is a must. This is a unique format since there is so much more involved than just playing a game of chess. I would like to get more organized on multiple fronts but one musn't take it all too seriously or else we lose the fun and enjoyment in chess.

I noticed you work in the financial services industry as a CPA. I too work in financial services as a fraud investigator for a large bank so we have something in common. We also admire Fischer. Have you ever read Robert Wade's book "Bobby Fisher's Chess Games"? Its a must: over 900 games covering his entire career.

Soon, I'll be seeking your advice as I learn my first engine: the latest TOGA

Oh, and thanks about the Packers! Its like a dream. They've done very well the past few years, but haven't broken through. And now, in their worst year for injuries, they prevail. I'm still in a daze. I sent my sister a Clay Matthews jersey and she just loves it. She's a die-hard Packer fan too!

A revised conceptual definition:

The term SPACEBAR MASTER (Maître de barre d’espace, Leertastenmeister, Maestro de barra espaciadora, Maestro di barra spaziatrice) –

in its strict signification, denotes an advanced chess player guiding and interpreting computer analysis in a skillfully masterful manner.

That would be litteraly "Mestre em barra de espaços".

The Team has coined another new phrase too:

The term ENDGAME CREW –

I did not (yet) read the book you mention, here in Mexico is not an easy thing to get chess books. I have only one about Bobby, i found it last year in a “used old books library” for just 30 pesos (about 2.50 Dlls) !! Its “Fischer/Spassky The New York Times report on the chess match of the century “ by Richard Roberts published September 1972 . It´s one of my treasures.

BTW, i heard about the newest Bobby Fischer related book: “Endgame” by Frank Brady, this is the link for the review

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/0...

About TOGA I must say ouch ! I have zero experience.

Your ideas about get more organized on multiple fronts are cool, keep pushing, i will support you.

Always i smile before start reading your posts, after doing that, my smile is bigger. (except when you announced you were leaving).

Thanks for coming here !

Particularly i liked a lot your post some months ago about your thinkings between team dynamics, chess and human behavior.

The game vs NP was full of drama, so i would really like to know your thinkings after the game ended.

This was my first World Team Game and i know you participated in previous challenges, so your feed-back will be appreciated a lot.

Thanks for asking. This will be a long post.

You know, I believe in the human being. When I saw the first Challenge, against GM AN, I was very excited, because I always believed that one plus one is more than two. And that a team with 100 people would easily beat a GM on a chess board.

It was very exciting to see the end of this first game with the World team winning.

But...

When you compare this last game with the first one, you will see a totally different dynamics. To be honest, I see lots of similarities between the first game and the NP game after the endgame crew took over.

I can only speculate what happened.

Surely, the NP husband was a really problem, since it is very bad to play without confidence on your opponent. Good people exited the match, but I don't think this was the cause of the problem.

In fact, I felt a bit of disappointment because there was a feeling that this was too much used as an excuse for not winning this game.

Second, we had the one day per move issue. Yes, this is more a real problem, because in a team, in a large team, you must have communications, good communications, to go on the right direction.

But I don’t think this was the main problem, but it contributed to the main problem.

The main problem, for me, was the lack of patient from the more experienced players.

I do believe that CC is a totally different animal than OTB Chess. You cannot use the same logic, you cannot think the same way. And the experience that the "old" ch.com team gained on the first games was not shared with the "new" ch.com team. In part because of the one day pace. But mostly because of a bat attitude of many experienced players of dismissing the new players good will, and basically they said "you are wrong, you are new here, CC is different" and they did not take the time to explain why and how.

From me, and I believe that from others too, there was joy of the new approach of the new players, to dismiss hard engine work and voting on "human" moves. It is kind of boring to "scratch for centipawns", as Tabanus said. I was very bored from the two challenges before this last one, where the game became so computer driven, and so technical, that spoiled all the fun from me. The level was so high, that I could not enjoy, neither understand most of the discussion. Then this new group of people came, sharing the voice with the "experienced" world team and dared to think more by their own brains instead of following the old ones. I was excited again, and I supported it.

Well, I was wrong.

The centipawn scratchers were right. CC is a complete different animal than OTB. Lucky for us, our opponent was not an experienced CC player, so we did not lose. But... it was fun, I did learned a lot about chess, and about human beings, again.

Boring and necessary.

<Then this new group of people came, sharing the voice with the "experienced" world team and dared to think more by their own brains instead of following the old ones. I was excited again, and I supported it.>

The excitement was palpable. But as <Domdaniel> said in a related discussion, there's something to be said for not kicking the door in when you're a new member of any group, be it a church or a drug lair.

<Well, I was wrong. >

LOL. Took the words right out of my mind as I was reading along. I was thinking, "He's making some decent points, but he's just plain wrong." And we will have a group of new people next game who go through the same process. I don't know why this time was so much worse. I think it's when I decided the problem was incurable.

<The centipawn scratchers were right. CC is a complete different animal than OTB. Lucky for us, our opponent was not an experienced CC player, so we did not lose. But... it was fun, I did learned a lot about chess, and about human beings, again.>

I am going to update my forum with your revised conceptual definition of spacebar master:

<in its strict signification, denotes an advanced chess player guiding and interpreting computer analysis in a skillfully masterful manner.>

<Check It Out> was the one that coined the <Endgame Crew> phrase and i liked your description.

Looking at the previous attempts of the World team to improve the opening phase of the game, Kurt Widmann suggested “to look at POTENTIAL POSITIONS achievable via solid opening lines...We must find an approach how to set goals based on positions, rather than moves, very early in the opening phase already“.

Model “A“ strategic goal is to get the games into complex positions where there are many options to play.

Gert Jan Timmerman vs The World
(A simulation of a re-match)

Having thoroughly analysed Timmerman's games, we may expect to reach this position:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Be7

click for larger view

This position must be carefully analysed before selecting 1...c5 as an answer to usual Timmermann's 1.e4. According to Model “A“, we should try to lead the game into this position:

9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 b4 13.Ne2 Ne8 14.f4 a5 15.f5 a4

click for larger view

Too often, and I'm not referring just to the WT, when tension is released too soon, a game can drift and become drawish. We should trust our sound, solid development, not fear complications and be happy to take on some risk. The "risk - reward" theory applied to chess so to speak.