|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 63 OF 101 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-22-12 | | Tal7777777: <13. xc3> |
 |
| Sep-22-12 | | Tal7777777: <14.d3> |
|
Sep-24-12
 | | Patriot: Hi <morf>! <If you feel like you are getting sloppy, perhaps try what I've done lately...> Interesting idea. Silman suggests writing everything down as well (not sure why). Good job on dismissing 40.Rdd7 and finding 40.Qxf5! It's too bad I didn't even consider 40.Qxf5! Apparently I was too caught up in the other line. The Sunday problem was very interesting. I was happy to calculate mostly what was actually played, although I wasn't sure about the evaluation. But I put a lot of time and effort in it--more than I could ever afford in a game! Today's problem had a little more to it for a Monday, although nothing scary for black. |
|
Sep-24-12
 | | Golden Executive: Hi <morfishine>! After a painful loss in the season opening game for the Pack, they answered with a very impressive win over the Bears. In the other hand, after an impressive Cowboys win over the Giants, they lost in a miserable way at Seattle. Well, this is the NFL, one of the greatest competitive teams league. I expect tomorrow the Pack take revenge for the ´boys and crush all that Seahawks! About baseball in Latin America your perception is not wrong, in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Republica Dominicana and some more, baseball IS the game.In Mexico´s north and south east regions, baseball appears as popular as soccer. By the way, I heard your Orioles are doing fine, are they in a "extra-innings-win" mode? I saw your post at <OhioChessFan>´s forum commenting you played soccer at College. Nice to know that, I used to do the same, my skills (sort of speak) were better suited as a central defensive player, using always the number 4 in my shirt (right now I am trying to remember why number 4? I am sure there was a reason but at this precisely moment I do not remember). How about you, a forward player? a goal keeper? Also nice to know you enjoy watching the Mexican soccer team in international competition, well, here in Mexico the usual thing has been suffering more than enjoying! :) As always, I am glad to salute you my friend. |
|
Sep-24-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>! I see what you mean and you are probably right. "Motor memory" is the term that comes to mind. |
|
Sep-27-12
| | Golden Executive: Hi <morf>! It was a real shame what happened in the Seahawks stadium last monday night, since the start of the season I was clear that sooner or later the referee´s issue would emerge, but to be honest I never thought that would be in that brutal way. I do not remember a Hail-Mary play ending in the goal zone the way did it in that game. Even for the regular officials the call appears as not an easy one, BUT the offensive pass interference in the last play was as obvious as the other one where, incredibly, the Pack was punish! Immediately impacts at the NFL:
1.A good one, regular officials are back.
2.A bad one, the GBP had to sac a game.
Oh well, let me switch to something enjoyable:
Versatility, courtesy from the Golden Boy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdWn... I hope you like it my friend.
p.s. About the rematch with GM VA, I guess I will get involved soon. |
|
Sep-29-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>! <That Friday POTD sure was a hum-dinger, no?> Yes it was! It turns out some of my candidates were good (...Bxg2+ and ...Bg4). I even called ...Bxg2+ "anti-tactical" because it seemed to merely trade material to avoid losing it and it destroys a perfectly good pin. That would eliminate a very big combinational element. However, this was presumptuous and there was another big element--the central pawns, and the fact black has a check along the a8-h1 diagonal. <IMHO, its puzzles like these that we derive the most benefit.> I agree. Anytime you have to explore various candidates in search of a win, when it's not immediately obvious, there is a lot of exercise in visualization, candidate move selection, and generally a lot of thinking. The Saturday POTD seemed a lot easier to me. One problem area that stood out for me, was that I spent a little too much time trying to trap black's queen. This was an unlikely venture from the beginning because the queen always had the d8 square. I think that's really a big factor in analyzing--knowing where to spend time. If the queen had no safe squares at all, then moves like f3 or f4 and Be1 become good candidates. One thing that struck me after reading your post, was that it never occurred to me white is ahead in development! I only wanted to find something mean to do to black, since retreating the knight right away is weak and makes no attempt to win. |
|
Sep-30-12
 | | hms123: <M> Go Orioles! Tied for first place! I ope they can keep it up for a few more games. |
|
Sep-30-12
| | Patriot: Good morning <morf>! After reading your post on the Saturday POTD, I thought 15...Bxc6 was black's best attempt--not 15...exd5. In other words, if black is to win then 15...Bxc6 is the move that will do it. After putting the problem to Houdini and if I remember correctly, 15...Bxc6 only amounted to a very slight advantage for black (pretty drawish). Remember the scene in the first Indiana Jones where a big Arabian guy stands in front of Harrison Ford, swinging a very large sword like a Samurai? Harrison Ford actually forgot his line so he pulled out his gun and shot him! The director liked it so much they decided to keep it! That's how I look at chess and is how I looked at 15.Rxc6. What if black simply says "Thanks for the exchange" and plays 15...Bxc6? And then if 16.Nxe6, black isn't obligated to take the knight since then he may be falling into the lines you were looking for. That's how I looked at today's problem and did what I was supposed to do but my board vision and evaluation failed me. I looked at 25.Rxb4 axb4 and thought 26.Nc5 Rxc2 27.Ra7 looked problematic for black so I discarded that line and went with 25...Bxe4 26.Rxe4 Rxc2 as the principal variation thinking that was the dull looking line that would occur. <I much admire your critical, frank, self-analysis. Its the best way to improve. A peculiar problem I keep running into is when I find the correct first move and a few moves after that, invariably I choose a weaker defensive move for the losing player and get side-tracked.> Thanks! First off, I think you do a very good job analyzing positions. Choosing weaker defenses isn't always a bad thing though. Your goal (as a chess player, not puzzle solver) is to find the best move in a reasonable time. Let's say you are playing as white and see a candidate move that looks to be winning. But a simple reply (not even the best) shows that even with the best attempt for white it is lost, then your candidate is bad. You don't have to find the best reply for black--the simplest proves it is bad (*Always consider the simplest and direct reply first). Now let's say your move looks winning and the simplest reply by black still suggests it is winning. This is when you may want to look very closely and prove that your candidate wins. If time permits, make sure you are not overlooking something simple or a strange defense that may prove your candidate is lost. Don't fall into the trap of looking for perfect moves from both sides. I see this a lot in the kibitzes. While that may help in some cases, it's just my opinion that this will hurt your game because then you will start analyzing that way OTB and it just isn't practical. When Lasker said something like "When you see a good move, look for a better one" (not exact quote), I don't think he was talking about moves within analysis. He was referring to the move in front of you. |
|
Sep-30-12
| | Patriot: <morf> Where I said <I looked at 25.Rxb4 axb4 and thought 26.Nc5 Rxc2 27.Ra7 looked problematic for black so I discarded that line and went with 25...Bxe4 26.Rxe4 Rxc2 as the principal variation thinking that was the dull looking line that would occur.>, I meant to say <...and thought 26.Nd6 Rxc2 27.Ra7 looked problematic...>. |
|
| Oct-01-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <morf> I appreciate it. I'm glad to see <agb2002> got full marks on that puzzle. LTJ |
|
Oct-01-12
 | | agb2002: <morfishine: Hello <abg2002>! Nice write-up in the Sunday POTD! I only noticed <25...Bxe4> immediately after posting 25.Rxb4 <25...axb4>. I briefly considered deleting my post then adding this as a possible improvement but decided to leave these separate. I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more discussion on <25...Bxe4>> Hello, Morf! Yes, 25... Bxe4 got me stumped for quite a while. In my opinion, this is the move that makes the puzzle truly insane. I had the impression that there was a hidden winning line but was unable to find it. Eventually, I decided to post what I considered the essentials, and just that, of the many lines I travelled because it was rather late at night. |
|
Oct-02-12
| | Patriot: Hello <morf>! I thought you would enjoy the "Indiana Jones" comparison. :-) But that's exactly how I view the candidates. Always look for the meanest moves. About today's puzzles, good job! Later I felt as if I over-analyzed. Here's my comment to one of the kibitzer's: <I'm wondering if I over-analyzed the position. Is it critical to calculate what happens after 40...Kf8 or 40...Kf7? I realize that people want to calculate everything they can find because it's a puzzle but somewhere along the way you have to train to avoid calculating non-critical lines.> I sent Dan the question, so we will see what he says! |
|
Oct-02-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>. Here's what Dan had to say... <Once you see the tough lines and there is a plenty of time on the clock, makes sense to check out the less risky lines too. Of course, in a fast game once you see that 1...Kxh7 doesn't work, that probably means you are in business! :)> That makes sense! |
|
Oct-04-12
| | Patriot: Hello <morf>. <I want to add I feel negligent for not commenting on your analysis on a regular basis. Please know, I'm reading and looking over all of your posts and have derived much enjoyment, besides insight, in doing so.> There's no need to feel negligent. I don't always comment on yours either but I do enjoy reading them. Sometimes I wonder..."Why didn't I analyze it that way?" Thanks, I appreciate it. |
|
Oct-06-12
| | hms123: <morf> Thanks for letting me know about the Orioles. We were in NC for a few days at a place with no tv or cellphone service, and only very limited internet. I did not know the outcome of the game until I logged on to cg just now and saw your post. Go team! |
|
Oct-06-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>! Very well said in your previous post! It's funny that Dan noted before that I've given him some tough puzzles. But of course I don't do it to try to confound him--it's to hear how he analyzes and most of the time he zeroes in very fast. During the puzzle he gave me, I puzzled him! I analyzed (incorrectly) that 1.g6 h6 loses for white (1...h5 is what loses). But then I said "What if black plays 1...hxg6?" and tried to calculate that. He said "Why would you try to find a better line for black if 1...h6 wins for black?" I explained that since he told me from the beginning that it's "white to play and draw" and since I kept going in circles and everything I look at seems to lose for white, I felt I was missing something--that 1...h6 may not be lost! Since I wasn't seeing it, I decided to take a different route to see what happens and determine if I can, with certainty, eliminate 1.g6. He said it was interesting and pointed out that 1...h6 doesn't win for black--1...h5 does. <The point is, I became "distracted" or side-tracked from the best move. That disturbs me. In other words, I should've remained objective and closely analyzed <12...Nxd5> as well as <12...Qxe3> before deciding.> I think that happened to me as well. 12...Bxd5 at first glance looks much stronger since as you said, white's queen is hanging, and also black gets to grab a piece with double-check on 13.Qxc5. I took an honest look at 12...Nxd5 13.Qxc5 Ne3+ 14.Ke2 and just didn't see 14...Bxc5+. That happens. But don't be troubled with the way you analyzed it. The important thing is to note that you became too enthralled with a certain candidate and chose it. In my opinion, it was the most promising and forceful move. It's arguable that I made the same mistake, because if someone told me that 12...Nxd5 was the move and I focused on that completely there is little doubt I would have seen 13.Qxc5 Ne3+ 14.Ke2 Bxc4+. I have no doubt you would have seen it too! What does that say about how we both analyzed this? It's hard to ignore a very promising candidate and completely focus on another! But in order to avoid this in the future, that's what we must do! Focus as if it's the only possible win. As I dug into it deeper I became concerned black may not be winning but wasn't willing to spend more time on it (mostly because I invested all my effort and time into that one candidate). |
|
Oct-08-12
| | Patriot: Hello <morf>! Good job on finding 20.Nd5! I considered it but nothing stood out in the short time I looked at it. Even after seeing the solution, the pin was not obvious to me, much less the double attack. But then I looked at it late and didn't want to spend long at all on it. I should've waited until morning (after a good night's rest). |
|
Oct-10-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>! I looked at 20.Nd5 early but it just didn't click. I guess that just happens sometimes, but being aware of "why" should help. Developing that awareness and repeatedly analyzing is how to get better. It could be that I didn't look intently at it for very long (as if it's my only move) but that could be G/30 thinking coming through. Because in that time control, you have to clip the analysis tree pretty quickly--either it works or it doesn't! <But there I stopped and thought "Look everything over before going forward". I didn't want to bypass a strong follow up move. Although I didn't play <Rxh5> as early as White did, the result wasn't nearly as bad as what happened Saturday. That has to be a plus> I definitely think you are on the right track! |
|
Oct-12-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>. <I wanted to ask since I get the feeling you must be on the verge of "breaking through"(?).> I would love to think you are right but time will tell. I look at it this way...whatever advantage I would get from playing a 40/2 game would be given to my opponent as well. It may reflect more on who has a better thought process however. I do feel as though I'm more prone to solving short-term analysis OTB than, let's say, 6 months ago. My shortfall in analyzing seems to be from not having a consistent way of going from candidate to candidate (and focusing on that sole candidate), efficiently eliminating bad candidates as I go along, and moving on with other candidates. Some of the puzzles (like Thursday) caused me to go in circles and keep reviewing the same moves. That's not a practical, or even a good way to analyze. I think this is why Dan doesn't seem to favor reviewing analysis that is emailed to him--he wants to hear it "live" while the student is processing it, because it tells so much more about how good they are at doing so. In fact I may start verbalizing my analysis and recording it so I can go back and get an honest feel for how I'm doing. <The other thing is I was wondering is if you had considered stopping in at <sevenseaman>'s forum from time-to-time and taking a crack at some of his problems?> I really should do that, if not just to visit and say 'hello'. The thing is I do so many tactics (over 100,000 now on CTS), so I'm not sure how helpful it would be for improving. I often go on the ICC and analyze games by strong player's "live". How much does that really help? I'm not so sure because there isn't a strong feedback loop which is key to improvement. |
|
| Oct-12-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <<> Evening <LTJ> I noticed you mentioned me in the following game: A Liang vs Kaufman, 2012 Very kind of you!>
Thanks, morf!
<<>I've also noticed our analysis at the POTD has been remarkably similar over the past two weeks. We are thinking alike chess wise.> I disagree, dude. Sunday, for example, you went with the alternative win, I went with the 1st choice. <<>You deserve much credit for mentioning your 'typo' in the POTD from Wednesday: D Zagorskis vs J Michenka, 1994I did a very similar thing, but luckily was able to notice it before posting [and was able to make the correction]. No harm and all good. Sometimes it gets difficult when posting from pure visualization. Errors occur> Thanks, man. I was lucky that that error didn't affect the "score" for that day for me. What's new with you these days?
LTJ |
|
Oct-12-12
| | hms123: <m> The Os are still flying! This has been a terrific series. |
|
| Oct-12-12 | | LoveThatJoker: <morf> Hey man. No sweat, you found an alternate win. I know because I checked it with Stockfish. As I recall, other kibitzers went with the line you went with also. Full point for you! :)
LTJ |
|
Oct-12-12
| | Patriot: Hi <morf>! It's not easy fixing one's own thought process, but I think just being aware of problem areas can go a long way toward that goal. Sound recording analysis must be the best way to capture one's thoughts, which I'll have to try. I didn't do this for today's problem, but I sensed that one of my problem areas is finding defensive candidates (like the simple Ng6). It also seems a crucial question, "How do you know when there are no more candidates?" At some point you have to know when to move on with it and analyze something else. I'm convinced this is also a problem area. It's sort of like going into an "infinite loop", searching almost endlessly, and then when the right candidates are found--"I solved it!" Then it's posted and everyone is in awe. I'm trying to be funny, but you see my point. The key defense (Ng6), which practically refutes my move, is an interposition. I wasn't interested in searching endlessly and so I didn't see it. But it might be a good idea for me to re-read Dan's Novice Nook "The Five Ways to Make a Piece Safe" (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heism...). Knowing these 5 things could not only help me find defensive candidates, but also serves as a terminator (i.e. "There are no more possible defenses"). <Wow, you've worked over 100,000 problems (CTS). If I were to go "gangbusters" with Polgar's book of 5,334 problems, I'd still be 95,000 behind you!> I hadn't thought of it that way, but that would make a huge book! To be honest though, some of those 100,000 tactics have been shown repeatedly. So if I've seen each 5 times, that is still 20,000 unique problems. |
|
Oct-13-12
 | | David2009: Hi Morf thanks for re-visiting. <Ole 'Crafty'> is off-air a lot at the moment - I suspect that the parent site is receiving a lot of traffic and that they have to prioritise their resources. Pity but understandable. You, <Patriot> and others too numerous to list have a good correspondence going which I enjoy browsing from time to time. If I don't post it doesn't mean I don't appreciate what the regulars are doing! |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 63 OF 101 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
Take the Premium Membership Tour
|
|
|
