|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 52 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-25-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <Jim Bartle> Not clever, just clear and written so that it will be interpreted as intended. My only comment on the immigration issue comes as a linguist. I am infuriated at the use of the word "amnesty" to mean a "plea bargain". People may not like the terms of plea bargains (they usually don't), but that's what is being proposed.
My strongly leftist politics makes any other comment too predictable to bother with, but I honestly believe that if people were polled about a "plea bargain" rather than an "amnesty", the results would be quite different. Let's remember that most of our chess culture is due to immigration by people who came here primarily to seek a better life, and they didn't all follow the letter of the law to do so. We have all benefitted from their presence! |
|
| May-27-06 | | schnarre: <Eric Schiller> I think Paul Morphy would agree with you there! |
|
| May-29-06 | | whiskeyrebel: Mr Schiller, back in April you mentioned possibly visiting the National open this year. Any update on that? I'm just curious. |
|
May-30-06
| | Eric Schiller: <whiskey>I will be at the National Open next month, as planned. After that I'll be at the Staunton Memorial and Nato Championship in London in August, and then at the GibTel Masters in Gibraltar in January/February. I hope to squeeze in a few more events if my school teaching schedule permits. |
|
| May-31-06 | | aktajha: <mr. Eric Schiller> I today came up with an idea of playing a quick f5 with black; since you're an expert at unorthodox openings I was wondering if you think this idea is worth a try: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 f5....
Of course white can choose if he wants to play the lines aggressively or closed now, as in almost every other 1.e4 opening. I usually play the pirc or simply 1. e4 e5 systems, but like to try something else occasionally (I once played 1. e4 e6 2. d4 a6 for example). Thanks in advance. |
|
May-31-06
 | | ray keene: <aktajha> after 1 e4 e6 2 d4 f5 3 exf5 exf5 4 nc3 i once had a game v richard eales in 1968 cambridge uk-not yet in this database-which continued 4---d5 when 5 qh5+ g6 6 qe2+ proved highly inconvenient for black. 4--d5 isnt very good but i have the feeling anyway that black has weakened his own position for nothing. |
|
| May-31-06 | | aktajha: <Keene>
I was more or less thinking to try to create a Dutch-like position; with g6; bg7 and 0-0. I didn't think of playing d5 that quickly; after nc3 comes nf6 and then may be bd3 d5. I don't know really. Thanks anyway. |
|
| May-31-06 | | aktajha: And may be I should forget to try and work on openings and work on middlegames; that's were the game is won. With my openings I already win enough games; so my opening repetoire isn't really that bad. I just like to try new ideas that's all :). |
|
| May-31-06 | | Mating Net: <Eric Schiller> In your book on the Caro Kann, which I absolutely enjoy immensely, you state on page 170 that White gains "...the dubious privilege of an isolated d-pawn" for playing the Accelerated Panov Attack. I used to avoid the IQP like the plague, but as my rating has improved, I actually look forward to owning the IQP. It's hard for Black to win the pawn outright & if White gets to play d5! look out, it's Katey bar the door time for Black. Do you think that point of view against the IQP is a little harsh, or am I missing something? Thanks in advnce. |
|
Jun-01-06
 | | Gypsy: <Mating Net> Eric Schiller is on the record that he thoroughly enjoys playing either side of the IQP. |
|
Jun-01-06
| | Eric Schiller: <aktajha>This is Clyde Nakamura's Franco-Hiva Gambit, intending to sacrifice the f-pawn if White captures. Clyde has played many game with this opening, but they aren't in the database since they are often played against computer programs or in blitz games. |
|
Jun-01-06
| | Eric Schiller: AN IQP is not good or bad by itself, it depends on the context. Generally, I prefer having an isolated pawn but a lot of freedom of movement. |
|
| Jun-01-06 | | mang00neg: As minor pieces come off, the IQP typically becomes more and more of a liability. I generally try to avoid having IQP myself because I feel too much pressure to attack and prove that it's not a weakness. Of course I suppose it's just a matter of taste/style. |
|
Jun-01-06
| | Eric Schiller: If you are a good endgame player then the IQP is not such a big deal. Even if you lose it, as draw is likely. For an example against a 2600+ GM, see Babuly Annakov vs E Schiller, 2000 |
|
Jun-02-06
 | | Open Defence: <Dr Schiller> are you interested in Chess variants ? |
|
Jun-02-06
| | Eric Schiller: <open defence>No, not at all. I'm still trying to figure out regular chess! I believe that all variants are inferior, because chess has achieved such a wonderful set of rules that the game remains entertaining despite the machine analysis. Under the rules of chess, there are many different styles of play leading to good positions, so you don't have to adapt your style to the game. The enormous complexity of endgames is another benefit. I've never seen any variant remotely as pleasurable as chess, and don't expect to. |
|
Jun-03-06
| | Open Defence: <Dr Schiller> thanks, the reason I asked is that I have recently become obssessed with Shatranj .. are you aware of any top level players who also play this game ? thanks in advance |
|
Jun-03-06
| | Eric Schiller: <open defence> I don't know of any top player who plays any chess variant seriously, though there are some bughouse players. GMs are frequently asked about variants, but I've never heard any express any interest. Most of the remarks are disparaging. I think that is because any accomplished player recognizes the subtle perfection of classical chess and does not find anything appealing about variants. There is still too much to learn about the classical game. I've been approached many times by people offering "improvements" to chess and in each case it was easy to see how the changes would ruin the game. As for Chaturanga, it still has some appeal in India, mostly for historical and cultural reasons. But I don't know of any Indian GM who plays it. |
|
Jun-03-06
| | Open Defence: <in each case it was easy to see how the changes would ruin the game> absolutely, I feel the same way... and bang on about the culture behind Shatranj.. that's what I love about it.... |
|
Jun-03-06
| | Open Defence: btw <IMDay> must be over the moon after Canada beat India... :-) |
|
Jun-03-06
| | ray keene: <open defence> go to the blogsite at www.impalapublications.com and you will find an article about shatranj which may interest you-its my explanation of how the mongols under hulagu-ghengis khans grandson-wiped out the shatranj records and thus eased the way for modern chess. let me know what you think when you have read it-you will need to access it from the impala blogsite index. |
|
Jun-03-06
| | ray keene: <open defence> you can also find the article by inputting hulagu and shatranj into your search engine-i hate invented variants of chess but xiang qi and shogi-the chinese and japanese versions and wei chi-go-are all excellent board games-- |
|
Jun-04-06
| | Open Defence: <GM Keene> Thanks for that article.. I also see you edited a book by C K Lai on Xiang qi openings ? cool!! I like the culture behind Shatranj and I love how the Mansubat have an introductory story....It is quite plausible that the mongol conquests spelt the end of Shatranj in West Asia and Eurasia.. however I am puzzled as to how the game declined in India... Persian was the official language of the Hyderabadi Nizams... and it was given priority in Poetry .. Islamic art flourished.. and even Mir Sultan Khan was said to be a formidable player of the "Indian" variety which I deduce to be Shatranj.. why it died out is a mystery.. I would like to dare an excursion into the market by lanes of the old Hyderabad city to see if anyone still plays Shatranj in the tea houses...then there is also the Jewish fondness for modern chess especially in Eastern Europe during the 19th century |
|
| Jun-04-06 | | Paintbucket: Mr. Schiller
I am a young player and I wanted to know if there were any openings or variations that are a little obscure that I could advance theory in and make a name for in some respects. I am not a highly skilled player (Aprox Elo 1300) but I am young and I can study well. I don't want anyhting a pro wouldn't use every now and then and I don't want anything that has a rapid accumulation of theory. Something a little dead or something without a bunch of theory that I could do some work on and maybe publish a book on or something. The idea is like Ken Smith and the Smith-Morra Gambit, Julian Hodgson and the Trompovsky Attack, etc. I probably won't become an IM or anything, but I'd like to do some work to advance the game. Any advice you have is greatly appreciated. Thank you. |
|
Jun-04-06
| | ray keene: <paintbucket> just in case doc schiller is too self effacing his book with john watson on tricky opening strategies-the handbook of tricky opening strategies which you can find on amazon or the www.hardinge simpole.uk website is definitely worth a look for a player with your requirements!! good luck |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 52 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
