|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-19-05 | | midknightblue: <uponthehill> <ughaibu> Interesting comments above. I personally agree to some extent with uponthehill's comments that correspondance chess is inherently flawed because I think that there are plenty of people that ultimately want to win at all costs, and will cheat by using a computer if they feel inclined to do so. Also, sneaky's comment is interesting, but the rules of correspondance chess absolutely do not allow computer engine assistance, regardless of whether we feel that the computers would be usefull to top level players. Anyway, after having sided with uponthehill about the flaws of correspondance chess - I am registered on both gameknot and chessage where I play correspondance style play (actually over the internet, not by mail) submitting moves every 3 days or so. It is fun, and allows you to access databases and books for the opening stages. I am just hopeful that my opponents dont use fritz in the middlegame, because I am not strong enough to compete against a 2700 computer, even when i have 3 days to think about my move. for that reason I would never enter some big correspondance tourney, because I simple feel there is really no way to know whether you are competing against a person's ideas, or those of the latest chess engine. I use correspondance chess for fun, and to help me research some openings in a competitive atmosphere, where the games count for something. If I knew computers were never going to be used for assistance, I would probably be interested in playing correspondance tourneys too. |
|
| Aug-19-05 | | aw1988: I like to play correspondence by snail mail. That way there is more anticipation when the move comes and you can slowly analyse it on your "real life" chess board. |
|
| Aug-20-05 | | midknightblue: I read a response to some reviews on Berliner's "the system." Apparently Jonathon Rowson and Nunn wrote some reviews on it, and there is a very harsh response from Berliner. Nunn and Rowson suggested that one of Berliners lines would not hold up to a move he never discussed in the book, and Berliner then put out an internet response stating the line was sound and their move was not good. He went on to say he welcomed more feedback, but requested it be from people more qualified than Nunn and Rowson. It kind of left me thinking this guy was pretty petty to insult these guys simply for reviewing his book and offering some other ideas. I will publish the link to his petty and scornful remarks if I can find them. |
|
| Aug-20-05 | | midknightblue: http://www.fortunecity.de/olympia/m... |
|
| Aug-20-05 | | midknightblue: On further review, Berliner is not criticizing Nunn or Rowson directly, just disagreeing with there proposed move. He is really more upset with whoever reviewed his book, which presumably was john elburg from the website chessmail.com. Also, the lines they are looking at are pretty interesting. |
|
| Aug-26-05 | | who: Can someone explain the circumstance of Berliner's retirement. Did he lose the title first? |
|
| Aug-26-05 | | Jim Bartle: There was an article by Brad Leithauser called "Computer Chess" in the May 9, 1987 issue of The New Yorker in which Berliner figured prominently. Does anybody know where I could find that article. |
|
| Aug-26-05 | | MaxxLange: Maybe there are internet dealers or people on eBay who would find and sell you a single old issue, I don't know. I'd like to read it. Berliner figured pretty heavily in the book by the Deep Blue creator, by the way. He advised the proto-Deep Blue work at Carnegie Mellon, but there was a lot of tension later as Deep Thought began to compete with Berliner's HITEST in computer tournaments. |
|
| Aug-26-05 | | MaxxLange: Silman's review is not very nice:
http://jeremysilman.com/book_review...An interesting article comparing Sveshnikov's approach to Berliner's (PDF link):
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans9... |
|
| Aug-26-05 | | who: I think the basic premise of Silman's review, is that correspondance chess champion would not stand a chance against an OTB chess champion in a postal game. Because of this if Berliner claims something which is against known theory then Berliner must be wrong. Certainly, if Berliner doesn't know as much as many leading players then he can't really try to be inventive; a good book would be one where he presents information which OTB masters know in a clearer way. I disagree and assume that in actual fact an OTB master would be crushed by a postal player. Given this fact it is quite possible that Berliner understands things about chess which OTB players don't. In fact, he makes the point that many OTB games are decided by tactics (pointing to Tal's beating Smyslov in the Candidates) whereas in postal games this doesn't occur. He goes on to explain that this means the winner of a postal game is one who has a better long term strategy. If so the option that Silman is scorning - that Berliner is in fact a genius, might well be true. |
|
| Aug-28-05 | | Jamespawn: who: I think you`re right. I always thought postal chess was more positional than tactical and was surprised that Silman thinks otherwise. I don`t know if a postal champion could have beaten Kasparov for example , but they could probably beat Silman. No disrespect intended toward Silman , but wasn`t Berliner a GM? I wish more of Berliner`s games were posted. |
|
| Aug-29-05 | | who: Silman doesn't claim that a postal GM can't beat him. He has religious faith in the OTB GMs. If Berliner can't beat OTB GMs in postal chess then he really doesn't have a right to call, let's say the Gruenfeld or the QGA, refuted if Kasparov plays it and has a better positional sense. |
|
| Aug-29-05 | | RookFile: I think Berliner was a GM of over the board play. |
|
| Aug-29-05 | | who: I don't see any mention of this fact in any website about him (and some of them mention others as CC and OTB GMs). Do you have a source? |
|
| Aug-29-05 | | RookFile: Well, I'm just going by memory. My memory used to be good, but it's possible I'm wrong. |
|
| Sep-04-05 | | Eficko: berliner was an otb Gm. this is taken from his book "my sytem" the last page called about the author "He learned chess at the age of 13,and it quickly became his main preoccupation.In 1949, he became a master and won the district of columbia(D.C) championship and also the southern states championship.He also tied for 2nd place with L.Evans in the perennially strong NY state championship that year.
In national and regional competition, Berliner won the D.C. Championship five times, and won many other local and and regional tournaments.These included the 1953 N.Y. State championship(the first time ever won by a non-New-Yorker),the 1956 Eastern States Open ahead of rossolimo, Lombardy and Fischer, and the 1957 Champion of Champions tourney.He topped off a highly successful 1957 by finishing 5th in the US invitational Championship behind Fischer, Reshevsky, Lombardy and Sherwin." |
|
| Sep-04-05 | | WMD: Berliner isn't an OTB GM. |
|
| Oct-08-05 | | pogo5: I have found "The System" fascinating in many aspects. Its "scientific approach" may well be criticized: indeed "The System" contains many dubious postulates, the most important being that White has a theoretical win in the starting position, i.e. the antithesis of Adorjan's "Black is O.K."! Also I cannot understand the postulate of the uniqueness of "System" moves - along a "System" game, of course ;-) This last postulate means in particular that there should exist a unique winning move in the starting position ... read the book to find out which! ;-) In any case an excellent work with original ideas and analysis and very beautiful games that make me feel like switching to 1.d4 ;-D |
|
| Oct-14-05 | | Silman: I'm not Jeremy, but I share his surname! I bought "The System" and found it to be very helpful and thought provoking. After reading Suba's "Dynamic Chess Strategy" and the section in Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess" on TIME versus INFORMATION...I now agree with Adorjan "Black is OK". My view is the so called advantage of moving first is a myth...blacks information negates white's extra half tempi. It would however be great to get Berliner & Adorjan to do a joint book presenting their cases to one another. |
|
| Oct-14-05 | | Poisonpawns: I am also a system player and my rating jumpped about 200 points in 3 months of playing.I do agree the system is not for everyone,your style must fit in with it so you can be comfortable in those positions.I have noticed that although,i dont think there is a forced win from the beginning,It is very difficult to lose a game as white for me now.I think the point is that every chessplayer has a philosophy about how the game should be played.The more you believe in it,the better your preparation and results will be.It doesn`t matter if you play 1.e4,d4,c4,Nc3 etc You have to find something you understand and believe in at the chessboard. |
|
| Apr-06-06 | | dwojiow: Can someone tell me what Berliner recommends in 'The System' against the Dutch? I confess I am intrigued by the proposition that 1.d4 is a forced win for White, although I just can't believe that Berliner has worked it all out and published it! I'm thinking of buying the book just to enjoy the "sheer insanity" of the analysis, as Silman put it. Incidentally, what does Berliner himself play against 1.d4? and does he believe that 1.e4 loses for White or is it merely inferior to 1.d4? |
|
| Apr-06-06 | | who: As I recall he doesn't mention the Dutch explicitly. He believes that with best play 1.e4 is a draw. Against 1.d4 on this database he's played 1...Nf6 10 times and 1...d5 twice. |
|
| Apr-06-06 | | setebos: Poor Berliner looks like Peter Cushing of Dracula fame in this photo. |
|
| Apr-07-06 | | who: Peter Cushing has a much thinner face. |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | Poisonpawns: <dwojiow> To answer your question berliner recomends Rb1,followed by b4 systems against the dutch. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
