|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 337 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-31-08
 | | Domdaniel: <Mrs Zatophuque> Must warn you, I went a whole year without winning a single game in the French once. Meanwhile I was scoring about 80% against 1.d4, but everything I tried in the French went wrong. My (dumb) reaction was to abandon mainlines and go for increasingly more exotic sidelines, stuff like 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 b6 (admittedly the line I used to draw with Tony Miles, but the source of many later losses) or 3.e5 Qd7, or 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6. And so on. When I took up chess again, I decided to stick with the French, but use mainstream variations only. And it worked. I *understand* it at some level that doesn't hold with other openings. And now I always believe I can win, and often do. Funny thing, confidence. Meanwhile my anti-d4 defences have collapsed ... |
|
Mar-31-08
| | Domdaniel: <Mrs Zat Nikitel Gunn, contd> About those anti-d4 defences. Having now used the Dutch, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Benoni (the latter two against grandmasters, harumph), I've finally had an idea. One of my (recently acquired) favourite French lines is the Tarrasch with 3...c5: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5. Korchnoi played it about ten times in his first (1974) match with Karpov, and drew them all (he lost the games where he tried other defences to e4). It's solid, positional, with good piece play, and a thematic isolated d-pawn. Which reminds us of what? With a very similar name? The Tarrasch Defence to the Queen's Gambit, which can also be used against assorted Reti or English-type openings: you just play ...e6, ...d5, and ...c5, and Robert is your parent's sibling. The Tarrasch is my next project. And I intend to get really down'n'dirty familiar with it, so help me (in both senses of the phrase). |
|
| Mar-31-08 | | Eyal: Hey, Jess...
<Dom> That's a fascinating line that you gave - but perhaps Black can improve on move 24, and instead of h6 avoid the mate by Rfc8, clearing the f8 square for the king. Black seems to be holding after, e.g., 25.Rg5+ Kf8 26.Rg7 Rc6 (forced) 27.e5 Rxf6 28.exf6 and now many moves are possible - let's say 28...Nc3, and if 29.Rxh7 then Kg8 holds. |
|
Mar-31-08
| | Domdaniel: <Eyal> Yeah, that is the sole point that I don't have some kind of plug for. But I had to override Fritz for several moves to even attempt this idea - it kept preferring black. Now I think White has chances even if the black king escapes - the Na2 is dangerously loose and out of play, while the white bishops are very strong. But obviously the passed connected a+b pawns will be lethal if black gets going - my line forced him to waste several moves defending. It might still just be possible to play Rxc5, chase the black knight, and keep the initiative - but is it enough? Warrants another look, at least.
If nothing else, various Tal games (plus recent games where a Queen is sacrificed for as little as a couple of pawns -- Ivanchuk vs Karjakin being the latest) have convinced me that initiative is worth any amount of material. I was trying to explain this to a (quite good) player with a 1300-ish rating, who has won a couple of tournaments at that level - but is utterly conservative re material. He's most reluctant to gambit a pawn - many of his games are decided on pawn differences. It seems that the stronger a player is, the less material matters - but perhaps you have to be able to play like Tal to make this 'initiative' thing work. Though my KID/Nf5 game shows that even a fake initiative can win games. Too many people make the mistake of equating tactical chess with direct play against the enemy king - but Tal demonstrates many different kinds of initiative. Which is one reason I got his book, aside from the good reviews from Jess et al. I enjoyed one of my weekend losses, where I sacked a piece vs a 2080 player, and knocked him around for some time before he managed to consolidate - his key move being the rejection of a further rook offer, which would have lost if he'd taken it. I went down, but it was more fun than going quietly - I should try this more often. |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | achieve: <Dom>-<It seems that the stronger a player is, the less material matters - but perhaps you have to be able to play like Tal to make this 'initiative' thing work.
Though my KID/Nf5 game shows that even a fake initiative can win games.> True, true and hmmm... There is nothing fake about it, I think... I follow the reasoning that any form of (prolonged) pressure will seriously tell in the OTB situation... Initiative and piece activity should be superior to the dry material approach, unless your opponent is a skilled defender and has the mental make-up and bottle to "endure" -- it's precisely because all comps endure for eternity, that the new generation of players that spar with comps *too* much, get the unjust idea that they must play as "objectively sound" as possible --- this is unfortunate, because <there is no such thing> -- --my reasoning being, that <anything short of, let's say 24 men tablebases, must be, by definition, <<< WOEFULLY SHORT >>> of "objectively perfect/best play" >-- correct me if I'm wrong... But I can give you dozens of examples where the engine, even at 28 ply, is unable to even *remotely* judge a fairly simple looking endgame, correctly. EG -- My engine is unable to mate me in a B+N endgame ( four men!!), because I have by now become an expert at it and easily move the lone king in directions that provide the engine with such a vast space to deal with, that any structured winning procedure is well past its horizon!! See what this all means?
Because "it" performs at a 2600 ELO level in the famous hellishly tactical transitions from opening to middle-game, "we", 1800-2200 players get muzzled nine times out of ten!! Simply because they calculate constantly at 16 ply depth alla time -- some undermining influences arise there for the wanting-to-improve-player if he/she is not aware of exactly what we're dealing with here... And I have hardly scratched the surface with this post, in *my* opinion... |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | achieve: I finished my last (of 20 -- multiple DOH!) Smith-Morra Gambit this weekend, and was experimenting with an ultra solid positional approach and keep a distance (Bf1-e2 instead of the "ought to be developed to c4" dogmatic approach -- <followed by 0-0/Re1 and B back to f1 <<<a tempo!>>> - signalling my intentions and that I was in for the long haul - though I wasn't to be expected with that attitude since EVERYONE had the S-M coming out of their noses, I reckon)>, mainly looking to give maximum mobility to my pieces, figuring that since I was White, and the gambit-pawn down, I'd use the space and for as long as possible, avoid ANY confrontations in the center, post a Knight on d5 - and wait for the mistake... I'm tempted to say "unlike me" -- but this could well be untrue and unnecessary labeling myself. Anyhoo I bored him to death, allowing ZERO weaknesses in my set-up, and put him up with his lousy extra Gambit pawn and an awkward, bit cramped position... All very fine, his extra pawn was more of a minus than a plus in that situation... <PSYCHOLOGICALLY> heheheeeee ( yes, I am a sadist when competing - only then...) 
click for larger viewHe got confused and frustrated, no doubt, and played a careless ...Qd7 - allowing an old fashioned fork with Nb6 - winning the exchange on a8 of course, and one move later he resigned... The position, however was pretty equal, and after all I had "sacked" my royal Knight at d5, for a lousy rook at a8! I had suddenly switched attitude,
<figuring he must feel like he'd blundered,>-- -- grabbed the rook and <he promptly resigned>, as I expected (justified or not - don' matter...) I had a 0.2 to 0.3 advantage, according to my beast, but really nothing to write home about... Prolly a rather dull, equalish, position. Very interesting dynamics going on there, behind the dry score-sheet, even though I hadn't kibitzed even ONE word with him, not even a "have a good game" -- The best about it all is that I got the game to finish quickly, by setting out, yes, signalling the OPPOSITE(!!) attitude... Very interesting game it turned out to be, just because of a devious experimental attitude, and staying on top psychologically, mainly, as well as playing OK objectively, the latter being of lesser relative importance. "heh"
|
|
| Apr-01-08 | | achieve: PS. I forgot to put a caption up in my previous post-- should be something like: <PSYCHOLOGY IN CHESS> -- From a different angle this time: Correspondence Chess (The above CC game was from a thematic mini-tourny, at GameKnot) |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | Red October: you should submit your Baburin game to cg.com |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | achieve: I never played Baburin.
However, I am sure <Dom> is hesitant towards submitting it -- since it was a 17 or 18 move loss... On the other hand: 17 MOVES OF FAME can be tempting as well... :P Hell yeah! I'm all for submitting it! (I changed my mind) BTW I lost ALL my saved PGNs from earlier GK games because of that PC crash... ;-( |
|
Apr-01-08
 | | Stonehenge: Funny but the name Baburin always reminds me of the Barbarians. |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | achieve: Barbarians reminds me of Barians adjusting the height of the Bar, for one... Eg at International Athletic events. Mohammed B. might also be a (con)tender... Barring in mind his... |
|
Apr-01-08
| | Domdaniel: <Red> What, all 17 moves of it? Opening, retreat, blunder, punishment, and resignation? I've played better games against strong opponents. But, yeah, I should send in a few more games sometime ... |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | Red October: <But, yeah, I should send in a few more games sometime ...> so do you <already> have games in the db ? |
|
Apr-01-08
| | Domdaniel: <Red> OK, OK. One game. A draw from the 1970s, P. Short vs GM. The Kangaroo Defence, I believe: 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+. <Niels> All very interesting. True, comps may be to blame for the belief in 'correct' moves, but even before that the Soviet school had similar notions about 'scientific' play ... |
|
Apr-01-08
| | Domdaniel: <Stonehenge> Barbarians? By the sacred urine of Meher Baba ... Aldous Huxley wrote a brilliant 1930s travel book, Beyond The Mexique Bay. In it he describes seeing a door sign that read simply 'for urin'. Nothing like directness. |
|
Apr-01-08
| | Stonehenge: I once saw a door sign that read 'for nicating'.
No, not really. I made that one up. April fool's day, you know. |
|
Apr-01-08
| | Domdaniel: <April fool's day> Why, so it is. It must have been this time last year that I invented the April Fool Variation of the Munster Attack:
1.Nf3 Nc6
2.a3 e5
3.d4 e4
4.d5 exf3
5.dxc6 fxg2
6.cxd7+ Qxd7
7.Qxd7+ Bxd7
8.Bxg2
... which has never been repeated, by man or beast. |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | achieve: <Dom>-<True, comps may be to blame for the belief in 'correct' moves, but even before that the Soviet school had similar notions about 'scientific' play ...> Regarding Engines: I clearly meant to show and discuss many different undermining influences of computer(ed) Chess for a number of reasons... This is disappointing but expected, considering, and probably it's my own fault for not showing more clearly. I will not repeat the outcry of a fellow countryman and respected IM, a few months ago, getting so frustrated by the engine influence these days, that he suggested to throw them all out of the window... He was right, in essence, and still is woefully misunderstood. I said I hardly scratched the surface on this matter, and that will remain my point of view... There is much more to it. Good Evening from a potentially paranoid, but worried friend/ |
|
| Apr-02-08 | | achieve: <Dom> Apologies (after a night's sleep) for a rather crabby reaction to you... Here is part of a post by Jess from her forum and my reaction to it--- === === === === === ===
<Jess>--<I think there is something "pure" about the game of chess- and something "pure" in a chess player- that has to do with the great, great respect for, and love for, the game that GMs and patzers alike share. A "purity" that can make mortal enemies smile- so long as it has to do with unravelling the great mystery of the chess board.> well said...
Part of my aversion towards chess engines -- (well I cannot have an aversion towards "them" -- but you know what I mean)-- is partly rooted in what you have just described in that one post... Maybe I'm getting on too high a horse about it, I don't know, but looking back AND listening, taking in, some of the comments made by respected IMs and GMs, intimi, in the chess world, has me at a point that I start feeling uncomfortable about a series of aspects and processes related to chess engine use... Probably the unease I feel is rooted within myself, and related to some bigger issues and insecureties... but for some reason I keep nagging on about these silicone monsters and their influences on chess enthusiasts everywhere... OK I'll stop here.
Maybe I am too much of a sucker for purity.
=== === === === === ===
I'll quit while I'm behind, Dom, and will try to be more light-hearted in the future, without having to revert to Dylan song lyrics, classical music, Oscar Peterson, and chess engines... Someone SLAP me
|
|
Apr-02-08
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> Thlap! Take zat, you pure-minded Dutch person, you! I just (calloo! callay!) got my busted <labdog> back in a mended condition, with new contact lenses fitted. So I'm feeling quite pro-computer at the moment. Ahhh, their sleek little lines, oooh, the little beeps they make, ahhhh, their occasional little 'crashes', oooh.... Oh, stap me vitals. |
|
| Apr-02-08 | | achieve: "Shurrup you!!"
heh!
Darnmng it that felt rather GOOD!!
"Count me in.."
|
|
Apr-02-08
| | Domdaniel: OK, I shurred up for a while. I wanted to feed our recent analysis to a quicker engine. Nothing new of any import emerged, you'll be glad to hear. |
|
| Apr-03-08 | | achieve: <Do. Yep, I liked using the word "shurrup!!" heh. You mean this line?:
(copied:)
17.Nd5 Nxb2
18.Nf6+ Bxf6
19.Bxf6 Nd3
20.f3 Be6
21.Rfd1 Nb4 [...c4 is worse]
22.Rxd6 Bxa2
Fritz evaluates this as better for Black, but ...
23.Rxa2!? Nxa2
24.Rd5 h6 [to avoid mate]
25.Rh5 Kh7
26.Bh3
=== === === === === == ==
I haven't looked at it closely and with my beasty brat boy yet, but will do so tomorrow... Looks like a fascinating line, indeed... |
|
| Apr-03-08 | | achieve: <Dom> < 21.Rfd1 Nb4 [...c4 is worse] > Actually, my beast advises 21...c4 --
22. Bf1 Rfc8 (even ...d5 is well playable...)
23. Bxd3 cxd3
24. Rxd3 Rc6 -- preparing a doubling of the rooks on the c-file, giving up the d6 pawn, planning a rook incursion -- leading to this dynamically equal position, according to my engine.. 
click for larger viewI'd prefer White here- but at any rate this may well be beyond my engine's horizon... And mine, for the moment... hmmm, I'd have to study this more deeply for a better judgement... <Eyal> covered the (later in your line) ...Rfc8 Luft-move, which my engine also prefers and evals as maybe holdable... Ca c'est "le story" par moi pour le moment, monsieur Le Dom. |
|
| Apr-03-08 | | achieve: Fascinating... I played on from the position in the previouf FEN and got to this position after some 15 more moves:
click for larger viewUpto about here my comp eval was close to zero all the time, but I now have g6 planned and the beast has to go down... Less than 10 moves later it resigned, eval having suddenly risen to +10 for white... Well, another example of my engine's trouble at judging these type of positions. Heh - I beat it from a seemingly equal position... WHEEEEE! Very strange the extent of the misjudgement, though... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 337 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
