Heh.

Hi <Alchemist>!!!

OK <Dom> I think I disagree with you about <FURBY> but I'm not sure how much <ironing> you put into your post about him.

I'll get back to you on <FURBY> when I finish "analyzing" an "interesting" example of the <Burnt Frog Variation>.

That's two of my *short comings* you've pointed out. I got more.

Hope everything is getting better; I read you plan to get back to work soon...

(I feel *so* out of touch for some reason-- been playing and composing on the piano a lot -- almost forgot what a joy that can be!)

Be Well !!

Storm the <center>!!!

I just posted that in your gaff, oh Danny Boy!

I play that song now and sing along, too --- the same chords as "Desperado" by the Carpenters -- they all stole from each other!

The original composition of course from the Eagles (Don Henley), soon to be covered by several artist of stature.

Very spiritual music, one could argue... Quite a story is the fact that J. S. Bach went 300 miles ON FOOT, to spend a learning vacation with Dietrich Buxtehude, Nordic Magician, and was so in awe, that Johann even risked his job by extending his vacation!

But seriously, those guys knew their basics VERY well --- all music of today, written in chords, is pretty much the same, harmonically, with a few voicing and rythm changes, is all...

Once you master the old master's voicings and transitions, and be creative with them, you are indeed a composer/ arranger, equipped for every thinkable musical challenge!

Like Chess it offers Joy and learning possibilities for an infinite amount of time, I believe.

I *do* believe; however I may not live infinitely-- so better not hang about too much...

I'm very glad to see you again, but very sorry about your hard-drive losses. I hope you can still recover some information.

However, CONGRATULATIONS on your music composing!! Sounds very good to me,

Why don't you upload your compostions to the Net like <Deffi> does and we can have a listen?

Well I wouldn't know how to freakin do that uploading thing...

I could tape some of my work, burn it on to a CD--- and send it to you in Korea, or some'in...

Off the opiates? Ready for a game?

Here is a post of mine I copied, following a reference to the magnuschess.com - blog

HENRIK:

< The purpose of mentioning some possible reasons for the up's and down's is that it's one out of several angles from which we may throw some light on the complex turmoil of opening choice, positional preferences, calculations, fighting spirit and psychological efforts affecting the outcome of individual chess games at top level. >

"One out of several angles..."

-- Now, this is extremely interesting to me --- I've been ranting and guessing on this at my forum for a while now-- and would be mightily interested in other peoples' points of view on these matters...

Comp evals and such are less and less interesting to me in as far as judging even these Super GMs games is concerned...

An intelligent discussion on these elements would be very welcome -- either here or at my forum.

Also to address the dependency towards comp evals by so many who watch the games live at eg ICC and forget to think themselves.

This is not an accusation towards those who rely mainly on comp evals-- but rather an attempt to find out what is going on at various levels in the chess world -- psychologically.

Please feel welcome to drop by with thoughts at my forum, too, at any time! ---

==== ==== ==== ==== ====

<Jess> I hope you will bounce back from the debilitizing immobile episode these last few weeks... I know the effects.

My very, very best,
Niels

In human OTB chess, I think that if the opponents are within a hundred ratings points of each other, then <psychological state>-- including before the game--- accounts for at least 90% of a player's ability to comepete well.

Since computers have zero psychology, I think that in terms of human competition, they are in a sense quite irrelevant.

Also-- the beauty of human competition is this- when you are fairly matched-- (within 100 points of each other)-- a player can experience all of the joys, agonies, thrills, and mysteries of chess- no different than those experiecned by GMs.

Computers are best as post-game blunder checkers, for the non-top player.

And even at the highest level, the GMs don't actually use supercomputers to find novelties-- they have someone else do that for them.

Kasparov, for example, had a guy whose entire job was to stay on the computer all day long looking for improvements in lines.

Also-- if a "regular" player has the right psychological attitude towards computers- I think they can potentially be valuable sparring partners.

But- and I think this is important-- if you set the sparring engine level too high above your current playing strength, you won't actually learn anything at all.

Because you won't understand the computer moves in any meaningful way that would improve your OTB efforts.

That's why every chess book ever written says to improve by playing HUMANS around 50 points higher than you.

Only through gradual efforts against SLIGHTLY better players can a given chess player actually understand where she went wrong in a particular game.

IE-- it's all about HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

If you don't understand why a computer move is good, you learn nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Chess is not a game of memory. It is a game of understanding.

And with competition at your level-- ANY human- from beginner to GM-- can experience all of the wonders and enjoyment of the chess struggle.

WEll that's my opinion.

WHACALKDJ

PS- I just won today against a player in my range and my post-game engine "analysis" produced several improvements for each of us-- understandably-- BUT in this particular game there were no actual blunders by either player--

But, and this is a big but-- I investigated only ONE of the improvements-- and it took me three times as long to plug in various moves etc.== as it did to actully play the game.

And, I can't say I actully "learned" anything that I will remember in a meaningful enough way to improve my future performance.

In other words, I think I wasted my time.

After discovering that I didn't make a blunder-- I believe my chess skills, in the long run, would have been better served to play ANOTHER GAME against a player within my range than to spend the hour and half I just spent with my computer.

<Notyetagm>, as usual, provides a <super excellent> explanation of the tactics and general principles involved in this brilliant tactical shot:

OK- White to move-- You are down a pawn-- What is the forcing continuation by which you go from a pawn down to a pawn up with a winning endgame?

click for larger view

Without going in to the specific elements in your post (will do that after thinking and having the time to respond worthy)--

--I want to compliment you with the way you construct your posts in little time-- IE think them through, type them out, basically without making a "wrong turn", faux pas of any kind, and your ability to get to the heart of the matter and add some dimensions of your own making!!!!!

Hang on-- do I spot a PUZZLE??

This should be my cuppa tea...

I'd say: take on d7; Nxd7; Rxe5 and a fork coming up and 2 pawns won!!

Still has to be won, though....

(if the rook takes on d7 there is a mate!!)

Yes, you demonstrate forcefully why Black is actually forced to retake:

<1.Bxd7 Rxd7>.

If he goes for the <Rxg6?> the consequent Bishop deflection of the Black King lands Black in a world of trouble.

You win the buns...

Heh now what is the "name" of the tactic employed here?

-- loose pieces drop off

-- overworked

-- fork

Do you want me to post in a perfect <notyetagm> style??

HEEEEELP!!!

Sutovsky vs Sakaev, 2001

Heh it is the tactical concept of the <RELOADER>...

That should be <LPOD>!! <LPOD>!!