Here's an example: White to move--

This position arose in a game at <Linares 1999> between <Flintstone and Rubble>:

click for larger view

1..Rxa3+ 2.bxa3 (if Na2 then Rxa2#) b2+ 3.Ka2 b=Q#

click for larger view

White:just a kid ELO:1275
Black:NN ELO:1515

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.0-0 Nf6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.e5 d5 10.exf6 dxc4 11.Re1+ Kf8<The king is in trouble>12.Ba3+ Kg8 13.d5 Na5?!<Black's game is bad but probably better is Ba5>14.fxg7 Kxg7 15.Be7 Qd7 16.Qd2<17.Qg5# has to be answered>16...h6

White to move:Find the most awesomest move.Difficulty:Medium/hard.

click for larger view

Guess I just enjoy how your mind works! (even in the post painkiller era -- So I hope you will have a full recovery very soon...)

hmmm... I have been looking at your FEN for over 5 minutes now and the best I can come up with is < Bf6 > -- IF the Kxf6, Qc3+ will win the rook back and Black will risk a mating net around him...

Very powerful play you showed there...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

Not so bad for an April Fool's Joke...

He just died for Cripe sake and I think he did a good enough job of making his own life a farce as it is.

Also, I was actually fooled!!!! I thought <Chessbase> actually believed this obvious nonsense!!

I still don't like it.

I think it's a cheap shot.

Maybe it would have been more appropiate at least a year later?

Harumph.

Yes I will!!

Yes I can see your point. You know what interests me?

The bizarre reality that <Fischer> actually made all of those ridiculous demands and accusations in good faith.

I think he really believed he was entitled to all them conditions he kept demanding.

And I think he honestly believed the Russians were cheating and never stopped cheating.

It's wierd, but I think maybe-- that guys like <Spassky>, of all people, realized this.

I don't think <Spassky> ever thought <Fischer> was deliberately trying to disrupt him "as a strategy".

It's why he kept thinking fondly of <Fischer> after the series-- and if there ever was anyone who you'd think would have every right to despise <Bobby> it would be <Spassky>.

<Fischer> had this wierd "chess purist innocence or specatcular naivete" about him.

I mean when Bobby and Boris were sitting together in the audience <just before> Bobby was about to get the World Champ Wreath, he whips out his freaking pocket chess set to discuss a position with Boris.

Boris is not just shocked-- he is perhaps amused, touched even-- rather than offended=-\

Because he knew, perhaps, that all <Bobby> really ever cared about-- the only thing besides himself that is-- was chess.

Just, chess.

I just wanted to amplify my point a bit--

OK- a "normal person" might take great offense if the person about to accept his World Champ Crown whipped out a pocket chess set-- a "normal person" might construe this as "rubbing it in."

But that's not how Spassky took it. I think Spassky realized that

Bobby was probably bored by the whole "ceremony" part and was genuinely interested in the chess position he showed Spassky.

Also, in a very wierd way, Bobby was in fact flattering Spassky-- Who else to show the position to?

In Fischer's eyes, Spassky was perhaps the only person in the world he deemed able to understand his ideas about the chess position.

I think Spassky understood that Fischer had absolutely no "normal" sense of manners, of appropriate behavior, of knowing the "right" time and place for something.

Also, similarly-- Kasparov and Karpov hated each other's guts.

But Fred Waitzkin marveled at them after a game In <New York> during thier last <Champ Match>--

They were absorbed in post-mortem analysis together, and smiling at each other.

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.

Love of chess, to a chess player, is a quality that can redeem a person in the eyes of a chess fan.

IE- chess fans can love <Fischer> despite all the crapola he said and did.

They are loving his <love for the game>, not just his proficiency at the game.

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.

I think we have very, very similar views about chess engines.

I use mine all the time, however, as you know- but I limit that use to "blunder checking" all my games.

Like I said, the amount of time it takes me to track down many of the "suggested improvements" is so long a task-- that I really believe I'm better off using that time to play another game against a slightly stronger human.

About our tournament-- Ratings told the tale- the whole tale.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- ratings, no matter what system, really are accurate.

(BTW, there's no way in Hell <just a kid> is a 1200 range player-- where the heck is he getting that information from? 1200 on what scale?

In Yahoo terms, that <Evans Gambit> he played puts him clearly in firmly in the 1500-1600 range WITHOUT SHADOW OF A DOUBT>)

Ok <J Robichess> was low man on the totem pole- and worse, he showed no respect of any kind. He plodded along in both games with me AFTER I had achieved an obvious crushing win. He showed absolutely zero etiquette in that regard.

He lost all games.

I am 1910 rated, and as I predicted before the tournament, I finished third with 2 out of 6 points.

Now <Canstein> is a full 300 points higher rated than <Kingscruffer>-- and he won both games against him.

HOWEVER--

<Kingscruffer> plays at least 40 games at once at <letsplaychess.com> and he takes about 1 second for each move.

I don't think the tournament result (which was unrated, btw), gives us any information at all about their "true" relative playing strengths.

I'd LOVE to see them play OTB in classical controls.

I have a feeling they would be around even--

At present, <Kingscruffer> is at a lifetime peak in his chess strength.

He just won his ratings division at a big tournament in London-- and has qualified to play in a major tournament full of GMs and IMs as a result.

But as I say, I don't think our "tournament" really tells us anything much.

I can tell you that they are both <wicked good> compared to me!!

they are both <solid expert> level and I believe both are capable of achieving IM status--

I think the only thing holding either of them back is the necessary time needed to devote to chess, as both have other careers of course.

they enjoy eating and having an apartment as well as chess!

Crazy huh?

WJAJDKJFDJFDKJ
545344

How utterly mondaine...

I on the other hand *I* am wasting my time worrying about engine chess and how it relates to etc... blablabla...

Thanks for your reply -- I personally have little problems now dealing with engines --- I have by now figured out their (relative) strengths and weaknesses, and know in what respect they can cloud or smoke the chess lover who wants to learn about the true beauty and strenghth that is IN Chess...

What they (Cs) have going for them is of course their prowess in complex tactical exchanges in opening and middle game -- but there ends my "admiration" for them...

<About our tournament-- Ratings told the tale- the whole tale.> Do not forget that if that were the case there would be no point in entering any tourny --- your job is, essentially, to prove the falseness of YOUR rating, at any given point in time, that is the challenge...

Don't get mad with me now, I know what you mean... Of course, once you have a reference group of over 40-50 games at standard time controls for all participants, you DO HAVE a reasonable tool predicting outcomes, and, as a result, base a judgement on playing strength on it...

BTW I was pretty crabby today, but somehow you have this ability to pull me up again to a somewhat lighter feeling.

Like music.

Just saying.

We had a thoroughly good laugh about that chez Dom's, didn't we?

He iff pofting some new videos quite regularly I mufft add...

Good stuff(ff)

My ffonenumber is: 00316479740-0650584642

You may be pleased to know that I'm only playing <one> correspondence game at a time at <letsplaychess.com> and I'm playing a fellow about a hundred points higher than me.

I'm just about to go out of Book with white in a <Najdorf> on move 16--

But here's how I'm approaching it.

First, I've memorized the moves and also the positions.

IE- today I was wiping my board clear of pieces and then picking a number between 1 and 16 at random, and the seeing how fast I could set up the position.

Then I was lying on my back with my eyes closed, calling out each of the 15 played moves in <algegbraic notation> and making a "picture" of each stage of the position in my head.

Then I was trying to imagine two or three moves with my eyes closed and then see the new position.

I did this for two hours after work today.

I will also be examining many, many ideas from this point by shuffling pieces around.

I'm not making ANY MOVE in this game without a plan.

Also, I want to learn-- I want to play a very strong Correspondence game.

I get 7 days for each move, so this is in many ways more an "exercise" than a game-- I'm trying to get the most benefit out of this experience as possible.

Today at work sometimes an idea would come to me, and I'd look at the position-- nothing working so far, except I THINK I found a possible viable line...

Its an EXTREMELY SHARP position at the moment... the kind that could be lost by either side with just ONE BAD MOVE....

(very exciting)

ALASKDFJAKDJDJFDAAJDAFJDFJ

I get to play on <Yahoo> Saturday with the Black pieces!!

One can put it the following way: ELO ratings are basically a statistical system, not a reward system – unlike ratings in golf or tennis, for example, where winning (say) an important tournament might be worth an arbitrarily chosen five times as many points as winning a lesser tournament. The meaning of a chess rating, on the other hand, is essentially an attempt to predict your results against other players as accurately as possible.

to prove those predictive mechanisms wrong -- in other words I AM NOT THAT INTERESTED in accurate predictions -- I am interested in ways to UPSET those predictive mechanisms...

We are dealing here with three (psychological) approaches

1) the ELO conforming one

2) the ELO defying one

3) the irrespective of both attitude -- just play and see what rating you end up with after (say) 50 played games, trying your very best and in the process of studying and improving, meeting tougher and tougher opponents.

The latter would be my angle in (not)looking at ratings when entering a tournament...

Jess is both talented, eager to learn, and relatively young --- even capable of auto-didacting herself, without any help from anywhere -- but what I admire in Jess is the fact that she looks in several directions to help her with/in that process...

Ratings are primarily something for the galleries, journalists, the wrong coaches etc... -- but to the growing and improving young player they should be of little importance/point of attention...

I've been practising looking at a FEN for about 30 seconds and then put it up on my board in one fluent go... Also, a new thing to me, is my ability to be able to play a 20+ move forced line <BLIND> in the B+N mate procedure, which is an incredible feat considering my complete INABILITY to play blind AT ALL.

I recently downloaded all the games from the <Womens Ataturk Masters>, with all girls ranging between 2350-2550 ELO-- and was amazed to see so many streaks of bad play, and lack of understanding the positional aspects of the game...

To put it short, I think you may well reach solid expert level, if you keep up what you are doing now, and of course, as you said, you DO want to have a roof over your head and all that, so you'll always have less time to devote to training and studying, compared to those girls, and simply the opportunities to take part in strong tournaments is a bloody task in itself...

Point of my posts is <THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX>, and that I think your peak strength "may well be" a bit further along the road, and many, many points above what you are currently expecting...

Who knows, so many seemingly little factors play a role, that the best thing is to <enjoy the trip> and keep continuing to challenge yourself...

OR -- hook up and become a mom! and then the chances of adding a few little Fischer WGMs will have increased considerably!

When I joined my club, as a 13 year old kid, it contained about 250 active members, nut none of them were coloured... Club is in Amstelveen, bordering Amsterdam, but in this sport you rarely see other than Whites, except for the Asians, of course...

But at a certain point two brothers from the Dutch Antilles (black) dropped by, became members, and the practised every single minute the building wasn't closed... They were both in their late 20s by the way, and just started out in this sport.

They both were incredibly athletic, but their technique was atrocious... One of the two (who became the best later on) held his bat (racket) with both thumb and indexfinger on the SAME SIDE!! Really, they were so motivated, though, but both used their equipment like they were just taken out of the jungle...

But since we had one of the best trainers in the country at that point, he soon went to work with the "boys", because they were so motivated... It took some time to teach them that the game is to be played with finesse and timing, not just with BRUTE FORCE...

But they picked everything up, with ups and downs, but one of the 2 brothers was so much improving after a few years, that he would end up accounting for the most improved player, in his 30s, and make it from the weakest league locally-- all the way to the 2nd Division in the COUNTRY!!

We were teammates several years, and I too helped him use his strength in a more efficiant way... If I would've had his athleticism I'd have been unbeatable...

He was so full of energy that if he got too excited he would run from the table to the wall of the gymnasium, < run UP the wall to the ceiling, push off with his legs for a summer-sault!! -- and land safely on the floor> ready for the next point!

Fabulous!! Also quite intimidating for his opponents, but hey he <needed the release> hehe..

If I ever played with/met someone who totally went <out of HIS box>, and completely transformed to the touch player he became when he was at his best-- he'd be my candidate!

Why don't any chess players run up the wall and do a back flip?

Huh?

I think its scandalous.

I'd pay money to see <Nigel Short> do that.