Goooo <Jan Werle> (little known Dutch GM won the European Open a few days ago, ahead of the likes of ADAMs and Short!)

There's so much going on everywhere!!

Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987

Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987

Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987

Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987

And two other great English games by Karpov:

Timman vs Karpov, 1979

Gelfand vs Karpov, 1995

So I'm naively thinking (it happens, both the thinking and the naively) ... I'm thinking "Wow! Karpov on the English! I *need* that ... 'specially as I don't have any good recent books on the English, and Tolya is the Man ... OK, he got out-Englished by Korchnoi a few times, but still ... gotta have that ..."

It's a swizz. A cuttings job. A fakeroo. The little man didn't even have the decency to explain about the different defensive systems.

The Symmetrical English (1...c5), the King's English (1...e5, including both Reversed Sicilians and Closed English-vs-KID setups), the transposition method (1...e6 or 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 e6, usually with the idea of a fast ...d5 - inducing White to shrug and play 3.d4) when White can opt for the Flohr-Mikenas Attack (1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4) or play a kind of Reti/Reversed Benoni (Miles and Dzhindzhishashkvili liked to play this as White, but they were 'free spirits'...).

"Free spirits? Where? Mine's a Guinness", as Tony used to say.

The *only* time I actually *demolished* a player rated over 2200 -- as opposed to lucky breaks, ding-dong battles, flukes, over-confident opponents blundering, or general wild'n'woolly stuff -- was as White in a Flohr-Mikenas. (I'm not, for example, counting the 'Four Queens' game, 'cos I played badly before the chaos started).

But in this game he made a 'small' mistake in the opening, recapturing with pawn instead of Queen on f6. I knew it was wrong, knuckled down and figured out why, and tore him to shreds. I had a won game by move 14 and he resigned by move 18.

In the previous round I'd mated another strong player in a time scramble. These two performances were sufficient for the top-seeded FM to offer me a draw in the final round - and joint first place - after 25 moves of a French.

I don't seem to be able to do this anymore, for some reason.

Anyhoo, avoid the Karpov book. It's not *total* crap -- it's 30+ annotated English games from the last 30 years, about half of these being Karpov wins. His comments are good enough -- but there's neither super-deep analysis Gazza-style nor concise verbal explanations as provided by, say, John Watson.

It's certainly not any sort of guide to the English. I imagine it would confuse anyone who hadn't already got experience with 1.c4. Karpov actually says (tap your foot for a bit while I look this up) ... (ho hum) ... (here we go) ...

<"It is necessary to say that you have in front of you not a standard opening manual or reference book, which is obliged to contain all systems, including those which at the present moment in time have gone out of fashion ...">

and

<"The games are systematically arranged according to variations; in precisely which order, the reader can see for himself.">

Well, *this* reader hasn't. Or for *herself*, for that matter.

One last example of Tolya's deathless prose:

<"Be assured that a careful study of the presented games will be more beneficial for mastering the English Opening than the blind memorisation and learning by rote of different variations and schemes.">

Yeah, be assured. Be *very* assured.

No translator is credited, though Podgaets has cowritten previous 'opening books' with AK. Maybe he actually wrote the thing himself. And it's better than anything I'd write in Russian, but even so.

Thing is, I immediately looked at 1.Bxg7 - particularly obvious as the Bish is attacked on d4, and you've helpfully flagged black's ...c5 with a (?). Then, almost instantly, I saw that 1...Nxf5 was practically forced, and bothersome.

I barely considered ...Kxg7 as it seemed to win so easily for White; and the other try, 1...Ng4 (?) loses after 2.f6 Qe5 3.Rf5 Qxf5 [pretty much forced, I think] 4.exf5 Rxe1 5.Qxe1 and White wins easily. I toyed with ideas like not taking back the rook - maybe 5.Bh6!? instead of 5.Qxe1 - but it just isn't necessary. Although it *does* seem to win.

But I was unhappy with 1...Nxf5 and started looking around for ways to build up more slowly without allowing Black any counterplay. I didn't find anything very convincing, but it's the sort of thing I'd do in a real OTB game.

And it might be best, sometimes. Other times it'd be a mistake, 'building up' while Rome burns down. Your direct 1.Bxg7 has to be best -- if chaos follows, you're both in there. And if he takes the thing ... crunch.

Is it really so bad? I've played 1.e4 and 1.d4 for a long time but never really got into the English. I had planned to branch out a bit and had sort of planned to start with that book. Can you recommend any other good books on the English?

Yes, that sounds like how Karpov would play the position...but not <JFQ>'s favourite player Fischer! It depends on what the time settings were for the game, if black was in time-trouble Bxg7 looks like a killer blow.

Either black loses the rest of his time dancing around the variations or he takes with Kxg7 in which case the game is won anyway.

..Nxf5 certainly seems the best reply, but a win is a win!

OK I've sent you a GIANT HONKING EMU, which has a "typo" in it.

However, on reflection, I think it's probably a <Freudian slip> rather than a bona fide typo.

I wrote <I'm pretty sure my "loving crushing egos" is good for me or my chess game.>

But I MEANT to write <I'm pretty sure my 'loving crusing egos is NOT good for me or my chess game>.

However, I probably secretly meant the first version.

Sounds more like me.

Anyhoo, It's in your nest.

-- I, to my amazement, actually understand your " probably secretly meaning the first version."

At first, however, I must admit too being a tad confused, as I had "read" <cruising egos>... See?

I hereby introduce the word: Reado

So I, in retrospect, "Freudiantly slipped," on your initial Freudian slip! But I kept my frail balance, you can rest assured.

THE Germans call this "Schadenfreude." And as such, we find it tightly linked to the <ego-cruising> phenomenon, we are discussing here.

I feel like a MILLION BUCKS now!!

Ta!

AH! <NOT> is the key word here... Yes...

Speaking for myself, as a generally peacefully inclined person, I DID enjoy to see my opponents shtruggle when put under pressure... Although there is that vital and crucial awareness of his or her mental and phisi(ologi)cal agony, my main focus was on my "own game" --- the quality of analysis and execution coming in clear first...

The satisfaction, with me, lies in the sheer rush, while executing the stroke, regardless of wether or not his ego is getting crushed...

Actually, when playing a friend, I am not at all looking for signs of destruction, on the contrary.

But I firmly believe it can help to know that the other guy is a dork or an @$$hole. The trick is of course to learn to "work" with that adrenaline.

In some distinct situations or circumstances, like EG characteristics of a position, it works in different ways.

This of course also translates to when your opponent is a "computer."

In the end all energy should be directed towards the "enemy's pieces ON THE BOARD" --- breaking its/his/her control over the position.

During a game there are definitely episodes where I can think: "Well, I freakin hope that "this" (a combination or a "squeeze move") will significantly dent your moral, and break your fighting spirit..."

UNTIL the position is dry and a clear win, that is...

From my top level sports days, I do remember on rare occasion experiencing a state of "serenity" -- of feeling untouchable; and my best play came from that state of awareness.

And that is too when you want to be challenged by, yes almost begging for, stiffer competition. It all seems, and IS so simple...

Doesn't happen very often, and when you experience it, you will remember it for the rest of your life.

You also hear even the buzz around the court, among the players, like: "Oh well, when he is like this there's not much you can do..."

heh-- spot on, thanks again for your further insights into sports psychology with regard to chess....

I believe your insights, if I'm actually able to follow them, will indeed help my proficiency and enjoyment of our great pastime.

I may require a personality transplant, but I'd gladly trade myself in for someone else if the someone else played better chess.

Actually, as you know, my personal experience with top level competition is mainly outside chess. That's why it helps if you get specific as to YOUR experiences...

Bottom line, and <I believe whole-heartedly in this>, is that within the <unescapable psychological turmoil> that is present in Chess OTB competition--

---the key element is to <ALLOW> for the:

predator, the sadist, the friend, the artist, the specialist, the fool, the ignorant, the dweller, the humorist, the calculist, the depressed, the optimist, the couldnt-care-less ---

--to all come to the surface, and then deal with them and learn to control them... Not be at <their mercy>...

There is no definitive word out on "how to..."

One does not deserve MORE attention than the other---it is up to you to decide which one deserves attention/correction AT THE TIME... If at all.

Just take a close look (clips at various websites, like <chessvibes>) at Ivanchuk's body language and facial expressions, before, during, and after (press-conference) a game...

Yet this IS THE MAN who won the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP BLITZ CHESS!

... and in grandiose style...

But in training, it's best to focus your attention mainly on improving understanding and technique, in Chess.

When you get back into the OTB arena in a year, you'll be able to relish to psychology when EG playing in a tournament, and preparing for it... I agree that THEN, psychology determines 95% of the outcome, as Andre Agassi and many others have said.

Against roughly equal opposition, psychology determines wether you score a 2.5/9 or a 7.5/9.

<KEY IS>

How to prepare at various stages PRIOR TO (months/years----------->leading up to) --- and DURING a tournament where peak performance is required...

One of our best ever coaches (Dutch swimming medals since 1996 Atlanta games) <Jacco Verhaeren>, in swimming, publicly took the blame for the failure of Holland's top star swimmer <Marleen Veldhuis>...

She had failed miserably, and under-performed, at the 2004 Olympics (choked in the final) -- and a whole team was gathered to make sure that THAT would not happen again in Beijing...

It DID happen again... Despite the minute physical and mental preparation.

Marleen, hadn't been able to stay psychologically in a healthy state, at the moment supreme. In the final she started clawing the water like an amateur.

But under that same coaching team, great successes were (again) achieved...

Verhaeren, however, has since been pulling his hair out, wondering where "they" had gone wrong in preparation...

<So where does psychology come in if your opponent happens to be a computer?>

<Woodman> Psychology is omni-present, wether you are playing a TREE-HUT, a human, or a computer...

Personally, I would invest my energy mainly in my own state of mind and emotion, staying at a level pane, using the comp just for sparring and training, like tennis players use a <ball canon> in their training.

I think, that your main hurdles, psychologically, to overcome, on your way to chess mastery and succes, are hurriedness and the related urge to get as much and AS STRONG an emotional response from a game of chess, as possible...

You only have to switch from a "MAXIMUM" to a "OPTIMUM" mind-set.

Regulating the physiological elements in that regard, is what is so important.

We can talk til the cows come home, but it is that what rushes flow through your body, that are of the essence.... And worth discussing. (By email, if suited)