Oh yes, Happy <George Harrison> Week to you as well. What's a <Beatle> anyway? Is that one of those old Volkswagens with a lawn-mover for an engine?

I'm not posting any such embarrassing crap for comment.

That's what's so handy about having my own <private GM Slave computer> at home.

I understand exactly how I misjudged the position-- and why--

And I see the move I needed to make-- a simple prophylaxis and then I've got a very, very pleasant position to work from.

I spent hours with the opening to find out where I went wrong, and, most importantly, WHY.

Specifically. Hideously specifically.

1) I try to classify my errors like
i) Tactical
ii) Positional
iii) Strategic
iv) Plain Nonsense

and also be severity
a) Inaccuracy
b) Error
c) Blunder

and I try to see remember how I came to deciding on the move

e.g.

Oversight, Incorrect assessment of the weakness, Wanting to avoid a certain type of position or weakness etc

this helps in overcoming the <fear> of certain moves, otherwise my tendency is to totally avoid the simmilar position in my future games when in reality I may have been better when I made the mistake and ruined it

Yes, I do in fact examine my losses, or "corpses," as I like to call them, for hours.

With my <GM Engine>.

I spend approximately 2-3 times longer analyzing post game with my Engine than playing the actual games. In fact, I never play more than two games a week and the rest of my chess time is spent analyzing with my <GM Shrubby Engine Tutor Partner SLave>== and I have both a written, and recently electronic, log of all the games I've played.

With notes!!

While playing, I record my moves on a scoresheet in a book, and even write down notes about how I'm thinking feeling at certain stages of the games. In fact, when I write down each move, I pretend I am <Bobby Fischer>.

I even sign the bottom of each sheet when the game is over.

You see, I would have avoided the position I messed up today- avoided in the future-- if I HADN'T looked so hard at it with my Engine.

Not only is it not a position to avoid- it's a GOOD position for me--

So long as I take care of one little square before proceeding.

Now that I see WHY I need to take care of that square <b4 square in this particular case>, I will certainly not shy away from this position again.

The position was risky looking- dynamic-- and I saw, thanks to computer analysis, that there were actually a couple of ways to keep my advantage and wagons ho to the middle game.

This was at the price of hours at my Engine and a headache.

Luckily I was able to cure the headache by watching a movie so scary it almost made me wet the bed!!

One thing that puzzles me though is that first FEN position, does Shredder really say a whole -3.40?

I mean, sure your position is uncoordinated but you are only a pawn down, plus the bishop pair helps you.

And then the problem of actually finishing white off...

I would play

1...Qf6

then you have

2.b4,e4
3.bxc5,Qxf5
4.Bb2 (4.cxb6,Qf3+ etc),Bxc5

click for larger view

actually, now that I have this on the board I can see why Shredder says -3. and change.

Guess Shredder can look ahead more clearly than me...hehe no surprises there!

I think vampires are girly because its a twisted up love story...the male vampire possesses the female with a kiss on the neck etc. There is an inseperable connection.

But the werewolves are the real men.

And when the ladies say they are not attracted to me because they like "bad boys". The bad boys they are talking about are emo-sulkers hanging out in bars looking for attention. Who are the real bad boys, you ask? Chomsky. Fischer. You know who.

Of course you are right, but I'm not showing my undies today.

Maybe tomorrow.

Actually it's simple enough to show in a FEN.

It's not an obscure mistake I made. I'm just kicking myself due to how easily it could have been avoided. It was a psychological error on my part due to a misreading of the tactics in the position.

I thought (erroneously) that I didn't have TIME to play the stinking <a3> due to some other thing I thought I had to worry about that as it turned out I didn't have to worry about at all.

The <SHRUBBA> showed me.

I'll show you tomorrow when my wash is done.

When people say: An eval looks like xx.xx - I find it hard to interpret, since shredd evals are often times TWICE AS MUCH (really true) as rybs.

There are positions which rybka evals at +5.55 but still fails to win... But on average, rybka over 1.5 MIGHT indicate a winning advantage with correct play, whatever that is...

Is there anything better than that though or is that all Shredder has as well for its -3.40 line?

click for larger view

<3.Ra2 Nxc1 4.Qxc1 Qxf5>

click for larger view

<5.c5 Qf3+>

click for larger view

I suppose 3.Rb1 is met by 3...Qh5

but have a look at this game

Spassky on Viktor Kortschnoi:

<He lose two, three games and he win the fourth-- and he is <<<happy>>>! I think this is very healthy attitude>

heh-

BLOODY BRILLIANT!!

Your hms123 Infinity challenge is yahtzee in one. From the Fen:

click for larger view

Very nice! Thanks for defending the "honor" of my <Shrubby> and his evaluation from that sad position I got myself in to.

Although what <Niels> says about the <Rybka> evals is of course also true. I think. You guys know a lot more about this than I do- a LOT MORE... so further comments on the comparative "eval" situation would be wonderful if you have time to tell me more.

Could it be something like this? I have no first hand information, so I'm just going by <Niels'> comments above and by <your> very nifty find of the Winning (forcing?- it seems so unless someone can show me different) line:

Could it be--

<Rybka> evals seem to be more finely "calibrated" within a smaller range in terms of giving an advantage -- meaning, as <Niels> pointed out, that a very good position may be +1.8 instead of <Shrubs> +3.4, but it ALSO means that a smaller <Ryb> eval is more meaningful in terms of there being a way to win-- IE- +.70 on <Ryb> might mean big, big trouble for the other guy.

Is <Ryb> position evals more accurate in some absolute sense , or is the eval scale just more "compressed"?

Anyways, nice find.

<SECOND <<<POINT>>> NOW>

(SPECIAL CHALLENGE)!! (For Howard's Eyes Only- unless you happen to be James Bond)

<Howardever>!!

I notice that you give <Woody's> find of the final blow in your winning line an

<exactly>...

But you DON'T give his comment "hard to find OTB" an <exactly>!!!

Could you find your continuation against, say, me, OTB with your clock running?

This is what I like about <Niels> and <Eyal> when they analzye OTB games-- they ALWAYS factor in the "human psychology" element, and the "difficulty" or "easiness" factor of finding moves or combinations or even just good continuations. Now, I'm not accusing you of NOT doing this at all- but I am a bit miffed that you didn't give <Woody's> "hard to find OTB" comment an <exactly> as well--

Therefore, let me issue you a <CHALLENGE> from a very beautiful game that <Deffi> just posted.

Here is the position from the <Sockpuppet Full O' Love> game posted right above there:

White to move-- and you, unlike <Sock Full O' Love>, KNOW there is a forcing way to win here--

I challenge you to find this decisive line and to time yourself.

Then add several minutes-- maybe 10 minutes even- in order to psychologically simulate NOT knowing for sure that there EXISTS such a line-- beforehand.

OK one hint I can't resist, plus <Woody> kind of mentioned it already-- the final line is <beautiful>-- I've just been fooling around with it all morning till I found out WHY it works-- and the thing "blocking" me from finding it was the "natural reluctance" to give up material.

I think that in an actual chess game-- where on every single ply-- a player is confronted with a new position- that it may be useful to UNLEARN every "general principle" you ever learned about chess. It is the LEARNING, I think, that causes "chess blindness."

Of course, you have to only pretend to do this in reality- or else you would play with an 800 rating-- which is why it is a very tricky skill. <Tal> had it-- <Alekhine> had it-- CAN <WE> GET IT???

WHOA I'M GIVING LOTS OF HINTS ok then no more!

Also, you must post and explain why various responses by <Black> DON'T WORK against this continuation-- exactly as if you were calculating in your brain while playing a <REAL GAME>.

Ok- from here- White to move...

click for larger view

Heh- nice find!

1) <Judgement> and <comparison> (re: "meaning") of eg Rybka and Shredder evals, including computing time used for reaching a certain <Ply-depth>

2) The specific line <howard> gives, with Q to f7, which is found by Rybka (freshly booted up) only after 1m07s ---

3) In how far is this a computer move, and how likely is it to be played by, let's say Loek van Wely?

4) Are there alternatives, for some nifty defense for White, in the "bare" 5 move line as "given" by howard...

To start with the last one... There are tricky alternatives, which IMO shows also, that these <...Qf7>-lines are perhaps unnatural (compared to Qf6), imo, for a human to play OTB, almost regardless of rating (strength)...

But since both Woody and I initially wanted to play Qf6, let's look at the position again...

click for larger view

What catches my eye immediately, is the fact that White's Back Rank is very weak, that <e1> and <f1> are unprotected there, and "oh, I need to watch out for B takes my pawn and checks on g6 may be troublesome... wait, can't White sac immediately with Bg6+ ??"

In my instinctive response yesterday I thought of pinning the B to the f1 mateing square... And also I thought of an immediate <...Qh4> to threaten <e1>, and White looks in big trouble, BUT THAT NEEDS CAREFUL CALCULATION - as all these lines btw, so this is, though "clearly winning," by no means "easy" ...

That combination of thoughts made me pick Qf6 - without having calculated the lines in detail... Both feel as though I will win the game, since Qh4 supports the covering of the <e4> square for the black pawn, thus breaking the connection between Q and LSB...

Btw - I just put ...Qh4 in my puter, and it wins nicely with eg <2 Qe2 e4(!)>

It's the diagonals that flow from <f6> appealed to me more than those from <f7>...

To be honest, after minutes of looking at all the b4 defense things and all, the Q to f7 hadn't yet crossed my mind, for some reason...

<Jess> Because of lack of time, now, I have to cut this post short, but in Genaral it is accepted that the Shredder evals are somewhat exaggerated, as compared to Rybs' - that are considered more "conservative" - though highly accurate, often, and personally ryb's evals are much more suited to me, as compared to "Judge Shredd" - because as a human I don't want a BIG EVAL in my face, telling me that this "should win automatically" - which is psychological, of course, but important to weigh in...

But you described it quite accurate, already.