And then signs up for more the next year. And more. And more.>

LOL

Maybe he would do better now against Kasparov, he has a lot more weight in reserve by the looks of it.

haha

Your question about engine training is a good one <JFQ>. I'm probably not the best person to ask because I learned by playing people. Real people, OTB.

But the <elephant training method> does sound valuable.

One mode I always thought was good on Fritz was (I can't remember the name off the top of my head, sorry) but you could get it to gradually adjust its play to your level by playing games with it.

The idea is it remains just tough enough to give you a good game. That was on Fritz 10, probably on the new one as well so you might like to look into that.

TBH I think training against other people is 100% more valuable though, regardless of any new program tricks.

Blunders are a part of chess, fun to spot, painful to make, and no engine simulates them well IMO.

I also think playing against computers too much cramps your style, and might be bad for a developing player like yourself.

I mean, would Tal have turned out to play the way he did if he had trained against an engine which punished him mercilessly and precisely every single time he got creative? An extreme example maybe, but good enough to illustrate the worries I have about overexposure to the engines while still impressionable.

There, that's what I think, but probably I am just stuck in the past too much.

haha

Actually, to tell you the truth I'm happy to hear it as well.

I believe I will restrict <engine "training"> to practice transitions from the <openings I use> into the Middle game, and for <Elephant method> end game finishes.

That way I can put <Shreddy> on full blast and not worry about winning or losing or anything psychological.

Unfortunately, against humans I can only play 2-3 live games a week at the most.

I suppose that will be fine though- there are plenty of other things I do in my daily training regimen.

<youtube> chess analysis videos in particular I find helpful.

When they are done by a strong player- <Kingscrusher>, <Majnu>, for example- and when you frequently pause them-- and when you interrogate them with help of your own engine-

Then a <10 minute> video actually tranlsates to an <hour or more> in terms of chess study time.

If you are stuck in the past then I want to be too.

All I really want is to play at a chess club again and enter real tournaments and get a real chess rating against real people.

Unfortunately, I may be in Korea for some time, as I accidentally have a stable and well-paying job in the middle of a world wide economic melt down.

I'm tired- it's noisy here- but I opened <1.e4> against it and it "played" a <Winawer> except that when I played the stock <5.a3>, he "played" <5...Bf8??>.

Ok so I knew that couldn't possibly be a good move.

so- in under 15 minutes playing time- I just destroyed it. I just assaulted his Kingside and smashed him like a bug.

So clearly my inability and frustration with previous <LCP> encounters had to have been caused by me "psyching myself out" that I could never "beat a machine."

It's like fog has lifted from my eyes.

I mean I moved carefully, but it was all over almost instantly.

I managed to find a way to PUNISH <5...Bc8??> immediately and forcefully.

Five or six moves after that I had his Kingside busted open and he was absoultely helpless.

Ok- that is my last game ever against <LCP>.

Although he enjoys a 99% win percentage against me-

I am 2/0 against him since Sunday.

AND NOW I'M RETIRING!!!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAAH

<SHOULD JESS RETIRE FROM PLAYING LITTLE CHESS PARTNER>?

Yes, but only after proving she can thump it at will just like the rest of you guys.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Ok then. I can't wait for Saturday's <Yahoo> game.

I will look at the link you gave now.

I actually just "bookmarked" this game today because I wanted to look at it closer with my engine later.

I noticed that two times <Bobby> had a chance to repair his pawn structure in the center, but in both cases he recaptured with a piece instead-

I was thinking- that he was more interested in the opportunities for aggressively placed pieces at both points than in getting rid of his pawn island.

Poor <Benko>!!

<Ivanchuk> played <5...Bf8> in the <Winawer> AND HE BEAT <Kasparov> with it!!

HAHAHAAH-

I guess it's safe to say that <Ivanchuk> is a stronger player than <Little Chess Partner>...

Here, from the game page:

< diabloprancer: This may be my favorite game ever. The main line of the Winawer Defense pretty much closes up the center, and Ivanchuk of course recognizes that development and Bishops won't be that important with such a pawn structure. 5...Bf8! was such a great move that many amateurs have copied it without really understanding the point: f8 is the best square because it doesn't interfere with the Queenside pawn storm or the King's Knight's path to the queenside via e7. Great annotations by Keene...he shows that Kasparov made a few minor mistakes and Ivanchuk capitalized perfectly.>

Thank you so much <Switching Owls for Thugs>!!

click for larger view

Main ideas of this strategy, according to Watson's <Dangerous Weapons: the French>:

<By playing Nc3, White has forfeited his natural defence of d4, which consists of the move c3, so the possibility of breaking it up by ...c5 increases.

In the normal Winawer, when you have the bishop on b4 instead of f8, you encourage a3 as a response to c5. Not so with the bishop still sitting on f8. In addition, you don't have to worry about the Qg4 move that is such a bother after 3...Bb4, and you should be able to respond to White's choice of set-ups with an appropriate bishop development, e.g. on e7, c5, g7, or even back to b4.

In any event, your opponent will be thrown upon his own resources. This comes with the psychological advantage that he feels compelled to refute what is "obviously" a bad system. Thus we often find White overextending.>

On the other hand... <Let's face it: in just four moves, you've managed to both give up valuable territory and ruin your development.>

heh...

Brilliant. What a truly strange opening the <French> is in general, not just the <Winawer>.

I secretly believe that the whole thing is actually a "mistake" and people are too embarrassed to admit it now.

<5.Nb1>...

heh...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That <Holmes and Watson> book you cite seems to be interesting.

Should I add it to my "to buy" list?

PS a "theory" means I spent at least 5 minutes thinking about it.

I wonder what he thought of EVOLUTION?? do you have any idea?

Fun hearing that great man speak...

Imagine how much more "cagy" the openings could be if the pawns were allowed to move backwards?

Say, for the first 10 moves pawns could go backwards.

Help! That's heresy.

If a <evolution v. creationism> discussion breaks out in this forum I'm going to sell both of your <email addresses> to a <hard shell Baptist Lunatic exterme Right Wing electronic Mailing List> and I'm going to tell them that you are both <wealthy and extremely eccentric> and "aren't sure to do with your money."

My "list to buy" is growing!! And since I make decent money and have nothing to spend it on, I was thinking of spending all two year's worth of my life's savings on Chess books.

My "thinking" is that I should be able to buy a sufficient quantity to have them laminated and use them as a strange kind of "house" if I need to.

Also, I may read a few of them, but only if I have time.

That's a <fabulous> chess game, thanks! I bet <Deffi> likes your <Winawer> theory, as she has not castled in a game of chess since 1990, whether the center is closed OR open.

<YoungEd: I don't know why, but I like watching Botvinnik lose.>

Heh...

Stupid <French defence>. It's so beautiful though when people actually know how to play it.

Oh yes and by EXTRAORDINARY coincidence, my game with our old friend <KlangenKlunkenFroggenFarben> has turned out to be a <Winawer> with him taking the Black pieces.

So it was his idea.

Actually, he sometimes reads the posts at this webisite- or at least he used to.

i wonder if he saw me posting about how much trouble I have playing against the French, and used this TOP SECRET info to get a leg up on me in the opening?

Seems a little far fetched...

I think I'm going to play <Nb1> at some point although it might not work in Correspondence.

Maybe I should have played a <Tarrasch>.

heh...

Je parle en francais, mais mes mots sont tous incorrect, tous les temps.

I have lost so many games playing <3..Nc3> that I've seriously been considering investigating the <Tarrasch>.

Or, variations in which White plays the nifty <Nc3>, then <Nb1> and then <c3>.

But Black has to give you the tempi by returning some of his own pieces to home base as well. As we were disussing aboe there.

The Classical French is great for Black--as long as the center is closed you just set up your pieces where you like and you can change your mind as well.

I used to play <4...Ng8> as in this game: Ingo Sprewitz vs M Biendara, 2001 It made people crazy.

Even against the Tarrasch: E Paoli vs Petrosian, 1967

Bah... This is all you need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiM...

This is the initial position of the Milner-Barry gambit:

click for larger view