Yes, I intend to enlist his help in getting out the "Gorilla vote" for this year's <Caissar Awards> for "best avatar."

Don't manually change any of your registry keys, or execute a software program that changes your registry keys, unless you know EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

Thanks for the tip.

I've seen this patch recommended in more than three sites now and that includes an administrator of the uTorrent forums...

I'm unusually sure that MS XP has limited it's ports to only 10...

CNET eh?...I'll have a look...

click for larger view

Of course that was before I blundered. I dropped about four games in a week due to the nightmare of home renovation I am currently enduring. I've decided to go inactive on new CC games for a couple of months.

Not all is bleak. I manage to still win the odd game I have going. I was playing White and about to make my 25th move in this game that just ended.

click for larger view

I thought about trying to work on the isolated d-pawn, but then I had another idea.

25. e5 exd5 26. Bxe5 Qa7 27. Bd4 Qc7 I want the Black Queen off the Rook at a8.

click for larger view

28. Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Bxf6 Bxf6? He had to try 29...gxf6 30. Qd5+ Kg7 31. Nh5+ Kh8 32. Qe6 where I like my threats.

30. Qd5+ 1-0

click for larger view

Hopefully, I am just going through a bad stretch. I played today and sucked, but for some reason I don't feel as nad about it.

It is because of people like <hms123> <Boomie> <crawfb5> <justakid> <zanshin> and , yes, even <jfq> that this is a good place.

Lilienthal

Flohr (not Russian but settled in the USSR

Petrosian

Nezhmetdinov

Stein

Rossolimo

Polugaevsky

Boleslavsky

Razuvaev

It's the Russian Greats who are not part of the "well known usual suspects" from this period who are not as well known and who don't get the publicity they deserve.

But like everyone else I'm most interested in that handful of "top GMs" who sparred with <Bobby> for that wonderful era.

Possibly I will get a third Premium membership and divide a Russan GM collection of web resources into two distinct sections:

One for the Big cheeses and the other for the Underappreciated cheeses.

Ok and maybe a fourth forum devoted to <cheese>.

I know we're not supposed to make forums that are "blogs" unrelated to chess.

<even JFQ>

Well there it is.

Why not upload your game to the database so I can put it in the <fawn pawn> collection?

Be sure to run a <check disk> session after rebooting from the dread <blue screen of death>.

I have a new laptop, but in the back of my mind, I'm half expecting the <blue screen of death> to pop up at any moment.

Why not upload your game to the database so I can put it in the <fawn pawn> collection?>

1. That post was actually from two different games. The first diagram was just a FEN to show how badly I had him tied up before blundering later. That's not the kind of play I'm especially keen to add to the DB.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090709...

CASE CLOSED

I don't know how anybody in their right mind could continue to be a <Kramnik> fan these days.>

It's very hard for any idea to receive attention or acceptance, when the only criteria are ply depth and evaluation as a numeric value. Moves and variations are quickly rejected by posting engine lines which show lower evaluation score than the mainline. Most of the variations don't even get discussed in chess terms.

As you see, <isemeria> has just reiterated the precise point I made in my post at <Zanshin's> house.

IT'S VERY HARD FOR ANY IDEA TO RECEIVE ATTENTION OR ACCEPTANCE, WHEN THE ONLY CRITERIA ARE PLY DEPTH AND EVALUATION AS A NUMERIC VALUE

This is what I meant by terming the way Centaur chess is currently practiced by this website's "Team"- and I use that word very, very loosely--

"Analyzing in mental absentia"

Still trying to determine what "threw me off" the most.

You're just in the nick of time, as usual.

Thanks again for the time you took to post to my forum because you raise some very good points. I don't want to get into <Artar1> specifically because I don't know anything about his rating. His posts have always shown good chess knowledge and he was very helpful to me early on when I was new to this site. And he was encouraging when I too thought about leaving.

So let's get into Centaur chess in general and your belief that it retards actual chess playing ability. You imply that development is measured in OTB play. However, I believe that you can enjoy the game without necessarily improving. I have played the guitar since high school and still do. I am worse now than I have been in years but still enjoy it - should I give it up? Obviously, not - and that's the same with my chess. I'll make a confession to you - I don't really enjoy playing against other people - either live or OTB. I never took real pleasure in 'crushing the other guy's ego', but I still remember my more painful losses. Engines have given me another outlet to enjoy chess.

So that's my first point. Even if I accept the argument that Centaur chess retards chess playing ability, that's no reason to give it up if you enjoy it. There are good and bad ways to play Centaur. The worst way is to let your engine run overnight and play the top move. These 'Rybka-vs-Rybka' games can be interesting, but probably not worth the time and effort. To play Centaur properly requires an understanding of the weaknesses of engines so you can better evaluate the output - both the lines and the numerical evaluation. This is in addition to your own skills as a player. To analyze a position properly, you will need to slide back and forth on the possible lines, while trying out your ideas. Can I attack f7? Can I get my Rooks on the 7th rank? Are there any interesting exchange sacrifices? (Exch sacs are an especially promising approach because engines are notorious for under-valuing them.) Do all engines evaluate the position the same way? (I posted recently on the Umansky page about a 'flaw' in Rybka 3 - under-promotion to Bishop is not analyzed).

Played 'properly', Centaur chess takes a lot of time and effort. I don't know the exact reasons <Domdaniel, Twinlark, Deffi, hms123, Boomie> have stopped (or greatly reduced) their participation the GMMU game. I suspect a variety of reasons, but first and foremost is that the Team-GM games are no longer new, fun and exciting. Because of this (and possibly the effect of the "Real World Team"), people no longer want to put in the effort to play Centaur properly - hence the forum closings. Without the human analysis and interaction, people hand the game over to Rybka which feeds the apathy. It's all a downward spiral as far as this game is concerned.

I do not believe that engines in general and Centaur chess in particular are a death knell for people learning to play chess better. Like everything else associated with computers, they can be your 'slave or your master', but it takes time, effort and discipline to learn from them.

1) Not everything about <chessgames> is about chess improvement. There is lots of room at this site for having fun for fun sakes, whether it is just kibitzing about a GM or playing a GM for the sake of winning. The games against the GMs are that. There may well not be chess improvement. Although, I would say that you can learn much about the openings in the games. In addition, if one takes the time to try to understand why the computer does what it does, that might assist in learning because the software is based on instructions from strong players and a cumulative body of games. I definitely agree that centaur chess is not efficient learning and if you want to improve, there are lots of different and better ways to do that.

2) As the software gets better and computers get faster and have more memory the relevance of centaur chess diminishes. Even now the burden of proof on someone suggesting a move other than the RV Rybka3 move is very high. But it is only fair to recognize that there are people trying to improve on the engine’s analysis through human intervention. There are people that like “sliding forward or backsliding” to try get the software to try and identify a better move than the one it first selected. There are people who enjoy using different engines on a particular line to see if it comes up with something different. This may not be chess as some like it. It may not be chess at all at some level. The quest for ever increasing centipawns may not be right (although it may be). But there are people that work very hard doing these things and enjoy doing them and it is wrong, in my view, to call their work an abortion or a travesty just because one doesn’t enjoy doing that.

3) I see the goal in the team games is to beat the GM. In my view the best way to do that encompasses 2 elements: i) using a variety of techniques to manipulate the software to help it find better moves. The searching must be wide and deep; ii) the human identification of one or two moves in a whole game that are outside of the software’s scope. The f pawn move in the Shulman game is a good example. None of these things really involve learning or improving although finding novelties in openings is at least interesting.

4) I do nothing described above. I don’t have the time. But I feel morally obligated to defend those that do because (at least until recently) read every post in the GM games in an effort to cast an informed vote.

5) There is usually some kind of team game going on without computers allowed. My impression is that most of the people that complain about the GM games don’t seem to participate in those games. But I could be wrong about that. But team chess, like centaur chess is not for everyone.

6) Finally, I guess. There is kind of camaraderie in the Team games which can be good (again the Shulman game is the best example because it was before the strong player invasion). For me, that was one of the most enjoyable parts of it. For example I really enjoyed the little bit of assistance I gave to Howard on the advice for new players portion of his forum. That was really in a positive spirit. Occasionally that spirit is disrupted by some newcomer, but that is ok they usually figure out what is going on. However, I find the deliberate disruption by people who have been at the site for a long time and know exactly what is going the most difficult to understand. <kingcrusher> makes great videos and is a strong chessplayer, but I have no idea what caused him to go off like he did since he really is not a contributor to the game in any way.

I am probably just naïve-I know I must sound like that, but I get enough conflict in real life without conflict drifting into my diversions.

<jfq> you are cool. I know exactly where you are coming from and I get it. I hope you get where I am coming from too and that you allow me to visit you from time to time. I know I could learn a lot from you because you started out where I am and you are (chesswise) where I want to be. Plus you are funny.