click for larger view

How would you estimate your chances of converting this against a strong player/engine, and how would you go about it?

Interesting subject for study is the KRP v KBP endgame that may likely arise...

I just finished watching your documentary, "Paul Morphy: Mozart of Chess" on ewe-tube. Excellent!

The only thing I would change is the title. I've always felt Morphy was more the Beethoven of chess, while I would consider someone like Steinitz the Mozart of chess.

I've taken an interest recently in the psychology of being up (or down) an Exchange, and how it can enhance or diminish a player's subjective expectation of winning (or losing).

This is a quite different topic to any kind of objective advantage. The perfect chess player does not exist. Very strong GMs and engines may emulate this kind of objective position evaluation, up to a point. But -- certainly where we biologicals are concerned -- appraisals are always tinged with subjectivity.

The same can be said of computers, even if they don't experience the subjectivity themselves. What happens instead is that the subjective biases of the programmers show through.

In practice -- in chess *as struggle* -- it's abnormal to evaluate a position as a stand-alone diagram. Strong players have the ability to make themselves do it, as one task among many influencing move selection. But it doesn't come *naturally*: it's a willed effort to 'think like a computer'. As such, it may or may not be useful in a given position.

It's much more usual to experience a game as a narrative. A story. While trying not to be distracted by regrets ("How did I get here?") or impossible alternative positions ("This is not my beautiful plan").

Obviously, having an initiative is very important. A player who sacrifices the Exchange can get a real initiative -- or maybe just a momentary sense of being in charge of the game. Unless it's delusional, that can be as good as an objective initiative -- the opponent senses it, and gets a corresponding sense of losing the game's thread.

Similarly, blundering away the exchange often produces negative thoughts. It might even be the same position as after a deliberate sac, but the psychology is different.

These are very crude examples, but I've had games where the psychology of the Exchange sac had poker-like nuances. For example, attacking players use sacs to launch mating attacks, by and large. I've sometimes succeeded with a sac (Exchange, or a piece for 2-3 pawns) *designed* with an endgame in mind. The opponent unwittingly helped the plan along, by defending against the mating attack that never was ... and maybe letting another pawn or two drop while solidifying his King position.

As you say, these can be very intricate affairs. The 'soviet exchange sac' - as played by Botvinnik, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Keres, Stein et al in the 1950-60s - was a pile of *different* sacs from players with different styles. The underlying strength came from the observation that a Bishop or Knight could outplay a Rook in certain positions, and there were often fortresses to fall back on.

We all know this now, of course. In another recent game I was under pressure, liable to lose at least one pawn and have an unpleasant ending. I saw that if I instead gave up ♖ for ♗ then I couldn't lose.

And so it proved. I got a domineering centralized Bish on d5, easily a match for a Rook. My opponent - the psychology factor again - found it hard to adjust, and tried to keep the initiative by returning the Exchange. This gave me a slightly better Queen ending, though I took a draw as time was running low.

And last night, starting from an actual game position, I handled the pawns against Fritz in a N-vs-ppp ending.

I thought it started out as possibly drawn and gradually became a win for me as it progressed. In fact - assuming Fritz at 25-30 ply is accurate - it went from probable win to dead draw to probable win and definite win. Far more wrinkles than I thought, though the result was the same.

Nor does White have anything based on 'perpetual' harassment of the Rook or King. Trying to do so could be risky, as would allowing a bishop exchange.

But blockading seems to work. Even with the rook on a1, white is OK with bishops on b3 (blockading the p) and c1 (supported by the K). Black has to try to infiltrate his own king, which I think can be thwarted by checks, a few careful pawn moves and even king opposition.

Any other key points? Black has some chances, certainly -- it's worth trying to win. But I think White can hold on. I'd guess, without checking, that Fritz gives Black a large, probably 'winning' eval advantage. And it would probably take a lot of moves to change its mind.

Certainly I was of the same opinion as you, that White should (try and) keep both his Bishops on, and mount a spirited blockade and possibly centralizing the King with a Bishop to "hide behind" (see first Diagram below) in case of rook checks -- which should amount to an optimistic estimate with regards to drawing chances for the B-pair. A Black King march to <g5> however may be still offering winning chances...

But, let's return to "what was played": I will not show the entire tree on "How the West was Won", but indeed it is exactly the engine, in playing White, that decided on taking the b-pawn with the B and thereby allowing the DSB to be exchanged at the B2 corral... <Precisely> what you cautioned NOT to aim for in this type ending. Here's a snap shot:

With White to move, the engine goes for the pawn

click for larger view

... and in fact consequently simplifying to a position that must be nearing to a technical win; ...Ra8-a4 just played a few moves onward:

click for larger view

Admitted this *is*, still, a laborious procedure - in a little less than <88>, to perform - but I can only encourage any chess STUDENT, of all ages, to get this one down, study it, and pay close attention to the subtle maneuvering that allow King and Rook to dominate over the White forces, and even force a favourable RETURN of the EXCHANGE, in order to get to a winning King opposition to promote the remaining last pawn!

http://www.chessgames.com/newslette...

<Get off the Earth!>

This delightful problem was the invention of chess master and puzzle-genius Sam Loyd.

From Sam Loyd's "Cyclopedia of Puzzles": Just to show the style best calculated to sell in the stores or by street hawkers as a novelty, occasion is taken to illustrate the famous "Get off the Earth" puzzle, of which over ten million were sold to the public. The puzzle was printed in bright colors upon two movable pieces (which cannot be shown here). You first see thirteen men, and then only twelve, and the puzzle is to tell which man disappeared. Out of many hundreds of thousands of attempted answers, the most idiotic of which recently appeared in the London Strand Magazine, not one explained the mystery..."

Pictured above are men with swords, circling the globe. Count them, being careful to not count the same one twice. If you count correctly you will conclude there are 12 men altogether.

However, if you print this drawing and carefully cut the circular earth out of the paper, then rotate the earth slightly clockwise, something quite startling happens: instead of 12 men, you count 13!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnA...

Minimalist forum-spamming is a rare art. Those who dump the same message all over the shop tend to be the same kind of nfolk who write verbose hyper-emotional rants about crazy stuff.

Minimalists are ... different.

According to the <Virgin Birth Theorem> they can evolve via a single mutation from nothing at all. Even so, one 5-letter word -- 'hello', as seen in <0003>'s composition, "Hello: a bad trip tick" -- may be a (vinyl) record. I have a theory, naturally.

Three years ago <Monad> vanished after posting a short message ('Season's Greetings') to many forums. Mine was included, even though I'd just insulted him by saying I couldn't put up with prima donnas anymore. That was bad enough, but then CG included him in a team for a *Team White vs Team Black* game -- he entered by accident while peeking. When CG mildly suggested that he simply *not play*, he got annoyed, and withdrew from everything that hr could.

So who have we now? Somebody reminding us that 03 years have gone by? Or telling us that there are three persons in the one monad? Or that he's had triplets?

It's just a theory. It could be somebody new. That's the trouble with being a famous celeb, innit -- whether as <namba wan kibitzah? or a mere *doyen* like me.

<Dom> I'm happy to meet any friend of Max Weber, incognito or otherwise.

Your theory about "Secret Nigel" is so spectacularly incorrect, however, that I wish I had more than pure conjecture to offer.

I'll eat your shoes- on film- if that <Bob Creature> turns out to be Nigel.

Conditions:

1. Nigel has to confirm this via email- and he has my address as we both know from "previous combat."

2. You have to mail me your shoes.

Moving to more frivolous topics, I initially thought your attempt to bring some measure of basic sanity and civility to the <Ampersand-Tiffany> Match Page was "pearls before swine," but why shouldn't swine get pearls?

In fact, I believe the Vietnamese Pot Pig subsists entirely on a diet of pearls.

Anyhoo, you seem to have distracted them with a discussion of Pynchon.

The odds of this happening were GOOGOL to one, and yet here it is.

Oh yes and Nigel will in fact be receiving treble his usual stipend for this Match, and I couldn't be more pleased.

And the loony bin management, aka CG, will have to put up signs saying 'please use the facility provided when making your nuisance'.

But it's nice to send the pack of rabid ideologs off after a tan gent. Several, I suspect, have never met a gent before, tan or otherwise.

As for Dr Crispen, I don't believe that he's Nigel either, but it almost made sense for a moment. The name is clearly a pseudonym, or a nom-de-fake as we say in the art world.

Not one of the Staffordshire Crisps, at any rate. Their Crisp Empire - what Americans call potato chips, I think - went belly-up when they invested everything in Smoky Bacon flavoring machines, just as smoking became a capital crime and the local ham-chomping yokels were replaced by Muslim immigrants who thought smoky bacon crisps were the devil's work. And they were right.

So presumably Bob is Crisp as in 'burned to a ...'

But Nigel has been putting up a jolly good show, hasn't he? I think we can agree to overlook his previous eager-beaverness. Maybe he thought it was the Canadian National Pastime, and was simply being polite.