22 Jun 07
Originally posted by cmsMasterI'd be very interested in your assessment of 1 b4 e5 2 a3. Swopping the b pawn for the e pawn early on is not good for white. if you have to move the bishop three times.
It's garbage, I'm not denying that - I'll stick to the KG/QG for non-blitz games.
Phil.
22 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MrPhil1.d4 b5 is called the Polish Defense.
Its certainly playable. I've been playing it OTB this season and have scored quite well. More importantly I enjoy playing it.
I am aware that I don't understand the opening in all its complex glory, so as to whether its a keeper or not remains to be seen.
Phil.
Thread 65347
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by MrPhilAfter 1.e4 b5? 2.Bxb5 black has absolutely no compensation for the pawn. None, zero, zilch, nix! In fact, black's queenside with the weak a-pawn will probably come under pressure later in the game.
I'm still not convinced. As I said further upstream, I'd play a3/a6 to support the b4/b5 pawn. I wouldn't play 1 e4 b5 but I'm not convinced it as rubbish as you say. Black does have the long diagonal and the white bishop is misplaced on b5. Enough for the pawn? I'm leaning towards no, but I'd need to analyse it further than 3 moves to decide if it belon ...[text shortened]... y position until it all fell apart for white, which wasn't forced at all.
Phil.
A year or two back I did once venture 1.Nf3 b5?! in a game against a GM and managed to draw, but that was very much in spite of the opening I played!
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by MrPhilMy assessment is that, if he plays accurately, white should have reasonable chances to obtain a roughly equal position. Which is why few people play this as white.
I'd be very interested in your assessment of 1 b4 e5 2 a3. Swopping the b pawn for the e pawn early on is not good for white. if you have to move the bishop three times.
Phil.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by z00tI'm 1620-1650 slow on PC - blitz is just for fun, I really think blitz doesn't require much skill.
[b]cmsmaster you should concentrate on the your regular openings till you reach at least 1500 on PlayChess. You are going to be dead meat if you play those mickey mouse openings up the rating ladder.[/b]
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by cmsMasterYou are wrong. Look at the list of top blitz players and tell me which of them are not GMs. I watched Kasparov playing a blitz game with Fritz which he drew and I'd like you to show me how many hobbyist or club players can do that.
I'm 1620-1650 slow on PC - blitz is just for fun, I really think blitz doesn't require much skill.
24 Jun 07
7 edits
Originally posted by z00tBlitz need some specific skill. Skill of blitz, skill of rapid, skill of classical chess and skill of CC are different.
You are wrong. Look at the list of top blitz players and tell me which of them are not GMs. I watched Kasparov playing a blitz game with Fritz which he drew and I'd like you to show me how many hobbyist or club players can do that.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by KorchSusan Polgar said in her blog that CC is good because it allows one to look deeply into positions and allows experimentation. The only question is at what OTB Elo one should take up CC. In my personal opinion perhaps one should be about 1500-1700 so that they at least know something about chess.
Blitz need some specific skill. Skill of blitz, skill of rapid, skill of classical chess and skill of CC are different.
For example looking at some of my CC loses here, I did not follow the book or even look at any databases for those games. However if you have never played any other form of chess and only play CC, what will happen when you do not have your databases/books when you try?
At the end of the day one should enjoy oneself since chess is a hobby so to each his own I suppose, though I'm from the old school that believes in OTB chess.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by KorchWhat happened in the candidate matches that ended recently? How many were decided at rapid time controls after draws in the classical time control? How many players or GMs play well in a game but lose it due to time trouble or inablilty to find good moves under time pressure.
I believe in OTB chess too (I`m playing CC, because it helps me to improve in OTB chess), but also I`m from old school that believes in classical chess and thinks that blitz is not too serious.
For example Sasikiran was leading the M-Tel master till he took too much time in the last game againsst Topalov and even missed a draw in time trouble that could have let him win the tournament.
The point is that whilst OTB chess is the ultimate decider, rapid games and blitz are also played due to people not having time to play 40 moves in 2 hour games. Even FIDE has gone in favour of shorter time controls. This is the generation where people have fast food, instant coffee and microwaves so it is a cultural thing.
However one should not panic or give up if they do not do well at faster time controls. Its just a question of improving one's sight and improving one's gut feeling of a position.
24 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by z00t1) Time trouble and blitz is not the same.
What happened in the candidate matches that ended recently? How many were decided at rapid time controls after draws in the classical time control? How many players or GMs play well in a game but lose it due to time trouble or inablilty to find good moves under time pressure.
For example Sasikiran was leading the M-Tel master till he took too much time in th ...[text shortened]... s. Its just a question of improving one's sight and improving one's gut feeling of a position.
2) In candidate matches 12. matches were played - only one of them was decided in blitz (Aronian - Carlsen) and three - in rapid (Shirov - Adams, Gelfand - Kasimdzhanov and Grishcuk - Rublevsky) - so 75% were decided in classic.
3) Rapid (and blitz) were used only if both players were equal in longer time control. So FIDE still prefers long time controls and using short time controls only if players are equal in long time control.
Faster time control have one serious defect - with faster time control bluff and gambling prevails (especially in games between equal players).
24 Jun 07
So what would you recommend for people who experience time trouble or who are not good at speed chess? For example GM Reshevsky was well known for his time trouble problems. They play CC with 28/28 settings? Or they engage in philosophical debates on the merits/demerits of speed chess?
24 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by z00tMain reason of time trouble is not lack of time, but inability to decise.
So what would you recommend for people who experience time trouble or who are not good at speed chess? For example GM Reshevsky was well known for his time trouble problems. They play CC with 28/28 settings? Or they engage in philosophical debates on the merits/demerits of speed chess?
There are few possible options how people can try to avoid time trouble:
1) Learning of openings and playing them fast (Polugevsky, Suetin, Sveshnikov etc.).
2) Making margin of time (For example for Fischer it was 15-20 min ) which to use only in extraordinary circumstances.
3) Thinking during opponents time (Botvinnik)
4) Making complicated position simpler, when you are seeing that you may get in time trouble (Smyslov, Petrosian, Portisch).
Each of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
Ability to blitz can be useful in time trouble, BUT I can repeat again - time trouble and speed chess are not the same.