I'm back.
Good day out. Made a Corner out of it.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=398
(you have to see this Qb1-Qa2 a mate of mine came up with.)
Hi Paul.
These days players are claiming computer analysis as their own, especially
in the notes.
Had an interesting conversation with a good player who plays the Acc Dragon.
I mentioned Levy's 1970 book and a trap in it I used on here.
He too has an ancient move not mentioned in the latest Acc Dragon book
which scores very heavily for Black. It's not a trap just an idea.
These old pre-computer books are full of good ideas as modern books have
been Fritz'd and they give the best move or moves not realising that sometimes
the 2nd and 3rd best choice presents the human player with severe OTB problems
to solve.
Asked another good player if he could contribute to this thread by saying
what makes a player good. He replied.
"Keep away from Chandler Cornered."
Good advice I'm thinking.
Re diet:
A hamburger, a cup of sweet cofee, a fag and I'm ready fro anyone.
AT the board I'll allow my opponent to suck on a sweet or take a drink.
I do neither. I have a bottle of water but if I take a drink I do it away
from the board.
If any of them look like they have to come to the board for a feast with
sandwiches, cakes and pies I ask them to eat away from the board.
They always have but if they ever refused I would start to pick my nose.
Originally posted by greenpawn34i have that very book, some kind gentleman sent it in the post. Only last week i was thumbing through it and was arguing with the author over section eleven, the hyper accelerated dragon, which he poured scorn upon! what is this idea pawn dude? which chapter is it in?
I'm back.
Good day out. Made a Corner out of it.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=398
(you have to see this Qb1-Qa2 a mate of mine came up with.)
Hi Paul.
These days players are claiming computer analysis as their own, especially
in the notes.
Had an interesting conversation with a good player who plays the A ...[text shortened]... the board.
They always have but if they ever refused I would start to pick my nose.
Had an interesting conversation with a good player who plays the Acc Dragon.I have that book, and also Levy's book on the "regular" dragon. Now the secret is out. Geez!
I mentioned Levy's 1970 book and a trap in it I used on here.
He too has an ancient move not mentioned in the latest Acc Dragon book
which scores very heavily for Black. It's not a trap just an idea.
These old pre-computer books are full of good ideas as modern books have
been Fritz'd and they give the best ...[text shortened]... times
the 2nd and 3rd best choice presents the human player with severe OTB problems
to solve.
On the flip side, there was a King's Indian book in the same series written by four authors (I don't remember them all, but I think two were Keene and Hartston), where they reached the same position by different move orders on four different pages, and they gave this identical position four different assessments!
Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis, or something like that!
Hi Robbie.
It was this game. (below).
Levy gives the game right up to the piece sac so I thought I'd try it.
I'm not 100% convinced it's sound. But good for a laugh.
Some nice variations my opponent avoided in that one.
I know the King's Indian book. Cannot recall authors either but it was a massive
book. Perhaps the venture was too big.
Certainly makes you think for yourself.
I recall a Reinfeld book that said one position was good for White and later
on in the same book the same position was in Black's favour.
In Levy's book on the mainline Dragon (1st edition) Miles busted a variation
given by him quite beaitifully. DNL corrected it in the reprint.
That is explained in detail in my Tony Miles Tribute.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=15
Street Fighter advises using old opening theory as a lot of these old lines are not
busted, just out of fashion.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Just so long as you're wiping your finger on your knickers, not your tongue nor my chess pieces.
They always have but if they ever refused I would start to pick my nose.
I often eat cookies at the board, and always have coffee or water or both. If my opponent wished that I refrain, he'll need the support of the TD. In my city, the TD's wife makes the cookies for our largest tournaments.
A few cookies are OK I might even indulge if they are free.
However if you drop crumbs on the board which is the canvas I am creating
on then I'll blow them into your lap. 🙂
Muching and nibbling is often frowned upon at the top boards. I've seen
others players see the TD about it.
I prefer to keep it between me and my opponent.
Of course you can bring in a large salad sandwich and place it next to the board
and look like you are going to eat it.
"The threat is stronger than the execution."
If there are cookie crumbs, they fall into my lap. The coffee and water are kept neat at hand, but a good distance from the board. The sipping of both is not done over the canvas, but back in the chair. Spills (I haven't had any) are away from the table. I have seen coffee spilled near a board, and it horrifies me. Once an opponent slammed his hands on the table when I pointed out that he had flagged. He spilled his Arizona ice tea on my board and pieces. When I play him, we use one of my cheap sets--not the fine wood.
Chess, to me, isn't something you should have the ambition to get better at. I just love sitting there pondering positions, sometimes i'll even make random moves in my games just to ponder them. I have a drive to win but winning for me isn't just checkmating my opponent, because chess is something that no matter how long you sit and think about it you will never solve the mystery. If that doesn't spark your interest more than winning then you shouldn't even waste your time.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSIf you succeed at solving little problems, you will win.
Chess, to me, isn't something you should have the ambition to get better at. I just love sitting there pondering positions, sometimes i'll even make random moves in my games just to ponder them. I have a drive to win but winning for me isn't just checkmating my opponent, because chess is something that no matter how long you sit and think about it you w ...[text shortened]... that doesn't spark your interest more than winning then you shouldn't even waste your time.
Pondering positions without seeking truth seems senseless, even to the Zen master.
Without self-improvement, life lacks its spark.
Originally posted by Mephisto2Spassky a "non-monster"??? I would think he was a textbook definition of chess prodigy.
2.no player without a far higher than average memory can reach the top. A non-monster player like Boris Spassky can still reproduce most of the games he played as a world champion, 30+ years later. I can't reproduce the games I played two weeks ago.
Originally posted by nimzo5Spassky was my idol. My best chess moment ever has been a game against him. But he was not a 'memory-monster'. He was more the creative type of player (given his USSR background), would challenge everything his predecessors did before him.
Spassky a "non-monster"??? I would think he was a textbook definition of chess prodigy.
Originally posted by WulebgrI do seek the truth but I realize i will never find it. Its not all about winning.
If you succeed at solving little problems, you will win.
Pondering positions without seeking truth seems senseless, even to the Zen master.
Without self-improvement, life lacks its spark.
Originally posted by isthislikecheckersYes, you're much too old to be playing chess. 😕
I'm nineteen and thinking about taking up chess seriously. I've know the rules since I was about seven but rarely played. I'm a quick learner and have a high IQ but I'm afraid I've waited too long. How young do you have to start to become a great player?