My point is that I'm using the Nimzo-Larsen opening and in the game in question I was in book until move 11. It isn't like I'm just saying "OK Fritz what should be my first move?"
I believe the answer to the question is that there is no specific time when a game transitions from one phase to the next, especially when one side starts the attack before being completely developed.
I do not view what I'm attampting to do as an opening book. I view what I'm thinking about creating trees of complete games based on Fritz's suggestions and my own play. It may take a number of years, but eventually I should get there.
You don't have to use the Full Analysis function on Fritz for Fritz to help your game out. I have hundreds of my own games on there, plus i always put the examples and the set-ups I find in chess books into Chessbase (or whatever it is called). To me, Fritz is nice because you can flip through the game forwards and backwards and analyze yourself and play things out differently and see where they take you. I like the function of Analyze all Moves and looking at that as I go over my games, but I have relatively simple chess problems from books that if I follow Fritz's best moves, I'll quickly end in three-fold repitition stalemate instead of getting the win out of the game. I like to use Fritz to play against the engine in these problems to make sure that I in fact can get the win or I can get the draw out of given situations. You can also easily make your own annotations alongside the moves. I do this either on Fritz or on paper. One thing I've noticed about doing this is I will write down questions like "why is that a good move" or "why didn't they take the rook with their bishop here" and a lot of the time, further down the road I will figure out the answer to my questions. Don't let them scare you away from using Fritz, because I feel it really helps, but don't use it as a complete crutch. When I joined here I didn't kinow which piece was my queen and which was my king. I had to wait for someone to move theirs so I could tell. I didn't understand castleing at all. Never heard of En Passant. I'm not saying I'm a major success story, but I play around 1400s right now after only a year. And that year was spent with pen and paper, Fritz, RHP, and my own board with problems and examples on it. Fritz has been huge for me, but I think it's mostly because I don't over-use it.
simple and dubious answer to OP- the opening is over when all your pieces are developed.
When working on your opening play, really strive to ask yourself what are you trying to accomplish. What is your plan? Then when you fire up the silicon monster you can at least judge suggested moves against how that fits your plan, or what compensation you get for deviating from it.
All very scary to me.
I did not like your 12.Qf3 and looked at Nxc6.
Not pawn stealing but storing the exchange on f6.
I dismiised Bg4 because Rxf6 looked OK.
It was unclear. (I never went that far as the perpetual).
Then you show the Fritz line - Oh No I'm thinking like Fritz. 😳
You say the first 11 moves are theory. (I've no idea about that).
Common error, first move out of theory and you blunder.
This is where your improvement plan should be, getting rid of
those silly moves
(which I can tell you now you will never get totally rid of - none of us do).
Keep playing, keep learning. I've never tried what you are trying,
I'm just an old hacker so how can I say what you are doing is wrong.
But I'd listen to the guys who says using a box helps and how it
helped them and more importantly how they use it.
My advice is to play as often as possible, you will soon realise
and learn by experience what is a good move and what is dodgy.
There will come a time when you don't need a box to tell you
which is which.
I'm not saying that I will only devote my time to analysis and keeping track of all the variations that result. Most of my time is spent at chesstempo. That's where I'm hoping to make the most improvement. I won't be a slave to Fritz. If I like it, I'll play it. If I don't, I won't.
Pariah,
I'll play around with the analyze all moves function. I also plan to use the calculating trainer.
Nimzo,
Chess is not a game for simple global rules. The purpose for the opening is to develop your army. But if your opponent makes mistakes we must be ready to take advantage and make moves that are not in line with opening principles. In other words, the opening portion of the game is put on hold for a bit. Illya Odessky mentioned this idea in his book Play 1.b3!, but I was unable to find the exact quote.
Originally posted by Eladarthat is why I wrote "and dubious" 🙂
I'm not saying that I will only devote my time to analysis and keeping track of all the variations that result. Most of my time is spent at chesstempo. That's where I'm hoping to make the most improvement. I won't be a slave to Fritz. If I like it, I'll play it. If I don't, I won't.
Pariah,
I'll play around with the analyze all moves function. I a ...[text shortened]... ky mentioned this idea in his book Play 1.b3!, but I was unable to find the exact quote.
Originally posted by EladarYeah! Fritz is not God. Here is a position of an old CC game.
... I won't be a slave to Fritz. If I like it, I'll play it. If I don't, I won't. ...
My Fritz 8 (may be the new engines are better) says after 7 minutes: Qxb7 =0.00
and afer 7:30 minutes Qxb7 -0,63 - but the game is lost for white!
Here is the rest of the game:
Hi Woody.
To be fair (and I hate defending computers) the mate would have
been way over it's horison.
As I type no doubt Rybka III is ticking away finding the win after QxB
perhaps in 2 or 3 minutes.
But it does highlight the main drawback of weaker players using a box to improve.
A 30 second glance told me (not a boast), you and few on here
that that postion was 'on' for Black if White takes the Bishop.
There is a definate perpetual in there - is there time for a Rook lift?
(The dance of death between the King & Queen reminded me of
an Alekhine v Yates game. )
But a weaker player would trust his box and not 'sense' there was
anything on.
So how can a weaker player improve if he does not understand
what these powerful machines are trying to tell him,
(or not tell him as in the posted example).
If they are not good enough to sometimes disagree with it's
0.69 assessment? Or know why it think a position is good.
But my main gripe with these things is it makes players lazy,
they are incomplete as players. Something is lacking.
Intuition? (something a box can never give them).
But I've had this argument with them all before.
The funny thing is, I keep hearing how great they are to help a
player improve and yet....none of them appear to be getting any better.
Re: Computer openings book.
This may not be a good thing. The 'Book' would have been entered
by a human from human games. Humans sometimes make errors.
Also some openings postions that the computer gets dragged into
may not suit it. Unclear positions, these things still do not understand
fully the concept of counter-play or good OTB chances.
If a box tells me this position is no good you are -1.74 down but
I can see nothing but problems and a difficult position for a
HUMAN to defend, I'll take it.
Look at that I was right!
case in point.
Would a weaker player realise why the computer played Bf1
instead of taking the Bishop right away or would he have to
force the box to take the bishop to be shown?
V: Take the Bishop and see how long it takes to find the mate.
Be interesing to match it up with Fritz 8.