Hi Cimon
I think he is you is talking to you Fat Lady.
It cannot be me.
I'm very happy with my chess development. Very very Happy.
But most likely it is aimed at me.
Swindle Chess!
All I do is set traps that box players keep falling into.
What is it you want me to do?
Allow them to take their moves back?
Feel sorry for them 'cos their tactical ability and sense of danger
has been shot to hell through constant box use?
Positional Play....
My friend, In Chess the Two Move Trick is King.
"Chess is 99% tactics." Teichmann,
Good Luck with your Chess Development.
One thing i wonder about Prog play vs over the board is moving from a 2D screen to a real board. I find this causes trouble. It's much easier to see tactics on a 2D board for me. Anyone else have this problem?
Also greempawn says
'Playing a computer constantly will seriously damge your chess '
I had an odd problem with the Halloween attack: Its is a very good anti computer line - the line that keeps the most material for black seems to loose. I can beat a few computers with it and practiced quite a bit as it's very interesting. But these tactics didn't work against people. As you say computers have no King fear. Even novice players see white has a big attack planned and try and get some space rather then keeping every pawn. Still think as suggested taking a prog and playing it 1 ply ahead, then 2 then 3 etc is a good method of training. - tactics espicially. And they are great tools for Analysis
Originally posted by Black Star UchessI won't join the engine debate as I think it's pointless,much like debating religion as someone here stated,but I do find it an enjoyable read.Keep it up.
One thing i wonder about Prog play vs over the board is moving from a 2D screen to a real board. I find this causes trouble. It's much easier to see tactics on a 2D board for me. Anyone else have this problem?
Also greempawn says
'Playing a computer constantly will seriously damge your chess '
I had an odd problem with the Halloween attack: I ...[text shortened]... is a good method of training. - tactics espicially. And they are great tools for Analysis
I do have a story about 2D-3D vision.
I bought my first PC so I could play chess on the net because I was unable to play OTB as much as I wanted to.
I had a lot of trouble adjusting to 2D vision,hanging pieces all the time,missing mates in one etc...
After a few months it got better,then after 3 years of 'screenchess' I joined an OTB tourney again and found out I had lost my 3D vision. 🙁
Now I play on the net using a real board.Problem solved 🙂
So in my experience playing 2D a lot does damage your 3D vision and vice versa.
Hi all... maybe I should not join this discussion... you see, I'm from the dark side... <insert evil Darth Vader laugh here>. I got utterly frustrated with my own chess and simply could not get better, so I joined the computer chess community and implemented my own chess engine from absolute scratch. I was thinking that it would be far less frustrating than trying to improve myself. I was soooo dreadfully wrong. I have far less hair and sanity left over... especially when it starts playing like, well, a computer...
So from a chess programming author, I have to agree that playing a chess engine vanilla style will turn your chess into something terribly boring, akin to poetry being turned into accounting. The vast majority of engines are written to be strong as possible in order to compete with other engines. I think it would be possible to design a engine that will take chances and seek out active, counter-play, but this will be very difficult and will also result in a MUCH weaker engine. This is one of my ideas with my chess engine, but for now, I'm trying to get it to play as strong as possible, for purposes of competing against chess engines. (As in computer vs. computer.)
...but no, no engine can create the same beauty in chess then a human can.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Myth about positional players as bad tacticians is old 😴
Hi Cimon
I think he is you is talking to you Fat Lady.
It cannot be me.
I'm very happy with my chess development. Very very Happy.
But most likely it is aimed at me.
Swindle Chess!
All I do is set traps that box players keep falling into.
What is it you want me to do?
Allow them to take their moves back?
Feel sorry for them 'cos the ...[text shortened]... is King.
"Chess is 99% tactics." Teichmann,
Good Luck with your Chess Development.[/b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34Smyslov - Trufunovic, Zagreb 1955
Postion after Black 10th move.
Looking through variations with an engine, the main ideas are based on completing development. So we see various combinations of 0-0; queen going to g4 to exert more pressure on Black's kingside; rooks maybe coming to c1 and d1.
Position after White's 16th move
Likewise here, Black needs to find a useful role for his queen and unite his rooks. Black has to watch for White playing d5. White has to watch for Black playing Qa5 hitting a2 and e5 (only a2 is immediately loose but in some lines the White queen stops defending e5).
Position after White's 20th move.
So the engine shows that White is threatening d5 opening up lines. e.g. d5, exd5, Rxd5, Qc8, Bxg7. The lines highlight the potential issues for Black: queen on same file as a White rook; bishop on e7 may become hanging; Blacks rooks play little part in comparison to White's. Hence Black has to be very careful about the d5 threat. The suggested 20...Bb4 line shows moves that help meet the above issues: the bishop is moved from e7 and won't hang; the Black queen will move off the d-file; White has to move his e1 rook from an active position, losing time in the process.
Now you show me an idea you got from a computer to win a game on here.
I don't think it's a ever a case of "here's a game I won purely because of previous study with an engine". Likewise, I've had strong players look over my games and I can't think any direct follow up wins in those cases either. Instead, it's more of a subtle tuning of one's feel for a position, e.g. when the bishop pair is significant or not, etc. For example, in one of my recently drawn games on here I was glad my opponent offered a draw. I thought he had a slight advantage. But the engine showed it to be the reverse. And I could understand the lines it gave to justify this.
Hi Varenka
Cheers - intersting and thanks for coming back.
Better post the game I suppose.
There was a mini-war going on in some other thread about
Knights and Bishops. I was wondering if this game would be produced
by the Bishop supporters.
But these guys know nothing of their chess heritage.
If the game was not played in the last 10 years then it aint worth knowing.
Anyway.
What does it eveluate after 16...Bxe5. Equal?
Does it see and approve of the exchange sac 24.Rxf6
Does it find anyway for Black to get back into the game?
In the early 80's when I was winning things and being pig-headed
by refusing advice from very good players like Kopec etc.
I was given this game to study.
Made quite an impact.
Smyslov became No1 guy for a while, Bishops were back in favour
and there was beauty in a game lasing longer than 25 moves
But, alas, when I sat down to put my new friend Smsylov's play into
action and implement my new ideas. My opponet would make an
opening error, so I would bang-sac, bang-sac and mate him under 25.
So it's all their fault I stayed in a tactical rut.
OK I hovered between 2000-2200 but that is the ceiling a
purely tactcial player reaches - no higher.
Strange that you have no game to show where anything has influenced
you or has guided you.
Which game was it that you glad you drew - was it v Telboy?
You have had 62 draws - I'm not going to look at them all.
My game Game 5577230 came from Chernev's 1000 short games.
I remember it well 'cos the game given by Chernev is flawed.
I discovered 4.Bxf7+ is much better than 4.Ng5 because after the 4...Kxf7
5.Ng5+ Kf6 6.Qf3+ mates (which is better than winning a Queen)
And 4...Nh6 is naff. 4...e6 holds - so my 4.Bxf7+ is much better.
This was all in 75/76 this added fuel to my mistrust in chess books.
And I was only on game No.4 in Chernev's 1000!.
I never forgot it.
When I make sacs on f7 early doors v Pirc set-ups I always go back to that moment.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Your questions about Smislov - Trifunovich game and engine (I used Rybka 3)
Hi Varenka
Cheers - intersting and thanks for coming back.
Better post the game I suppose.
[pgn]
[Event "Zagreb"]
[Site "Zagreb"]
[Date "1955.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Vasily Smyslov"]
[Black "Petar Trifunovic"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. e3 Be7 5. b3 O-O 6. Bb2 c5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9. Bc4 Qd8 10. Ne5 Nd7 11 7 early doors v Pirc set-ups I always go back to that moment.
"What does it eveluate after 16...Bxe5. Equal?"
Yes
"Does it see and approve of the exchange sac 24.Rxf6?"
Yes - its matched as first choice immediately.
"Does it find anyway for Black to get back into the game?"
After exchange sacrifice it does not find anything for Black to get normal position.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes.
Hi Cimon.
Thanks. Just clear this bit up.
"After exchange sacrifice it does not find anything for Black to get normal position."
'Normal position' ?
Is it s a loss all the way from the exchange sac onwards according to Rybka. No draw/win chances at all for Black?
P.S. Should be said that I did not spend more than 10-20 seconds per move. Show me where there was chances for Black and I`ll check out if engine can find it during longer time.
Rybka should have spotted something at those time scales.
I not saying there was, I remember looking at this game
years ago and finding a trick or two that perhaps would have
worked OTB.
Debate about Bishops and Knights brought this game forward
in my mind.
It's testament to what a brilliant player Smyslov was
from '53 - '58 (his peak - though he did have a Swan Song in
the early 80's and that's when some of his famous old games re-surfaced).
PS:
In another post you ask why I did not name the strong players
who agreed that using a box harmed their play.
The very strong player I had in mind has asked me NOT to give
his name. (the boys at the top get freebies so they never bite the
hand that feeds them, and he is a one of the chosen few).
But it goes like this.
He got Fritz to go over his games and Fritz also analysed the games
when he wrote articles. He cut and pasted the analysis.
Over a period of time, approx two years, his play slipped.
Tactical over-sights appeared in his games and he lost 150 grading points.
He joked to a fellow strong player he was getting old but his friend
ask him how often he used a computer.
He was advised to stop it there and then.
The rot stopped in his games, though a few errors appeared in his
writing. Me spotting this is how I found out what happened.
"I had to virtually start again." were his words.
Six months later he won a very a strong tournament.
I don't know who you are else I would trust you and PM his name.
But I'm asking you to trust me on this.
If constant use of an engine it affecting strong players in this way.
What is it doing to lesser lights?
Of course it could be an individual thing but so many other people
are coming forward and agreeing, it might be a more prelevant than
what we think.
PPS: (the never ending post)
Positionally he said he still OK but tactically he was useless.
Interesting.
I know you have to keep your eye in tactically.
But it appears once you have mastered the fundimentals of
positional play, it never leaves you.
Or
Fritz was so naff at positional play he had to still use his own brain
to spot and dismiss bad positional play from the box.
I'd like to think it was the former.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Personally I feel that playing/analysing with engine have only improved my play as it helped me to change my opinion about many kind of positions.
Rybka should have spotted something at those time scales.
I not saying there was, I remember looking at this game
years ago and finding a trick or two that perhaps would have
worked OTB.
Debate about Bishops and Knights brought this game forward
in my mind.
It's testament to what a brilliant player Smyslov was
from '53 - '58 (his peak - tho ...[text shortened]... and dismiss bad positional play from the box.
I'd like to think it was the former.
That`s the reason why I think that it`s very individual. And I guess that also it could be problem that people tend to "cut-paste" without using their own brains.
By the way - I don`t understand why so many people seems to be obsessed with Fritz as (IMHO) Rybka is much better.
Originally posted by CimonI think people ( me included) just say Fritz as it covers all engines.
Personally I feel that playing/analysing with engine have only improved my play as it helped me to change my opinion about many kind of positions.
That`s the reason why I think that it`s very individual. And I guess that also it could be problem that people tend to "cut-paste" without using their own brains.
By the way - I don`t understand why so many people seems to be obsessed with Fritz as (IMHO) Rybka is much better.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Does it find anyway for Black to get back into the game?
I think 25...Qc6 is a big improvement over 25...Qh5? The following line shows Black willing to give back the material, plus a pawn, in order to deprive White of the initiative.
25...Qc6 26.Be5 Rfe8 27.h4 h5 28.Bb5 Qd5 29.Bxe8 Rxe8 30.Qxb2 f6 31.Bc3 Rxe1+ 32.Bxe1 Qd1 33.Qc3 Kg7
I think Black can hold a draw here.