Originally posted by @greenpawn34Yes, I've seen your complaints through the years.
" Do your good moves win the game or your lack of bad moves? "
My bad moves encourage bad moves. then I play a few good moves and win.
If don't get a bad move in answer to my bad moves. I don't win.
You hate computers because they don't play like people. They don't fall for tricks.
You topped out at a certain level because when you play against strong enough people they don't fall for your traps either.
Lucky for you there's a sucker born every minute. Lots of new faces showing up who have never seen your tricks.
Originally posted by @montymooseI think it might have veen bigdog who told me that I need to do something more than just wait for my opponent to make a mistake.
At my level, mistakes on either side will usually determine the outcome. A few of my games show some forsight and positional knowledge. Those are the ones I feel best about.
Greenpawn suggest applying pressure and watch the human in front of you crumble. It has worked several times, but bit me in the butt a time or two as well. But it was always fun.
Originally posted by @eladarAfter reading this in the morning it came off as much more jerky than intended. The thumbs down was warranted
Yes, I've seen your complaints through the years.
You hate computers because they don't play like people. They don't fall for tricks.
You topped out at a certain level because when you play against strong enough people they don't fall for your traps either.
Lucky for you there's a sucker born every minute. Lots of new faces showing up who have never seen your tricks.
Sorry for the negative tone. I was just trying to explain why it seems to me you dislike computers. Your style takes advantage of the fact that people make mistakes. It is what you play to.
Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly.
Hi Eladar,
It's OK. I'm cool. it's about right, though I don't class my opponents as suckers.
Victims of a con man is more apt.
I play in these hard core event and play more than a few dodgy but tricky opening
moves hoping for a quick trip up. Of the top of my head Game 12326223 is a
recent example. 3...Nc6 in the Latvian is known to be bad but I often play it.
"Playing a move you know is bad shows a defect in character." Jonathan Rowson.
But me and my defected character are happy to play the game how I want
to play the game. (though I often wish I had that advice when I first started.)
Computers?
They done away with adjournments which is good point in their favour.
Cheating is an obvious reason but my biggest complaint is they
have taken away the human search for traps and TN's and mistakes in analysis.
I loved the group sessions we had in the late 70's early 80's when we looked
for improvements and ideas. I recall two solid days of looking at the famous
Karpov - Miles a6 game. And if a Bxh7+ worked.
Danny Kopec and Craig Pritchett were working on their book about the
young GM's when this game popped up.
Can Karpov play 19.Bxh7+ or perhaps, my idea, 19.a5 first and then Bxh7+
In the book (game 8) there is a full page of analysis dedicated to this.
Me and Ian Mullen came to the conclusion it was very unclear and if Karpov
had played it then Miles would have to find some very exact only moves and
OTB it was worth a try.
Theses day a computer spits at the idea within a few seconds.
Who got more from this position. Me for spending all that time trying
and trying and trying to find a killer move. Or a dip who put the position
into a computer, got an answer in 20 seconds and left it.
Even if you say, it has tremendous OTB potential you will be met with
a blank stare. "The computer says no."
I suppose I feel how a portrait artist must have felt when the camera
was developed and made public property.
And mistakes in published analysis. I stopped looking at analysis from
2000 onwards. Pointless. It's rarely human and if it had it would have,
been computer checked.
In the BC days (Before Computers) you looked at every move in analysis
for a missed tactical shot. You enjoyed it. (well I did). and I know it did me good.
Here is an example for you from a letter in CHESS, December 1969
a piece of analysis by Bob Latter.
It's a combination [sic] of both, mostly. In all the games I have lost, I definitely made at least one mistake and my opponent was able to capitalise on it. Of all the games I have won, my opponent made at least one mistake and I was able to capitalise on it.
There have been games I should have lost, but my opponent was not able to capitalise on my mistake(s).
Originally posted by @greenpawn34Why play 19. a5? I don't see a possible benefit.
Hi Eladar,
It's OK. I'm cool. it's about right, though I don't class my opponents as suckers.
Victims of a con man is more apt.
I play in these hard core event and play more than a few dodgy but tricky opening
moves hoping for a quick trip up. Of the top of my head Game 12326223 is a
recent example. 3...Nc6 in the Latvian is known to ...[text shortened]... ld the ending if he keeps an eye open for back rank mates. What is wrong with this line.} [/pgn]
I've read your post several times. I just looked up the Greek Gift on several sites. I have of course looked at it in the past, but now I want to really understand it an when I can use it.
Chess is like that for me, I can not understand something and be ok with that for a while, but then it frustrates me. When it makes me angry enough then I spend the time it takes.
I do not believe that I have the same ability that you have to be all consumed with something, but I might if I actually believed I could find something unique and not something obvious to a great many players.
As for guys who say, "but the computer doesn't like it", they either have a very low understanding of chess and play memorized lines simply because the computers tells them to or they are only interested in getting a higher rating. Any sort of enjoyment of a position would not compute. It speaks more about them than it does about you.
It seems there are some around here who are much more like you. Many of them are solid players like you not just novice hacks like me.
Hi Elador,
You are going back 35 years. but here:
Karpov played 19.Ng5 the task I set myself was to find the win with 19.Bxh7+
Remember I was working by setting and re-setting the position up and
digging and digging and I was wanting a 100% win. Not an unclear win or position.
I'll give three lines that I can recall where Be7 kept appearing .
My idea of a5 first takes Be7 off the board. Of course here.
In some lines the Bishop on b4 becomes unprotected and can be used as a
tempo gainer to play Rc4 and Rh4 The conclusion last time I looked at what the boffins were
doing with this was Karpov has a probable draw with Bxh7+ instead of Ng5
after which he still had at least a draw till he blundered a few moves later.
The game went: 19. Ng5 h6 20. Bh7+ Kh8 21. Bb1 Be7 *
There is Be7 (again) So I also looked at 19.a5 and 20. Ng5 lines. Nothing.
Originally posted by @eladar25% Good moves on my part, 75% bad moves on my opponents. It's slowing getting better though.
What determines the outcome of your games? Do your good moves win the game or your lack of bad moves?
At my level definitely lack of bad moves seems to be the case. Just wondering if this ever changes.