09 Jun 06
The one thing I don't get is as follows.
I clearly remember a story of a 1400 asking Hebert why he traded his rook for a bishop. This player claimed that Hebert explained this extremely well to him etc.,etc.. I simply don't get how an engine user could possible be able to do this.
(I'm sure the thread is still lurking around somewhere.)
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by General PutzerThere are lots of people in Quebec that don't speak english at all actually. Have you ever been lost in Montreal trying to get directions from someone that speaks english? Can be very difficult!
'Allo, I am jean hebert, i am the master of the chess....evan though I live in za Canada, my English is the not so good....we speak only french in canada, don't you know?
The real Hebert speaks English as well as you or I, I'd wager.
-though.. this is not saying I agree or disagree that he's the real Jean Hebert...
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by David TebbDetails, details.
I believe someone else paid for his subscription, probably his clan leader as an inducement to join his clan.
Why are people so surprised when someone who registers with the name of a famous player turns out to be not the real thing?
Jose Capablanca was also banned on the same day as Jean Hebert. Does anyone think he was the Cuban World Champion? ...[text shortened]... irawan and half the site seemed to believe he was genuine, despite not being able to play chess!
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by cmsMasterI had no idea that answering a fellow chessplayer's question would draw so much interest.
The one thing I don't get is as follows.
I clearly remember a story of a 1400 asking Hebert why he traded his rook for a bishop. This player claimed that Hebert explained this extremely well to him etc.,etc.. I simply don't get how an engine user could possible be able to do this.
(I'm sure the thread is still lurking around somewhere.)
I would guess from the responses that it is not common for better players to help others.
I merely answered a question which "sonhouse" and I had discussed in messages, by the best means I thought he would understand. I set-up the Sic-Dragon position as it occurred in my game except that I had him capture the Rook "winning" the exchange early.
He couldn't grasp the severe developement problem he had as White vs Black's instant attack.
It only took 2-3 hours out of my day (as I was in the process of losing my first game here to a superb game by "sastorey" to answer his questions fully, including some tough searching for a few games where the Rook was captured in actual games.
I can't answer every question so carefully, but was glad to have helped "sonhouse" with his thoughtful question.
The "game" we played was unrated naturally because of the piece set-up.
The starting position was definitely very much in Black's favour and there was never any doubt of the decision.
I hope there wasn't any mis-understanding as to the idea that it was completely a learning experience.
Many players ask for help; I hope many "better" players respond to those asking for help.
Thank you "sonhouse" for your time. I appreciated the help also. It made me feel good to help.
Jean
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by Red NightHeyyy, that's perfect english. His other posts were in broken english.
I had no idea that answering a fellow chessplayer's question would draw so much interest.
I would guess from the responses that it is not common for better players to help others.
I merely answered a question which "sonhouse" and I had discussed in messages, by the best means I thought he would understand. I set-up the Sic-Dragon position as it occurre ...[text shortened]... your time. I appreciated the help also. It made me feel good to help.
Jean
How about that dopey Canadian gang, lol? Here was Jean minding his own business as a non sub doing minor damage. Then those megalomaniacal clowns had to rule the rhp world by drawing him in and turning him into a 100+ game monster! They used poor Jean up and burned him out in the process.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by RegicidalBastards.
Heyyy, that's perfect english. His other posts were in broken english.
How about that dopey Canadian gang, lol? Here was Jean minding his own business as a non sub doing minor damage. Then those megalomaniacal clowns had to rule the rhp world by drawing him in and turning him into a 100+ game monster! They used poor Jean up and burned him out in the process.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by marinakatombThis game and annotations of the real Jean Hebert I found at:
Has anyone considered that he might have actually been Jean Herbert [b]and used an engine? It's possible...[/b]
http://www.correspondencechess.com/marconi/526pt1.htm
White: Jean Hébert (2510)
Black: A. Lannaioli (2100)
ICCF EM/M/GT 1997
Petroff's Defense C42
Annotations by Jean Hebert
1.e4
My only 1.e4 game in this event. I usually go 1.d4; 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, but I could not resist a little more variety.
1...e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3
I did not feel like entering the heavily analyzed lines of the Petroff, especially since I have little practical experience against it. I have given up on 1.e4 as my main weapon a long time ago.
3...Bb4 4. d3
A passive looking option chosen for the following reason. A couple of weeks before the start of this game I looked with one of my students at a typical pawn structure coming from the Berlin defense when Black gets doubled c-pawns (after Bb5xNc6). So I saw this opening as an opportunity to grasp it a little further by getting the structure with colors reversed. Unfortunately it did not quite work since Black refrained from taking on c3.
4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bd2 0-0 7.Be2 Nc6 8.0-0 Re8
By simple means Black has obtained a good position. By then I had realized that while my setup is very solid as Black, how as White is it possible to generate winning chances?
Considering the rating difference it seemed very likely that my opponent would be quite content with a boring draw. So to some extent the onus is on me to keep the position alive even against possibly unwilling opposition. From now on I am only trying at first to create unbalances because it is out of the question to think in terms of advantage.
9.Nxd5 Qxd5 10.c3
Weakens d3, but in return I mobilize my queenside pawns. This is what I meant by creating unbalances. A further advantage of c2-c3 is that Black gets a difficult choice about where to retreat his Bishop.
10...Be7
10...Bf8 looks more natural in which caase I was considering the provocative 11.Ng5 h6 12.Ne4 f5 13.Ng3 when Black has gained some space and possibly hopes of a kingside attack which I am well prepared to repulse. Positions like that suited me well because even if objectively I am not getting an advantage, I have complicated the game strategically and so created practical chances at minimal, if any, costs.
11.b4!
Aiming for c3-c4 and b4-b5. Black decides to liquidate the center to calm things down.
11...e4 12.dxe4 Qxe4 13.Re1
The Black Queen is slightly exposed, but there is no serious cause for concern yet.
13...Bg4 14.b5!?
A positionnally double-edged move since the White queenside pawns start to look a bit like swiss chesse: lots of holes in between.
14...Na5 15.h3
Making an escape hatch. I guessed that Black would not concede the Bishop pair by taking on f3, although that was playable.
15...Bh5 16.Nd4!
A nice centralized square for the Knight that now works in harmony with the pawn on b5. In such a position you must rely on every little bit of positional nuance if you aim for victory.
16...Bxe2 17.Rxe2 Qd5 18.Qa4
The point of Nd4. This move gaining tempo allows White to seize the e-file.
18...Nc4 19.Rae1 Nxd2 20.Rxe7 Rxe7 21.Rxe7 Qc5 22.Qb4!?
A little bit of bluff does not hurt.
22...Qd5?!
After 22...Qxb4 23.cxb4 Rc8 24.Nf5 Kf8, the White Rook has to leave the 7th rank which would have left me with no advantage.
23.a4 Qa2?
Of course now the c7 pawn cannot be taken because of ...Qa1+ , but nonetheless the decentralizing Queen move is a serious error. The White pieces are now in position to turn their attention to a lonsome Black King.
24.Re1
Defending the first rank while intending Qe7 with threats of Qe8+ and Qxc7.
24..g6?!
24...h6!? the other way of making the much need escape hatch for Black is not so painless either: 25.Nf5 Nc4 26.Qc5 Qd2 27.Re7 also looks promising.
25.Qe7 Qc4 26.Nf5! (see diagram)
An elegant little combination that puts an end to Black's misery.
(The annotations, etc. continue...)
His English looks perfectly fine to me.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by Fat Ladythe games are the evidence.
What evidence is there that Jean Hébert (personally I think it was/is really him) did use an engine?
but do you really think this:
"I say nothing of engine. I have concern of mine chess confidence when I can not find advantage in 2 games vs play 600 point my junior at a time when I need chess strength.
I believe that I must less the games I play at this time.
I find it curious how many time I read about chess engine on this site.
ICCF has no rule against using them. Curious as to why that is, except they welcome strongest play. Those who do use them are all close to same rating.
I make it clear here. I accuse no one of anything in my post. Except myself for not playing well.
Jean Hebert"
and this:
"By simple means Black has obtained a good position. By then I had realized that while my setup is very solid as Black, how as White is it possible to generate winning chances?
Considering the rating difference it seemed very likely that my opponent would be quite content with a boring draw. So to some extent the onus is on me to keep the position alive even against possibly unwilling opposition. From now on I am only trying at first to create unbalances because it is out of the question to think in terms of advantage. "
was written by the same person? hardly possible.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by wormwoodIs the second quote from an article? If yes, it could be translated/edited by another person.
the games are the evidence.
but do you really think this:
"I say nothing of engine. I have concern of mine chess confidence when I can not find advantage in 2 games vs play 600 point my junior at a time when I need chess strength.
I believe that I must less the games I play at this time.
I find it curious how many time I read about chess engine on ...[text shortened]... estion to think in terms of advantage. "
was written by the same person? hardly possible.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by wormwoodThe first bit of writing is an off-hand post to a forum and likely to include typos and bad English (especially if the writer's first language is not English).
the games are the evidence.
but do you really think this:
"I say nothing of engine. I have concern of mine chess confidence when I can not find advantage in 2 games vs play 600 point my junior at a time when I need chess strength.
I believe that I must less the games I play at this time.
I find it curious how many time I read about chess engine on ...[text shortened]... estion to think in terms of advantage. "
was written by the same person? hardly possible.
The second is clearly much better English, but still doesn't seem to be that of a native speaker, e.g. "it seemed very likely that my opponent would be quite content with a boring draw". Since this is more like a work of journalism (an annotated game) I can quite believe that the writer took his time over it and perhaps even checked it with a native English speaker for any obvious mistakes.
09 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by gambit05it's from the annotated game a a couple of posts before.
Is the second quote from an article? If yes, it could be translated/edited by another person.
I thought about the editing too, but the thing is, editing is more concerned with typos and such, not so much sentence structures or vocabulary.
translating? well, maybe. but I very much doubt the idea of a french speaking canadian journalist not also writing pretty damn good english.