08 Jan 12
Originally posted by ZygalskiAnswer the question. Does the computer put Skeeter ahead ?
Game 2919937
caissad4 claims that she offered skeeter a draw on several occasions but skeeter played on.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's the putting them on a post-it note that shows a lack of chess knowledge/understanding.
I fail to see how they show any lack of chess knowledge
When a player analyses a position, "check all checks" doesn't just apply to the start position but applies to all positions that are encountered as part of the analysis. So, as Skeeter works through masses of variations (and some positions will require so at the top level), how do you see the post-it note being referred to? At each and every intermediate position do we again read the post-it note? Do we do all our analysis and then read the note once? And if so, applying it to what positions out of our mass of analysis?
Chess masters have achieved a "mastery" because certain fundamental things have been made automatic in their thinking. And it has to be automatic. If hypothetically I could take all my books to an OTB tournament and be given extra time to check through them, could I expect to play much better? No, not unless it was e.g. an exact opening/endgame position. Simply because there are too many considerations. Is this when "check all checks" is vital? Or maybe I need to look for forks? No wait, I need to consider open files here. Did I check all candidate moves? Maybe I stopped my calculation too soon.......
The list is inexhaustable and varies on every position. It's why chess is so hard - there is so much to consider and we don't know what matters most in any given position. Anyone who tries to tackle this complexity by writing a few reminders on a post-it note is failing to realise how difficult chess is.
08 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaSo you think Greenpawn is a newbie because he stresses the principle "check all checks"?
It's the putting them on a post-it note that shows a lack of chess knowledge/understanding.
When a player analyses a position, "check all checks" doesn't just apply to the start position but applies to all positions that are encountered as part of the analysis. So, as Skeeter works through masses of variations (and some positions will require so at the t riting a few reminders on a post-it note is failing to realise how difficult chess is.
It was a post in a Chess Forum stating some general principles that players should be aware of. The point was illustrated by saying Skeet had them written on a post-it. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. It may have been a way of emphasizing the points themselves.
That chess is hard is a good reason to absorb some basic principles and use them. And to remind yourself of their existence. If the 2100 in the game I cited a few pages ago had been aware of the rule "If you're one or two pawns behind trade pawns not pieces" he would have gotten a draw not a loss.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by ZygalskiI was given BA but was never able to get it to work on my system. So I'm going the old-fashioned way which takes 30-60 minutes a game. I got 8 done yesterday, but I'm going out to watch the Giants game today so I probably won't get any done today. I'm hoping to finish the project by Wednesday or so.
How's the analysis coming along no1?
I thought you had BA.
You haven't gone & used Rybka on it have you... That takes forever!
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, because I doubt he needs a post-it note to stress it. I know GP is a better tactician than me and it's not because of superior post-it notes.
So you think Greenpawn is a newbie because he stresses the principle "check all checks"?
Don't forget what was actually written by Skeeter:
I have a sticky on top of my monitor.
It goes : STOP!!
1. check for checks !
2. look at the position of both kings !
3. why am I making this move ?
4. turn the board around and do steps 1 thru 3 again.
5. DO NOT MOVE until steps 1 thru 4 have been satisfied.
...... and yet despite all of that I can still stuff it up.
It's not "stating some general principles that players should be aware of" - it's a list of numbered instructions to be followed. The "despite all of that" can only be a surprise to anyone with limited chess understanding.
Originally posted by VarenkaThat's reading way too much in that post methinks.
[/b]No, because I doubt he needs a post-it note to stress it. I know GP is a better tactician than me and it's not because of superior post-it notes.
Don't forget what was actually written by Skeeter:
I have a sticky on top of my monitor.
It goes : STOP!!
1. check for checks !
2. look at the position of both kings !
3. why am I making this "despite all of that" can only be a surprise to anyone with limited chess understanding.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by VarenkaI think this may be overstating the case. If I could refer to my books and notes OTB, I definitely would play better, especially if my opponent could not.
It's the putting them on a post-it note that shows a lack of chess knowledge/understanding.
When a player analyses a position, "check all checks" doesn't just apply to the start position but applies to all positions that are encountered as part of the analysis. So, as Skeeter works through masses of variations (and some positions will require so at the t ...[text shortened]... riting a few reminders on a post-it note is failing to realise how difficult chess is.
Botvinnik once stated that Reshevsky's biggest strength was that he was a true master of the "two move combination". It is the gift of the greats that they can reduce the complexity of the game into simple, concise statements.
If Botvinnik were alive and had an anonymous account on the site, and he posted that here, I am certain there would be people on the site who would say "OMG! The game is incredibly complex! That you could make such a simple statement only shows that you are an amateur and know nothing about the game!"
All that aside, there are plenty of players who use post-it notes here on the sight with great effect- I figure mine has been worth 200 points since I started using it, and I have played people who should have had one, and I recommended it to them. Making a big deal out of this strikes me as a bizarre tangent that doesn't prove anything.
GM Pal Benko used to intentionally sit on his hands to avoid impetuous moves. A GM! I wonder what we can make of that...