Originally posted by SwissGambitI bet if she was pretty you'd believe in her! sigh we live in such a cynical world today!😵
I don't believe 'in' her, dude. Sometimes the sorest comments are cloaked in polite platitudes. The 'aesthetically' bit could have even been sarcastic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf your logic and reason fail it is because it was faulty to begin with and does not mean you should memorise a ton of theory. Memorise key moves and positions and then, with logic and reason, you will be able to steer to these key positions and if you know these better than your opponent you will be able to steer into a won position. After that, you just have to know how to finish the opponent, which is technique and is a subject I'd rather not get into.
Its possible GP but there are enough comments by top players for us mere mortals to know that memory plays a huge part. Fischer on his way back from Japan stated as much, plus there are some openings that if you play you simply need to know, probably the sharper they get, the more you need.
For example, lets say you found yourself on the black sid ...[text shortened]... on logic and reason and play 5...Nxd5 or 5...Na5/Bd7?! and your lack of memory would punish you!
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSfirst of all, i have not said that you should memorise a ton of theory, what i have actually said is that masters do it, that the more sharper the opening the more you need to memorise, that is what I have actually said. Learn to assimilate what you are reading instead of building straw men arguments and logical fallacies. Logic and reason are not enough as i have shown with reference, especially in super sharp openings, you fail, epically, but that is for you to deal with, I suggest you do so.
If your logic and reason fail it is because it was faulty to begin with and does not mean you should memorise a ton of theory. Memorise key moves and positions and then, with logic and reason, you will be able to steer to these key positions and if you know these better than your opponent you will be able to steer into a won position. After that, you ju ...[text shortened]... to know how to finish the opponent, which is technique and is a subject I'd rather not get into.
'Memory is very, very important', - Roman Dzinidzichashvili
When Magnus Carlsen was five he reputedly memorised the area, population, flag and capital of all the countries in the world. The young Anatoly Karpov memorised the year and location of all the Olympic games since 1896. As a boy Gary Kasparov memorised Russian poems and later the capitals of all fifty American states, is it merely coincidence that they also turned out to be pretty good chess players?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not a strawman otherwise what are we debating?
first of all, i have not said that you should memorise a ton of theory, what i have actually said is that masters do it, that the more sharper the opening the more you need to memorise, that is what I have actually said. Learn to assimilate what you are reading instead of building straw men arguments and logical fallacies. Logic and reason are not e ...[text shortened]... ican states, is it merely coincidence that they also turned out to be pretty good chess players?
If you ever have the opportunity to go over a game with a really strong player they will almost always point to a critical position in the opening and say " in [insertt year and/or tourney] in this position I played [...] and lost/drew/won..."
This is why memory is good for chess, it aids the ability to learn from mistakes and store patterns.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSWe agree then, awesome.
It's not a strawman otherwise what are we debating?
If you ever have the opportunity to go over a game with a really strong player they will almost always point to a critical position in the opening and say " in [insertt year and/or tourney] in this position I played [...] and lost/drew/won..."
This is why memory is good for chess, it aids the ability to learn from mistakes and store patterns.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou beat me to it, too. I'm just slow on this thread...
Eh, that comment is just sore losing. She called her own opening 'naive' and I'm betting she didn't need a computer to figure that out. I'm sure the GM was thinking the same thing. And the GM isn't spending prep time on lines that assume the opponent will blunder.
Hi Robbie,
The other lad has it correct from what I've seen when you play over games
with GM's or sit in on their analysis.
They recall positions from old games and the post game comments.
They have an organised memory, it's not cluttered up with opening lines.
That would be totally pointless, theory is in a constant state of flux.
Infact you would be surprised at what little they do know.
When they prep up for an opponent and their opponent takes a different
path they store it for another time, another place.
It's how TN's are born.
Yes if you have a tactical opening in your rep then you must be familiar
with all the tricks and traps, the reason some choose this rep is in the
hope their opponent does not.
BTW mate. here.
Black has 5...Nd5 and 5..b5 as perfectly respectable alternatives to 5...Na5
The MUST know variations happen one move before this position.
Instead of 4...d5 the move 4...Bc5.
The Wilkes-Barre.
In my book on the Two Knights I have written 'Don't get involved.'
And I don't, I know nothing at all about this line. Nothing.
I won't meet (I never play Ng5 and I play one of the above 5th moves as Black.
I recall Karpov faced it as White and played 5.Bxf7+ and Bd5.
Guess I'd do the same as White.
Finally falling for the Fries Liver attack. 5...Nxd5 and 6.Nxf7
Is not always fatal at our level. Black has 829 wins from here on RHP.
but its still memory dear GP, that is the point, GM Susan Polgar complained that many GM games are played almost entirely from memory! The difference between a beginner and a master is simply that the beginner will run out of book on say move five, the master move ten to fourteen, the grandmaster, may go as far as move 20-30 before he or she is out of book and as your example demonstrates, there are simply 'must know', variations depending on sharpness in which logic and reason may see you through or may lead you to walking the plank, if you play the KIA to everything then its a narrow field, if you play some Najdorf variation then its quite a broad field. My point is that chessbooks have downplayed the importance of memory in chess, as beginners we are warned, don't try to memorise, just try to understand. Ken Smith said exactly the opposite, learn the tabias and then learn to understand them, get to know your opening better than anyone. Personally I cannot take learning opening theory, it sucks, its tedious and its boring, but I wish I had the discipline to do so.
LOL, 'dont get involved', thats funny, its like the hammer house of horror films when you are about to go up to the castle and an old peasant lady carrying firewood on her back warns you, 'don't go up there, blood built it and blood will bring it down!
Hi Robbie,
"....but its still memory dear GP...."
Plain old research with a dollop of imagination.
Also a gamble - how did he know she would take the same pawn 14 years later.
There would have been a point where the player took over.
Show me the previous game where the exact same moves have been played.
Then it's memory.
Originally posted by greenpawn34how did he know she would take the same pawn 14 years later.
Hi Robbie,
"....but its still memory dear GP...."
Plain old research with a dollop of imagination.
Also a gamble - how did he know she would take the same pawn 14 years later.
There would have been a point where the player took over.
Show me the previous game where the exact same moves have been played.
Then it's memory.
How long did Marshall wait before he sprung his Gambit on Capablanca? ten years? these chess players are tricky dear GB, real tricky! 😀
Hi Robbie.
How long did Marshall wait before he sprung his Gambit on Capablanca?
Like a lot of myths in chess.
(Grandmastes know millions of opening lines and play purely from memory)
This is another.
The gambit was first played, not by Marshall, in the 1890's.
Marshall had other chances to play it v Capablanca before waiting 7 sevens years.
Capa opened 1.e4 v Marshall six times between 1910 and 1918.
Marshall played one French and five Petroff's.
Marshall played his gambit for the first time v Frere in 1917 one
year before the famous 1918 game with Capa.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/marshallgambit.html
Frere - Marshall New York 1917