| |
Main
Date: 19 Nov 2004 12:39:49
From: Henri Arsenault
Subject: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
This is a good CD that uses the fritz media system very well, and well
worth the money. However I found a slight inaccuracy in lesson 3
discussing the Nunn Sokolov game.
Sokolov (the third strongest player in the World at the time) played
20...Rf8, which Nunn refuted, winning the game in a few moves. Aagaard
uses this as an example of "bringing every piece into the attack". However
according to Fritz analysis, a bettter move for Black was 20...Rg8,
attacking the White Queen followed by the sacrifice of the exchange Rxg2!,
putting an end to White's attack. After a fairly long series of almost
forced moves (White has many places to go wrong, which is why the move
20...Rg8 was better), the game eventually reaches an ending with two rooks
and a Bishop against Rook, Bishop and Knight, with pawns on both sides of
the board that Fritz evaluates at 1.81 - not quite a won game for White
but almost. This probably could be won by White, but either player could
have erred in the preceding or ensuing complications.
In an earlier lesson, Aagaard warns against plaing moves on general
principle not verified by precise analysis, but here he violates his own
warning because he failed to take into account Black's 20...Rg8.
Indeed, Nunn set up this position by the move Qg3 instead of retreating
his Knight (attacked by a pawn) back to b3, which Aagaard says would
violate the principle of "using all of your pieces in the attack". But
again, according to Fritz, the better move for White was NOT the
spectacular Qg3, but the retreat Nb3, backing away from the attack! So it
appears that both sides erred, White by playing Qg3, and Black by not
exploiting it by Rg8. And
Now it is not impossible that the Fritz8 analysis is wrong, but since this
is a tactical position that I analyzed 12 or 13 moves deep for each move,
it seems unlikely. I did not have the time for a deeper analysis.
So it appears that White's best move was not to bring every piece into the
attack, but actually to retreat his knight out of the fray, thus violating
the general principle - a good example of the need for using general
principles only for guidance, but precise analysis for specific moves.
Opinions welcom.
Henri
BTW, I bought only the first CD of the 2-CD course, but I highly recommend
it to anyone over the rank of say, 1400 (beginnrs would probably profit
more from a tactics course CD such as Convekta's CT Art 3.0 (which is good
for players of any strength). I will probably buy the second one also
after I study some more of the lessons.
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2004 22:28:43
From: drummerman
Subject: Re: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
While Aagaard should have checked some of his analyis with more rigor,
this doesn't detract from the conclusion that he is one of the few
creative and instructive chess writers today. This set is far better
than the Peter Wells (C-) and Bangiev (F) "Media" based CDs. My
thinking is that you would be better served buying books rather than
paying $25 or $30 for CDs that provide a fraction of the information
that you get with written material.
[email protected] (Henri Arsenault) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> This is a good CD that uses the fritz media system very well, and well
> worth the money. However I found a slight inaccuracy in lesson 3
> discussing the Nunn Sokolov game.
>
> Sokolov (the third strongest player in the World at the time) played
> 20...Rf8, which Nunn refuted, winning the game in a few moves. Aagaard
> uses this as an example of "bringing every piece into the attack". However
> according to Fritz analysis, a bettter move for Black was 20...Rg8,
> attacking the White Queen followed by the sacrifice of the exchange Rxg2!,
> putting an end to White's attack. After a fairly long series of almost
> forced moves (White has many places to go wrong, which is why the move
> 20...Rg8 was better), the game eventually reaches an ending with two rooks
> and a Bishop against Rook, Bishop and Knight, with pawns on both sides of
> the board that Fritz evaluates at 1.81 - not quite a won game for White
> but almost. This probably could be won by White, but either player could
> have erred in the preceding or ensuing complications.
>
> In an earlier lesson, Aagaard warns against plaing moves on general
> principle not verified by precise analysis, but here he violates his own
> warning because he failed to take into account Black's 20...Rg8.
>
> Indeed, Nunn set up this position by the move Qg3 instead of retreating
> his Knight (attacked by a pawn) back to b3, which Aagaard says would
> violate the principle of "using all of your pieces in the attack". But
> again, according to Fritz, the better move for White was NOT the
> spectacular Qg3, but the retreat Nb3, backing away from the attack! So it
> appears that both sides erred, White by playing Qg3, and Black by not
> exploiting it by Rg8. And
>
> Now it is not impossible that the Fritz8 analysis is wrong, but since this
> is a tactical position that I analyzed 12 or 13 moves deep for each move,
> it seems unlikely. I did not have the time for a deeper analysis.
>
> So it appears that White's best move was not to bring every piece into the
> attack, but actually to retreat his knight out of the fray, thus violating
> the general principle - a good example of the need for using general
> principles only for guidance, but precise analysis for specific moves.
>
> Opinions welcom.
>
> Henri
>
> BTW, I bought only the first CD of the 2-CD course, but I highly recommend
> it to anyone over the rank of say, 1400 (beginnrs would probably profit
> more from a tactics course CD such as Convekta's CT Art 3.0 (which is good
> for players of any strength). I will probably buy the second one also
> after I study some more of the lessons.
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2004 23:34:19
From: Miroslav Rakovic
Subject: Re: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:39:49 GMT, [email protected] (Henri
Arsenault) wrote:
>This is a good CD that uses the fritz media system very well, and well
>worth the money. However I found a slight inaccuracy in lesson 3
>discussing the Nunn Sokolov game.
There is many inacurracies in this CD. On several ocasions Aagard
missed better moves (sometimes he misses mate in 2).
>Sokolov (the third strongest player in the World at the time) played
>20...Rf8, which Nunn refuted, winning the game in a few moves. Aagaard
>uses this as an example of "bringing every piece into the attack".
Nunn,J (2590) - Sokolov,A (2620) [B54]
Dubai ol (Men) Dubai (6), 1986
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 d6 7.Be3 Qc7 8.f4
Na5 9.0-0 Nc4 10.Bxc4 Qxc4 11.f5 Be7 12.Qg4 h5 13.Qf3 Bf6 14.fxe6 fxe6
15.e5 dxe5 16.Ne4 Qc7 17.Qg3 Ne7 18.Rad1 h4 19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.Qg7 Rf8
21.Rxf6 Rxf6 22.Qxf6 Qd6 23.Bg5 exd4 24.Rxd4 Nd5 25.Rxd5 1-0
>according to Fritz analysis, a bettter move for Black was 20...Rg8,
Rg8 is better move, but can't save the black.
>attacking the White Queen followed by the sacrifice of the exchange Rxg2!,
>putting an end to White's attack. After a fairly long series of almost
>forced moves (White has many places to go wrong, which is why the move
>20...Rg8 was better),
> the game eventually reaches an ending with two rooks
>and a Bishop against Rook, Bishop and Knight, with pawns on both sides of
>the board that Fritz evaluates at 1.81 - not quite a won game for White
>but almost. This probably could be won by White, but either player could
>have erred in the preceding or ensuing complications.
White can't go wrong. Position is relatively simple to calculate.
20...Rg8 21.Qxf6 Nd5 22.Nxe6 Rxg2+ 23.Kxg2 Qxc2+ 24.Rd2 Qe4+ 25.Qf3
Qxf3+ 26.Kxf3 Bxe6 27.Bg5
White should win this position. He is exchange up (for a pawn). White
rooks are well placed, black king is very insecure.
>Now it is not impossible that the Fritz8 analysis is wrong, but since this
>is a tactical position that I analyzed 12 or 13 moves deep for each move,
>it seems unlikely. I did not have the time for a deeper analysis.
Even Fritz can make mistake, because of horizon.
>BTW, I bought only the first CD of the 2-CD course, but I highly recommend
>it to anyone over the rank of say, 1400 (beginnrs would probably profit
>more from a tactics course CD such as Convekta's CT Art 3.0 (which is good
>for players of any strength). I will probably buy the second one also
>after I study some more of the lessons.
I have both Aagaard's CD's. I study both CD's. I must tell you that I
am dissapointed with second CD. First CD is great. I don't have FIDE
rating, yet. My FICS standard rating is around 2000. I only play
longer games on FICS (60 15, 45 45 and 60 30).
I have Strategy and Tactics (Wells), but I don't like it at all.
Best regards,
Miroslav Rakovic
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2004 13:30:27
From: Dirk
Subject: Re: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
> I have both Aagaard's CD's. I study both CD's. I must tell you that I am
> dissapointed with second CD. First CD is great. I don't have FIDE rating,
> yet. My FICS standard rating is around 2000. I only play
> I have Strategy and Tactics (Wells), but I don't like it at all.
What is it that you don't like at all?
>> Best regards,
> Miroslav Rakovic
I also do have the 2 cd's from Aagaard "Attacking chess 1 & 2,and was
planning to buy the Fritztrainer Middlegame: Basic Positional Ideas DVD DVD
(about strategy) from Aagaard and "Strategy and Tactics" from Wells. What
about those two?
Best regards Dirk
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2004 18:25:03
From: Miroslav Rakovic
Subject: Re: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:30:27 +0100, "Dirk"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>> I have both Aagaard's CD's. I study both CD's. I must tell you that I am
>> dissapointed with second CD. First CD is great. I don't have FIDE rating,
>> yet. My FICS standard rating is around 2000. I only play
>> I have Strategy and Tactics (Wells), but I don't like it at all.
>What is it that you don't like at all?
There is not enough explanations on Strategy. There is 2-3 (out of 10)
good lectures, but tactical examples are just waste of time. You will
find much better tactical exercises in CTArt 3.0.
>I also do have the 2 cd's from Aagaard "Attacking chess 1 & 2,and was
>planning to buy the Fritztrainer Middlegame: Basic Positional Ideas DVD DVD
>(about strategy) from Aagaard and "Strategy and Tactics" from Wells. What
>about those two?
I don't have Basic Positional Ideas, so I can't comment it.
Best regards,
Miroslav Rakovic
|
| |
Date: 19 Nov 2004 18:21:30
From: Henri Arsenault
Subject: Re: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
There is also a mistake in Aagaard's next lesson, in the game
Spassky-Timman. Aagaard says that the check 24. Nf4 loses because White
has 3 pieces hanging, which is true. But with the aid of Fritz, it is not
difficult to see that White can easily extract all of his pieces, the
Knight with the check, the Queen by exchanging it for the Black Queen
after the Knight check, the Rook by Ng3 preventing the Black Rook check on
h1, and so on. White ends up 3 pawns up in the ending, which is easily
won. Spassky's spectacular Queen sacrifice was not necessary after all!
Fortunately these mistakes do not detract from the value of Aagaard's
lessons, but only emphasize the need to base one's moves on concrete
variations, which sometimes implies putting aside general principles.
Henri
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2004 18:25:01
From: Miroslav Rakovic
Subject: Re: Aagaard Chess middle game trainer CD
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:21:30 GMT, [email protected] (Henri
Arsenault) wrote:
>There is also a mistake in Aagaard's next lesson, in the game
>Spassky-Timman.
Spassky,B (2610) - Timman,J (2590) [D86]
Amsterdam m Amsterdam (3), 1977
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Ne2 b6 9.h4 Nc6 10.Bd5 Qd7 11.h5 Ba6 12.hxg6 hxg6 13.Nf4 e6 14.Qg4
Rfd8 15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.Qxg6 Bc4 17.Qh7+ Kf7 18.Nh5 Rg8 19.Rh3 Raf8
20.Nxg7 Rh8 21.Rf3+ Ke7 22.Ba3+ Nb4 23.Bxb4+ c5 24.dxc5 Rxh7 25.cxb6+
1-0
>Aagaard says that the check 24. Nf4 loses because White
>has 3 pieces hanging, which is true. But with the aid of Fritz, it is not
>difficult to see that White can easily extract all of his pieces, the
>Knight with the check, the Queen by exchanging it for the Black Queen
>after the Knight check, the Rook by Ng3 preventing the Black Rook check on
>h1, and so on. White ends up 3 pawns up in the ending, which is easily
>won.
You are absolutely right, that after Nf5+, white should easily win. It
seems that sometimes Aagaard didn't spent enough time on position whn
he analyze it.
>Spassky's spectacular Queen sacrifice was not necessary after all!
Spassky's Queen sacrifice is necessary to speed up the win. After Nf5+
black would continue fight. Even Fritz (ply 13) think that 24.dxc5
(+7.59) is better than 24.Nf5 (+2.09)
>Fortunately these mistakes do not detract from the value of Aagaard's
>lessons, but only emphasize the need to base one's moves on concrete
>variations, which sometimes implies putting aside general principles.
>
>Henri
Best regards,
Miroslav Rakovic
|
|
