I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Main

Date: 05 Jan 2006 13:33:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
look at this game, where I had Black. This is one of the few games I can
publish now because it's not an opening I normally play.

Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and hopefully
it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4

Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll grab
as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are lots of
tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll be able to
play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big center. With 4.
e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the first move. Now the
fun begins.

5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!?

Interesting enough, but the engine also gives 6. exd4 with a slightly closer
game.

6...e5!

A must. Black now has a formation more commonly associated with White.
Computer says Black is still 0.42 pawns better.

7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4 13.
Nd2 Bf5

A positional storm is brewing, as White is getting suffocated.

14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6??

Death.

15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6
20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2 Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19. Kg1
Qe1#

Date: 12 Jan 2006 17:41:35
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>How do you manage to calculate in one-minute chess? There doesn't seem to
>be time for any decent calculation so reflex and pattern recognition are
>about all that's left.

you dont... thats why he doesnt play thinking chess... just
memorization
chess for non-thinkers. he seems to think that this 'impresses' all of
us
and he hopes it validates his self worth.

Date: 12 Jan 2006 17:39:01
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>Did you catch the new federal cyberstalking law, btw?

Did you catch that i am not a US citizen and your laws
dont mean jack to me?

Date: 13 Jan 2006 10:10:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Inconnux <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> Did you catch the new federal cyberstalking law, btw?
>
> Did you catch that i am not a US citizen and your laws dont mean jack to
> me?

That's not necessarily relevant. I've no idea about the US law under
discussion but the UK's Computer Misuse Act (1990) allows the prosecution
of anyone who breaks into a computer system anywhere in the world, from
anywhere in the world, so long as the data passes through the UK. Whether
extradition would be possible is, of course, a completely different issue.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Unholy Pants (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers but
it's also a crime against nature and
it'll break the bank!

Date: 10 Jan 2006 18:08:36
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>
> What makes you think I don't work and pay bills? You never saw full-time
> students work a job on top of that? There was a time when people used to
> call it SACRIFICE to give up one thing to get another.

what you call 'Sacrifice' i call being a bum...

>
> It's not my fault I can make $30-50 an hour when I type, or that I'm willing
> to WORK a combined 80-90 hours a week.
>
you have been challenged to reveal your job many times in these news
groups... not once have you given us a 'real' job other than your
pathetic 'seducing' books

> What you call a JOB I would call a VACATION.
>
lol I doubt it. I work a construction job that involves many more
hours
than the average person.

> You know, if you go around lying about people without checking facts long
> enough, one of them might sue you.

yet another idiotic lawsuit threat... you are pathetic
hehe i am canadian... so you would actually have to come up to
canada to sue... come on up, US law doesnt apply here... Canadian
courts
look down on frivilous lawsuits like your stupid lawsuit vs Google.

so do you live in your mothers basement? ...
if you do work... who is your employer?
or if you subcontract work ... who is your main client?

I bet not one of these questions will be answered...

Date: 11 Jan 2006 21:32:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> It's not my fault I can make $30-50 an hour when I type, or that I'm
>> willing
>> to WORK a combined 80-90 hours a week.
>>
> you have been challenged to reveal your job many times in these news
> groups... not once have you given us a 'real' job other than your
> pathetic 'seducing' books

In other words, if I don't let you invade my privacy, you'll just defame me
anonymously.

Did you catch the new federal cyberstalking law, btw?

Date: 10 Jan 2006 14:49:23
From: Ken Jones
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Shorthand for: I can't calculate all that well, but since 1 minute is
all reflexes and pattern recognition, I can fool myself into thinking I
am improving!

Date: 11 Jan 2006 21:32:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

> Shorthand for: I can't calculate all that well, but since 1 minute is
> all reflexes and pattern recognition,

Anyone who believes that doesn't understand one-minute chess.

Pattern recognition is the key to "slow" chess as well, btw.

Date: 12 Jan 2006 08:55:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Shorthand for: I can't calculate all that well, but since 1 minute is
>> all reflexes and pattern recognition,
>
> Anyone who believes that doesn't understand one-minute chess.

How do you manage to calculate in one-minute chess? There doesn't seem to
be time for any decent calculation so reflex and pattern recognition are
about all that's left.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Wine (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ vintage Beaujolais but it's twice
as fast!

Date: 13 Jan 2006 00:36:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>>> Shorthand for: I can't calculate all that well, but since 1 minute is
>>> all reflexes and pattern recognition,
>>
>> Anyone who believes that doesn't understand one-minute chess.
>
> How do you manage to calculate in one-minute chess?

Quickly. Very, very quickly.

A slight error in a one-minute game will generally give you a weaker
position, which will give your opponent a strong initiative, and cause time
pressure as you deal with one threat after another.

If you know the technique -- and I mean KNOW it -- you won't have any
problems. One-minute players also have to learn how to simplify to a won
ending in order to win games where they are trailing in time.

>There doesn't seem to
> be time for any decent calculation so reflex and pattern recognition are
> about all that's left.

There is time! Just about 0.8 seconds per move of it, down to 0.1 if you
are in an endgame.

Date: 13 Jan 2006 10:05:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>> Shorthand for: I can't calculate all that well, but since 1 minute is
>>>> all reflexes and pattern recognition,
>>>
>>> Anyone who believes that doesn't understand one-minute chess.
>>
>> How do you manage to calculate in one-minute chess?
>
> Quickly. Very, very quickly.

Interesting. You claim later in your post that you spend 0.1-0.8 seconds
per move (snipped). Here's a quote from Chessbase:

``Michael Adams will face the awesome power of the Hydra chess machine,
which has the processing power of more than 200 standard PCs and can
calculate 200 million positions per second. Adams can achieve about
two.'' -- http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462

So I still don't see where there's any time for calculation in one-minute
chess.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Sadistic Tool (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hammer but it wants to hurt
you and you can never put it down!

Date: 13 Jan 2006 13:41:14
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

> ``Michael Adams will face the awesome power of the Hydra chess machine,
> which has the processing power of more than 200 standard PCs and can
> calculate 200 million positions per second. Adams can achieve about
> two.'' -- http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462
>
> So I still don't see where there's any time for calculation in one-minute
> chess.

It's a lot like playing tennis in terms of following the action.

Date: 13 Jan 2006 15:26:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> [Michael Adams can calculate about two positions per second.] So I
>> still don't see where there's any time for calculation in one-
>> minute chess.
>
> It's a lot like playing tennis in terms of following the action.

Now you've completely lost me.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Tongs (TM): it's like a pair
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of tongs but it's moist!

Date: 06 Jan 2006 14:20:36
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > To say that "time was not a factor" in a one-minute game
> > is one of the stupidest things ever written about chess.
>
> When a win comes straight out of one's opening book, it's not.

Is Ray Gordon boasting about his memory?

> Oh wait, you'd have to know how to play the opening to understand that.

When I have been surprised by my opponent's opening move(s) in a
*slow enough* game, I often have been able *to think* of a reasonable
way to continue. A one-minute game allows no time for such thinking.

> The speed with which one can process information is part of one's IQ.

How long has it taken readers here to 'process (the) information'
that Ray Gordon is a fool?

By the way, I have spent far less time than Ray Gordon evidently has
at studying chess. I usually defeat opponents rated the equivalent of
2000 USCF in slow games. Unlike Ray Gordon, I never would boast
of 'crush(ing) a 2000-rated player at one-minute'. I still do not
consider myself to be a particularly strong player.

--Nick

Date: 07 Jan 2006 13:46:27
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> Oh wait, you'd have to know how to play the opening to understand that.
>
> When I have been surprised by my opponent's opening move(s) in a
> *slow enough* game, I often have been able *to think* of a reasonable
> way to continue. A one-minute game allows no time for such thinking.

Maybe not to some. Last time I checked, a minute was time. Also, if you
have to think that hard, it means an underlying weakness in your
understanding of the game has been exposed.

>> The speed with which one can process information is part of one's IQ.
>
> How long has it taken readers here to 'process (the) information'
> that Ray Gordon is a fool?

That's a flawed opinion, not information.

> By the way, I have spent far less time than Ray Gordon evidently has
> at studying chess.
>I usually defeat opponents rated the equivalent of
> 2000 USCF in slow games. Unlike Ray Gordon, I never would boast
> of 'crush(ing) a 2000-rated player at one-minute'. I still do not
> consider myself to be a particularly strong player.

It was the way I crushed him. That was a perfect game of chess for Black.
Not a single blunder from start to finish. A true wire-to-wire win, and a
sign of what my games in the future will look like against much stronger
players.

I've beaten 2500s the same way, but publishing those games would require me
to show the world opening moves which are not in the books and which are
better than those which are.

I also have beaten some of the 3000-rated supercomputers. Not often, but I
have beaten them at one-minute.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Usually one has a few great games, then the
knowledge fills out over time. At my age, the only question is how long my
body will hold up, or if I don't decide to do something else. I'm well on
the way to solving this game just like I did with PacMan, which was also
solved from the beginning on out.

Computers have revealed all chess truths to those st enough to decipher
them. I suspect there are a few dozen players on the servers who are
pursuing this path.

Date: 07 Jan 2006 15:42:33
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> How long has it taken readers here to 'process (the) information'
>> that Ray Gordon is a fool?

I don't know about others, but the time it took me cannot be measured by a
chess clock, unless it displays fractions of a second.

Date: 08 Jan 2006 02:48:49
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>>How long has it taken readers here to 'process (the) information'
>>> that Ray Gordon is a fool?
>
> I don't know about others, but the time it took me cannot be measured by a
> chess clock, unless it displays fractions of a second.

Another jealous fool <sigh >

Pity his small existence.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 13:39:17
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>Guys like this always brownnose the GMs, as if the GMs don't see what
>they're like.

>I had this mistaken impression that Americans want serious players. I train
>over 60 hours a week; what about you?

Most of us have what is called a JOB. we dont live in our mommys
basement
living a pathetic life. Perhaps if you had a JOB and didnt mooch off
your
mother you would understand...

but somehow I doubt it...

J.Lohner

Date: 07 Jan 2006 02:34:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

> >Guys like this always brownnose the GMs, as if the GMs don't see what
>>they're like.
>
>>I had this mistaken impression that Americans want serious players. I
>>train
>>over 60 hours a week; what about you?
>
> Most of us have what is called a JOB. we dont live in our mommys
> basement
> living a pathetic life. Perhaps if you had a JOB and didnt mooch off
> your
> mother you would understand.

What makes you think I don't work and pay bills? You never saw full-time
students work a job on top of that? There was a time when people used to
call it SACRIFICE to give up one thing to get another.

It's not my fault I can make $30-50 an hour when I type, or that I'm willing
to WORK a combined 80-90 hours a week.

What you call a JOB I would call a VACATION.

(but if I become a GM he was my friend all the way).

> but somehow I doubt it...

You know, if you go around lying about people without checking facts long
enough, one of them might sue you.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 01:04:05
From:
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

> I SOLVED Pac-Man in the 1980s [....]
> Chess can be solved similarly.

That is the funniest post I've read here for a long long time.
You are a high-quality troll for sure! Thanks for the laughs Ray

Date: 06 Jan 2006 09:14:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> I SOLVED Pac-Man in the 1980s [....]
>> Chess can be solved similarly.
>
> That is the funniest post I've read here for a long long time.
> You are a high-quality troll for sure! Thanks for the laughs Ray

Why can't chess be solved?

If it can be solved, the correct way to do it is beginning at move one and
working out from there.

The 1/x rule.

I just showed a perfect game of chess. I may not be the one who solves the
game, but one day, a human will, and they will do it before the computers
do.

Date: 08 Jan 2006 22:31:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Why can't chess be solved?

It's too big. Next?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Enormous Drink (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing juice beverage but
it's huge and it'll break the bank!

Date: 09 Jan 2006 04:50:05
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> Why can't chess be solved?
>
> It's too big.

Leave my cock out of this.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 05:14:53
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

I plugged that game into Chessmaster 10000. At 1 second per move analysis,
it agrees with every one of your moves. Awesome!

You are to be congratulated. But I don't understand why you are reluctant
to play slow games. I'm sure you can match some strong program's
suggestions move for move in a slow game, too.

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
> look at this game, where I had Black. This is one of the few games I can
> publish now because it's not an opening I normally play.
>
> Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and
> hopefully it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:
>
> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4
>
> Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll
> grab as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are
> lots of tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll be
> able to play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big center.
> With 4. e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the first move.
> Now the fun begins.
>
>
> 5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!?
>
> Interesting enough, but the engine also gives 6. exd4 with a slightly
> closer game.
>
> 6...e5!
>
> A must. Black now has a formation more commonly associated with White.
> Computer says Black is still 0.42 pawns better.
>
>
> 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4
> 13. Nd2 Bf5
>
> A positional storm is brewing, as White is getting suffocated.
>
>
> 14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6??
>
> Death.
>
> 15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6
> 20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2 Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19. Kg1
> Qe1#
>
>
>
>

Date: 06 Jan 2006 06:01:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>I plugged that game into Chessmaster 10000. At 1 second per move analysis,
>it agrees with every one of your moves. Awesome!

Accusing me of using a computer to build that game? Well, since I study
extensively with computers, I would expect them to find most of my moves. I
rely heavily on them to build my repertoire. My "human" knowledge of the
opening, combined with their ability to proofread my study, is a nice
combination.

I was a video game prodigy in my youth. I SOLVED Pac-Man in the 1980s,
meaning I learned (from a guy who knew) how to get the absolute highest
score possible on the machine: 3,332,850 I think it is. To do it, you have
to get every piece of "fruit" (or key), every flashing monster, AND you
can't lose a single man until the 257th board, which is a "blown board" that
has three dots on the other side.

Chess can be solved similarly. In fact, the PacMan wizard I learned from
didn't even use patterns, because he figured out how the monsters "think"
and could avoid them at will on intuition. Humans can do the same thing
with chess.

> You are to be congratulated. But I don't understand why you are reluctant
> to play slow games. I'm sure you can match some strong program's
> suggestions move for move in a slow game, too.

It is too easy to cheat at slower time controls. Until tournaments and
chess servers become cheat-proof, I refuse to play them. A one-minute
cheater tends to be obvious (I've seen a few of them).

> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
>> look at this game, where I had Black. This is one of the few games I can
>> publish now because it's not an opening I normally play.
>>
>> Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and
>> hopefully it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:
>>
>> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4
>>
>> Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll
>> grab as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are
>> lots of tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll
>> be able to play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big
>> center. With 4. e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the
>> first move. Now the fun begins.
>>
>>
>> 5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!?
>>
>> Interesting enough, but the engine also gives 6. exd4 with a slightly
>> closer game.
>>
>> 6...e5!
>>
>> A must. Black now has a formation more commonly associated with White.
>> Computer says Black is still 0.42 pawns better.
>>
>>
>> 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4
>> 13. Nd2 Bf5
>>
>> A positional storm is brewing, as White is getting suffocated.
>>
>>
>> 14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6??
>>
>> Death.
>>
>> 15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6
>> 20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2 Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19.
>> Kg1 Qe1#
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 06 Jan 2006 02:25:52
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
> look at this game, where I had Black.

Ray, if a 2000 player is high rated for you I start understanding ...
We can add that this 2000 rating surely is blitz-server rating.
Considering that in the chess servers I play I have a rating 200-300
points higher (than my actual rating in OTB chess), we can think your
opponent was 1700-1800.

But I need to add I appreciate you are posting concrete games here.
I hope you will continue doing that in the future!

> This is one of the few games I can
> publish now because it's not an opening I normally play.

Pathetic!

Do you know all games from world top ten to under-10 ch are published today?

Do you actually think anyone is going to do some "preparation" for a
game with you from published games in RGCA? And more considering you do
not play chess, only play 1 minute games.
Do you understand chess opening repertoire is something live which can
change each day? And opening advantages in most cases (specially for non
GM) has no relationship with final result.

With that kind of comments you only dicredit yourself.

> Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and hopefully
> it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:
>
> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4
>
> Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll grab
> as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are lots of
> tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll be able to
> play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big center. With 4.
> e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the first move. Now the
> fun begins.

Evaluations like "0.45" has no sense for humans.
0.45 can be a winning advantage in some cases and +3.50 can be dead
draw. Computers are a very useful tool but do not trust all they do.

The game seem interesting to be played with this control time. I would
like to discover more concrete critical moments, for example:
- You wrote 15. Qxc6?? but I can not see better moves, if there are n
better moves that move is not a decisive mistake.
- In contrast, 16.Nxe4 and 18.Kf1 can be improved no matter white
position is very poor.
- You do not menction 11.d3 as a mistake, maybe the most important in
that game.

Respect to 4.e3 (allowing 4...d4) as responsible for the "0.45" I will
post a game (at the end) I saw in direct. It's not the same position but
some positional themes are similar.

> 5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!? e5! 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4 13.Nd2 Bf5
> 14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6?? Death. 15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6
> 20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2 Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19. Kg1 Qe1#

In that game we can see that 8...d4?! helped white to attack black
center obtaining later two strong passed pawns in the center. In chess
Informant 47 game 19 the move 8...d4 was considered as "dubious" (no
matter my engine evaluates it as 0.22 for black):

[Event "Barcelona"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Illescas Cordoba, Miguel"]
[Black "Korchnoi, Viktor Lvovich"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A17"]
[WhiteElo "2525"]
[BlackElo "2610"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1989.??.??"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 c5 5. a3 Ba5 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 d5
8. O-O d4 9. Na4 Nbd7 10. Qc2 Rb8 11.b4 cxb4 12. axb4 Bxb4 13. Nxd4 e5
14. Nf3 b5 15. cxb5 Rxb5 16. Bb2 a6 17. d4 e4 18. Ne5 Bb7 19. Nc6 Qc8
20. Rfc1 Qxc6 21. Qxc6 Bxc6 22. Rxc6 Nb8 23. Rc4 Re8 24. e3 a5 25. Rac1
Nbd7 26. Rc8 Kf8 27. Rxe8+ Kxe8 28. Rc2 Ke7 29.f3 exf3 30. Bxf3 Nd5
31.e4 N5b6 32. Be2 Rg5 33. Nxb6 Nxb6 34. Rc7+ Kd8 35. Rxf7 $18 Na4
36.Bc1 Rg6 37. e5 Nc3 38. Bd3 Rc6 39. Bg5+ Ke8 40. Rxg7 a4 41. Rxh7 a3
42. Bf6 1-0

Date: 06 Jan 2006 04:06:09
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
>> look at this game, where I had Black.
>
> Ray, if a 2000 player is high rated for you I start understanding ...
> We can add that this 2000 rating surely is blitz-server rating.
> Considering that in the chess servers I play I have a rating 200-300
> points higher (than my actual rating in OTB chess), we can think your
> opponent was 1700-1800.

I think "Antonio" has DID, since he's using "we" a lot.

I also think he has a borderline homosexual fixation on me, or wishes he
could train full-time and is jealous of anyone who makes the efffort.

> But I need to add I appreciate you are posting concrete games here.
> I hope you will continue doing that in the future!

To the extent that I can do so without revealing my repertoire, I will.

>> This is one of the few games I can publish now because it's not an
>> opening I normally play.
>
> Pathetic!
>
> Do you know all games from world top ten to under-10 ch are published
> today?

When the player's name is known, I'm sure.

Anyone who publishes my games with my name attached to them will be sued for
right-to-publicity infringement. The game score is fine, but the minute
they say that I played it, they are misappropriating my name.

Now all I have to do is become good enough for anyone to care!

> Do you actually think anyone is going to do some "preparation" for a game
> with you from published games in RGCA?

Why wouldn't they?

>And more considering you do not play chess, only play 1 minute games.

Yes, that is my training. I will "slow down" once my one-minute rating hits
2600 (if it ever does). My theory is if I learn to play perfect chess at
one-minute time controls I will become unbeatable.

> Do you understand chess opening repertoire is something live which can
> change each day?

So if I find the correct main line for say the QGD, I should publish games
in it that show this rather than springing it on an unsuspecting opponent in
a game that counts?

Right now I have at least three openings where I am playing moves that will
one day be the main line, but which are not now.

>And opening advantages in most cases (specially for non GM) has no
>relationship with final result.

The flaw there is that when a non-GM learns how to win "wire to wire," he
becomes a GM. "When I become a stronger tennis player, I will learn how to
serve."

Lately I've actually gotten stronger by "studying" the middlegame and
endgame. How do I do this? I just don't work on my openings and require
the improvement to come from somewhere else.

> With that kind of comments you only dicredit yourself.

I'm not concerned about the public's opinion of my training, really.

One thing every GM has in common is an IDENTITY. He doesn't try to be
someone else. Shaq doesn't try to hit 95 percent free-throws, but instead
plays to his strengths, just as you don't see Gary Payton trying to
intimidate anyone under the basket.

>> Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and
>> hopefully it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:
>>
>> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4
>>
>> Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll
>> grab as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are
>> lots of tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll
>> be able to play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big
>> center. With 4. e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the
>> first move. Now the fun begins.
>
> Evaluations like "0.45" has no sense for humans.
> 0.45 can be a winning advantage in some cases and +3.50 can be dead draw.
> Computers are a very useful tool but do not trust all they do.

This is +0.45 in a position that had no tactics that would undermine the
computer's analysis. I also have ways that I won't get into to shed more
light on what the computers are doing.

Video gamers have the ability to learn from a computer game without the
lessons being translated into English. Chessplayers do not seem to have
this as much.

> The game seem interesting to be played with this control time. I would
> like to discover more concrete critical moments, for example:
> - You wrote 15. Qxc6?? but I can not see better moves, if there are n
> better moves that move is not a decisive mistake.
> - In contrast, 16.Nxe4 and 18.Kf1 can be improved no matter white position
> is very poor.
> - You do not menction 11.d3 as a mistake, maybe the most important in that
> game.
>
> Respect to 4.e3 (allowing 4...d4) as responsible for the "0.45" I will
> post a game (at the end) I saw in direct. It's not the same position but
> some positional themes are similar.

I doubt my openings have reached the point where 4. e3 was the losing move,
but it shows how sharp play can punish a minor mistake. I tend to leave my
opponents one move away from disaster in the opening. Good opponents of
course do the same thing to me.

>> 5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!? e5! 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6
>> 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4 13.Nd2 Bf5
>> 14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6?? Death. 15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+
>> 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6 20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2
>> Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19. Kg1 Qe1#
>
> In that game we can see that 8...d4?! helped white to attack black center
> obtaining later two strong passed pawns in the center. In chess Informant
> 47 game 19 the move 8...d4 was considered as "dubious" (no matter my
> engine evaluates it as 0.22 for black):

I don't trust any analysis from the pre-computer era. Back then everyone
had to guess.

> [Event "Barcelona"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "1989.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Illescas Cordoba, Miguel"]
> [Black "Korchnoi, Viktor Lvovich"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "A17"]
> [WhiteElo "2525"]
> [BlackElo "2610"]
> [PlyCount "83"]
> [EventDate "1989.??.??"]
>
> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 c5 5. a3 Ba5 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 d5 8.
> O-O d4 9. Na4 Nbd7 10. Qc2 Rb8 11.b4 cxb4 12. axb4 Bxb4 13. Nxd4 e5 14.
> Nf3 b5 15. cxb5 Rxb5 16. Bb2 a6 17. d4 e4 18. Ne5 Bb7 19. Nc6 Qc8 20. Rfc1
> Qxc6 21. Qxc6 Bxc6 22. Rxc6 Nb8 23. Rc4 Re8 24. e3 a5 25. Rac1 Nbd7 26.
> Rc8 Kf8 27. Rxe8+ Kxe8 28. Rc2 Ke7 29.f3 exf3 30. Bxf3 Nd5 31.e4 N5b6 32.
> Be2 Rg5 33. Nxb6 Nxb6 34. Rc7+ Kd8 35. Rxf7 $18 Na4 36.Bc1 Rg6 37. e5 Nc3
> 38. Bd3 Rc6 39. Bg5+ Ke8 40. Rxg7 a4 41. Rxh7 a3 42. Bf6 1-0
>

Date: 08 Jan 2006 22:23:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> This is +0.45 in a position that had no tactics that would undermine the
> computer's analysis.

Computers evaluate tactics near-perfectly. It's the absence of tactics
that undermines the computer's analysis.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Unholy Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cat but it's also a crime against
nature and it'll turn your stomach!

Date: 09 Jan 2006 04:49:40
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> This is +0.45 in a position that had no tactics that would undermine the
>> computer's analysis.
>
> Computers evaluate tactics near-perfectly. It's the absence of tactics
> that undermines the computer's analysis.

I think that's more a result of the human's ability to think positionally
rather than tactically rather than the computer's.

A computer that can't think positionally should be extremely vulnerable to
massive tactical complications, with "vulnerable" being a highly relative
term of course.

Date: 08 Jan 2006 20:17:58
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

David Richerby wrote:
>
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is +0.45 in a position that had no tactics that would undermine the
> > computer's analysis.
>
> Computers evaluate tactics near-perfectly. It's the absence of tactics
> that undermines the computer's analysis.

Or, just renders it positionally...agnostic! 8 >)

>
> Dave.
>

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:58:16
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
>>>look at this game, where I had Black.
>>
>>Ray, if a 2000 player is high rated for you I start understanding ...
>>We can add that this 2000 rating surely is blitz-server rating.
>>Considering that in the chess servers I play I have a rating 200-300
>>points higher (than my actual rating in OTB chess), we can think your
>>opponent was 1700-1800.
>
> I think "Antonio" has DID, since he's using "we" a lot.
>
> I also think he has a borderline homosexual fixation on me, or wishes he
> could train full-time and is jealous of anyone who makes the efffort.

Ray, I'm very impressed: you are a supposed +130 IQ and a 2000 player
who will become 2600 in a near future. Also you study chess 60 hours
each week, work in a nice job, solved Packman and have time enough to
teach us here in RGCA.

Sure in your spare time you proved Golbach conjecture and demostrated
P=NP using N=1.

Who can avoid being jealous!!

But please, do not insult me!

Anto�ito (family version of Antonio)

Date: 08 Jan 2006 22:25:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sure in your spare time you proved Golbach conjecture and demostrated
> P=NP using N=1.

After some work, I managed the case P=0, too, but I don't want to post the
proof here because somebody might pretend they worked it out themselves
and publish in a journal.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Solar-Powered Chair (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a chair but it doesn't work in
the dark and it doesn't work!

Date: 06 Jan 2006 20:26:20
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>>>>If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
>>>>look at this game, where I had Black.
>>>
>>>Ray, if a 2000 player is high rated for you I start understanding ...
>>>We can add that this 2000 rating surely is blitz-server rating.
>>>Considering that in the chess servers I play I have a rating 200-300
>>>points higher (than my actual rating in OTB chess), we can think your
>>>opponent was 1700-1800.
>>
>> I think "Antonio" has DID, since he's using "we" a lot.
>>
>> I also think he has a borderline homosexual fixation on me, or wishes he
>> could train full-time and is jealous of anyone who makes the efffort.
>
> Ray, I'm very impressed: you are a supposed +130 IQ and a 2000 player who
> will become 2600 in a near future. Also you study chess 60 hours each
> week, work in a nice job, solved Packman and have time enough to teach us
> here in RGCA.

I type 110 wpm and get paid by the page. Do the math. I can make up to $50
an hour when I have work, and I can connect to the internet from home.

I assume every serious player is training at least 60 hours a week now.

> Sure in your spare time you proved Golbach conjecture and demostrated P=NP
> using N=1.

Cute.

Too bad you didn't answer the on-topic stuff.

The chess world can't have it both ways: it wants champions (in America
anyway), but if one steps forward to try, they seem to resent even the
attempt to become one.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 22:29:33
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

> I type 110 wpm and get paid by the page. Do the math. I can make up to $50
> an hour when I have work, and I can connect to the internet from home.

Simply joking with maths: I can multiply 142857143 for any number of
nine digits (or less) in less than 2 minuts. I can do also the junior
version multiplying for 143 any number of 3 digits or less in few
seconds. ... I can't do the same with 431!
Do the math!

> I assume every serious player is training at least 60 hours a week now.

You do not know much "serious players", maybe none.
You idealize them.

In professional chess world there are intelligent people but there are
also cases of "non-intelligent" people in the IQ sense.

There are many GM who only studied priy school and there are also
university teachers who train chess hardly but they do not achieve the
correspondent chess strengh (I know some cases in mathematics, physics
and Computer Science).

I know a few cases of professional chessplayers who enjoy very much
playing chess and train all the time He can.
But I know many serious professional players who "train" no more than 15
hours a week. I know some special cases who do not "train" at all (with
some alcoolics cases here and some fools).

> Too bad you didn't answer the on-topic stuff.
>
> The chess world can't have it both ways: it wants champions (in America
> anyway), but if one steps forward to try, they seem to resent even the
> attempt to become one.

My advice for non-profesional chess players is: enjoy playing chess,
enjoy studying chess but not to obsess you.

There are happy people who likes very much chess who never will be GM
but who enjoy each game they play and each chess training session.

I congratulate people who tries to improve his chess understanding and I
try to help them with my 2 cents. In some cases that mean to discredit
people who made negative advice (from my humble point of view)

Antonio

Date: 07 Jan 2006 02:49:22
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> I assume every serious player is training at least 60 hours a week now.
>
> You do not know much "serious players", maybe none.

You're right, I don't know of ANY "serious players" right now. I know there
are GMs who get stumped at move five in the opening (see the last world
title game), and I see computers that can smack them in 25 moves or less.

I am not the slightest bit impressed with the chess "talent" I see out
there. I mean, come on, computers will answer ANY question that an
intelligent player asks.

> You idealize them.

I believe in devotion to one's pursuits.

> In professional chess world there are intelligent people but there are
> also cases of "non-intelligent" people in the IQ sense.
>
> There are many GM who only studied priy school and there are also
> university teachers who train chess hardly but they do not achieve the
> correspondent chess strengh (I know some cases in mathematics, physics and
> Computer Science).

I was talking about chess study and chess intelligence.

> I know a few cases of professional chessplayers who enjoy very much
> playing chess and train all the time

Worked for Fischer.

>He can.
> But I know many serious professional players who "train" no more than 15
> hours a week.

Like the baseball players who used to get fat in the offseason. Fischer
exploited this laziness as well.

If the strongest player in the world studies only 15 hours a week (and
Kasparov obviously did that because of his politics), then someone with a
real work ethic and computers fixing his every mistake could blow everyone
away in short order.

>I know some special cases who do not "train" at all (with some alcoolics
>cases here and some fools).

Playing is training.

>> Too bad you didn't answer the on-topic stuff.
>>
>> The chess world can't have it both ways: it wants champions (in America
>> anyway), but if one steps forward to try, they seem to resent even the
>> attempt to become one.
>
> My advice for non-profesional chess players is: enjoy playing chess, enjoy
> studying chess but not to obsess you.

In other words, give up any idea of becoming good.

> There are happy people who likes very much chess who never will be GM

I'm a happy singer but I doubt you'd want to hear me.

> but who enjoy each game they play and each chess training session.

I've been that. I may become that again. For now, I'm on a mission and
I'll know in a few years where I stand.

> I congratulate people who tries to improve his chess understanding and I
> try to help them with my 2 cents. In some cases that mean to discredit
> people who made negative advice (from my humble point of view)

But by doing that you are saying that you are the one to listen to, and you
could be wrong just as easily, whereas the guy you bash never told the
person not to listen to others.

Date: 05 Jan 2006 19:34:23
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
> look at this game, where I had Black. This is one of the few games I can
> publish now because it's not an opening I normally play.

What difference does it make? This game is an example of punishing poor play
in the opening as early as move four, it isn't as if you would be giving
away any trade secrets by publishing an analogous game in an opening that
you play.

>
> Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and
> hopefully it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:

It's a pleasant enough win, but you shouldn't get carried away by crushing a
2000 player in one-minute chess!

>
> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4
>
> Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll
> grab as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are
> lots of tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll be
> able to play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big center.
> With 4. e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the first move.
> Now the fun begins.

Strangely enough, the three 2400+ players in my database who have had this
position (after 4 e3) as Black (Padevsky, Varavin and Filipenko) all
refrained from 4 ...d4 and drew; whereas the weaker players who played it
scored heavily. 4 ... d4 must be good, however.

>
>
> 5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!?
>
> Interesting enough, but the engine also gives 6. exd4 with a slightly
> closer game.
>
> 6...e5!
>
> A must. Black now has a formation more commonly associated with White.
> Computer says Black is still 0.42 pawns better.
>
>
> 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4
> 13. Nd2 Bf5
>
> A positional storm is brewing, as White is getting suffocated.

White is already dead.

>
>
> 14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6??
>
> Death.
>
> 15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6
> 20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2 Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19. Kg1
> Qe1#
>
>
Regards,
Arfur

Date: 05 Jan 2006 20:05:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> If anyone thinks that high-rated players don't play stupid chess, take a
>> look at this game, where I had Black. This is one of the few games I can
>> publish now because it's not an opening I normally play.
>
> What difference does it make? This game is an example of punishing poor
> play in the opening as early as move four, it isn't as if you would be
> giving away any trade secrets by publishing an analogous game in an
> opening that you play.

Most people would have said White's position was "fine" at move four. I
beat the living shit out of an expert in that game.

Part of becoming a GM is knowing how to dust experts the way this one was
dusted. I've been moving up about 10 ELO points a month, but had been
stagnating. Then last week I dropped a few hundred points, then BOOM. New
peak.

Of course, most people don't understand the building-block nature of my
training, or that I keep extending my repertoire and ability to play beyond
my book, but I'm sure if I get where I'm headed, they'll want to hear all
about it and remind me they were there all along.

You don't get miniatures without aggressive play like this.

>> Add ten more years of full-time training to this level of play and
>> hopefully it'll be enough. For now, I'm encouraged:
>
> It's a pleasant enough win, but you shouldn't get carried away by crushing
> a 2000 player in one-minute chess!

I don't. There's other factors involved. My game took a quantum leap this
morning, as it does from time to time when I train hard.

That will be my average performance in six months.

>> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 d4
>>
>> Computer says black is already 0.45 pawns to the good. Generally, I'll
>> grab as much of the center as my opponent will allow me to. There are
>> lots of tactical and positional themes Black has to master before he'll
>> be able to play this system reliably, but he can usually hold the big
>> center. With 4. e3, White has already squandered the advantage of the
>> first move. Now the fun begins.
>
> Strangely enough, the three 2400+ players in my database who have had this
> position (after 4 e3) as Black (Padevsky, Varavin and Filipenko) all
> refrained from 4 ...d4 and drew; whereas the weaker players who played it
> scored heavily. 4 ... d4 must be good, however.

I'm more than happy to play White with Black.

>> 5. Ne2 Nc6 6. Ng3!?
>>
>> Interesting enough, but the engine also gives 6. exd4 with a slightly
>> closer game.
>>
>> 6...e5!
>>
>> A must. Black now has a formation more commonly associated with White.
>> Computer says Black is still 0.42 pawns better.
>>
>>
>> 7. Bd3 Bd6 8. Ne4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 f5 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. d3 e4 12. dxe4 fxe4
>> 13. Nd2 Bf5
>>
>> A positional storm is brewing, as White is getting suffocated.
>
> White is already dead.

The computer doesn't see it entirely, but yes, White is dead as a doornail.

>> 14. Qa4 O-O!! 15. Qxc6??
>>
>> Death.
>>
>> 15...dxe3 16. Nxe4 exf2+ 17. Nxf2 Qe7+ 18. Kf1 (18. Kd1 Rad8 19. Qd5+ Be6
>> 20. Qe4 Rxf2 21. Ke1 Rxg2 22. Qxg2 Bd5+ 23. Qe2 Qxe2+ -4.18) Bd3+ 19.
>> Kg1 Qe1#

Date: 08 Jan 2006 22:18:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Most people would have said White's position was "fine" at move four. I
> beat the living shit out of an expert in that game.

No, you beat somebody who is rated 2000 at one-minute chess on whatever
server you were playing on. An `expert' is somebody who has a USCF OTB
rating of 2000-2199.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Tree (TM): it's like a tree
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it'll kill you in seconds!

Date: 09 Jan 2006 05:56:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> Most people would have said White's position was "fine" at move four. I
>> beat the living shit out of an expert in that game.
>
> No, you beat somebody who is rated 2000 at one-minute chess on whatever
> server you were playing on. An `expert' is somebody who has a USCF OTB
> rating of 2000-2199.

USCF ratings are inflated compared to the places I play. GMs have ratings
of 1800 at one-minute many times. I deliberately seek out the strongest
rating pools because I don't want a high rating.

The emphasis is on the moves, not the strength of opposition, and like it or
not, there are many players out there who don't defeat even a 2000 player
and can learn from those who do. As a publisher, I'm happy to make money
teaching them (this was a freebie; not everything I write is).

Date: 05 Jan 2006 23:21:35
From: Ron
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Most people would have said White's position was "fine" at move four. I
> beat the living shit out of an expert in that game.

It was a one-minute game, Ray.

One minute play is not exact a situation where ANYONE plays well.
Everybody makes blunders.

Yes, you "beat the living shit" out of him. Big whoop.

Do it in a slow game, and then you might have something worthy of your
self-congratulation.

-Ron

Date: 06 Jan 2006 03:46:14
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> Most people would have said White's position was "fine" at move four. I
>> beat the living shit out of an expert in that game.
>
> It was a one-minute game, Ray.

Time was not a factor. I can do the same thing at slower controls.

> One minute play is not exact a situation where ANYONE plays well.
> Everybody makes blunders.

As opposed to retard chess, where no one ever blunders.

Please also show where I made any blunders in this game.

> Yes, you "beat the living shit" out of him. Big whoop.

It was.

> Do it in a slow game, and then you might have something worthy of your
> self-congratulation.

Why? Any idiot can find great moves in slow chess.

I posted the game to show one of my games. I almost never do that because I
don't like revealing my opening repertoire when I don't have to. So if I
don't publish them people get on me for that, and if I do, then they say I'm
bragging.

Even better: Americans bitch about there not being a world champion, yet if
someone steps up to train like one, they get ridiculed. Then if they
succeed, like Fischer did, and they pay back all the nonsupporters by
fucking with them (that's why Fischer played political games), the public
feels "betrayed."

You think Fischer liked being stuck in that apartment in Brooklyn his entire
childhood? Think any wealthy patrons couldn't have set him up a little
better? Think players like knowing that if they don't go all the way they
won't even be recognized for trying?

Please also try to pinpoint the losing move for White in that game.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 16:40:11
From: Ron
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >
> > It was a one-minute game, Ray.
>
> Time was not a factor. I can do the same thing at slower controls.

Then do it.

To say that "time was not a factor" in a one-minute game is one of the
stupidest things ever written about chess.

-Ron

Date: 06 Jan 2006 18:05:13
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > It was a one-minute game, Ray.
>>
>> Time was not a factor. I can do the same thing at slower controls.
>
> Then do it.
>
> To say that "time was not a factor" in a one-minute game is one of the
> stupidest things ever written about chess.
>
> -Ron

I am surprised that you waste your time with this prat - Ron

Regards

Date: 06 Jan 2006 18:47:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>>> > It was a one-minute game, Ray.
>>>
>>> Time was not a factor. I can do the same thing at slower controls.
>>
>> Then do it.
>>
>> To say that "time was not a factor" in a one-minute game is one of the
>> stupidest things ever written about chess.
>>
>> -Ron
>
> I am surprised that you waste your time with this prat - Ron

Guys like this always brownnose the GMs, as if the GMs don't see what
they're like.

I had this mistaken impression that Americans want serious players. I train
over 60 hours a week; what about you?

Date: 06 Jan 2006 17:15:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> > It was a one-minute game, Ray.
>>
>> Time was not a factor. I can do the same thing at slower controls.
>
> Then do it.

Pay me and I'll be happy to.

> To say that "time was not a factor" in a one-minute game is one of the
> stupidest things ever written about chess.

When a win comes straight out of one's opening book, it's not.

Oh wait, you'd have to know how to play the opening to understand that.

The speed with which one can process information is part of one's IQ.

Date: 09 Jan 2006 17:13:22
From: Ron
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> When a win comes straight out of one's opening book, it's not.

So you don't think your opponent would have played any better with time
to think?

You really think he'd play moves like Qxc6 with time to think about it?

Or are you claiming that move was part of his opening book, too?

Date: 09 Jan 2006 23:27:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>> When a win comes straight out of one's opening book, it's not.
>
> So you don't think your opponent would have played any better with time
> to think?
>
> You really think he'd play moves like Qxc6 with time to think about it?

He was lost by then.

>
> Or are you claiming that move was part of his opening book, too?

I play formations not variations.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 04:55:50
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Do it in a slow game, and then you might have something worthy of your
>> self-congratulation.
>
> Why? Any idiot can find great moves in slow chess.

"I could.... I just don't want to..."

Chicken.

Date: 06 Jan 2006 05:00:50
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I crushed a 2000-rated player at one-minute

>>> Do it in a slow game, and then you might have something worthy of your
>>> self-congratulation.
>>
>> Why? Any idiot can find great moves in slow chess.
>
> "I could.... I just don't want to..."
>
> Chicken.

You want to pay my entry fee and for three days of lost work? I'll be happy
to play slow chess.

I played tons of slow chess 15 years ago and got up to 2000.