| |
Main
Date: 23 Jan 2006 20:04:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
tournament?
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2006 04:53:53
From:
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Antonio Torrecillas ha escrito:
> En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
>
> > I once went to graduate school in mathematics. Half of the professors
> > and one of the students were much more intelligent than the rest of us.
> > It was amazing what they could do with games. They could sit down and
> > figure them out right away. Prof. Dong was incredible at Tetris, and
> > it wasn't because he practiced. Their minds were more orderly and
> > quicker than mine.
>
> I do not agree,
>
> There are many university teachers (I know cases in physics, mathematics
> computer science) with a low level in chess.
>
> And a great part of people which a high level in chess I know, have not
> finished studying in university (and is some cases have only elementary
> school)
>
> The explanation can have those two arguments:
> - Intelligence for chess do not need another aspects which are necessary
> for Physics or mathematics and vice-versa
> - To progress in chess and in mathematics you need not only good
> aptitudes (talent, ...) you need also much time and work (with some
> exceptions)
>
> AT
This article seems interesting.
http://www.chessville.com/misc/PsychologyofChessSkill.htm
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2006 13:41:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Antonio Torrecillas ha escrito:
>
>> En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
>>
>> > I once went to graduate school in mathematics. Half of the professors
>> > and one of the students were much more intelligent than the rest of us.
>> > It was amazing what they could do with games. They could sit down and
>> > figure them out right away. Prof. Dong was incredible at Tetris, and
>> > it wasn't because he practiced. Their minds were more orderly and
>> > quicker than mine.
>>
>> I do not agree,
>>
>> There are many university teachers (I know cases in physics, mathematics
>> computer science) with a low level in chess.
>>
>> And a great part of people which a high level in chess I know, have not
>> finished studying in university (and is some cases have only elementary
>> school)
>>
>> The explanation can have those two arguments:
>> - Intelligence for chess do not need another aspects which are necessary
>> for Physics or mathematics and vice-versa
>> - To progress in chess and in mathematics you need not only good
>> aptitudes (talent, ...) you need also much time and work (with some
>> exceptions)
>>
>> AT
>
> This article seems interesting.
>
> http://www.chessville.com/misc/PsychologyofChessSkill.htm
A link at the bottom leads to Rick Kennedy's bookshelf with other reviews on
titles about the psychology of chess which might interest readers in this
thread.
I think these books are interesting, but there are still some things
missing. Hopefully, next month, we at Chessville will put that to rights
with a new column by a World Champ.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2006 09:30:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Yes, they do. I'm almost one of the best bullet players in the world.
|
| |
Date: 01 Feb 2006 11:28:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Stop making fun of me Nicky boy. I know where you live. I can sue you.
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 19:49:07
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> As long as you give me respect, I'm fine with it.
I suspect that the many people that Ray Gordon has
dismissed as 'retards' or 'idiots' may not appreciate him.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 18:52:40
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
As long as you give me respect, I'm fine with it. Just remember that
I'm in serious training daily.
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 16:03:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
It's just my other personality. This personality plays at GM strength.
The other one plays at IM strength. Both can kick your fucking ass.
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 19:19:53
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> It's just my other personality. This personality plays at GM strength.
> The other one plays at IM strength. Both can kick your fucking ass.
Anality (analysis?) aside, how about this: how about referring
to the GM personality as Mr. Ray Gordon (GM) and the the IM
personality as Mr. Ray Gordon (IM). Is this satisfactory? 8 >)
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 14:09:49
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> I'm easily 2200 strength. I can beat many IMs and GMs
> >> with just a little more training.
>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
> > It's inconceivable that you could be that strong and not have a rating.
>
> Aside from the previous poster not recognizing that it's an imposter
> and not me he's responding to, I have an old rating of 1900.
The 'real' Ray Gordon's claim that he has 'an old rating of 1900'
is consistent with my identification of him as Gordon R Parker.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482187
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 11:24:44
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I dare you to play bullet on ICC with me. I'm at least GM strength.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 16:41:15
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote
>I dare you to play bullet on ICC with me. I'm at least GM strength.
Tell you what Gordy. Achieve a 2500 USCF performance rating in a real
tournament (other than the one you play over and over again in your mind)
over the next year and I'll give you $250.00. If you don't achieve that
result in that time period, you will pull your pants down on ket Street
in Philadelphia at noon on a weekday. Deal?
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 16:39:06
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote
>I dare you to play bullet on ICC with me. I'm at least GM strength.
I already told you, my bullet rating is about 1550. I'm at best an average
bullet player. The fact that you can beat me 20 out of 20 games at 1/0
doesn't prove a thing. What it means is you're faster than me at 1/0 -- a
combination of perhaps being a better player and having a faster hand.
Occasionally I'll run into a 1700 player who beats me 10 times in a row.
What does that prove, other than that his 2100-rated friend is in the room,
or he's using a computer to play his games?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 23:38:14
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>>I dare you to play bullet on ICC with me. I'm at least GM strength.
>
>
> I already told you, my bullet rating is about 1550.
And I have already told you, that there is a fake Ray Gordon around, who
just pokes fun.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 17:56:10
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
> And I have already told you, that there is a fake Ray Gordon around, who
> just pokes fun.
I guess that _precautionary_ reading of posts on USENET is
progressively becoming a tall order for some... Yet, the
very nature of this impersonal medium of communication
calls for such vigilance.
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 05:01:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Chicken! I own you.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 22:59:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I can beat you in bullet on ICC.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 11:11:25
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
No great accomplishment. My bullet rating is about 1550. That's not what
we're discussing here.
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I can beat you in bullet on ICC.
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:46:48
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>Oh? I see 2550-rated guys play against the big boys and even hang pawns.
and your highest rating was 2000? you must have hung your queen
millions of times at that rating... Fact is that a 2550 player would
wipe
the board with you.
>What magic capabilities do they have that I'm missing?
proper training
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:01:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> I can beat any IM or GM in bullet with just a little bit of luck. I'm
> about GM strength in bullet on ICC so watch out.
Just what the newsgroups need, another "Internet GM" to add to the one
we already have and the "Nearly An IM 2450."
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 13:03:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I can beat any IM or GM in bullet with just a little bit of luck. I'm
about GM strength in bullet on ICC so watch out.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 07:38:18
From: hardland
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
If a college student wants to drop out... well,... let him drop out!.
I've always been good at school, high school and at the University...
because I enjoy it.
You cannot live a life in wich satisfaction depends on results, and
keep on your mental health.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 07:28:30
From:
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
> Yes. I am working mainly with my brain since decades, I know where my
> thinking is strong at, I know its weaknesses. And I can tell for sure,
> that I will never be so fast in calculating variations as the GM I
> happen to know closer, my pattern recognition will never be a match. I
> can improve on this, sure, but it is well beyond my abilities.
>
I once went to graduate school in mathematics. Half of the professors
and one of the students were much more intelligent than the rest of us.
It was amazing what they could do with games. They could sit down and
figure them out right away. Prof. Dong was incredible at Tetris, and
it wasn't because he practiced. Their minds were more orderly and
quicker than mine.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:42:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> Yes. I am working mainly with my brain since decades, I know where my
>> thinking is strong at, I know its weaknesses. And I can tell for sure,
>> that I will never be so fast in calculating variations as the GM I
>> happen to know closer, my pattern recognition will never be a match. I
>> can improve on this, sure, but it is well beyond my abilities.
>>
>
> I once went to graduate school in mathematics. Half of the professors
> and one of the students were much more intelligent than the rest of us.
> It was amazing what they could do with games. They could sit down and
> figure them out right away. Prof. Dong was incredible at Tetris, and
> it wasn't because he practiced. Their minds were more orderly and
> quicker than mine.
Just like the guys at the gym who could squat 350 pounds while you couldn't
were inherently stronger than you, even though you never lifted weights.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 16:46:02
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> I once went to graduate school in mathematics. Half of the professors
> and one of the students were much more intelligent than the rest of us.
> It was amazing what they could do with games. They could sit down and
> figure them out right away. Prof. Dong was incredible at Tetris, and
> it wasn't because he practiced. Their minds were more orderly and
> quicker than mine.
I do not agree,
There are many university teachers (I know cases in physics, mathematics
computer science) with a low level in chess.
And a great part of people which a high level in chess I know, have not
finished studying in university (and is some cases have only elementary
school)
The explanation can have those two arguments:
- Intelligence for chess do not need another aspects which are necessary
for Physics or mathematics and vice-versa
- To progress in chess and in mathematics you need not only good
aptitudes (talent, ...) you need also much time and work (with some
exceptions)
AT
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 03:40:04
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > I can estimate my limits.
>
> Without ever testing them?
Yes. I am working mainly with my brain since decades, I know where my
thinking is strong at, I know its weaknesses. And I can tell for sure,
that I will never be so fast in calculating variations as the GM I
happen to know closer, my pattern recognition will never be a match. I
can improve on this, sure, but it is well beyond my abilities.
> >I just have to compare how they approach a position to how I do it or some
> >FMs. They are playing a different game.
>
> So how they do it with training versus how you do it without training
> measures your potential?
It's not only training, things you just can recall. Even if they
explain me, why they value the situation this or that way, I very often
simply don't get it completely. It's beyond me.
> >> I've beaten enough IMs and GMs at one-minute >
> > One-minute games are not chess.
>
> They are an excellent test of one's abilities,
For certain abilities, maybe. But they are very special and have only
slightly to do with the abilities you need for tournament chess. It
requests only shallow abilities, to see fast and quick, not deep or
original.
> > A strong player is not defined by how much he knows about openings.
>
> Actually, if you go throughout history, this is exactly what has separated
> most of the champions from the also-rans: they get "out of the gate" faster
> on average, and have a much easier task.
If you have two opponents with similar strength, the one with better
opening knowledge may have an edge, no question. But the difference
between a 2700 player and a 2500 player is much more than just opening
theory. The GM I know once said, he simply doesn't understand the games
of the Anands and Kasparovs of this world. He does not say, "Oh, they
know so much more about openings" - they play chess beyond his level,
which he would not reach just with more opening theory.
> > A strong player is more than just technique.
>
> Just like a strong surgeon is more than his ability to operate?
There are jobs, which require craftsmanship, where technique is
everything, and there are jobs where it may be important, but not
sufficient. Comparing them doesn't make sense.
> >
> > First: it's not solvable, it's not even close.
>
> It's a lot closer now than it's ever been, with very little left to the
> imagination.
No, the numbers you encounter when counting the possibilities of chess
are so big, a speed up of a factor 1000 or even million doesn't make a
big difference. I once read a book, where a mathematician estimated the
size of a computer necessary to calculate all possible moves of chess
during reasonable time. He went to the physical limit, set amongst
others by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such a theoretical
computer would have roughly the size of a planet.
> >Second: human players are still no computers.
>
> Yet they can learn from what the computers do. If I see Fritz able to beat
> one GM after another on the Black side of a Latvian, I have to conclude that
> maybe this opening is more playable than I thought.
Yes, computers changed the way masters prepare openings. You might
train a more tactical style of playing with a computer. But it does not
strongly affect the over the board play once you left the opening.
> > This is completely wrong. For opening theory computers have changed the
> > landscape. You can use computers to improve your play. But if you sit at
> > the board, there is hardly any difference to a player 50 or 100 years ago.
> > You have to use your memory, you have to use your learned techniques, but
> > besides that, you have to be inventive. The appearence of strong programs
> > didn't change the way our brain works.
>
> What the programs did was take the guesswork out of major theoretical ideas.
> Time was we had to rely on what the top players of the day said about a
> position. Computers have made fools of many past champions and great
> theoretical minds.
I don't think one becomes a fool, simply because you were wrong in
something, but anyway, that doesn't answer the question: what influence
does it have during the game? That you can tell post mortem that this
was so and so - may be, but what does it change when you are sitting
over a position without a computer at hand?
> > This is simply not true. I have seen it, people have invested years of
> > their time and they have just reached a wall they can not break.
>
> Because they refuse to train beyond that wall, or because their foundations
> were weak and this is what stopped them.
You are telling this, without knowing those people.
Do you deny that there are players who are well prepared, but are still
at different levels? Do you really think, the only difference between
Anand and some 2600 GM is just, that he is better prepared or had
better training? There are differences in the abilities of human
beings. And they don't show up only at the top. So there are limits you
simply can not cross, whatever you will do. And those limits can be
everywhere. Simply denying this, is foolish, might be even dangerous,
because you might get lost fighting windmills.
> Someone who learns arithematic poorly will "hit the wall" in geometry.
>
> >This wall can be at 2600, 2400, 2200, it can be at 2000, for some it is
> >even below. It depends on your talent for the game.
>
> One can't measure their true talent level until they train full time for
> many, many years.
This is very hypothetical. And you can see whether somebody has talent
or not, just by looking at what he does using just the things he knows
already. There are a lot of young fellows reaching impressive levels of
play. They did not train full time for many, many years, simply becaus
the haven't lived for so long.
> > But why do you continue with training. Do you expect it will get cheaper?
>
> It already costs next to nothing to train now, since I can play world-class
> competition online all day and night.
But only bullet, not tournament chess.
> > But what is it, what you are going for, shortcuts to where? One doesn't
> > spend hours and hours every day without a goal, at least if he doesn't
> > enjoy this effort by itself (which you expliciteyl have excluded in your
> > case).
>
> At my age, this is about where I find out what I have for this game.
What would this be? Simply enjoying it? Then you don't need so much
training. Being able to play world class chess? Then a safe bet would
be: you don't have it. So, what are you trying to find out? How far you
can go with bullet chess?
> Either
> way, I'll probably quit when I find some younger players to carry on the
> work.
Which work?
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 17:41:45
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> > I can estimate my limits.
>>
>> Without ever testing them?
>
> Yes. I am working mainly with my brain since decades, I know where my
> thinking is strong at, I know its weaknesses. And I can tell for sure,
> that I will never be so fast in calculating variations as the GM I
> happen to know closer, my pattern recognition will never be a match.
Just like you know how fast you can run if you always walk.
>I
> can improve on this, sure, but it is well beyond my abilities.
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right." -- Henry Ford
>> >I just have to compare how they approach a position to how I do it or
>> >some
>> >FMs. They are playing a different game.
>>
>> So how they do it with training versus how you do it without training
>> measures your potential?
>
> It's not only training, things you just can recall. Even if they
> explain me, why they value the situation this or that way, I very often
> simply don't get it completely. It's beyond me.
That's where repetition and extended training comes in.
>> >> I've beaten enough IMs and GMs at one-minute >
>> > One-minute games are not chess.
>>
>> They are an excellent test of one's abilities,
>
> For certain abilities, maybe. But they are very special and have only
> slightly to do with the abilities you need for tournament chess.
You mean like openings, winning won endings, tactics, traps, operating in
time pressure, positional pressure, etc? Failure to have a firm grasp of
all aspects of chess is fatal at one-minute because the player who doesn't
grasp them will lose on time.
Did the 24-second shot clock ruin basketball or did it just require the
players to play better?
>It
> requests only shallow abilities, to see fast and quick, not deep or
> original.
Wrong: if you don't play well (which requires thoughts to be deep), you get
an inferior position and will invariably lose on time. Players who have
complete opening repertoires (a good thing for tournaments) will habitually
get out of the opening with a better position and more time on the clock.
If I can win a won game against an IM or GM in 45 seconds, I would think
that doing it in 90 minutes is a little easier. If the game is won due to
superior opening preparation, the time controls don't even come into play.
>> > A strong player is not defined by how much he knows about openings.
>>
>> Actually, if you go throughout history, this is exactly what has
>> separated
>> most of the champions from the also-rans: they get "out of the gate"
>> faster
>> on average, and have a much easier task.
>
> If you have two opponents with similar strength, the one with better
> opening knowledge may have an edge, no question. But the difference
> between a 2700 player and a 2500 player is much more than just opening
> theory.
Not from what I've seen. I see 2500s playing openings that 2700s wouldn't
touch.
>The GM I know once said, he simply doesn't understand the games
> of the Anands and Kasparovs of this world. He does not say, "Oh, they
> know so much more about openings" - they play chess beyond his level,
> which he would not reach just with more opening theory.
He wouldn't know until he studied the openings. Odd that I have no
difficulty following and understanding Anand's games.
Neither Kamsky nor Nakamura ever managed to outplay me in the opening from
four games against those two, even when I had black. I lost because my
"early speed" only goes so far, but I'd still rather make my first mistake
at move 23 than at move 3. I routinely hold my own in the opening and early
middlegame against many GMs when I play them. I wasn't even playing my
"pet" openings against either player, and in one case, was operating on
instinct from move four.
Another ten years of study, and that "first mistake" gets pushed out
further, say to move 25-30, or maybe beyond. Maybe the whole fucking game.
It's not like I would have come from behind against either of those players
if I hadn't held them equal in the opening.
>> > A strong player is more than just technique.
>>
>> Just like a strong surgeon is more than his ability to operate?
>
> There are jobs, which require craftsmanship, where technique is
> everything, and there are jobs where it may be important, but not
> sufficient. Comparing them doesn't make sense.
Chess is all technique now. It's a finite game with finite answers. It's
actually like a video game in that the computers show the humans how to play
it now, until the humans absorb all the computer knowledge (it's pretty
obvious by now that one day a human will reclaim the top spot from the
machines and that the battle will go on for at least a century). I spent my
youth playing video games and a lot of what I do now is based on the theory
I used to solve games like Asteroids, Centipede, and Pac-Man.
>> > First: it's not solvable, it's not even close.
>>
>> It's a lot closer now than it's ever been, with very little left to the
>> imagination.
>
> No, the numbers you encounter when counting the possibilities of chess
> are so big, a speed up of a factor 1000 or even million doesn't make a
> big difference.
Video games have googleplexes of possible games, yet players solved them
without difficulty. The processing speed of computers matters a lot,
because the deeper they search, the more they can rule out tactically.
>I once read a book, where a mathematician estimated the
> size of a computer necessary to calculate all possible moves of chess
> during reasonable time. He went to the physical limit, set amongst
> others by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such a theoretical
> computer would have roughly the size of a planet.
Possible moves are not the same as practical ones, or general principles
that can be built into the programming.
>> >Second: human players are still no computers.
>>
>> Yet they can learn from what the computers do. If I see Fritz able to
>> beat
>> one GM after another on the Black side of a Latvian, I have to conclude
>> that
>> maybe this opening is more playable than I thought.
>
> Yes, computers changed the way masters prepare openings.
>You might
> train a more tactical style of playing with a computer. But it does not
> strongly affect the over the board play once you left the opening.
The opening sets the tone for the rest of the game. It's like the cards you
are dealt in poker affecting the rest of the hand.
>> > This is completely wrong. For opening theory computers have changed the
>> > landscape. You can use computers to improve your play. But if you sit
>> > at
>> > the board, there is hardly any difference to a player 50 or 100 years
>> > ago.
>> > You have to use your memory, you have to use your learned techniques,
>> > but
>> > besides that, you have to be inventive. The appearence of strong
>> > programs
>> > didn't change the way our brain works.
>>
>> What the programs did was take the guesswork out of major theoretical
>> ideas.
>> Time was we had to rely on what the top players of the day said about a
>> position. Computers have made fools of many past champions and great
>> theoretical minds.
>
> I don't think one becomes a fool, simply because you were wrong in
> something, but anyway, that doesn't answer the question: what influence
> does it have during the game? That you can tell post mortem that this
> was so and so - may be, but what does it change when you are sitting
> over a position without a computer at hand?
The computer knowledge is absorbed through play against the computer, and
through play against others who train on the computer.
Today's GMs, for example, say computers have taught younger players to grab
material unless they see a clear refutation, the way the machines do it.
Anyone with a skill for pattern recognition (the root of all chess skill) is
going to derive patterns from computer play the same way we have done with
video games. How did people solve Pac-Man if no one could learn from a
machine?
>> > This is simply not true. I have seen it, people have invested years of
>> > their time and they have just reached a wall they can not break.
>>
>> Because they refuse to train beyond that wall, or because their
>> foundations
>> were weak and this is what stopped them.
>
> You are telling this, without knowing those people.
And you had a camera on them 24/7?
> Do you deny that there are players who are well prepared, but are still
> at different levels? Do you really think, the only difference between
> Anand and some 2600 GM is just, that he is better prepared or had
> better training?
More or less. In fact, almost always.
>There are differences in the abilities of human
> beings. And they don't show up only at the top.
So there are limits you
> simply can not cross, whatever you will do.
The only way to find those limits is to train in a manner which tests them.
>And those limits can be
> everywhere. Simply denying this, is foolish, might be even dangerous,
> because you might get lost fighting windmills.
Translation: you couldn't do it, so others shouldn't try, or you are so
insignificant, anyone who could do it wouldn't bother to talk to you.
Take your pick of the above two arguments; it's always one.
>> Someone who learns arithematic poorly will "hit the wall" in geometry.
Took his breath away.
>> >This wall can be at 2600, 2400, 2200, it can be at 2000, for some it is
>> >even below. It depends on your talent for the game.
>>
>> One can't measure their true talent level until they train full time for
>> many, many years.
>
> This is very hypothetical. And you can see whether somebody has talent
> or not, just by looking at what he does using just the things he knows
> already.
Like staying even with the current US Champion with Black, for 22 moves of
the game, in an opening he hadn't even studied in great depth?
Gee, what if I spent 10 years booking up the other direction, from the
endgame out? Think my game might improve a tad?
If I can play the opening like a 2800, I can play the middlegame and endgame
like one if I put the same study into those two parts of the game that I put
into the opening.
My first conclusion when I began my training was that a world champion
should have an opening repertoire that goes beyond known theory for at least
one or two moves in every line, since most chessgames are won and lost when
one player is in book and the other is not. Once I've chewed up all opening
theory relevant to my play, then I can worry about tactics and endings. I
study those anyway in the course of my games now.
>There are a lot of young fellows reaching impressive levels of
> play. They did not train full time for many, many years, simply becaus
> the haven't lived for so long.
What you call "impressive" isn't really that impressive, as it's a mastery
of some existing theory, enough to avoid losing to sub-elite players.
It's very easy to get to 2400 with a weak foundation. Silman calls it
"perfecting one's mediocrity."
>> > But why do you continue with training. Do you expect it will get
>> > cheaper?
>>
>> It already costs next to nothing to train now, since I can play
>> world-class
>> competition online all day and night.
>
> But only bullet, not tournament chess.
They have tournaments online. What are you talking about? Some even have
cash prizes.
>> > But what is it, what you are going for, shortcuts to where? One doesn't
>> > spend hours and hours every day without a goal, at least if he doesn't
>> > enjoy this effort by itself (which you expliciteyl have excluded in
>> > your
>> > case).
>>
>> At my age, this is about where I find out what I have for this game.
>
> What would this be? Simply enjoying it? Then you don't need so much
> training. Being able to play world class chess? Then a safe bet would
> be: you don't have it.
Got any money to back up that mouth? Since you think I'd NEVER become a GM,
how about you put up say your entire net worth against it happening in the
next eight years?
>So, what are you trying to find out? How far you
> can go with bullet chess?
I'm trying to see where my peak for this game is, and to develop my system
of training for the next generation.
>> Either
>> way, I'll probably quit when I find some younger players to carry on the
>> work.
>
> Which work?
My training method.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 02:49:14
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> You mean like openings, winning won endings, tactics, traps, operating in
> time pressure, positional pressure, etc?
Yes, something like that, just the techniques, but hardly substance.
> Failure to have a firm grasp of
> all aspects of chess is fatal at one-minute because the player who doesn't
> grasp them will lose on time.
It's maybe a good exercise, but many aspectes are not covered. Mostly
those beyond pure technique.
>>It
>>requests only shallow abilities, to see fast and quick, not deep or
>>original.
>
>
> Wrong: if you don't play well (which requires thoughts to be deep), you get
> an inferior position and will invariably lose on time.
It's simply not possible to think deep, if you have about a second per
move.
>>The GM I know once said, he simply doesn't understand the games
>>of the Anands and Kasparovs of this world. He does not say, "Oh, they
>>know so much more about openings" - they play chess beyond his level,
>>which he would not reach just with more opening theory.
>
>
> He wouldn't know until he studied the openings.
I was not talking about openings!
> Odd that I have no
> difficulty following and understanding Anand's games.
Ok, means you are have the superior understanding of chess than the
former German number one. Nice for you.
It's
> actually like a video game in that the computers show the humans how to play
> it now, until the humans absorb all the computer knowledge (it's pretty
> obvious by now that one day a human will reclaim the top spot from the
> machines and that the battle will go on for at least a century). I spent my
> youth playing video games and a lot of what I do now is based on the theory
> I used to solve games like Asteroids, Centipede, and Pac-Man.
You are right, chess is about the same as Pac-Man.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 17:40:11
From: hardland
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Gordon said:
I played in tournaments fifteen years ago. Given the cost, it makes no
sense to enter them while I'm still learning the basics, i.e., that
which
any idiot rated 2600 or lower FIDE knows.
In my country (Uruguay) you play a tournment for about U$S 10. And I
mean a serious one.
Anyway, Mr Gordon seems to be not a respectfull person, saying people
to be "idiot" because of their ratings.
I don't feel comfotable any more in this conversatiosn.
I thing chess is about studing, playing, and sharing points of view.
I'm not interested in be the World Champ, nor the Uruguayan Champ,
so... I will leave you talking with this narrow minded man.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 17:26:03
From: hardland
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
That's your way of living. I repect it.
But I disagree: I don't do things because of their results. I do them
because I like to do them.
What would happend I I die before the results come?
Guillermo
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 02:54:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> That's your way of living. I repect it.
>
> But I disagree: I don't do things because of their results. I do them
> because I like to do them.
>
> What would happend I I die before the results come?
That's up to God.
Every college student in the country could use the same logic to justify
dropping out.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 16:07:43
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote
The context was snipped by Angelo DePalma, apparently
in his attempt to cover up the evidence of his error.
> > Raymond Gordon played four games (to get his provisional
> > rating of 640) in the 'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section
> > of that tournament.
>
> Glad to know someone took the trouble of looking up the tournament.
It's easy enough to look it up at the USCF website.
First David Richerby did so and then I did so.
Angelo DePalma also could have done so *if* he had
any concern about the factual accuracy of his post(s).
Apparently, Angelo DePalma never considered the possibility
that the 'Raymond Gordon' that he looked up at the USCF
website might *not* be the same 'real' 'Ray Gordon' who
writes in rec.games.chess.*.
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> I think that might be a different Ray Gordon.
>
> Doesn't matter.
I have long noted Angelo DePalma's common lack
of concern about the factual inaccuracies in his posts
and his usual unwillingness to admit his errors.
> > If I recall correctly, the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
> > rec.games.chess.* has been previously identified as
> > this former member of the USCF:
> >
> > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482127
As I *already* have written in this thread, the URL (above)
has a mistaken USCF ID number.
> > 'Gordon R(ay) Parker' of Pennsylvania, with an OTB rating of 1900,
> > based on USCF events before 1990.
>
> Then I stand corrected.
> The real Ray Gordon is not some patzer rated 630,
> he's a patzer rated 1335. (Yawn).
I posted the correct URL for the USCF record of 'Gordon R Parker'
(and my apology to the USCF member named in the mistaken URL)
more than three hours, apparently, before Angelo DePalma wrote
his statement (above). Anyone who can read (unlike Angelo
DePalma apparently) should have known that the USCF member
named in the mistaken URL is *not* "Gordon R Parker of
Pennsylvania", as I *already had mentioned explicitly*.
1) Gordon R Parker (aka 'Ray Gordon') is rated 1900 USCF.
2) Angelo DePalma is rated 1887 USCF.
If Gordon R Parker is a 'patzer' (to quote Angelo DePalma),
then so is Angelo DePalma.
Ray Gordon has frequently behaved extremely abusively
in rec.games.chess.*, and I have criticised him for it.
But even Ray Gordon, like everyone else, deserves to have
the facts about his chess rating(s) represented accurately.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 02:09:08
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
At least I use my own name when I post here. You can hardly blame someone
for looking up the name "Ray Gordon" when the guy has posted hundreds of
times under that name.
The burden of proof, by the way, as to "Ray Gordon's" chess strength does
not lie with me, but with him. He is the one who claims to be able to beat
IMs and GMs with regularity. He is the one who claims he is US Championship
calibre, and that one can reach GM strength by playing 200 bullet games per
day on ICC. I offered him $1000 if he wins the US Championship, after which
he chided me for not making offering him "infinity." Infinity indeed.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 15:03:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote:
> At least I use my own name when I post here. You can hardly blame
> someone for looking up the name "Ray Gordon" when the guy has posted
> hundreds of times under that name.
Nobody can blame you for looking up the name `Ray Gordon' but since
it's hardly an unusual name, it would have been, shall we say, prudent
to check that the person whose details came up had a reasonable chance
of being the right Ray Gordon. I wouldn't have expected you to find
Gordon R. Parker but it was obvious with the smallest amount of extra
checking that you had the wrong guy.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Strange Perforated Painting (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a Renaissance masterpiece but
it's full of holes and totally weird!
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 11:24:21
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
My post was meant as a joke. I had no idea if that was the "right" Ray
Gordon. In fact I would have bet against it, just from the absurdly low
rating (which of course suggests the person is a child -- isn't that ironic?
At least I got that part right).
I believe I said subsequently that it did not even matter. Not because the
*facts* don't matter, but because the delusional claims of a chess nobody
don't matter. If someone claims to be Julius Caesar then you must admit that
whatever follows is at best absurd. If I subsequently find a website that
says that Caesar died in 1492, and post the results here, the person
claiming to be J.C. is still delusional, despite my poor research.
This is really one of the silliest conversations we've ever had in this
newsgroup. All "Ray Gordon" needs to do to prove he's what he claims to be
is to enter the open section of a big tournament and produce an appropriate
performance rating, say in the 2500+ range. Absent that, he's just a bag of
hot air. It puzzles me how anyone who's been following this inanity doesn't
recognize that.
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:iYi*[email protected]...
> Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At least I use my own name when I post here. You can hardly blame
>> someone for looking up the name "Ray Gordon" when the guy has posted
>> hundreds of times under that name.
>
> Nobody can blame you for looking up the name `Ray Gordon' but since
> it's hardly an unusual name, it would have been, shall we say, prudent
> to check that the person whose details came up had a reasonable chance
> of being the right Ray Gordon. I wouldn't have expected you to find
> Gordon R. Parker but it was obvious with the smallest amount of extra
> checking that you had the wrong guy.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Strange Perforated Painting (TM):
> it's
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a Renaissance masterpiece but
> it's full of holes and totally
> weird!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 17:13:32
From: Dr A. N. Walker
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote:
> [...] If someone claims to be Julius Caesar then you must admit that
>whatever follows is at best absurd. If I subsequently find a website that
>says that Caesar died in 1492, and post the results here, the person
>claiming to be J.C. is still delusional, [...].
Um. If someone claims to be the Julius Caesar who was rather
famous in Rome somewhat over 2000 years ago, *then* you may find his
claims, and also claims of his death in 1492, somewhat absurd. But
there is nothing intrinsically absurd about being Julius Caesar, even
today. In Victorian England, references to JC would very probably,
at least outside the classroom, have been assumed to be to the JC who
lived from 1830 to 1878 and was an international cricketer. As the
19thC Caesars were a large and well-known family with a proud name,
it's rather likely that there are still quite a few Caesars around
the UK, and very possible that some of them are still called Julius.
Not that any of this has much to do with chess ....
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 10:20:49
From: David Ames
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ken Jones wrote:
>
> I have developed a "training" regimen to win Wimbledon. I stand in one
> spot and hit a tennis ball against a wall for 14 hours a day. It is my
> theory that you don't have to have any talent for the game itself, as
> long as you are willing to spend countless hours in mindless
> repetition. I predict I will be Wimbledon champ in the year 2042.
> Care to "prove" my theory incorrect, moron?
There was a Funky Winkerbean cartoon in the Sunday paper a number of
years ago. At table tennis, one person struck the ball and asked the
person on the other side to catch it. Then the ball was placed into an
envelope, to be mailed to his opponent -- so they could play table
tennis by mail!
I suppose Ray Gordon's training program might be useful for someone
training to be a champion problem solver.
David Ames
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 20:56:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Raymond Gordon played four games (to get his provisional rating of
> > 640) in the 'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section of that
> > tournament.
>
> Glad to know someone took the trouble of looking up the tournament.
>
> >> I think that might be a different Ray Gordon.
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> > If I recall correctly, the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
> > rec.games.chess.*
> > has been previously identified as this former member of the USCF:
> >
> > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482127
> >
> > 'Gordon R(ay) Parker' of Pennsylvania, with an OTB rating of 1900,
> > based on USCF events before 1990.
>
> Then I stand corrected. The real Ray Gordon is not some patzer rated 630,
> he's a patzer rated 1335. (Yawn).
I'm easily 2200 strength. I can beat many IMs and GMs with just a
little more training. I'm nearly invincible in bullet.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 13:37:47
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote
> I'm easily 2200 strength. I can beat many IMs and GMs with just a
> little more training.
It's inconceivable that you could be that strong and not have a rating. Why
on earth would IMs and GMs play you for nothing, in offhand games?
> I'm nearly invincible in bullet.
With or without computer help?
adp
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 09:57:06
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> I'm easily 2200 strength. I can beat many IMs and GMs with just a
>> little more training.
>
> It's inconceivable that you could be that strong and not have a rating.
Aside from the previous poster not recognizing that it's an imposter and not
me he's responding to, I have an old rating of 1900.
>Why on earth would IMs and GMs play you for nothing, in offhand games?
One-minute and blitz play on chess servers.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 21:47:56
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>
> It's inconceivable that you could be that strong and not have a rating. Why
> on earth would IMs and GMs play you for nothing, in offhand games?
Do you have an idea, who you are talking to? For sure, it's not Ray Gordon.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 16:10:11
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Nick wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >"Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >> Why the hell would I bother training at a game like
> > >> chess at an age like mine just to go nowhere with it?
> > >
> > > I commend your work ethic for achieving this stratospheric rating.
> > > How on earth did you do it? Please share your secret with us:
>
> How on earth could the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
> rec.games.chess.* have been accepted as a player in the
> 'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section of a USCF tournament?
>
> It does seem true that the 'real' Ray Gordon's attitudes toward
> women and girls tend to remind one of the attitudes of many
> adolescent males toward women and girls.
>
> > > USCF ID St Exp Date Reg Quick Member Name
> > > -------- -- ---------- ------ ------ -----------------------
> > > 13114278 (NY) 2006-03-31 640P 607P GORDON, RAYMOND
> >
> > Um, Raymond Gordon's only tournament is `MLK Day Tournament,
> > New York', sponsored by `Chess in the Schools.'
>
> Raymond Gordon played four games (to get his provisional rating of
> 640) in the 'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section of that
> tournament.
>
> > I think that might be a different Ray Gordon.
>
> If I recall correctly, the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
> rec.games.chess.*
> has been previously identified as this former member of the USCF:
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482127
I apologise to Adam Knezevich for my error in typing the URL.
The correct URL for 'Gordon R Parker' is
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482187
> 'Gordon R(ay) Parker' of Pennsylvania, with an OTB rating of 1900,
> based on USCF events before 1990.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 15:43:45
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> Why the hell would I bother training at a game like
> >> chess at an age like mine just to go nowhere with it?
> >
> > I commend your work ethic for achieving this stratospheric rating.
> > How on earth did you do it? Please share your secret with us:
How on earth could the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
rec.games.chess.* have been accepted as a player in the
'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section of a USCF tournament?
It does seem true that the 'real' Ray Gordon's attitudes toward
women and girls tend to remind one of the attitudes of many
adolescent males toward women and girls.
> > USCF ID St Exp Date Reg Quick Member Name
> > -------- -- ---------- ------ ------ -----------------------
> > 13114278 (NY) 2006-03-31 640P 607P GORDON, RAYMOND
>
> Um, Raymond Gordon's only tournament is `MLK Day Tournament,
> New York', sponsored by `Chess in the Schools.'
Raymond Gordon played four games (to get his provisional rating of
640) in the 'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section of that
tournament.
> I think that might be a different Ray Gordon.
If I recall correctly, the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
rec.games.chess.*
has been previously identified as this former member of the USCF:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482127
'Gordon R(ay) Parker' of Pennsylvania, with an OTB rating of 1900,
based on USCF events before 1990.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 22:46:10
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote
> Raymond Gordon played four games (to get his provisional rating of
> 640) in the 'JH Novice' (junior high novice) section of that
> tournament.
Glad to know someone took the trouble of looking up the tournament.
>> I think that might be a different Ray Gordon.
Doesn't matter.
> If I recall correctly, the 'real' Ray Gordon who writes in
> rec.games.chess.*
> has been previously identified as this former member of the USCF:
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482127
>
> 'Gordon R(ay) Parker' of Pennsylvania, with an OTB rating of 1900,
> based on USCF events before 1990.
Then I stand corrected. The real Ray Gordon is not some patzer rated 630,
he's a patzer rated 1335. (Yawn).
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 08:18:57
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
That's not me. I'm 2200 strength.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 23:08:05
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> That's not me. I'm 2200 strength.
lol
what rating system?
Ray gordon private list?
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 23:51:09
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>
>> That's not me. I'm 2200 strength.
>
>
>
> lol
>
> what rating system?
> Ray gordon private list?
>
> AT
>
I assume, that somebody has the fun of his life: There is not only a
fake Sam Sloan, but also apparently a fake Ray Gordon
([email protected], compared to [email protected]).
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Jan 2006 12:18:27
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>
>>> That's not me. I'm 2200 strength.
>>
>>
>>
>> lol
>>
>> what rating system?
>> Ray gordon private list?
>>
>> AT
>>
>
> I assume, that somebody has the fun of his life: There is not only a fake
> Sam Sloan, but also apparently a fake Ray Gordon
Yes, there is an imposter of me on these boards.
I have no idea what my rating will be when I play again. I'm too focused on
the *training*, which is supposed to be what leads to the higher rating,
eventually.
At least in theory.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 06:04:10
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> I have no idea what my rating will be when I play again. I'm too focused on
> the *training*, which is supposed to be what leads to the higher rating,
> eventually.
I don't get it. On the one hand, you don't really like the training
itself, on the other hand, you only do training. What about feedback
during the training? You need some experience of tournament games, to
see whether you made any progress.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 17:14:34
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
En/na Ralf Callenberg ha escrit:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what my rating will be when I play again. I'm too
>> focused on the *training*, which is supposed to be what leads to the
>> higher rating, eventually.
>
>
> I don't get it. On the one hand, you don't really like the training
> itself, on the other hand, you only do training. What about feedback
> during the training? You need some experience of tournament games, to
> see whether you made any progress.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
I do not agree Ralf, ...
It would be extremely hard for him to discover that his ideas about
"chess study" are completely wrong. He would feel very bad discovering
He has lost 10 hours each day not following acurate advice from some
people here.
Maybe the best for Ray is not to play more chess tournaments in his live
and to continue thinking He would be world champion in the furure
advicing people the 1/x rule and similar, and hiding to all the world
his deep opening discoveries used in 1 minute games.
AT
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 10:30:20
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> I have no idea what my rating will be when I play again. I'm too focused
>> on the *training*, which is supposed to be what leads to the higher
>> rating, eventually.
>
> I don't get it. On the one hand, you don't really like the training
> itself, on the other hand, you only do training.
I like winning.
>What about feedback during the training?
That's what computers are for. Anyone who can count integers now should be
able to figure out what a computer thinks of their moves, and anyone capable
of recognizing patterns should be able to figure out why.
>You need some experience of tournament games, to see whether you made any
>progress.
I played in tournaments fifteen years ago. Given the cost, it makes no
sense to enter them while I'm still learning the basics, i.e., that which
any idiot rated 2600 or lower FIDE knows.
Long-term progress doesn't always show up evenly in the short term, and
focus on short-term improvement often comes at the expense of long-term
development.
If you learn the open Sicilian, for example, it will help your game
long-term, but in the short-term, your rating may actually plummet during
the learning curve.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 22:31:43
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>>I don't get it. On the one hand, you don't really like the training
>>itself, on the other hand, you only do training.
>
>
> I like winning.
>
But you can only win if you play. Or is it, that you simply can't stand
the losing, and therefore chose to drop out of torunament chess?
>
>>What about feedback during the training?
>
>
> That's what computers are for.
As good as they are, they are not a full replacement of human players
under tournament conditions.
>>You need some experience of tournament games, to see whether you made any
>>progress.
>
>
> I played in tournaments fifteen years ago. Given the cost, it makes no
> sense to enter them while I'm still learning the basics,
So you don't even like tournament chess. It's just the winning?! Sounds
very strange to me.
i.e., that which
> any idiot rated 2600 or lower FIDE knows.
I think you grossly understimate the capabilies of GMs and other masters
below this threshold.
>
> Long-term progress doesn't always show up evenly in the short term, and
> focus on short-term improvement often comes at the expense of long-term
> development.
Yes, although it may not show up immediately, but after some time it
should make a difference.
>
> If you learn the open Sicilian, for example, it will help your game
> long-term, but in the short-term, your rating may actually plummet during
> the learning curve.
Yes, but this is a question of a few months. To drop out of chess for
years is not explained by this phenomenon.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 14:36:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> i.e., that which any idiot rated 2600 or lower FIDE knows.
>
> I think you grossly understimate the capabilies of GMs and other masters
> below this threshold.
You misunderstand the phrase ``any idiot rated 2600 or lower''. It is
of the same semantic class as ``any beggar with less than a million
dollars''. The second clause is redundant.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Mentholated Bulb (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a light bulb but it's
invigorating and full of teeth!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 09:06:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>>>I don't get it. On the one hand, you don't really like the training
>>>itself, on the other hand, you only do training.
>>
>>
>> I like winning.
>>
>
> But you can only win if you play. Or is it, that you simply can't stand
> the losing, and therefore chose to drop out of torunament chess?
Tournament play is only worth it once one has something worth playing.
>>>What about feedback during the training?
>>
>>
>> That's what computers are for.
>
> As good as they are, they are not a full replacement of human players
> under tournament conditions.
Never said they were. I train against humans all the time, just not at the
rate of $20 a rated game.
>>>You need some experience of tournament games, to see whether you made any
>>>progress.
>>
>>
>> I played in tournaments fifteen years ago. Given the cost, it makes no
>> sense to enter them while I'm still learning the basics,
>
> So you don't even like tournament chess. It's just the winning?! Sounds
> very strange to me.
Most strong players enjoy winning more than they enjoy playing.
> i.e., that which
>> any idiot rated 2600 or lower FIDE knows.
>
> I think you grossly understimate the capabilies of GMs and other masters
> below this threshold.
Oh? I see 2550-rated guys play against the big boys and even hang pawns.
What magic capabilities do they have that I'm missing?
>> Long-term progress doesn't always show up evenly in the short term, and
>> focus on short-term improvement often comes at the expense of long-term
>> development.
>
> Yes, although it may not show up immediately, but after some time it
> should make a difference.
Most players are too impatient to train properly for the long run.
>> If you learn the open Sicilian, for example, it will help your game
>> long-term, but in the short-term, your rating may actually plummet during
>> the learning curve.
>
> Yes, but this is a question of a few months. To drop out of chess for
> years is not explained by this phenomenon.
A few months? Hardly.
I quit years ago because it was too expensive to train and play. Now I can
do that at home, so it's not an issue.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 17:49:04
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> Tournament play is only worth it once one has something worth playing.
This implies, tournament play is not worth anything at all. Why bother
playing chess then?
>>>>What about feedback during the training?
>>>
>>>
>>>That's what computers are for.
>>
>>As good as they are, they are not a full replacement of human players
>>under tournament conditions.
>
>
> Never said they were. I train against humans all the time,
Under tournament conditions?
>just not at the rate of $20 a rated game.
Are there no cheaper alternatives for tournament chess in the US? At
least here in Germany, once you join a club, it is possible to play
tournament chess more or less for free. And there are always small,
regional tournaments where you pay something like 20 to 40 Euros for 7
games.
>>So you don't even like tournament chess. It's just the winning?! Sounds
>>very strange to me.
>
>
> Most strong players enjoy winning more than they enjoy playing.
I don't think so. They like winning, no question, but most strong
players I know simply just like to play chess. If most people would see
it this way, there would be no game, simple.
>
>>I think you grossly understimate the capabilies of GMs and other masters
>>below this threshold.
>
>
> Oh? I see 2550-rated guys play against the big boys and even hang pawns.
Everybody can blunder, happened to H�bner (when he was one of the top
players) and Anand, and many others. And sometimes, what seems to be a
simple error to the unguided eye, is indeed already forced.
> What magic capabilities do they have that I'm missing?
Talent. The ability to look at a position and instinctively see what's
right or wrong, to calculate deep variations without effort. I have seen
young guys, 10, 12 years old, who simply "have it", and I have seen
people, not exceptionally strong, but very determined, focussing their
live over years completely on chess, but nevertheless they stopped
somewhere at 2200, 2300. I am not really strong, but at least way above
average. But when I am sitting with a GM or IM, I simply know, that I
will never come even close to this level, no matter how much I would train.
>>>Long-term progress doesn't always show up evenly in the short term, and
>>>focus on short-term improvement often comes at the expense of long-term
>>>development.
>>
>>Yes, although it may not show up immediately, but after some time it
>>should make a difference.
>
>
> Most players are too impatient to train properly for the long run.
Maybe, but to stop playing for years just for training does not appear
to be reasonable.
>>>If you learn the open Sicilian, for example, it will help your game
>>>long-term, but in the short-term, your rating may actually plummet during
>>>the learning curve.
>>
>>Yes, but this is a question of a few months. To drop out of chess for
>>years is not explained by this phenomenon.
>
>
> A few months? Hardly.
If somebody switches to an opening and spends months of daily training
without any up in the learning curve, chess might simply not be his
destiny.
>
> I quit years ago because it was too expensive to train and play. Now I can
> do that at home, so it's not an issue.
Yes, but for what? What level do you try to reach? Assuming you once
reached it, what then?
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 18:51:14
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> What magic capabilities do they have that I'm missing?
>
> Talent. The ability to look at a position and instinctively see what's
> right or wrong, to calculate deep variations without effort. I have seen
> young guys, 10, 12 years old, who simply "have it", and I have seen
> people, not exceptionally strong, but very determined, focussing their
> live over years completely on chess, but nevertheless they stopped
> somewhere at 2200, 2300. I am not really strong, but at least way above
> average. But when I am sitting with a GM or IM, I simply know, that I will
> never come even close to this level, no matter how much I would train.
You actually wouldn't know that until you trained.
I've beaten enough IMs and GMs at one-minute not to respect their opening
play, though their technique is pretty strong. Today, chess is solvable
with computers. We don't need the instinct of yesterday's players.
Someone who can get to 2200 strength in five years isn't going to stop
improving the next ten.
>>>>Long-term progress doesn't always show up evenly in the short term, and
>>>>focus on short-term improvement often comes at the expense of long-term
>>>>development.
>>>
>>>Yes, although it may not show up immediately, but after some time it
>>>should make a difference.
>>
>>
>> Most players are too impatient to train properly for the long run.
>
> Maybe, but to stop playing for years just for training does not appear to
> be reasonable.
I didn't quit for training. I quit because it was too expensive to train.
At the time, I was making excellent progress.
>>>>If you learn the open Sicilian, for example, it will help your game
>>>>long-term, but in the short-term, your rating may actually plummet
>>>>during the learning curve.
>>>
>>>Yes, but this is a question of a few months. To drop out of chess for
>>>years is not explained by this phenomenon.
>>
>>
>> A few months? Hardly.
>
> If somebody switches to an opening and spends months of daily training
> without any up in the learning curve, chess might simply not be his
> destiny.
Anyone who thinks that a main-line opening can be mastered in a few months
is the one whose destiny is not chess.
>> I quit years ago because it was too expensive to train and play. Now I
>> can do that at home, so it's not an issue.
>
> Yes, but for what? What level do you try to reach? Assuming you once
> reached it, what then?
I'm trying to reach my peak and not ruling anything out.
Meaning I don't look for shortcuts.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Jan 2006 01:59:00
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I won't even bother quoting your nonsensical post.
If you're that good, play in a tournament, get a good rating, and point it
out in this newsgroup. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you seriously.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Feb 2006 06:29:01
From: Jimbo
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Do they reate 1 minute games?
"Ange1o DePa1ma" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I won't even bother quoting your nonsensical post.
>
> If you're that good, play in a tournament, get a good rating, and point it
> out in this newsgroup. Otherwise, there is no reason to take you
> seriously.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Jan 2006 21:46:27
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>> I simply know, that I will
>>never come even close to this level, no matter how much I would train.
>
>
> You actually wouldn't know that until you trained.
I can estimate my limits. I just have to compare how they approach a
position to how I do it or some FMs. They are playing a different game.
> I've beaten enough IMs and GMs at one-minute
One-minute games are not chess.
> not to respect their opening play,
A strong player is not defined by how much he knows about openings.
> though their technique is pretty strong.
A strong player is more than just technique.
> Today, chess is solvable with computers.
First: it's not solvable, it's not even close. Second: human players are
still no computers.
> We don't need the instinct of yesterday's players.
This is completely wrong. For opening theory computers have changed the
landscape. You can use computers to improve your play. But if you sit at
the board, there is hardly any difference to a player 50 or 100 years
ago. You have to use your memory, you have to use your learned
techniques, but besides that, you have to be inventive. The appearence
of strong programs didn't change the way our brain works.
> Someone who can get to 2200 strength in five years isn't going to stop
> improving the next ten.
This is simply not true. I have seen it, people have invested years of
their time and they have just reached a wall they can not break. This
wall can be at 2600, 2400, 2200, it can be at 2000, for some it is even
below. It depends on your talent for the game.
>>Maybe, but to stop playing for years just for training does not appear to
>>be reasonable.
>
>
> I didn't quit for training. I quit because it was too expensive to train.
> At the time, I was making excellent progress.
But why do you continue with training. Do you expect it will get cheaper?
>>If somebody switches to an opening and spends months of daily training
>>without any up in the learning curve, chess might simply not be his
>>destiny.
>
>
> Anyone who thinks that a main-line opening can be mastered in a few months
> is the one whose destiny is not chess.
I explicitely didn't talk about "mastering". I was talking about going
up the learning curve, so that you can see a positive impact. This is
definitely not the same. And this can be reached within months.
>>>I quit years ago because it was too expensive to train and play. Now I
>>>can do that at home, so it's not an issue.
>>
>>Yes, but for what? What level do you try to reach? Assuming you once
>>reached it, what then?
>
>
> I'm trying to reach my peak and not ruling anything out.
>
> Meaning I don't look for shortcuts.
But what is it, what you are going for, shortcuts to where? One doesn't
spend hours and hours every day without a goal, at least if he doesn't
enjoy this effort by itself (which you expliciteyl have excluded in your
case).
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 02:53:05
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>>> I simply know, that I will never come even close to this level, no
>>> matter how much I would train.
>>
>>
>> You actually wouldn't know that until you trained.
>
> I can estimate my limits.
Without ever testing them?
>I just have to compare how they approach a position to how I do it or some
>FMs. They are playing a different game.
So how they do it with training versus how you do it without training
measures your potential?
>> I've beaten enough IMs and GMs at one-minute >
> One-minute games are not chess.
They are an excellent test of one's abilities, and the only time control
online that isn't poisoned by cheaters.
>> not to respect their opening play,
>
> A strong player is not defined by how much he knows about openings.
Actually, if you go throughout history, this is exactly what has separated
most of the champions from the also-rans: they get "out of the gate" faster
on average, and have a much easier task.
Why is the serve most important in tennis? Because it's the FIRST thing a
player does. It sets the tone for the rest of the point.
>> though their technique is pretty strong.
>
> A strong player is more than just technique.
Just like a strong surgeon is more than his ability to operate?
>> Today, chess is solvable with computers.
>
> First: it's not solvable, it's not even close.
It's a lot closer now than it's ever been, with very little left to the
imagination.
>Second: human players are still no computers.
Yet they can learn from what the computers do. If I see Fritz able to beat
one GM after another on the Black side of a Latvian, I have to conclude that
maybe this opening is more playable than I thought.
>> We don't need the instinct of yesterday's players.
>
> This is completely wrong. For opening theory computers have changed the
> landscape. You can use computers to improve your play. But if you sit at
> the board, there is hardly any difference to a player 50 or 100 years ago.
> You have to use your memory, you have to use your learned techniques, but
> besides that, you have to be inventive. The appearence of strong programs
> didn't change the way our brain works.
What the programs did was take the guesswork out of major theoretical ideas.
Time was we had to rely on what the top players of the day said about a
position. Computers have made fools of many past champions and great
theoretical minds.
>> Someone who can get to 2200 strength in five years isn't going to stop
>> improving the next ten.
>
> This is simply not true. I have seen it, people have invested years of
> their time and they have just reached a wall they can not break.
Because they refuse to train beyond that wall, or because their foundations
were weak and this is what stopped them.
Someone who learns arithematic poorly will "hit the wall" in geometry.
>This wall can be at 2600, 2400, 2200, it can be at 2000, for some it is
>even below. It depends on your talent for the game.
One can't measure their true talent level until they train full time for
many, many years.
>>>Maybe, but to stop playing for years just for training does not appear to
>>>be reasonable.
>>
>>
>> I didn't quit for training. I quit because it was too expensive to
>> train. At the time, I was making excellent progress.
>
> But why do you continue with training. Do you expect it will get cheaper?
It already costs next to nothing to train now, since I can play world-class
competition online all day and night.
>>>If somebody switches to an opening and spends months of daily training
>>>without any up in the learning curve, chess might simply not be his
>>>destiny.
>>
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that a main-line opening can be mastered in a few
>> months is the one whose destiny is not chess.
>
> I explicitely didn't talk about "mastering". I was talking about going up
> the learning curve, so that you can see a positive impact. This is
> definitely not the same. And this can be reached within months.
I don't always find that to be the case. Some openings I've been playing
over twenty years now and definitely know them better than the ones I've
recently added. I can play a new opening competently, but I demand
2800-level play from my lines, so until I get that through move 20 or so, I
don't feel comfortable.
>>>>I quit years ago because it was too expensive to train and play. Now I
>>>>can do that at home, so it's not an issue.
>>>
>>>Yes, but for what? What level do you try to reach? Assuming you once
>>>reached it, what then?
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to reach my peak and not ruling anything out.
>>
>> Meaning I don't look for shortcuts.
>
> But what is it, what you are going for, shortcuts to where? One doesn't
> spend hours and hours every day without a goal, at least if he doesn't
> enjoy this effort by itself (which you expliciteyl have excluded in your
> case).
At my age, this is about where I find out what I have for this game. Either
way, I'll probably quit when I find some younger players to carry on the
work.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Jan 2006 23:02:15
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
En/na Ralf Callenberg ha escrit:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> You need some experience of tournament games, to see whether you made
>>> any progress.
>>
>> I played in tournaments fifteen years ago. Given the cost, it makes
>> no sense to enter them while I'm still learning the basics,
>
> So you don't even like tournament chess. It's just the winning?! Sounds
> very strange to me.
>
> i.e., that which
>
>> any idiot rated 2600 or lower FIDE knows.
>
> I think you grossly understimate the capabilies of GMs and other masters
> below this threshold.
Curiously there are some +2600 who have not studied those basics. The
most spectacular case is Julio Granda from Peru.
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 23:01:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>
>>> That's not me. I'm 2200 strength.
>>
>>
>>
>> lol
>>
>> what rating system?
>> Ray gordon private list?
>>
>> AT
>>
>
> I assume, that somebody has the fun of his life: There is not only a fake
> Sam Sloan, but also apparently a fake Ray Gordon
> ([email protected], compared to [email protected]).
that's right Ralf. phil
> Greetings,
> Ralf
|
| |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 06:47:52
From: hardland
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
The question is: what are you involveed in chess?
Do you want to be a World Champ, do you want to be a GM, do you want to
have a 2700 elo?.
I want to enjoy chess.
I use from 1 to 3 hours a day in chess, it varies according to my
occupations. I study carefully GM games, study endgames, study
openings, analyze my games looking for my errors (I think this is VERY
important), and as I study very little tactics, I'm still a low rated
player.
But I do what I like to do.
The question is: are you enjoying your hard training?.
We've got only one life to live. I will enjoy it for sure.
And chess is part of the fun. Not pushing nighte.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 16:54:36
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> The question is: what are you involveed in chess?
>
> Do you want to be a World Champ, do you want to be a GM, do you want to
> have a 2700 elo?.
>
> I want to enjoy chess.
>
> I use from 1 to 3 hours a day in chess, it varies according to my
> occupations. I study carefully GM games, study endgames, study
> openings, analyze my games looking for my errors (I think this is VERY
> important), and as I study very little tactics, I'm still a low rated
> player.
>
> But I do what I like to do.
>
> The question is: are you enjoying your hard training?.
I enjoy the results of chess training, not the training itself.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 07:51:35
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>What would you say the best ratio for your game is, if these two things are
>compared,
hehe reread the question.
I know the opening principles, so I survive the opening (ive been
working
with bookup and CPT as well) My middlegame is improving greatly and I
rarely
hang pieces/ get caught in tactical traps. Where I am seeing the best
results
is in studying the endgame. I beat a guy almost 300 points above me
this weekend
in a very exciting endgame.
Overall though, I think studying games of the masters is the most
benificial. I
annotate via computer 5 games a day and then view them. This has
really helped my
game.
I use bookup and Chess Positional Trainer for openings
I use convektas 'Chess tactics for beginners' and CT-ART for tactics
and for endgames I use convektas 'Theory and practice of Chess
Endings'.
round that up by going through and playing Chessmaster 10k and going
through its excellent tutorials. I also use Fritz8 to annotate games
and watch
pgn files using Chess Assistant lite.
current book - The amature mind by Silman :)
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 07:41:47
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> What would you say the best ratio for your game is, if these two things are
> compared,
>
> practicing by playing other players
> &
> study
>
> Cordially, Phil
I try to play one match vs a computer during the week days (usually
chessmaster 10k)
I also carry a portable chess player around for when I have time. On
Fridays, Saturday
and Sundays after I do my 'studying' I play on ICC.
I live in a small town, so no OTB matches except for tournys that are a
couple hrs away.
|
| |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 03:01:59
From:
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
> plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
> tournament?
Nope, only you, Ray! You're the greatest!
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 17:48:46
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>I have gone from 1500 to 1850 USCF in 1 year by training 3 hours a day.
>25% openings in an integrated opening repertoire, 50% tactics and 25%
>endgames.
I have also gained alot of rating points (at a much lower level :) ) by
training
as much and concentrating on tactics. I also spend time going over
games by leading players.
tactics 40%
game reviews 20%
endgames 20%
openings 10%
theory (books, CM training etc...) 10%
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 13:47:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >I have gone from 1500 to 1850 USCF in 1 year by training 3 hours a day.
>>25% openings in an integrated opening repertoire, 50% tactics and 25%
>>endgames.
>
> I have also gained alot of rating points (at a much lower level :) ) by
> training
> as much and concentrating on tactics. I also spend time going over
> games by leading players.
>
> tactics 40%
> game reviews 20%
> endgames 20%
> openings 10%
> theory (books, CM training etc...) 10%
What would you say the best ratio for your game is, if these two things are
compared,
practicing by playing other players
&
study
Cordially, Phil
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 10:57:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> >I have gone from 1500 to 1850 USCF in 1 year by training 3 hours a day.
>>25% openings in an integrated opening repertoire, 50% tactics and 25%
>>endgames.
>
> I have also gained alot of rating points (at a much lower level :) ) by
> training
> as much and concentrating on tactics. I also spend time going over
> games by leading players.
>
> tactics 40%
> game reviews 20%
> endgames 20%
> openings 10%
> theory (books, CM training etc...) 10%
What about the other 10 percent?
(Doesn't everyone give 110 percent?).
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 17:39:23
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>I said I train like a champion. I am 39 years old and it is doubtful I
>would even have enough time to get to the top. On the other hand, I can
>carve out a path that a younger prodigy could follow and use to become
>champion down the road.
God help anyone who uses your idiotic method.
this sounds like a lame 'i coulda been' excuse. You kinda sound like
'uncle rico' from Napoleon Dynamite.... btw i got a great timemachine
forsale...
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 10:55:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> >I said I train like a champion. I am 39 years old and it is doubtful I
>>would even have enough time to get to the top. On the other hand, I can
>>carve out a path that a younger prodigy could follow and use to become
>>champion down the road.
>
> God help anyone who uses your idiotic method.
Like the high-school team of beginners I taught it to in 1989 that went from
0-3 in its first year of play midseason to a 5-5 finish and third place in
the city league?
> this sounds like a lame 'i coulda been' excuse.
Training like a champion has nothing to do with anything other than
training. As I said, the method is furthered when I do it, and the work can
be carried on by the young players when I am done with it.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 16:42:48
From: Ken Jones
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> I've met Yasser Seirawan many times. He responded to a rek I made in the
> Philadelphia Inquirer during the World Open one year where I was discussing
> why I felt a champion needed to train 17 hours a day. The reporter wound up
> quoting me.
>
> At the time I said "I could give Seirawan a few headaches now. In five
> years I could give him a lot of headaches."
No doubt! I think giving people headaches might be your one true
talent!
I have developed a "training" regimen to win Wimbledon. I stand in one
spot and hit a tennis ball against a wall for 14 hours a day. It is my
theory that you don't have to have any talent for the game itself, as
long as you are willing to spend countless hours in mindless
repetition. I predict I will be Wimbledon champ in the year 2042.
Care to "prove" my theory incorrect, moron?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 10:49:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Well, I can say Yasser is far more polite than the previous poster.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 15:42:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I have gone from 1500 to 1850 USCF in 1 year by training 3 hours a day.
25% openings in an integrated opening repertoire, 50% tactics and 25%
endgames. I have been doing about 200 tactics a day from various
tactics programs. I sent a more detailed training sched to Jeremy
Silman for his advice and he seemed to think I was on the right path.
I also have a few friends that are senior masters who seem to agree
that you should be spending most of your time on tactics until you
reach 1800 to 1900 and then focus on strategical concepts more
directly.
As for a black opening system against d4, I use the Nimzo-Bogo and the
hedgehog against the london and the tartakower systems against the
colle. You will also have to look at some other lines to get an idea
of what you want to play against the Black-Die, the Veresov, The
Tromp, and the Torre.
Good Luck
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 10:56:48
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>I have gone from 1500 to 1850 USCF in 1 year by training 3 hours a day.
> 25% openings in an integrated opening repertoire, 50% tactics and 25%
> endgames. I have been doing about 200 tactics a day from various
> tactics programs. I sent a more detailed training sched to Jeremy
> Silman for his advice and he seemed to think I was on the right path.
> I also have a few friends that are senior masters who seem to agree
> that you should be spending most of your time on tactics until you
> reach 1800 to 1900 and then focus on strategical concepts more
> directly.
You are training in a day when computers can point out our mistakes, whereas
twenty years ago, if "theory" was wrong about something, people generally
stayed in the dark until another human, working without computers, corrected
it.
Putting in three hours a day is not bad. The rate of improvement is strong,
so who knows where you might wind up? If you're under forty years of age,
you could probably get very good before you hit fifty and physical concerns
might be more prevelant than they are now.
> As for a black opening system against d4, I use the Nimzo-Bogo and the
> hedgehog against the london and the tartakower systems against the
> colle. You will also have to look at some other lines to get an idea of
> what you want to play against the Black-Die, the Veresov, The
> Tromp, and the Torre.
With ECO, Fritz, and experience, anyone can build a GM-strength repertoire
these days.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 04:56:22
From:
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Rob wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
> > plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
> > tournament?
>
> Ray,
>
> Long term improvement is everyones goal. The measure of that can only
> be tested on the fields of competition. That seperates true champions
> from those who are simply "legends in their own minds". A true warrior
> needs to be tested on the field of battle.
>
> Rob
Rob,
What "battlefield" brought Innes his claimed "almost an IM 2450" title?
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 02:12:14
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
You may not BE a champion, but you SMELL like one and you are a chump.
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
> who plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning
> the next tournament?
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 20:30:10
From: Rob
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
> plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
> tournament?
Ray,
Long term improvement is everyones goal. The measure of that can only
be tested on the fields of competition. That seperates true champions
from those who are simply "legends in their own minds". A true warrior
needs to be tested on the field of battle.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 22:56:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
>> who
>> plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the
>> next
>> tournament?
>
> Ray,
>
> Long term improvement is everyones goal. The measure of that can only
> be tested on the fields of competition. That seperates true champions
> from those who are simply "legends in their own minds". A true warrior
> needs to be tested on the field of battle.
Training is something that is separate from playing. Anything can happen in
any tournament or match. Every player has access to world-class training
tools, and everyone has the option of devoting large amounts of time to
playing. In music, your instruments don't care if you "have a life" and
don't practice them; they give out what you put in to the practice.
If I got a string of players who played into all my favorite opening lines,
I would have a performance rating almost 1,000 points higher than if the
reverse were to occur.
The point of my post is that even a low-rated or weak player can develop a
work ethic, and that a strong player owes it to himself and the talent he
was given to do the most to bring it out.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 05:52:11
From: John J.
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Agree. There is only so much boasting of one's training prowess we can take
before Gordo needs to prove his playing ability. The World Open is in his
back yard and he refuses to play, even for the very substantial prizes
offered these days. I'm curious to find out what ELO rating he thinks he is.
Playing on the computer helps a lot but is not the same as OTB competition.
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
>> who
>> plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the
>> next
>> tournament?
>
> Ray,
>
> Long term improvement is everyones goal. The measure of that can only
> be tested on the fields of competition. That seperates true champions
> from those who are simply "legends in their own minds". A true warrior
> needs to be tested on the field of battle.
>
> Rob
>
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 20:01:54
From: Ron
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"John J." <[email protected] > wrote:
> Agree. There is only so much boasting of one's training prowess we can take
> before Gordo needs to prove his playing ability. The World Open is in his
> back yard and he refuses to play, even for the very substantial prizes
> offered these days. I'm curious to find out what ELO rating he thinks he is
More to the point, I'm not sure "I train like a champion" is worth
bragging about unless you also happen to play like one.
The fact that I don't have much time for chess is my excuse for
mediocrity. :) If I had more time for it, I'd probably be stronger, but
I'd also be closer to knowing what my limits as a player were.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 01:38:28
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
> plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
> tournament?
Was the subject of this message correct?
... or this message belong to "Chess Jokes" ?
True champions do not train more hours than "losers", ... they simply
use better their time (in many cases guided by good trainers).
AT
Ps:
Ray, actually do you think you will be a "champion" following your 1/x
rule? (why not the 1/x^2 rule? .. or the 1/0.99^x rule?)
Why do not you concentrate in being "champion" before trying to convince
us you will be "champion" in the future?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 00:51:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
>> who plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning
>> the next tournament?
>
> Was the subject of this message correct?
> ... or this message belong to "Chess Jokes" ?
>
> True champions do not train more hours than "losers", ... they simply use
> better their time (in many cases guided by good trainers).
Fischer trained 12 hours a day, six days a week, without coaching.
> Ps:
> Ray, actually do you think you will be a "champion" following your 1/x
> rule? (why not the 1/x^2 rule? .. or the 1/0.99^x rule?)
I believe that a player who began using my method today, if he has natural
talent for the game, and is willing to train full-time for the next 15
years, would become a champion or damn close, using my exact method
(front-loaded opening study but also a well-rounded approach to the game).
I "study" the middlegame and endgame simply by not studying the opening and
forcing myself to gain rating points in those areas instead.
> Why do not you concentrate in being "champion" before trying to convince
> us you will be "champion" in the future?
I said I train like a champion. I am 39 years old and it is doubtful I
would even have enough time to get to the top. On the other hand, I can
carve out a path that a younger prodigy could follow and use to become
champion down the road.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 22:25:04
From: Ben Markson
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Not to diminish your training or work ethic (which seems to be
very high and demanding), but in Fischer's case, he probably
could've beaten 99.5% of the world's population without all of
that training. The training allowed him to beat (and in his case,
destroy) the remaining 0.5%.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 22:53:16
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> Not to diminish your training or work ethic (which seems to be very high
> and demanding),
Why the hell would I bother training at a game like chess at an age like
mine just to go nowhere with it? If I go a year without improving, I quit,
publish my work, and hope a young genius makes me look good to the history
books. I have very strict timetables for where my rating has to be, and
when. So far I am meeting them, barely.
>but in Fischer's case, he probably could've beaten 99.5% of the world's
>population without all of that training. The training allowed him to beat
>(and in his case, destroy) the remaining 0.5%.
In other words, most of the true rivals of his era, like Spassky, Tal,
Petrosian, etc.
Where the extra training comes in is when a player needs to win in
less-than-ideal conditions. Depending on the timing, the opponent, and how
I am feeling that day (as well as how he is feeling), plus how my opening
repertoire matches up, my performance rating can vary as much as 600 points
or even more. Just ask Alan Treffler, who once won the World Open with a
rating under 2000.
Larry Bird was great not because he could hit three-point shots reliably,
but that he could do so even while double-teamed and with the game on the
line.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Jan 2006 14:25:16
From: Rob
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
The Historian wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > I can beat any IM or GM in bullet with just a little bit of luck. I'm
> > about GM strength in bullet on ICC so watch out.
>
> Just what the newsgroups need, http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=97cfdd9a1e35339a
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 21:39:16
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote
> Why the hell would I bother training at a game like chess at an age like
> mine just to go nowhere with it? If I go a year without improving, I
> quit, publish my work, and hope a young genius makes me look good to the
> history books. I have very strict timetables for where my rating has to
> be, and when. So far I am meeting them, barely.
I commend your work ethic for achieving this stratospheric rating. How on
earth did you do it? Please share your secret with us:
USCF ID St Exp Date Reg Quick Member Name
-------- -- ---------- ------ ------ -----------------------
13114278 (NY) 2006-03-31 640P 607P GORDON, RAYMOND
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 15:07:40
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote:
>"Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Why the hell would I bother training at a game like chess at an age like
>> mine just to go nowhere with it?
>
> I commend your work ethic for achieving this stratospheric rating.
> How on earth did you do it? Please share your secret with us:
>
> USCF ID St Exp Date Reg Quick Member Name
> -------- -- ---------- ------ ------ -----------------------
> 13114278 (NY) 2006-03-31 640P 607P GORDON, RAYMOND
Um, Raymond Gordon's only tournament is `MLK Day Tournament, New
York', sponsored by `Chess in the Schools.' I think that might be a
different Ray Gordon.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Addictive Simple Sushi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a raw fish but it has no moving parts
and you can never put it down!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 16:09:38
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 10:54:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 15:50:38
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ben kson wrote:
> in Fischer's case, he probably
> could've beaten 99.5% of the world's population without all of
> that training. The training allowed him to beat (and in his case,
> destroy) the remaining 0.5%.
Considering that the vast majority of the world's population doesn't play
chess, being able to beat 99.5% is not much of an accomplishment.
Even if you modify your statement to read "99.5% of the people who play
chess," it's not much of an accomplishment. The vast majority of those
people know little more than the rules, and anybody who takes even a slight
interest in the game could beat 99.5% of them. Almost without question,
anybody who participates in this newsgroup is here because he takes an
interest in the game and therefore knows at least a little about it. So just
about anyone here in this newsgroup could beat 99.5% of those people who
play the game.
Furthermore, before all of that training, he was a talented kid, but not
particularly strong. When he first started coming to the Manhattan Chess
Club at around the age of 11, even I could beat him regularly. He got where
he got by adding lots of very hard work to his talent.
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 10:52:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> Furthermore, before all of that training, he was a talented kid, but not
> particularly strong. When he first started coming to the Manhattan Chess
> Club at around the age of 11, even I could beat him regularly. He got
> where he got by adding lots of very hard work to his talent.
People forget that Fischer was about A strength just a few years before he
won the US title.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 15:02:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> People forget that Fischer was about A strength just a few years
> before he won the US title.
You forget that Fischer was about ten years old just a few years
before he won the US title...
Dave.
--
David Richerby Metal Cat (TM): it's like a cat that's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ made of steel!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 18:35:10
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>Furthermore, before all of that training, he was a talented kid, but not
>particularly strong. When he first started coming to the Manhattan Chess
>Club at around the age of 11, even I could beat him regularly. He got where
>he got by adding lots of very hard work to his talent.
Yeah but what he had he was born with that talent. Didn't Fischer say
when someone asked him how did you get so strong? Fischer said,
" I just got good."
EZoto
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 10:53:47
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>>Furthermore, before all of that training, he was a talented kid, but not
>>particularly strong. When he first started coming to the Manhattan Chess
>>Club at around the age of 11, even I could beat him regularly. He got
>>where
>>he got by adding lots of very hard work to his talent.
>
> Yeah but what he had he was born with that talent. Didn't Fischer say
> when someone asked him how did you get so strong? Fischer said,
> " I just got good."
He got good because he studied the game the way it should be studied.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 07:55:26
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I never trained at chess, and achieved an expert rating without trying too
hard. Of course I never took this game too serious because, after all, it
is just a game. :)
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 22:49:34
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>I never trained at chess, and achieved an expert rating without trying too
> hard. Of course I never took this game too serious because, after all, it
> is just a game. :)
The hustler in "Searching For Bobby Fischer" who scolds the guy next to him
to "put it down; Josh is playing" is rumored to be based on a guy who
learned the game in prison in his late teens and obtained a master-strength
game the same way.
I also suspect that the 100 rating points between 2700-2800 FIDE require
roughly the same amount of study to secure as the 1000 points before it.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 01:29:13
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
> plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
> tournament?
A single hour each day "well designed/directed" can be more profitable
than full-time in the wrong path.
AT
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 00:49:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
>> who plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning
>> the next tournament?
>
> A single hour each day "well designed/directed" can be more profitable
> than full-time in the wrong path.
Name one world champion who has done this successfully.
Fischer and Kasparov trained about 70 hours a week each, and their ratings
reflected it.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 16:17:56
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:04:01 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and who
>plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the next
>tournament?
>
How do you like that. The sleaze has a legitimate question. The
answer though is most likely not. Nick DeFirmian came with a great
response to a similiar question. You can be a GM in the USA by
traveling to other countries, barely making ends meet and eating gruel
and busting your tail off then you can make a GM if your that good
enough. There has to be a combination of many things to have an
american player at that level. Seirawan I think was the last great
american player. I don't really include Kamsky though even though he
is an american citizen.
EZoto
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 21:36:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>>Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
>>who
>>plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the
>>next
>>tournament?
>>
> How do you like that. The sleaze has a legitimate question.
Seems anyone who trains more than 50 hours a week at chess is a sleaze.
>The
> answer though is most likely not. Nick DeFirmian came with a great
> response to a similiar question. You can be a GM in the USA by
> traveling to other countries, barely making ends meet and eating gruel
> and busting your tail off then you can make a GM if your that good
> enough. There has to be a combination of many things to have an
> american player at that level. Seirawan I think was the last great
> american player. I don't really include Kamsky though even though he
> is an american citizen.
Kamsky is an American who got his game in Russia. Seirawan was top-10 in
the world in his day, but could he have done better?
One need not travel to get GM norms, as the World Open offers them, and that
tournament is in my backyard.
Twenty years ago, I heard, in no uncertain terms, that the "Dalton Gang" and
the other prodigies of the day would be champions by now, but that didn't
materialize. I look at myself and if I'm lucky I have maybe another decade
left in top form, which *may* be enough time to make some noise, but I don't
focus on the results, just the training.
When I first trained seriously at chess, I said to myself that I couldn't
become the best player in America overnight, but that I could become the
hardest-working, and did, for four years. From 1987-1991 I doubt there was
a single player in this country who put more hours in over the board than I
did. Now I train full-time, but only to the extent that I can, and
distractions do surface.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 02:13:43
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote
> When I first trained seriously at chess, I said to myself that I couldn't
> become the best player in America overnight
Or over a century.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 22:47:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>> When I first trained seriously at chess, I said to myself that I couldn't
>> become the best player in America overnight
>
> Or over a century.
Is there any money backing up that mouth?
His statement says he'd lay odds of INFINITY against me winning the US
Championship, ever.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2006 21:35:20
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
I'll pay you $1,000 if you win the US Chess Championship. Not the
championship under-10 (although I seriously doubt you could win that
either). The U.S. Chess Championship. No qualifiers. The U.S. Chess
Championship.
I can't lay odds of "infinity" because it's absurd and ridiculous. $1,000 if
you win the U.S. Championship. "In your dreams" doesn't count.
Just to make it interesting, I'll give you $100 every time you win a big
open tournament facing an average opponent rating of 2200. Just think of all
the comic books you could buy with that money!
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> When I first trained seriously at chess, I said to myself that I
>>> couldn't become the best player in America overnight
>>
>> Or over a century.
>
> Is there any money backing up that mouth?
>
> His statement says he'd lay odds of INFINITY against me winning the US
> Championship, ever.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 10:51:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
> I'll pay you $1,000 if you win the US Chess Championship. Not the
> championship under-10 (although I seriously doubt you could win that
> either). The U.S. Chess Championship. No qualifiers. The U.S. Chess
> Championship.
Only $1,000? I mean, if it'll NEVER happen, why so cheap?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 09:54:47
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote
>> I'll pay you $1,000 if you win the US Chess Championship. Not the
>> championship under-10 (although I seriously doubt you could win that
>> either). The U.S. Chess Championship. No qualifiers. The U.S. Chess
>> Championship.
>
> Only $1,000? I mean, if it'll NEVER happen, why so cheap?
I think a $1000 gift, given the fact that I have no personal stake in this
matter and you, knowing full well this will never happen, have not suggested
a real bet, even at odds, for a reasonable time frame. It's a freebie, much
more than you deserve.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Jan 2006 19:40:50
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>>> I'll pay you $1,000 if you win the US Chess Championship. Not the
>>> championship under-10 (although I seriously doubt you could win that
>>> either). The U.S. Chess Championship. No qualifiers. The U.S. Chess
>>> Championship.
>>
>> Only $1,000? I mean, if it'll NEVER happen, why so cheap?
>
> I think a $1000 gift, given the fact that I have no personal stake in this
> matter and you, knowing full well this will never happen, have not
> suggested a real bet, even at odds, for a reasonable time frame. It's a
> freebie, much more than you deserve.
If it'll NEVER happen, there's no need to make it such a small offer.
Obviously he's not so sure about that. If he were, he'd put up his entire
net worth.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 22:49:51
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>Kamsky is an American who got his game in Russia. Seirawan was top-10 in
>the world in his day, but could he have done better?
Yes he could have done better. Reasons why not I don't know. Have
you ever thought that maybe he didn't want to? Maybe he wanted a life
other than chess. Seirawan seems a lot more stable mentally than
Fischer.
EZoto
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 04:08:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I may not BE a champion, but I train like one
|
>>Kamsky is an American who got his game in Russia. Seirawan was top-10 in
>>the world in his day, but could he have done better?
>
> Yes he could have done better. Reasons why not I don't know. Have
> you ever thought that maybe he didn't want to?
I've met Yasser Seirawan many times. He responded to a rek I made in the
Philadelphia Inquirer during the World Open one year where I was discussing
why I felt a champion needed to train 17 hours a day. The reporter wound up
quoting me.
At the time I said "I could give Seirawan a few headaches now. In five
years I could give him a lot of headaches." Looking back, I was one step
off: after four years, I could give him a few headaches, so maybe five years
from now I'll make the quote come true. I doubt he's training as hard as I
am, but it'd be cool if he were.
At the tournament, however, I was two passed-pawns up on the Black side of
the Gruenfeld and beating my A-rated opponent like a drum when I sensed
someone watching the game. I looked up to see Yasser give an approving nod
with a smile, acknowledged him, and finished off the win. I got the
impression that he took me seriously as a player in that he seemed as
curious as I was to see if that much study for five years would bridge the
gap.
Keep in mind that back in the 1980s, one could not train at home on the
internet servers against world-class competition, nor could they "proofread"
their games with programs like Fritz, even though we knew this day was
coming (and feared it horribly). Now, I can play all day and night for next
to nothing, even in online tournaments (some for cash), and feed the games
into a computer to find out instantly where I went wrong. I can compare
this information to what I learned during the "dark ages," when we had to
GUESS what the best moves were, which is why studying theory was so
important. For that, I had 150 chess books in an era where computers were
not strong, and that was state of the art. The books covered every major
opening (lots of Nunn and Keene), all the ECOs, Informants (a
mickey-boom-boom-down), a slew of general theory books (like King Power in
Chess), tons of specialized endgame books (such as Queen and Pawn endings,
which I spent about two full weeks), and lots of biographies of every world
champion or near-champion to give me a human perspective. That is how you
get your rating to improve 500 points in two years.
I used to commute regularly to northern New Jersey and NYC to find strong
competition, while the four CCA tournaments in Philadelphia rounded out my
schedule. I sublet apartments in Manhattan and Brooklyn once each so I
could play full time for a month or two, and even once ran into Maurice
Ashley on a train in Brooklyn, where he took me to the strong chess tables
in Prospect Park. Other times, I would often commute to the Manhattan for
the "four rated games tonight" tournament, or to the shall or Manhattan
for the "insanity" all-nighter that was 12 rounds. Actually got third prize
(open) in the one at the shall. My biggest accomplishment back then was
a draw against Asa Hoffman that tied him for first in a quad. The rating I
had was gained against some of the strongest players in America, in several
diverse venues, year-round.
>Maybe he wanted a life
> other than chess. Seirawan seems a lot more stable mentally than
> Fischer.
Fischer seems more principled, though principle seems to be a mental illness
in this society. Yasser was a politician, and a very good one, plus he was
a "street chess" player in that he sharpened his skills in the coffeehouses
of the pacific northwest, or so I'm told.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 23:18:55
From: John J.
Subject: You must be I.M. strength by now.
|
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:T%[email protected]...
>>>Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
>>>who
>>>plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning the
>>>next
>>>tournament?
>>>
>> How do you like that. The sleaze has a legitimate question.
>
> Seems anyone who trains more than 50 hours a week at chess is a sleaze.
>
>>The
>> answer though is most likely not. Nick DeFirmian came with a great
>> response to a similiar question. You can be a GM in the USA by
>> traveling to other countries, barely making ends meet and eating gruel
>> and busting your tail off then you can make a GM if your that good
>> enough. There has to be a combination of many things to have an
>> american player at that level. Seirawan I think was the last great
>> american player. I don't really include Kamsky though even though he
>> is an american citizen.
>
> Kamsky is an American who got his game in Russia. Seirawan was top-10 in
> the world in his day, but could he have done better?
>
> One need not travel to get GM norms, as the World Open offers them, and
> that tournament is in my backyard.
>
> Twenty years ago, I heard, in no uncertain terms, that the "Dalton Gang"
> and the other prodigies of the day would be champions by now, but that
> didn't materialize. I look at myself and if I'm lucky I have maybe
> another decade left in top form, which *may* be enough time to make some
> noise, but I don't focus on the results, just the training.
>
> When I first trained seriously at chess, I said to myself that I couldn't
> become the best player in America overnight, but that I could become the
> hardest-working, and did, for four years. From 1987-1991 I doubt there
> was a single player in this country who put more hours in over the board
> than I did. Now I train full-time, but only to the extent that I can, and
> distractions do surface.
>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 00:52:45
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: You must be I.M. strength by now.
|
Just like you can live in the first two-thirds of the floors of a skyscraper
when construction of that building is two-thirds complete.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 20:37:50
From: John J.
Subject: Probably not.
|
Most folks have other, more important obligations.
I'm training about 2 hours daily. Might enter the World Open in the under
1600 class. I have
I now need to solidify my opening repertoir, especially against white QP
openings.
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is there ANY other player in America who trains full-time at chess, and
> who plays with an eye towards long-term improvement rather than winning
> the next tournament?
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2006 21:59:39
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Probably not.
|
> Most folks have other, more important obligations.
>
> I'm training about 2 hours daily. Might enter the World Open in the under
> 1600 class. I have
>
> I now need to solidify my opening repertoir, especially against white QP
> openings.
You and the rest of the world!
The QGD is is a pretty solid defense, as are the KID and Slav, to name a
few. Not that they are easy, but what in chess is?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 09:49:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Probably not.
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> The QGD is is a pretty solid defense, as are the KID and Slav, to name a
> few. Not that they are easy, but what in chess is?
The KID and Slav `solid'? They're both aggressive, attacking openings...
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Watch (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ precision chronometer but it's perfect
for your grandparents!
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Jan 2006 22:46:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Probably not.
|
>> The QGD is is a pretty solid defense, as are the KID and Slav, to name a
>> few. Not that they are easy, but what in chess is?
>
> The KID and Slav `solid'? They're both aggressive, attacking openings...
And very SOLID.
|
|
