| |
Main
Date: 23 Feb 2007 07:27:39
From: materialkiller
Subject: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
Im tired of Analysis opening lines to end up with draws.
So how does one go about creating a playing a non-dubious novelty?
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Mar 2007 04:11:58
From:
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On 1 , 15:03, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 1, 6:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Hmm, yeah, ok, good point.
> > What I had in mind, but didn't type very well, is that if you do find
> > a new move, even if its sound, you are likely to get derision from
> > your chess playing fellows if you play something thats not 'book'.
>
> If that is true, then right at that point you are far too concerned
> with what your 'chess playing fellows' think of you than what happens
> on the board. Look them straight in the eye and say two words:
>
> "REFUTE IT"
>
> It's cathartic. If the idea/move is sound, they cannot refute it. If
> you beat them, then it is you who hold the high ground. If they beat
> you, then either work on the idea further and come back with
> improvements, or move on.
>
I'm not concerned at all with what my 'chess playing fellows' think of
my opening choices. If I were, I wouldn't be championing the St
George in public :-)
My intention was to give the OP a fair and balanced sumy of my
experiences with the opening. One of the things I have come across is
the response you, and other posters, have described. Its not a
problem, except where game analysists get stuck on move 2, but it is
something I thought I should make the OP aware of so that he will not
be surprised by it and can, perhaps, prepare for it.
Beating people with ideas / moves that they consider unsound won't
necessarily alter the situation. I find that opponents say things
like 'I cant believe you got away with playing that', 'You're a good
player, you'd beat me no matter what you play. Why don't you choose a
proper opening?' or 'If it were any good the grandmasters would play
it.' Like you say, its an over-reliance on book play.
Where I play OTB, its mostly good natured. On the internet; a mix.
However, I don't think its as big an issue as we appear to have made
it.
Phil
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 07:03:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On 1, 6:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Hmm, yeah, ok, good point.
> What I had in mind, but didn't type very well, is that if you do find
> a new move, even if its sound, you are likely to get derision from
> your chess playing fellows if you play something thats not 'book'.
If that is true, then right at that point you are far too concerned
with what your 'chess playing fellows' think of you than what happens
on the board. Look them straight in the eye and say two words:
"REFUTE IT"
It's cathartic. If the idea/move is sound, they cannot refute it. If
you beat them, then it is you who hold the high ground. If they beat
you, then either work on the idea further and come back with
improvements, or move on.
Why this facination with 'book' moves in OTB I cannot fathom. In Corr.
Chess, I can see why, but not OTB, not at 1800, not at your level.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 19:14:33
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 1, 6:53 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hmm, yeah, ok, good point.
>> What I had in mind, but didn't type very well, is that if you do find
>> a new move, even if its sound, you are likely to get derision from
>> your chess playing fellows if you play something thats not 'book'.
>
> If that is true, then right at that point you are far too concerned
> with what your 'chess playing fellows' think of you than what happens
> on the board. Look them straight in the eye and say two words:
>
> "REFUTE IT"
>
ROFL thats exactly what I say to people when i start with 1.f4 and
they give me a look like im on drugs :)
> It's cathartic. If the idea/move is sound, they cannot refute it. If
> you beat them, then it is you who hold the high ground. If they beat
> you, then either work on the idea further and come back with
> improvements, or move on.
>
good idea :) thats why I have created a 'book' using
chess positional trainer. When a new move comes up in
my openings, I will enter it and fire up Fritz after the game
and let it 'crunch' on it for about 1/2 hr. I don't always agree
with its top choice as it doesnt follow my 'plan' in the opening
but I chose one of the top 4 choices and enter it into my
'book'.
> Why this facination with 'book' moves in OTB I cannot fathom. In Corr.
> Chess, I can see why, but not OTB, not at 1800, not at your level.
>
Even at Corr. Chess when you play an 'offbeat' opening you can quickly
go out of 'book' into new territory.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 20:25:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
Inconnux <[email protected] > wrote:
> I will [...] fire up Fritz after the game and let it 'crunch' on it
> for about 1/2 hr. I don't always agree with its top choice as it
> doesnt follow my 'plan' in the opening but I chose one of the top 4
> choices and enter it into my 'book'.
When there's not much difference between the top moves (say, less than
0.2), it's really just the luck of the draw which one comes out as the
top one; a quirk of the evaluation function and an indication of the
programmer's bias towards certain kinds of position. Choosing a move
that's close to the top but which you understand (i.e., exactly what
you're doing) is exactly the right thing to do.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Frozen Homicidal Lotion (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a soothing hand lotion but it
wants to kill you and it's frozen in
a block of ice!
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 04:40:03
From:
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On 24 Feb, 14:35, "materialkiller" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks, Phil.
>
> Your Idea of the St. George is interesting one. I remeber facing a
> talent teenager in Chicago who use this defense against me and the
> middlegame became very complicated, He manage to beat me I wish I
> still had the game score. Its definitely an opening where strength of
> the player determines the outcome than analysis.
>
> So, how do you go about studing rare lines? Since they are rarely
> played at the top level what example games do you follow?
>
> I hate using a computer for analysis - because it seems I'm trying to
> figure out how the computer thinks than coming up with my own ideas.
> Is there a better way to make use of computer analysis?
Really, you have to play it a lot. Basman's book is a great start,
after that its a question of realising what the opening is trying to
achieve.
Computer analysis is useful, but you need to bear in mind that it will
often attempt to play moves that are not what the opening is about.
For example, d5 is a popular computer move, but as it blocks int he
the b7 bishop, its not generally good.
Mostly I impove my knowledge of the position by analysing games I've
played. I encounter a wide variety of responses, and if I'm not
totally happy with the outcome, I'll go over it until I find out where
I went wrong. Usually thats forgetting what the opening is about.
Computers also look at moves that are non-intuitive. A couple of
times the computer has suggested a move that I'd never looked at over
the board. The moves were good so I stole them and I'll be on the
lookout for that kind of thing next time.
My learning cycle seems to be
play it - > analyse it -> iron out errors -> play it
Phil.
|
| |
Date: 01 Mar 2007 03:53:29
From:
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On 27 Feb, 14:36, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "materialkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> So how does one go about creating a playing a non-dubious novelty?
>
> > I don't think you'll find a non-dubious novelty. If it weren't
> > dubious, it'd be mainstream.
>
> Not so. Currently, there's no reason to assume that we're playing
> chess perfectly. Therefore, there must be improvements to be made.
> Since they've not happened yet, they'll be novelties when they do
> happen.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Incredible Clock (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but it'll blow your mind!
Hmm, yeah, ok, good point.
What I had in mind, but didn't type very well, is that if you do find
a new move, even if its sound, you are likely to get derision from
your chess playing fellows if you play something thats not 'book'.
I think I had the st george particularly in mind whilst posting my
original message.
I get grief for playing that all the time. Despite its unconventional
approach, its never been refuted as far as I know, but many players
don't take it seriously. At least at first :-)
Thanks for the correction.
Phil
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 12:08:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On Feb 24, 9:43 am, "materialkiller" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I meant to use the term noveltie losely, I want to start playing my
> own ideas than copying the moves of other players.
>
Then simply stop studying the opening, use your brain, construct your
own ideas, come up with a plan, select your candidate moves, evaluate
the moves, and select one.
That in itself makes it 'your own idea'.
I sense you are frustrated because you perhaps cannot get above the
current level you are at.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 20:39:32
From: Ron
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I meant to use the term noveltie losely, I want to start playing my
> > own ideas than copying the moves of other players.
> >
>
> Then simply stop studying the opening, use your brain, construct your
> own ideas, come up with a plan, select your candidate moves, evaluate
> the moves, and select one.
My results improved dramatically when I stopped worrying about theory.
Yeah, sure, sometimes I sidestepped it (the Smith-Morra instead of the
Open sicillian), but otherwise I just started playing early 20th-century
chess. Lots of gambits, lots of fun attacking play - and I won more
games.
Theory is boring. But you can also make it almost completely irrelevant
to your game.
Study Lasker, Tarrasch, and Alekhine rather than Kasparov and Anand.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 25 Feb 2007 10:20:51
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
> Im tired of Analysis opening lines to end up with draws.
Are you saying you've analyzed every possible opening.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
Price And Probability
http://www.cybersheet.com/horsepix.html
Learn to make an accurate odds line for horses with just a DRF!
The Hoops And Horses Blog:
http://raygordon.blogs.com/
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 06:43:58
From: materialkiller
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On Feb 23, 5:01 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> materialkiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Im tired of Analysis opening lines to end up with draws.
>
> > So how does one go about creating a playing a non-dubious novelty?
>
> Without knowing your level, the question is impossible to answer.
My rating is 1800, The strongest opponent I beat was 2300.
>
> Why do you care about novelties. Chess is a competition against your
> opponent and what matters is that you understand the position better
> than your opponent. Obsessing with novelties turns chess into a
> competition against everyone who's ever played the game well before.
> That's a competition you can only lose.
I meant to use the term noveltie losely, I want to start playing my
own ideas than copying the moves of other players.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Lead Tool (TM): it's like a handywww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool that weighs a ton!
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 06:35:18
From: materialkiller
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
Thanks, Phil.
Your Idea of the St. George is interesting one. I remeber facing a
talent teenager in Chicago who use this defense against me and the
middlegame became very complicated, He manage to beat me I wish I
still had the game score. Its definitely an opening where strength of
the player determines the outcome than analysis.
So, how do you go about studing rare lines? Since they are rarely
played at the top level what example games do you follow?
I hate using a computer for analysis - because it seems I'm trying to
figure out how the computer thinks than coming up with my own ideas.
Is there a better way to make use of computer analysis?
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 09:07:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On Feb 23, 10:27 am, "materialkiller" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Im tired of Analysis opening lines to end up with draws.
One would not have that problem if one were dealing with ideas instead
of brute-force analysis of opening variations.
Unless you are tops in chess, you'd be better served honing your
ability to tackle ideas, imbalances (the creation of and exploitation
of), middlegame plan construction and solid endgame play and leave the
opening novelties to Topalov.
How often do you get into games where both of you follow a path where
a useful novelty exists? My guess is very, very rarely. So, it's a
waste of time.
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 17:01:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
materialkiller <[email protected] > wrote:
> Im tired of Analysis opening lines to end up with draws.
>
> So how does one go about creating a playing a non-dubious novelty?
Without knowing your level, the question is impossible to answer.
Why do you care about novelties. Chess is a competition against your
opponent and what matters is that you understand the position better
than your opponent. Obsessing with novelties turns chess into a
competition against everyone who's ever played the game well before.
That's a competition you can only lose.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Lead Tool (TM): it's like a handy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool that weighs a ton!
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 08:16:12
From:
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
On 23 Feb, 15:27, "materialkiller" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Im tired of Analysis opening lines to end up with draws.
>
> So how does one go about creating a playing a non-dubious novelty?
I don't think you'll find a non-dubious novelty. If it weren't
dubious, it'd be mainstream.
Anyway, that said, I'll share with you my adventures using the St
George.
I've been away from chess for about 10 years and was persuaded to play
again by a friend. I said I'd give it a season and see how it went.
The initial plan was for me to play in the third team until I found my
feet, perhaps bottom board in the first team a little later.
Anyway, after a few friendlies, I found myself lined up to play top
board for the first team.
So I sat down and evaluated the situation, much like you did. When I
played before, I was a student with plenty of time for analysis. Now
I work full time and have all the demands the demands of riage,
bills, work and hamsters.
I didn't have time to bone up on a white opening, and replies to
various white openings. My first criteria was something that I could
play against anything. I don't like nf6 , g6, bg7 systems for black
and I've had good success against that structure with white.
The st george [*] spoke to me so I got a copy of Basman's book. Its
wacky, but it has some good solid ideas. I know this group will
disagree with me as I posted one of my games for analysis and got
shouted at!
Its really working for me for the following reasons -
1) We play 75 +15 mins games. My opponents will often spend lots of
time figuring out their opening, while I can bash out the moves
quickly.
2) I'm always fighting on ground of my own choosing
3) My opponent's do not have book knowledge of the opening,
neutralising their experience and opening knowledge.
4) I can play the related 1b4 with white, with similar results.
5) Even if my opponent does prepare ahead of time, its a situation
they will have studied, but I will have played many times. I still
think I have the advantage.
6) Stronger players don't do this, but weaker ones feel they should
be winning and over push the situation. I know the position is stable
and don't have to worry.
Of course, this depends on what level you play at. Don't rely on
this, just be prepared to take advantage if it happens.
7) Its fun! Maybe its the rebel in me, but I enjoy flying in the
face of conventional theory.
Be aware, though, that playing anything off the wall is not a
substitute for learning theory. Because you surrender the centre, you
must play the opening carefully and exactly. You have to know spot on
what you are up to. Your opponent can faff a bit (but only a bit!)
and still get a reasonable position, but you have no gin for error.
In terms of results, I'm cruising around 60%. I am rusty, and I'm
still learning the ins and outs of the opening, so I'm pleased with
those results.
Even with all that said, though, I have had a few draws. However,
some of them I felt lucky to get, and others I felt I may have had
more. Its certainly not a safe option!
I do believe that if if I'd stuck with the 1.nf3, 2 c4 I used to play
as white, and my old e4,e5 or d4,d5 with black my results would be
much poorer.
If the booky main lines are not inspiring you, I'd encurage you to
have a look at it. Play a few blitz games and see if it flies. It
might work for you.
And feel free to post back here if you want any more information.
Phil.
[* the St George is best known for the pawn formation a6, b5. e6,
Bb7, c5 are also played. Castling is usually delayed]
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 14:36:02
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In search of new creative way to study chess
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "materialkiller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So how does one go about creating a playing a non-dubious novelty?
>
> I don't think you'll find a non-dubious novelty. If it weren't
> dubious, it'd be mainstream.
Not so. Currently, there's no reason to assume that we're playing
chess perfectly. Therefore, there must be improvements to be made.
Since they've not happened yet, they'll be novelties when they do
happen.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Incredible Clock (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but it'll blow your mind!
|
|
