Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Main

Date: 24 Oct 2006 15:47:07
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

I was thinking about how someone said my wins usually result from the other
side playing poorly, and I'd have to agree. In fact, it's those mistakes
that inspire me to keep playing! This opponent was 1800 or so at one
minute:

Here's another "flawed" game of mine for you guys to rip apart. I'm sure
Black could have won with some toilet breaks:

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nd7 3. c4 e5 4. d5 Ngf6 5. Nc3 Nc5 6. Bd3 a5 7. f4 Be7 8.
fxe5 dxe5 9. Nf3 Ng4 10. h3 Nf6 11. Nxe5 Bd6 12. Nf3 Nh5 13. O-O O-O 14. e5
Be7 15. Ng5 Nxd3 16. Qxh5 h6 17. Nxf7 Bc5+ 18. Kh1 Qe7 19. Nxh6+ gxh6 20.
Qg6+ Qg7 21. Rxf8+ Kxf8 22. Bxh6 Nxe5 23. Qxg7+ Ke8 24. Qxe5+ Kd7 25. Rf1
Bd6 26. Rf7+ Kd8 27. Qh8+ Bf8 28. Qxf8# {Black checkmated} 1-0

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

"appointment of counsel was unwarranted given Parker's abilities as a writer
and presenter of arguments"
From Page 6 of the ruling in Parker v. University of Pennsylvania, #04-3688,
Third Circuit Court Of Appeals.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:43:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> >> A player which wins many 2500 players soon became a 2600 ot higher. I'ts
> >> not my case, it is yours?
> >>
> >> AT
> >
> > Let be more clear:
> >
> > Give us *Something* from this DECADE
>
> This is computer-driven chess, wihch isn't even chess, but a dumb video game
> with all the answers.
>
> When I played, it was real chess, and we had to figure things out for
> ourselves, a skill this generation of players is sorely lacking in, which is
> why you are seeing material hang even among the best players.
>
> If Fritz can crush a GM, so can you or me.
>
> --
> Money is not "game."
> Looks are not "game."
> Social status or value is not "game."
> Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
>
> A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
> teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
> get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."

Read my Lips, Gordy.

O

T

B

try it. There is a distinct lack of computer-driven chess in OTB.
Otherwise, you are trying to blow smoke up asses here.

Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:21:41
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> One doesn't get to 2600 without first moving up through the lower ranks.

One doesn't get to 2600 at all without becoming a member.

> I have rating timetables for improvement that I require myself to meet to
> justify continuing training. So far, each timetable has been met since
> ch 2004, when I began training again.
>
> The timetable (improvement of 150 points a year) would have me at 2800
> around the age of 45. It's possible I'll slow down at some point, but it
> hasn't happened yet.

Wow. Great plan. Lemme ask ya: In two and a half years has that
"training regime" you supposedly have produced any tangible results?
(Besides causing you to post 400+ times on Usenet every month, I mean.)

If I had to guess, I'd say you were trying to get your INTERNET rating
up to 2800, which as we all know is a definite possibility (what with
Fritz at your fingertips). It's very impressive, too. All the chicks
dig guys with astronomical bullet ratings on ICC. It's like having mad
numchuck skills or a really sweet dirt bike.

One thing it doesn't do is earn you GM norms. So unless you plan on
asking your mom for an advance on your allowance to join the USCF,
you're just talking shit here again, Gordy. Plain and simple.

Put up or shut up, boy.

Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:12:13
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Date: 25 Oct 2006 14:58:36
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> > Give us *something*....
>
> Parker-Volovich, 1990 August Chess Life.
> I missed 19. Bxf7!! which would have gotten me Upset Of The Year.

In an earlier thread in which Ray Gordon cited this game,
I pointed out that "19. Bxf7" was an illegal move, given
the previous moves as written here.

I suppose that it would have been the 'Upset of The Year'
*if* the illegal "19. Bxf7" had been permitted to win the game.

--Nick

Date: 25 Oct 2006 03:59:06
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" ha escrit:
>
> >>Give us *something*....
> >
> > Parker-Volovich, 1990 August Chess Life.
> >
> > I missed 19. Bxf7!! which would have gotten me Upset Of The Year. It was
> > the first round of a five-round action tournament in Northern NJ, which was
> > pretty big at the time (Glenn Petersen's old gig).
> >
> > My opponent was 2508, I was 1956, and I didn't buy that rating at K-t.
>
> If I understand well, you lost that game no matter how good was your
> first move.
>
> Sad things if you need to go back to 1990 to find a "decent" defeat
> versus an stronger player at middlegame and endgame. I suppose in next
> games versus that level of opposition you simply drop a piece in each game.
>
> And do you actually think it does matter to any of us if you are a 1956
> player or a 1900 or a 2000?
>
> A player which wins many 2500 players soon became a 2600 ot higher. I'ts
> not my case, it is yours?
>
> AT

Let be more clear:

Give us *Something* from this DECADE

http://chess-training.blogspot.com

Date: 25 Oct 2006 17:09:55
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

>> A player which wins many 2500 players soon became a 2600 ot higher. I'ts
>> not my case, it is yours?
>>
>> AT
>
> Let be more clear:
>
> Give us *Something* from this DECADE

This is computer-driven chess, wihch isn't even chess, but a dumb video game
with all the answers.

When I played, it was real chess, and we had to figure things out for
ourselves, a skill this generation of players is sorely lacking in, which is
why you are seeing material hang even among the best players.

If Fritz can crush a GM, so can you or me.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 24 Oct 2006 19:15:32
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> My opponent was 2508, I was 1956, and I didn't buy that rating at K-t.

One would certainly hope if you did buy a rating, it would be something
better than a measly 1900.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 15:42:26
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> I was thinking about how someone said my wins usually result from the other
> side playing poorly, and I'd have to agree. In fact, it's those mistakes
> that inspire me to keep playing! This opponent was 1800 or so at one
> minute:
>
> Here's another "flawed" game of mine for you guys to rip apart. I'm sure
> Black could have won with some toilet breaks:
>
> 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nd7 3. c4 e5 4. d5 Ngf6 5. Nc3 Nc5 6. Bd3 a5 7. f4 Be7 8.
> fxe5 dxe5 9. Nf3 Ng4 10. h3 Nf6 11. Nxe5 Bd6 12. Nf3 Nh5 13. O-O O-O 14. e5
> Be7 15. Ng5 Nxd3 16. Qxh5 h6 17. Nxf7 Bc5+ 18. Kh1 Qe7 19. Nxh6+ gxh6 20.
> Qg6+ Qg7 21. Rxf8+ Kxf8 22. Bxh6 Nxe5 23. Qxg7+ Ke8 24. Qxe5+ Kd7 25. Rf1
> Bd6 26. Rf7+ Kd8 27. Qh8+ Bf8 28. Qxf8# {Black checkmated} 1-0
>
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
> District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>
> "appointment of counsel was unwarranted given Parker's abilities as a writer
> and presenter of arguments"
> From Page 6 of the ruling in Parker v. University of Pennsylvania, #04-3688,
> Third Circuit Court Of Appeals.

Your losses should inspire you to play better.

Show us some of those losses, Ray, at a slower time control, Game/30 at
least. 1-minute is mousetrap chess, the rating are totally unreliable,
and have no redeeming value whatsoever.

Give us *something*....

http://chess-training.blogspot.com

Date: 24 Oct 2006 19:41:39
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

> Give us *something*....

Parker-Volovich, 1990 August Chess Life.

I missed 19. Bxf7!! which would have gotten me Upset Of The Year. It was
the first round of a five-round action tournament in Northern NJ, which was
pretty big at the time (Glenn Petersen's old gig).

My opponent was 2508, I was 1956, and I didn't buy that rating at K-t.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 25 Oct 2006 09:58:07
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

En/na Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" ha escrit:

>>Give us *something*....
>
> Parker-Volovich, 1990 August Chess Life.
>
> I missed 19. Bxf7!! which would have gotten me Upset Of The Year. It was
> the first round of a five-round action tournament in Northern NJ, which was
> pretty big at the time (Glenn Petersen's old gig).
>
> My opponent was 2508, I was 1956, and I didn't buy that rating at K-t.

If I understand well, you lost that game no matter how good was your
first move.

Sad things if you need to go back to 1990 to find a "decent" defeat
versus an stronger player at middlegame and endgame. I suppose in next
games versus that level of opposition you simply drop a piece in each game.

And do you actually think it does matter to any of us if you are a 1956
player or a 1900 or a 2000?

A player which wins many 2500 players soon became a 2600 ot higher. I'ts
not my case, it is yours?

AT

Date: 25 Oct 2006 17:08:37
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

>> I missed 19. Bxf7!! which would have gotten me Upset Of The Year. It was
>> the first round of a five-round action tournament in Northern NJ, which
>> was pretty big at the time (Glenn Petersen's old gig).
>>
>> My opponent was 2508, I was 1956, and I didn't buy that rating at K-t.
>
> If I understand well, you lost that game no matter how good was your first
> move.
>
> Sad things if you need to go back to 1990 to find a "decent" defeat versus
> an stronger player at middlegame and endgame. I suppose in next games
> versus that level of opposition you simply drop a piece in each game.
>
> And do you actually think it does matter to any of us if you are a 1956
> player or a 1900 or a 2000?
>
> A player which wins many 2500 players soon became a 2600 ot higher. I'ts
> not my case, it is yours?

One doesn't get to 2600 without first moving up through the lower ranks.

I have rating timetables for improvement that I require myself to meet to
justify continuing training. So far, each timetable has been met since
ch 2004, when I began training again.

The timetable (improvement of 150 points a year) would have me at 2800
around the age of 45. It's possible I'll slow down at some point, but it
hasn't happened yet.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:24:43
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

En/na Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" ha escrit:
> I have rating timetables for improvement that I require myself to meet to
> justify continuing training. So far, each timetable has been met since
> ch 2004, when I began training again.
>
> The timetable (improvement of 150 points a year) would have me at 2800
> around the age of 45. It's possible I'll slow down at some point, but it
> hasn't happened yet.

What a useless efford!
- you had better to train in physics and became nobel prize in two years
- or in mathematics and became fields medall (oh, oh, ... sorry, you can
not do that)

AT

Ps: It's clear I do not believe you will win 150 points in all your live.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:29:54
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I was thinking about how someone said my wins usually result from the other
> side playing poorly, and I'd have to agree.

The difference between a good game of chess and a bad one is the quality
of the mistakes the loser makes.

As I said before, Ray, I have no idea if you're good at chess or not.
You can't tell from one-minute games where your opponents blunder pawns
without provocation.

That being said, Ray, this demonstrates why one minute chess is pretty
meaningless. You make the first major mistake of this game, and should
have lost. 10. h3?? Bh4+ +-.

This isn't very hard to see, at at any reasonable time control I'd
expect a 1200 player to find it.

Black then could and should have had ample compensation for his pawn
with 12. ... Bg3+. Again, we're not talking complex stuff here. Simple
checks.

(Where's your 1/x rule now, by the way, Ray?)

I don't think anybody would take quite so much joy in picking your games
apart, Ray, if you didn't make such grandiose claims about how good you
are.

-Ron

Date: 27 Oct 2006 13:30:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> (Where's your 1/x rule now, by the way, Ray?)

He still believes in it but he's waiting for everyone else to
reciprocate.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it's genuinely
erotic!

Date: 24 Oct 2006 19:40:11
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

>> I was thinking about how someone said my wins usually result from the
>> other
>> side playing poorly, and I'd have to agree.
>
> The difference between a good game of chess and a bad one is the quality
> of the mistakes the loser makes.

I figure if Topalov can hang an exchange to a knight fork with the world
title on the line (24...f6?? from Game 10, when he had a clear near-win),
it's not time to quit just yet.

>
> As I said before, Ray, I have no idea if you're good at chess or not.

Oh, I suck. As does every human. That's one reason I book up. I rarely
make even a slight error before move 10, and often win material straight out
of the opening. The only exception is when I'm expanding my repertoire,
which I rarely need to do.

> You can't tell from one-minute games where your opponents blunder pawns
> without provocation.

I'm playing at the same time control they are. I agree that *one* game
means nothing, but that doesn't mean that 1,000 games played in a weak does
not mean something or that one cannot learn.

I doubt you'll ever see me in time pressure in "slow" chess, and a
five-second increment is an absolute eternity to me. In horse racing, they
often train distance horses with short workouts to give them some early
punch.

The cheating issue is also so bad that I strongly suspect that the "real"
world championship may have to be played at this speed, so I might as well
get with the program now. If I'm right, I'll have the jump on a lot of my
peers.

> That being said, Ray, this demonstrates why one minute chess is pretty
> meaningless.

Not in the opening. How do you think I rebuilt my repertoire?

>You make the first major mistake of this game, and should
> have lost. 10. h3?? Bh4+ +-.

So an 1800 guy missed that? I guess 2200 is pretty easy to make.

In one-minute chess, this is actually very common, as one must save time
early in the game. Higher-rated players often hang pieces because of this,
but then the challenge is to learn how to fiinsh a win against a stronger
rated player. When I'm in book, this doesn't happen, obviously, and here I
know where I'm out of my book, and have a hole in my repertoire to fix. Do
this 20,000 times a year for five years and one can get very good.

How interesting that you talk about the importance of finishing ability, yet
point to the first mistake as the one that poisons the game, which is what I
do.

>
> This isn't very hard to see, at at any reasonable time control I'd
> expect a 1200 player to find it.

Of course, I would have found it too and played something like 10. Bc2 with
a slight edge.

> Black then could and should have had ample compensation for his pawn
> with 12. ... Bg3+. Again, we're not talking complex stuff here. Simple
> checks.

13. Kf1 holds.

>
> (Where's your 1/x rule now, by the way, Ray?)

You proved it, as the first mistake "lost."

> I don't think anybody would take quite so much joy in picking your games
> apart, Ray, if you didn't make such grandiose claims about how good you
> are.

These are my training games that are not in my repertoire. If I published
my mistake-free games, I'd be telegraphing what I play, and I don't need to
do that any more than is necessary, or until I publish the entire repertoire
for profit.

--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.

A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "AFCs pay my rent."

Date: 25 Oct 2006 09:51:19
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

En/na Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" ha escrit:
> I figure if Topalov can hang an exchange to a knight fork with the world
> title on the line (24...f6?? from Game 10, when he had a clear near-win),
> it's not time to quit just yet.

Ray, you have repeated that many times and it as false as usual in your
posts, ... 24...f6? lose a "only" 1 pawn, to notice that it's needed
only to see 3 moves ahead.

AT

Date: 25 Oct 2006 05:59:11
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is this any better? (another one of my games)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <[email protected] > wrote:

> 13. Kf1 holds.

I didn't say Bg3+ won. But he's got clear compensation.

> >
> > (Where's your 1/x rule now, by the way, Ray?)
>
> You proved it, as the first mistake "lost."

Really? What was the first mistake then?

>
> > I don't think anybody would take quite so much joy in picking your games
> > apart, Ray, if you didn't make such grandiose claims about how good you
> > are.
>
> These are my training games that are not in my repertoire. If I published
> my mistake-free games, I'd be telegraphing what I play, and I don't need to
> do that any more than is necessary, or until I publish the entire repertoire
> for profit.

Ray, I hate to break it to you but NOBODY is scouting you out to figure
out how to beat you.

-Ron