| |
Main
Date: 30 Sep 2006 22:58:34
From: Zero
Subject: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
he can also play the French at the 2500 as well? If not, doesn't that
mean that he really don't understand chess?
Don't the GMs get bored playing the same positions over and over again?
Why do they do it?
Also why did Fischer pick the Kings Indian Defense to play against d4?
If he liked playing e4 and attacking open positions then why did he
choose an opening that led to a closed middlegame against d4? He
obviously understood chess because he showed that he could play many
openings.
But let say in this world championship match, Kramnik plays the Catalan
in every single game as white and eventually beats Topalov. Does that
really mean that Kramnik is the best chess player in the world, or does
it show that he is the best player that can beat Topalov? Also can
Kramnik produce the same results when he plays 1.e4 or 1.g3 or 1.g4 or
whatever as white. If not, doesn't that mean that he really doesn't
have a 2700+ understanding. He might it in certain middlegame
positions but not in all of chess.
What exactly does it mean to have chess understanding? Authors say in
the books that you need to understand chess to play it well. But if
these people can't even demonstrate consistent understanding in all
types of positions, then what exactly do the authors mean?
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 10:47:25
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Duncan Oxley wrote (Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:06:27 -0700):
> Why the list of questions he has asked?
>
> Are you trying to say he asks too many questions? Or
> that his questions are somehow stupid and should not
> be answered? What is wrong with his asking a few
> questions? It sure beats the junk a lot of other posters
> place here.
_
I have come to no definite conclusion. I am posting the
list of questions as a way to help others come to their
own conclusions.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 10:44:01
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Duncan Oxley wrote (Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:06:27 -0700):
7 Why the list of questions he has asked?
7
7 Are you trying to say he asks too many questions? Or
7 that his questions are somehow stupid and should not
7 be answered? What is wrong with his asking a few
7 questions? It sure beats the junk a lot of other posters
7 place here.
_
I am coming to no definite conclusion. I am posting
the list of questions as a way to help others come to
there own conclusions.
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 10:43:23
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Duncan Oxley wrote (Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:06:27 -0700):
7 Why the list of questions he has asked?
7
7 Are you trying to say he asks too many questions? Or
7 that his questions are somehow stupid and should not
7 be answered? What is wrong with his asking a few
7 questions? It sure beats the junk a lot of other posters
7 place here.
_
I am coming to know definite conclusion. I am posting
the list of questions as a way to help others come to
there own conclusions.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 00:41:07
From:
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Some other Zero questions:
_
Is Susan Polgar better than Gary Kasparov???
Which move is best to open a chess game with?
Why should I study endgames??
Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
Why should I play chess???
Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation]
is strongest one to learn ?
How come people who play chess act so weird and
strange?
Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames
when the opening comes first ?
I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The
TD told me that he submitted them online and the
USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated
them yet. Why is that the case?
Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer
Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number
of minimum players required in a tournament that
would prevent any pairing conflicts.
can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's
best games?
are you the Don of chess ?
Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because
Kasparov retired from chess?
why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he
used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a
lot of sidelines in the Sicilian.
I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the
standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play
the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav
_
_
Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after
they try to help him?
|
| | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 09:06:27
From: Duncan Oxley
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Why the list of questions he has asked?
Are you trying to say he asks too many questions? Or
that his questions are somehow stupid and should not
be answered? What is wrong with his asking a few
questions? It sure beats the junk a lot of other posters
place here.
--Duncan
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Some other Zero questions:
> _
> Is Susan Polgar better than Gary Kasparov???
> Which move is best to open a chess game with?
> Why should I study endgames??
> Which is faster: The Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon
> Why should I play chess???
> Can you please recommend which [Sicilian variation]
> is strongest one to learn ?
> How come people who play chess act so weird and
> strange?
> Why does [Capablanca] say to start first with endgames
> when the opening comes first ?
> I played in some tournaments over the weekend. The
> TD told me that he submitted them online and the
> USCF took his money. But the USCF has not rated
> them yet. Why is that the case?
> Is Ray Gordon a secret identity for Bobby Fischer
> Is there a chart that I can get which tells me the number
> of minimum players required in a tournament that
> would prevent any pairing conflicts.
> can you recommend a good book to buy about Spassky's
> best games?
> are you the Don of chess ?
> Do you think that Kamsky is playing chess again because
> Kasparov retired from chess?
> why is Kamsky not playing any of the main lines like he
> used to play in the mid 90s. These days he is playing a
> lot of sidelines in the Sicilian.
> I was wondering ... why the super GMs don't play the
> standard dxc4 slav .... Instead, they are opting to play
> the Semi-Slav ... and the a6 Slav
> _
> _
> Is this person for real? Does he ever thank people after
> they try to help him?
>
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 16:58:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Duncan Oxley <No@Thanks > wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Some other Zero questions:
>>
>> Is Susan Polgar better than Gary Kasparov???
>> [...]
>
> Why the list of questions he has asked?
>
> Are you trying to say he asks too many questions?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=rec.games.chess.*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=talltree0%40yahoo.com
Unless I've missed any, every single post from `Zero' (previously
known as `Ivan', `Doctor Who' and possibly others) starts a new
thread; every single one asks a question. At no point, does this
person ever take part in discussion arising from the question, ask
any follow-up questions or thank people for their answers.
As Louis asks, ``Is this person for real?'' One would imagine that
somebody who was interested in the answers to their questions would
post follow-up questions or comments on the answers, would one not?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Transparent Chocolate Cheese (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a lump of cheese that's made
of chocolate but you can see right
through it!
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:06:15
From: Duncan Oxley
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=rec.games.chess.*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=talltree0%40yahoo.com
>
> Unless I've missed any, every single post from `Zero' (previously
> known as `Ivan', `Doctor Who' and possibly others) starts a new
> thread; every single one asks a question. At no point, does this
> person ever take part in discussion arising from the question, ask
> any follow-up questions or thank people for their answers.
>
> As Louis asks, ``Is this person for real?'' One would imagine that
> somebody who was interested in the answers to their questions would
> post follow-up questions or comments on the answers, would one not?
>
>
> Dave.
>
OK I see your point.
--Duncan
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 12:39:00
From:
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Steve Giddens said some interesting things in his recent book "How to
Build an Opening Repertoire" (or whatever it was called, exactly).
Especially in this day and age of computers and databases, it's just
too hard to keep up with opening theory of EVERY opening, so if you
want decent results, you have to specialize to some degree or another.
Doing so does mean that there are some positions one will understand
better than others, even a GM. That being said, I'm sure every GM
still understands every conceiveable opening or resulting middlegame
position significant;y better than I do . . .
:-)
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 10:39:39
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
help bot wrote:
> Zero wrote:
>
> > I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
> > games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
> > If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
> > he can also play the French at the 2500 as well? If not, doesn't that
> > mean that he really don't understand chess?
> >
> > Don't the GMs get bored playing the same positions over and over again?
> > Why do they do it?
>
>
> In my experience, although far from the GM level,
> many players seem to feel more secure in spitting
> out memorized moves in familiar positions, as
> opposed to facing the ticking clock while trying to
> calculate tactics and determine a strategy in terra
> incognita, where a single wrong move could cost
> them the game. In fact, many players seem to
> take an evil delight in out-booking their opponents
> in the opening, or in springing a well-prepared
> surprise. As for boredom -- winning comes first.
In my experience, again far from the GM level, playing an opening
provides a comfort that, even if you don't know the exact moves in a
position, you can probably figure them out becasue of your familiarity
with the key ideas and themes. I spent most of my playing career
playing the Pirc and Sicilian defenses, and in many instances, I would
reach a position where I wasn't familiar with the exacty theory but
would generally find an accepted move because of general knowledge.
>
>
>
> > Also why did Fischer pick the Kings Indian Defense to play against d4?
> > If he liked playing e4 and attacking open positions then why did he
> > choose an opening that led to a closed middlegame against d4? He
> > obviously understood chess because he showed that he could play many
> > openings.
>
>
> Perhaps Fischer felt that it was difficult to play for
> a win as Black in, say, the QGD orthodox variation.
> With the KID, he was able to keep more pieces on
> the board, which in turn inproves the winning chances
> for both sides. To reach the very top, one cannot
> settle for mere draws, one after another, and it is
> helpful to avoid lines where the opponent might be
> able to force a drawish game, assumming Black
> plays reasonably to equalise.
Later in his career, Fischer tended to avoid the King's Indian if he
was likely to face the Samisch variation, which caused him problems.
Fischer increasingly turned to the Grunfeld but also used the
Nimzo-Indian and Benoni with some frequency.
>
>
> > But let say in this world championship match, Kramnik plays the Catalan
> > in every single game as white and eventually beats Topalov. Does that
> > really mean that Kramnik is the best chess player in the world, or does
> > it show that he is the best player that can beat Topalov? Also can
> > Kramnik produce the same results when he plays 1.e4 or 1.g3 or 1.g4 or
> > whatever as white. If not, doesn't that mean that he really doesn't
> > have a 2700+ understanding. He might it in certain middlegame
> > positions but not in all of chess.
>
>
> I seriously doubt that even the world's best players
> can perform at 2700+ in all openings, as above. In
> practice, they tend to choose a few in which to
> specialize, much like a doctor might specialize in
> ears, nose, and throat. Ask an EN&T doctor to
> perform heart surgery, and he will refuse/fail.
There are examples of players who were willing and able to play one opr
two defenses their whole career and play at the highest levels -
Uhlmann and Korchnoi and the French Defense, Najdorf and the King's
Indian (and Sicilian, of course), and Adorjan and the Grunfeld come to
mind. On the white side, Gligoric was pretty much a 1.d4 player his
whole career, and his white variations didn't change that much either.
However, I think you'll find more exceptions to this pattern than the
actual pattern. Karpov was, for a long time, a 1.e4 e5 proponent, but
he also had a long period with the Caro Kann. While Kasparov was
mostly a Najdorf/Scheveningen Sicililan player, he branched out into
Dragon and Sveshnikov territory. Fischer was a Najdorf player but also
veered off into the Alekhine's and Pirc territory for his World
Championship match with Spassky.
>
>
Randy Bauer
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 11:08:22
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote
>I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
> games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
> If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
> he can also play the French at the 2500 as well? If not, doesn't that
> mean that he really don't understand chess?
Some people play the openings better than the middle game/endgame; some play
the latter better. But on average I would say that with one exception,
players tend to play their "strength" throughout the game.
That exception is when they are caught completely unaware in an opening.
> Don't the GMs get bored playing the same positions over and over again?
> Why do they do it?
A better question is, don't amateurs get bored playing the same old formula
openings every time? That is the question for the ages.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 04:35:45
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
>I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
> games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
No.
> If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
> he can also play the French at the 2500 as well?
Not likely.
>If not, doesn't that
> mean that he really don't understand chess?
Correct.
> Don't the GMs get bored playing the same positions over and over again?
> Why do they do it?
Cuts down on the risk of error and increases the likelihood that they'll
exploit an opponent's error.
> Also why did Fischer pick the Kings Indian Defense to play against d4?
He liked the active piece play.
> If he liked playing e4 and attacking open positions then why did he
> choose an opening that led to a closed middlegame against d4?
He had Black, not White.
>He
> obviously understood chess because he showed that he could play many
> openings.
Fischer's weakest lines were as White against the French and Caro-Kan.
> But let say in this world championship match, Kramnik plays the Catalan
> in every single game as white and eventually beats Topalov. Does that
> really mean that Kramnik is the best chess player in the world, or does
> it show that he is the best player that can beat Topalov? Also can
> Kramnik produce the same results when he plays 1.e4 or 1.g3 or 1.g4 or
> whatever as white. If not, doesn't that mean that he really doesn't
> have a 2700+ understanding. He might it in certain middlegame
> positions but not in all of chess.
Something like that.
> What exactly does it mean to have chess understanding? Authors say in
> the books that you need to understand chess to play it well. But if
> these people can't even demonstrate consistent understanding in all
> types of positions, then what exactly do the authors mean?
It means you should understand as much of the game as is possible.
When you see a 2700 player, you don't see his general technique that beats
up on the 2200-2400 crowd in ways that the lower-rated players' peers
cannot.
--
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 "loser AFCs pay my rent."
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 10:57:23
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
>>games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
>
> No.
Ray is wrong again,
Yes, of course!
A player who do not understand chess can not continue the game correctly
once home preparation is finished.
>
>>If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
>>he can also play the French at the 2500 as well?
>
> Not likely.
>
Surely there is not very much difference if that player changes his
opening repertoire. Many MANY players have changed it, maybe first games
are the most difficult but I think there are no GM who has not changed
his openings once (at least) in his life.
AT
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 00:39:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
Zero wrote:
> I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
> games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
> If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
> he can also play the French at the 2500 as well? If not, doesn't that
> mean that he really don't understand chess?
>
> Don't the GMs get bored playing the same positions over and over again?
> Why do they do it?
In my experience, although far from the GM level,
many players seem to feel more secure in spitting
out memorized moves in familiar positions, as
opposed to facing the ticking clock while trying to
calculate tactics and determine a strategy in terra
incognita, where a single wrong move could cost
them the game. In fact, many players seem to
take an evil delight in out-booking their opponents
in the opening, or in springing a well-prepared
surprise. As for boredom -- winning comes first.
> Also why did Fischer pick the Kings Indian Defense to play against d4?
> If he liked playing e4 and attacking open positions then why did he
> choose an opening that led to a closed middlegame against d4? He
> obviously understood chess because he showed that he could play many
> openings.
Perhaps Fischer felt that it was difficult to play for
a win as Black in, say, the QGD orthodox variation.
With the KID, he was able to keep more pieces on
the board, which in turn inproves the winning chances
for both sides. To reach the very top, one cannot
settle for mere draws, one after another, and it is
helpful to avoid lines where the opponent might be
able to force a drawish game, assumming Black
plays reasonably to equalise.
> But let say in this world championship match, Kramnik plays the Catalan
> in every single game as white and eventually beats Topalov. Does that
> really mean that Kramnik is the best chess player in the world, or does
> it show that he is the best player that can beat Topalov? Also can
> Kramnik produce the same results when he plays 1.e4 or 1.g3 or 1.g4 or
> whatever as white. If not, doesn't that mean that he really doesn't
> have a 2700+ understanding. He might it in certain middlegame
> positions but not in all of chess.
I seriously doubt that even the world's best players
can perform at 2700+ in all openings, as above. In
practice, they tend to choose a few in which to
specialize, much like a doctor might specialize in
ears, nose, and throat. Ask an EN&T doctor to
perform heart surgery, and he will refuse/fail.
> What exactly does it mean to have chess understanding? Authors say in
> the books that you need to understand chess to play it well. But if
> these people can't even demonstrate consistent understanding in all
> types of positions, then what exactly do the authors mean?
Some of my games at GetClub.com have shed some
light on these qustions for me. For example, I recently
"experimented" with Alekhine's Defense, and thinking
the computer simply failed to calculate the tactics
correctly, I attacked and was led down a path where
my Queen could easily be trapped, having -- gulp --
having taken the QN-pawn with my Queen! I sure felt
silly for the next ten or so moves, as the computer
overlooked the execution of the trapping moves, which
to me were (now) obvious. In another recent game, I
again made some tactical errors after having outplayed
the program, yet was able to force a simplification where
despite unplanned material loss, I easily Queened a
pawn which I had won much earlier. Again, the program
plays reasonable-looking moves, yet fails to deliver on
its one (theoretical) strength: tactics.
A thought: suppose for a moment that Kramnik is the
world's greatest Catalan player, and that Topalov has
Black every game, each time facing Kramnik's
favorite opening. If Kramnik wins, draws, wins, draws,
wins, draws, wins and takes the match, then yes, he
might well be the wolrd's worst Grob player, but who
cares -- he doesn't play the Grob. OTOH, I have seen
players who, despite titles and high ratings, misplayed
simple positions which even I understood how to play
properly. On the whole, I find that certain groups of
chess players tend to be too specialized for their own
good. They perform admirably while within their all-too-
narrow prepared lines, but fall to pieces once put on
their own in unfamiliar territory. This not only affects
their results, but it is rather embarassing.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 11:02:03
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
En/na help bot ha escrit:
> Zero wrote:
>>Also why did Fischer pick the Kings Indian Defense to play against d4?
>>If he liked playing e4 and attacking open positions then why did he
>>choose an opening that led to a closed middlegame against d4? He
>>obviously understood chess because he showed that he could play many
>>openings.
>
> Perhaps Fischer felt that it was difficult to play for
> a win as Black in, say, the QGD orthodox variation.
> With the KID, he was able to keep more pieces on
> the board, which in turn inproves the winning chances
> for both sides. To reach the very top, one cannot
> settle for mere draws, one after another, and it is
> helpful to avoid lines where the opponent might be
> able to force a drawish game, assumming Black
> plays reasonably to equalise.
I thibk it is not matter of style a those levels. I think Fischer played
KID because He was not unconfotable in any line. A single problematical
line from his home preparation would have produced him changing his
opening preferences.
As example: Kasparov turned from KID to QG after some discoveries in the
bayonet attack line.
AT
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 04:36:46
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Understanding Chess and specializing
|
>> I have a question as to why GMs play one opening all the time in their
>> games. If I master an opening, does that mean that I understand chess?
>> If there is a 2500 GM who plays the Pirc all the time, does that mean
>> he can also play the French at the 2500 as well? If not, doesn't that
>> mean that he really don't understand chess?
>>
>> Don't the GMs get bored playing the same positions over and over again?
>> Why do they do it?
>
>
> In my experience, although far from the GM level,
> many players seem to feel more secure in spitting
> out memorized moves in familiar positions, as
> opposed to facing the ticking clock while trying to
> calculate tactics and determine a strategy in terra
> incognita, where a single wrong move could cost
> them the game.
Especially if this occurs while you are "thinking" and your opponent is
still in "memorized moves in familiar positions" territory. If you can
outbook your opponent, you can usually win.
--
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 "loser AFCs pay my rent."
|
|
