capablanca and endgames

Main

Date: 09 May 2006 08:09:00
From: Zero
Subject: capablanca and endgames

Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
first ?

Date: 19 May 2006 02:02:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Near-IM Phil Innes wrote:

"Quick Survey on endgames: --

3 weeks ago my sometimes sparring partner, 23xx rated, said that he had
never played a K vs K, B, N endgame. I said I hadn't done so either -
and
between us that was abt 80 years of chess expereience - and we also
said we
have never seen anyone else play that ending. Has anyone here ever done
so?"

No. It has never occurred in the history of chess. Purely
theoretical, don't you know. :)
--

Yes, it has happenned in my games, and in games I have watched at
tournaments. Moreover, this ending is systematically avoided by those
who are winning and don't know how to force mate. Pretty rare in
comparison to many other endings, which have a far better ratings pay
ratio (Rook endings, K&p, etc.).

One of our local players takes the very same approach advocated by
Ray Gordon; he constantly studies the openings, hoping to get an easily
won position from the get-go. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it
doesn't. In cases where his plan fails, the following play can be
quite amusing. One game saw a considerably lower-rated opponent, who
was down a Rook for a few pawns, begin advancing them out of sheer
desperation. Our hero, the man with the (bad) plan, (not to mention an
extra Rook!), simply ignored the pawns until they had already become
unstoppable. Even total patzers have advised him he needs to study the
endgame (not the openings), but a man hears what he wants to hear, and
disregards the rest.

-- help bot

Date: 17 May 2006 13:44:28
From: Skeptic
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Until someone reaches the point where they know that no matter who
they are
playing, even if it's Kasparov, Leko, Anand, or Polgar, they will be
even or
better one or two dozen moves into the game, regardless of color, they
don't
know what it means to be strong in the opening."

Apparently, Kasparov, Topalov, and Polgar--to say nothing of Botvinnik,
Steinitz, and Morphy--had no idea what being strong in the opening is.
They were all weaklings in the opening compare to that paragon of
chess knowledge, Ray Gordon.

Date: 17 May 2006 15:13:41
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote

> Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
> first ?

Because in Cuba they start at the endgame and work backwards.

Date: 18 May 2006 11:49:33
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ange1o DePa1ma <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Zero" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
>> first ?
>
> Because in Cuba they start at the endgame and work backwards.

Alright! I hereby challenge GM Bruzon to a game. I'll play black.
Let's see... My last move is 34... Qxg2#. Your turn, Lazaro!

Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Impossible Hi-Fi (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a music system but it can't exist
and it wants to hurt you!

Date: 14 May 2006 13:59:16
From:
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

I dunno... I mean, most weak players are weak (not that I am a
particularly strong player!) not because they don't play chess, but
because they spend their chess time playing blitz and memorizing
opening lines to the exclusion of all else. I fail to see how doing
precisely what keeps weak players weak is going to make one a strong
player.

Date: 13 May 2006 13:52:14
From: Nick
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Skeptic wrote (about Ray Gordon):
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Sure. Send me a check for the entry fee, and $20 an hour for
> > each hour I won't be working during the tournament, and I'll be
> > happy to.
>
> Well, let me get this straight. You spend *hours*, *every day*, playing
> bullet chess and learning opening variations, yet you won't go to your
> local chess club to play a single serious game? ...

I suspect that Ray Gordon hopes that someday 'bullet chess' will
become the dominant form, if not the only form, of chess played.

When that happens, how many snowballs will there be in hell?

--Nick

Date: 12 May 2006 22:53:54
From: Skeptic
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>Because the Rooks move diagonally in bullet?

Because both you and the opponent have only a second or two to think
about every move.

>>Sure. Send me a check for the entry fee, and $20 an hour for each hour I
won't be working during the tournament, and I'll be happy to.

Well, let me get this straight. You spend *hours*, *every day*, playing
bullet chess and learning opening variations, yet you won't go to your
local chess club to play a single serious game?

So what's the point? Why are you studying so much when you never
intend to play?

Seems like an excercise in futility to me.

Date: 12 May 2006 06:37:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

David Richerby wrote:
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right? Trained
> > Kasparov, and Leko - in fact Leko plays it.
>
> I notice you snipped the part of Ray's response where he asked you to
> back up that last assertion so I'll ask again. Neither the Fritz 8
> database (which, admittedly, only covers up to 2002) nor
> chessgames.com (which, admittedly, has only about 390,000 games) has
> any games where Leko plays the White side of any system in E60. Could
> you post a couple of examples?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Innes was saying that Leko plays
3=2E..e5 on the black side of the E60. Checking CB's MegaDatabase 2005,
which has nearly 3 million games, I found one such game:

[Event "Tilburg Fontys"]
[Site "Tilburg"]
[Date "1998.10.29"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Kramnik, Vladimir"]
[Black "Leko, Peter"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E60"]
[WhiteElo "2780"]
[BlackElo "2665"]
[Annotator "Leko"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "1998.10.23"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[EventCategory "18"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1=2E d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 e5 4. dxe5 Nh5 5. Nh3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7
Qxe7 8.
Nc3 Qxe5 9. g4 Ng7 10. f4 Qe7 11. Nd5 Qd8 12. Qd3 O-O 13. Qc3 Ne8 14.
g5 Ne7
15. Nf6+ Nxf6 16. gxf6 Nf5 17. e4 Re8 18. Ng5 c5 19. O-O-O Nd4 20. e5
d6 21.
Nf3 Bg4 22. Nxd4 Bxd1 23. Nb5 dxe5 24. fxe5 Ba4 25. Nd6 Re6 26. Bg2
Rxd6 27.
exd6 Qxd6 28. Bxb7 Re8 29. b3 Qf4+ 30. Kb2 Re3 31. Rd1 h5 32. Qa5 Re2+
33. Ka3
Qf2 34. Qd8+ Be8 {#} 35. Rd2 $1 (35. Ra1 Qe3 36. Bc6 Qc3 $1 $19) 35...
Rxd2 36.
Qxe8+ Kh7 37. Qxf7+ Kh6 38. Ka4 Rxa2+ 39. Kb5 Qe3 (39... Rb2 $5 {laut
Fritz})
40. Bd5 {Mit seinen letzten verbleibenden Sekunden erinnert sich mein
Gegner
an die goldene Regel: Zentralisation!!} Qxb3+ 41. Kc6 Ra6+ {Sp=E4ter
=FCberpr=FCfte
ich die Sache mit dem Computer und er fand den gleichen Gewinn in
wenigen
Minuten.} (41... Qb8 $6 42. Kd7 $1 {und der Kampf beginnt von neuem.})
42. Kd7
(42. Kc7 $2 Qb6+ $19) 42... Qh3+ $1 {Alles l=E4uft genau nach meinem
Plan!} 43.
Be6 (43. Ke7 Qxh2 44. Qf8+ (44. Qg7+ Kg5 45. f7 Qc7+ 46. Ke8 Rb6 {nebst
Matt})
44... Kg5 45. f7 Qc7+ 46. Ke8 Qc8+ 47. Ke7 Qxf8+ 48. Kxf8 Rf6 $19)
43... Qd3+
44. Ke8 {Ich hatte haupts=E4chlich mit Ld5 gerechnet:} (44. Bd5 Kg5 $1
45. Qe7 (
45. h4+ Kf5) 45... Rxf6 46. h4+ Kf5 {
deswegen mu=DF die schwarze Dame auf d3 stehen!} 47. Qxc5 Kg4 $19) 44...
Qd6 45.
Qe7 {Der letzte Trick bestand in} (45. Qg7+ Kg5 46. h4+ Kxh4 47. Qe7 {
Es kostete mich viel Bedenkzeit, darauf den Gewinn zu finden:} Qxe7+
(47...
Qxe6 $2 48. f7+) 48. Kxe7 Ra1 49. f7 (49. Bf5 Re1+) 49... Rf1) 45...
Qxe6 (
45... Qxe6 46. f7 Qc8+ 47. Qd8 Re6+ 48. Kf8 Qxd8#) 0-1

Date: 16 May 2006 19:29:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Finally, some actual moves!

Kramnik-Leko:

>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 e5

An interesting gambit.

>4. dxe5 Nh5 5. Nh3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7
>Qxe7 8.Nc3 Qxe5 9. g4

I won't say much about the rest of the game, but what about 9. e4? That
would appear to give White a good chance at a favorable oczy setup.

I don't play this line for either side so I don't have extensive analysis
backing this up. I think Black had a better grasp of this wrinkle than
White, however. This move just looks antipositional.

>9...Ng7 10. f4 Qe7 11. Nd5 Qd8 12. Qd3 O-O 13. Qc3 Ne8 14.
g5 Ne7
15. Nf6+ Nxf6 16. gxf6 Nf5 17. e4 Re8 18. Ng5 c5 19. O-O-O Nd4 20. e5
d6 21.
Nf3 Bg4 22. Nxd4 Bxd1 23. Nb5 dxe5 24. fxe5 Ba4 25. Nd6 Re6 26. Bg2
Rxd6 27.
exd6 Qxd6 28. Bxb7 Re8 29. b3 Qf4+ 30. Kb2 Re3 31. Rd1 h5 32. Qa5 Re2+
33. Ka3
Qf2 34. Qd8+ Be8 {#} 35. Rd2 $1 (35. Ra1 Qe3 36. Bc6 Qc3 $1 $19) 35...
Rxd2 36.
Qxe8+ Kh7 37. Qxf7+ Kh6 38. Ka4 Rxa2+ 39. Kb5 Qe3 (39... Rb2 $5 {laut
Fritz})
40. Bd5 {Mit seinen letzten verbleibenden Sekunden erinnert sich mein
Gegner
an die goldene Regel: Zentralisation!!} Qxb3+ 41. Kc6 Ra6+ {Sp�ter
�berpr�fte
ich die Sache mit dem Computer und er fand den gleichen Gewinn in
wenigen
Minuten.} (41... Qb8 $6 42. Kd7 $1 {und der Kampf beginnt von neuem.})
42. Kd7
(42. Kc7 $2 Qb6+ $19) 42... Qh3+ $1 {Alles l�uft genau nach meinem
Plan!} 43.
Be6 (43. Ke7 Qxh2 44. Qf8+ (44. Qg7+ Kg5 45. f7 Qc7+ 46. Ke8 Rb6 {nebst
Matt})
44... Kg5 45. f7 Qc7+ 46. Ke8 Qc8+ 47. Ke7 Qxf8+ 48. Kxf8 Rf6 $19)
43... Qd3+
44. Ke8 {Ich hatte haupts�chlich mit Ld5 gerechnet:} (44. Bd5 Kg5 $1
45. Qe7 (
45. h4+ Kf5) 45... Rxf6 46. h4+ Kf5 {
deswegen mu� die schwarze Dame auf d3 stehen!} 47. Qxc5 Kg4 $19) 44...
Qd6 45.
Qe7 {Der letzte Trick bestand in} (45. Qg7+ Kg5 46. h4+ Kxh4 47. Qe7 {
Es kostete mich viel Bedenkzeit, darauf den Gewinn zu finden:} Qxe7+
(47...
Qxe6 $2 48. f7+) 48. Kxe7 Ra1 49. f7 (49. Bf5 Re1+) 49... Rf1) 45...
Qxe6 (
45... Qxe6 46. f7 Qc8+ 47. Qd8 Re6+ 48. Kf8 Qxd8#) 0-1

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

Date: 17 May 2006 16:14:35
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> Finally, some actual moves!
> Kramnik-Leko:
>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 e5
> An interesting gambit.
>
>>4. dxe5 Nh5 5. Nh3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7
>>Qxe7 8.Nc3 Qxe5 9. g4
>
> I won't say much about the rest of the game, but what about 9. e4? That
> would appear to give White a good chance at a favorable oczy setup.
>
> I don't play this line for either side so I don't have extensive analysis
> backing this up. I think Black had a better grasp of this wrinkle than
> White, however. This move just looks antipositional.

Leko commented that game and pointed that 9.g4! was the refutation of
the inacuracie He did in 8th move (being better 8...0-0!). He wrote too
that white 5.Nh3 was played fastly showing Vladimir had studied this
position.

GM Ubilava also commented that game adding a "!" to 9.g4 (and to 5.Nh3)

The situation is: some GM (including the top ten Leko who had black)
think white position is preferable after 9.g4! ... but Ray propose
another move notifying this move in not extensively analized by him.

thanks Ray! ... but you need to improve your "book".

AT

Date: 08 Jun 2006 17:15:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> The situation is: some GM (including the top ten Leko who had black) think
> white position is preferable after 9.g4! ... but Ray propose another move
> notifying this move in not extensively analized by him.

So where's the "refutation" here?

9. g4 IS antipositional. It may be justifiable as an exception.

This is not in my repertoire so obviously two GMs who play it will have
studied it deeper. Instead of being a pathetic child and hurling insults,
however, showing this alleged "refutation" would be better.

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

Date: 17 May 2006 11:09:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Finally, some actual moves!
>
> Kramnik-Leko:
>
>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 e5
>
> An interesting gambit.
>
>>4. dxe5 Nh5 5. Nh3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7
>>Qxe7 8.Nc3 Qxe5

8... 0-0

9(a) Nd5?! Qxe5 10. Qd2 Ne7 11. f4 Qd6 12. g3 c6! =+

9(b) e4! Qxe5 10. Qd2 d6 11. f4 Qd4! 12. Qxd4 Nxd4+

> 9. g4
>
> I won't say much about the rest of the game, but what about 9. e4? That
> would appear to give White a good chance at a favorable oczy setup.
>
> I don't play this line for either side so I don't have extensive analysis
> backing this up. I think Black had a better grasp of this wrinkle than
> White, however. This move just looks antipositional.

The main options for white to deviate all seem to stem from move 4. (a) Bg5
(b) d5 (c) e4 (d) e3?

Its one of those positions where - as you note - the classic pawn front,
completed by e4 is very difficult to play and maintain initiative. There is
another branch with 7. e4 against the mainline.

A good surprise opening where if white overpresses his 'advantage' or plays
the classical pawn center without care, black is =+.

Phil

>>9...Ng7 10. f4 Qe7 11. Nd5 Qd8 12. Qd3 O-O 13. Qc3 Ne8 14.
> g5 Ne7
> 15. Nf6+ Nxf6 16. gxf6 Nf5 17. e4 Re8 18. Ng5 c5 19. O-O-O Nd4 20. e5
> d6 21.
> Nf3 Bg4 22. Nxd4 Bxd1 23. Nb5 dxe5 24. fxe5 Ba4 25. Nd6 Re6 26. Bg2
> Rxd6 27.
> exd6 Qxd6 28. Bxb7 Re8 29. b3 Qf4+ 30. Kb2 Re3 31. Rd1 h5 32. Qa5 Re2+
> 33. Ka3
> Qf2 34. Qd8+ Be8 {#} 35. Rd2 $1 (35. Ra1 Qe3 36. Bc6 Qc3 $1 $19) 35...
> Rxd2 36.
> Qxe8+ Kh7 37. Qxf7+ Kh6 38. Ka4 Rxa2+ 39. Kb5 Qe3 (39... Rb2 $5 {laut
> Fritz})
> 40. Bd5 {Mit seinen letzten verbleibenden Sekunden erinnert sich mein
> Gegner
> an die goldene Regel: Zentralisation!!} Qxb3+ 41. Kc6 Ra6+ {Sp�ter
> �berpr�fte
> ich die Sache mit dem Computer und er fand den gleichen Gewinn in
> wenigen
> Minuten.} (41... Qb8 $6 42. Kd7 $1 {und der Kampf beginnt von neuem.})
> 42. Kd7
> (42. Kc7 $2 Qb6+ $19) 42... Qh3+ $1 {Alles l�uft genau nach meinem
> Plan!} 43.
> Be6 (43. Ke7 Qxh2 44. Qf8+ (44. Qg7+ Kg5 45. f7 Qc7+ 46. Ke8 Rb6 {nebst
> Matt})
> 44... Kg5 45. f7 Qc7+ 46. Ke8 Qc8+ 47. Ke7 Qxf8+ 48. Kxf8 Rf6 $19)
> 43... Qd3+
> 44. Ke8 {Ich hatte haupts�chlich mit Ld5 gerechnet:} (44. Bd5 Kg5 $1
> 45. Qe7 (
> 45. h4+ Kf5) 45... Rxf6 46. h4+ Kf5 {
> deswegen mu� die schwarze Dame auf d3 stehen!} 47. Qxc5 Kg4 $19) 44...
> Qd6 45.
> Qe7 {Der letzte Trick bestand in} (45. Qg7+ Kg5 46. h4+ Kxh4 47. Qe7 {
> Es kostete mich viel Bedenkzeit, darauf den Gewinn zu finden:} Qxe7+
> (47...
> Qxe6 $2 48. f7+) 48. Kxe7 Ra1 49. f7 (49. Bf5 Re1+) 49... Rf1) 45...
> Qxe6 (
> 45... Qxe6 46. f7 Qc8+ 47. Qd8 Re6+ 48. Kf8 Qxd8#) 0-1
>
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
> Eastern District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>

Date: 11 May 2006 20:27:32
From:
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

I witnessed the following game in which the B + N + K mated the lone K.
If my memory serves me correct, Michael Brooks had about 5 minutes
left on his clock in a sudden death time control around move 60 or
thereabouts, making the entire ending very dramatic for the spectators
(although Brooks seemed pretty calm throughout, as I recall).

Gliksman,D (2240) - Brooks,M (2440) [C50]
Los Angeles Los Angeles, 1992

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 d6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0
8.h3 Re8 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 Nxe4 11.Bxe7 Rxe7 12.Nd5 Re5 13.f4 Re8 14.Re1
Bd7 15.Nb5 Rc8 16.Nbxc7 Rxc7 17.Nxc7 Qxc7 18.Qd5 Re6 19.Rxe4 Nb4 20.Qd4
Rxe4 21.Qxe4 d5 22.Qe7 Nc6 23.Qc5 dxc4 24.Rd1 Qc8 25.Qxc4 Be6 26.Qc5
Qf8 27.Rd6 h5 28.f5 Bc8 29.c3 Qe7 30.b4 Qe1+ 31.Kh2 Kh7 32.f6 Qe5+
33.Qxe5 Nxe5 34.fxg7 Be6 35.a4 Kxg7 36.Rd8 a6 37.Rb8 Bd5 38.Rc8 Kf6
39.Rh8 Bc6 40.a5 Ng6 41.Rxh5 Bxg2 42.Rc5 Be4 43.Kg3 Ke6 44.Rg5 Ne5
45.Kf4 f5 46.h4 Kf6 47.Rg1 Ng6+ 48.Kg3 f4+ 49.Kg4 f3 50.h5 Ne5+ 51.Kf4
Bd5 52.Ke3 Bf7 53.h6 Bg6 54.Kd4 f2 55.Rf1 Ng4 56.c4 Bf7 57.Rh1 Bg6
58.Rf1 Kg5 59.b5 Kxh6 60.c5 axb5 61.c6 bxc6 62.a6 c5+ 63.Kxc5 Kg5 64.a7
Be4 65.Ra1 Ne3 66.Kd4 Kf4 67.Kc5 Ke5 68.Kxb5 f1Q+ 69.Rxf1 Nxf1 70.Kc5
Ne3 71.Kb5 Ng4 72.a8Q Bxa8 73.Kb4 Kd4 74.Kb5 Bd5 75.Kb4 Ne5 76.Kb5 Nd3
77.Kb6 Bf7 78.Kb5 Be8+ 79.Kb6 Kd5 80.Kc7 Bc6 81.Kb6 Ne5 82.Kc7 Kc5
83.Kc8 Nf7 84.Kc7 Kd5 85.Kb6 Kd6 86.Ka6 Kc5 87.Ka5 Nd6 88.Ka6 Bd5
89.Ka5 Bc6 90.Ka6 Ba4 91.Ka5 Bd7 92.Ka6 Bc6 93.Ka5 Nc4+ 94.Ka6 Bd5
95.Ka7 Be6 96.Ka6 Kc6 97.Ka7 Bc8 98.Kb8 Nd6 99.Ka7 Kc7 100.Ka8 Bb7+
101.Ka7 Nb5# 0-1

Date: 11 May 2006 17:37:41
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ralf Callenberg wrote:
> Ron schrieb:
>
> > > An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
> >
> > This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
> > chess.
>
> Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

The other posters' replies are essentially correct, especially in
terms of American football, where plays start from set formations and
it is critical for each player to carry out his assignment correctly.
If the quarterback calls an off-tackle run, and the halfback thinks
he's supposed to run a pass route, the result may well be a fumble or
some such disaster.
To try to put it in chess terms, imagine that White's king bishop
thinks he is supposed to play a Spanish Opening no matter how Black
replies. We might then have a game that begins 1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5
3.Bb5??.
I trust this illustrates the absurdity of Ray Gordon's likening an
endgame to a broken play. I would imagine Mr. Gordon intended something
on the lines of Janowski's claim that "a well-played game should be
practically decided in the middlegame," but he chose a poor metaphor to
describe it.

Date: 11 May 2006 05:58:20
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Phil Innes > I recently suggested E60, Adorjan's opening, which seems to
puzzle many
white players by move 4! I doubt many players even know black's third
move,
and have ever played out resulting positions - and certainly not
black's
sequence to move 8.

Phil is referring to the sideline 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 and now
3...e5!? is possible, as played a couple of times by Krasenkow, for
example.

Anyway, I think RG tends to underestimate the extent to which even
strong GMs occasionally find themselves improvising early in the
opening. As I write, there is a game in progress at the annual Sarajevo
tournament between two 2690+ players, Malakhov and Nisipeanu. Malakhov
tried 1. e4 c5 2. Na3, and while Nisipeanu has probably seen this
offbeat idea before, I doubt that he has been up nights studying the
theory of it, which barely exists anyway.

LT

PS I've been told that the Romanian name "Nisipeanu" sounds quite a bit
like "I'm not drunk" in Serbian.

Date: 11 May 2006 14:51:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> Anyway, I think RG tends to underestimate the extent to which even
> strong GMs occasionally find themselves improvising early in the
> opening.

Not at all. In fact, this is what inspired me to play chess again.

That's a weakness I can drive a truck through.

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

Date: 11 May 2006 13:23:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Anyway, I think RG tends to underestimate the extent to which even
> strong GMs occasionally find themselves improvising early in the
> opening. As I write, there is a game in progress at the annual Sarajevo
> tournament between two 2690+ players, Malakhov and Nisipeanu. Malakhov
> tried 1. e4 c5 2. Na3, and while Nisipeanu has probably seen this
> offbeat idea before, I doubt that he has been up nights studying the
> theory of it, which barely exists anyway.
>
> LT
>
> PS I've been told that the Romanian name "Nisipeanu" sounds quite a bit
> like "I'm not drunk" in Serbian.

Larry Tapper is referring to this tournament:
A double round robin tournament Bosna Sarajevo 2006 takes place in Sarajevo
May 7th-16th 2006. Players: GM Vladimir Malakhov (RUS 2691), GM Liviu-Dieter
Nisipeanu (ROM 2695), GM Krishnan Sasikiran (IND 2692), GM Arkadij Naiditsch
(GER 2664), GM Magnus Carlsen (NOR 2646) and GM Borki Predojevic (BIH 2566).
Round 3 standings:
1-3 Malakhov, Predojevic, Nisipeanu - 2.0
4 Carlsen - 1.5
5 Naiditsch - 1.0
6 Sasikiran - 0.5

Official site: www.skbosna.ba

An interesting aspect of the DISPLAY of this tournament is that all 8 games
are all featured live on one screen. click on any one game to replay moves,
ie Malakhov (2691)
Nisipeanu (2695)

1. e4 c5 2. Na3 d6 3. c3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. Ne2 O-O 7. O-O e5 8. d4
exd4 9. cxd4 Nc6 10. d5 Nb4 11. Nc2 Nxc2 12. Qxc2 Re8 13. Nc3 a6 14. a4 Bd7
15. a5 Ng4 16. Bd2 b5 17. axb6 Qxb6 18. Nd1 Bb5 19. Re1 Bd4 20. Bc3 *

The game is still in progress.

Phil Innes

Date: 11 May 2006 05:20:24
From: Skeptic
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Sure. Send me a check for the entry fee, and $20 an hour for each
hour I
won't be working during the tournament, and I'll be happy to."

You usually work weekends and nights? That's when most tournaments are
played, you know. They are held during those times for the rather good
reason that that's when most people are not working.

As for paying your entry fee, surely you'd be able to win it back, when
your "GM level understanding" of the opening allows you to win
virtually every game against anybody below GM level.

Date: 10 May 2006 14:27:47
From: Skeptic
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY"

Yes, but that's hardly the same as actually playing chess.

Why don't you try and play in a few tournaments in your local chess
club, just to see how far your "GM-level understanding of the opening"
actually gets you in practice?

Date: 11 May 2006 05:38:08
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> "I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY"
>
> Yes, but that's hardly the same as actually playing chess.

Because the Rooks move diagonally in bullet?

> Why don't you try and play in a few tournaments in your local chess
> club, just to see how far your "GM-level understanding of the opening"
> actually gets you in practice?

Sure. Send me a check for the entry fee, and $20 an hour for each hour I
won't be working during the tournament, and I'll be happy to.

Otherwise, I'll stick to what's more cost-efficient.

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

Date: 12 May 2006 00:53:45
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

11.05.2006 11:38, Ray Gordon:
>
>> Why don't you try and play in a few tournaments in your local chess
>> club, just to see how far your "GM-level understanding of the opening"
>> actually gets you in practice?
>
> Sure. Send me a check for the entry fee, and $20 an hour for each hour I
> won't be working during the tournament, and I'll be happy to.
>
> Otherwise, I'll stick to what's more cost-efficient.

We had this before. Still it is very strange. You spent so many years
for the game. If you would transfer it to those $20 an hour, it must be
several hundred thousand dollars. And you are reluctant to spend a few
hours and a few bucks for a tournament? You might at least try it out
with some one day speed chess events for $20. This is already something
very different from bullet but still fast enough that good preparation
gives you and edge, and yet not very expensive.

Well, it looks more, that you are simply afraid of it, afraid to find
out, that your method after all those years helped you in bullet, but
didn't improve your game in tournament chess in the amount you are
hoping for.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 10 May 2006 14:23:39
From: Skeptic
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>It's not worthless to fend off a super-GM in the opening to get to an equal
>endgame.

So why don't you study endgames now a bit? It seems that once you
finish doing THAT, you could at least draw all games with super-GMs,
which means you would be a super-GM yourself.

Gee, becoming a super-GM was so easy, and we never figured it out until
Ray Gordon came along.

Date: 11 May 2006 05:35:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> >It's not worthless to fend off a super-GM in the opening to get to an
> >equal
>>endgame.
>
> So why don't you study endgames now a bit? It seems that once you
> finish doing THAT, you could at least draw all games with super-GMs,
> which means you would be a super-GM yourself.

I'm not booked up into the endgame yet.

I am in the early middlegame when I leave my book, so now I study mostly
middlegame theory.

I studied general endgame principles as a teenager.

> Gee, becoming a super-GM was so easy, and we never figured it out until
> Ray Gordon came along.

"easy" to figure out how is one thing; easy to DO is another.

Computers have made chess improvement a simple task to figure out, and they
demonstrate the correct way to destroy a GM within thirty moves.

That was not my doing.

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

Date: 10 May 2006 14:19:09
From: Skeptic
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Listing the actual moves you are talking about, and for which side,
would
help."

Why should he? After all, he's speaking to RAY GORDON,
super-opening-genius. Surely you know all those moves by heart and
don't need to look them up.

Date: 11 May 2006 05:08:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> "Listing the actual moves you are talking about, and for which side,
> would
> help."
>
> Why should he? After all, he's speaking to RAY GORDON,
> super-opening-genius. Surely you know all those moves by heart and
> don't need to look them up.

When they are properly referenced, that might be the case.

E60 lists several openings, and it doesn't occur if White plays 1. e4.

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

Date: 11 May 2006 12:08:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> "Listing the actual moves you are talking about, and for which side,
>> would
>> help."
>>
>> Why should he? After all, he's speaking to RAY GORDON,
>> super-opening-genius. Surely you know all those moves by heart and
>> don't need to look them up.
>
> When they are properly referenced, that might be the case.
>
> E60 lists several openings, and it doesn't occur if White plays 1. e4.

What I wrote is that even very booked up people get thrown by E60 at move 3!
And continue to be surprised through move 8 or so. Your response Ray seems
to confirm what I wrote is true.

Somewhere along the way these introductory comments were snipped. And yes,
you can't play E60 against 1.e4. are are stuck playing the simple-minded old
Pelikan.

Phil Innes

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

Date: 11 May 2006 12:26:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> When they are properly referenced, that might be the case.
>>
>> E60 lists several openings, and it doesn't occur if White plays 1. e4.
>
> What I wrote is that even very booked up people get thrown by E60 at move
> 3!

If they do, they aren't very strong in the opening. I mean, if you consider
letting White build a huge center unopposed to be "throwing him off," maybe
he is. I just thank Black for the free ride.

> And continue to be surprised through move 8 or so. Your response Ray seems
> to confirm what I wrote is true.

What's the surprise? There are several solid formations for White against
that setup that don't require much if a player is schooled in formations.

> Somewhere along the way these introductory comments were snipped. And yes,
> you can't play E60 against 1.e4. are are stuck playing the simple-minded
> old Pelikan.

What makes you think I'd ever allow you to play a Pelikan against 1. e4?

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

Date: 11 May 2006 16:40:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> When they are properly referenced, that might be the case.
>>>
>>> E60 lists several openings, and it doesn't occur if White plays 1. e4.
>>
>> What I wrote is that even very booked up people get thrown by E60 at move
>> 3!
>
> If they do, they aren't very strong in the opening.

Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right? Trained Kasparov,
and Leko - in fact Leko plays it. You want to try a few moves with me? Phil

> I mean, if you consider letting White build a huge center unopposed to be
> "throwing him off," maybe he is. I just thank Black for the free ride.
>
>
>> And continue to be surprised through move 8 or so. Your response Ray
>> seems to confirm what I wrote is true.
>
> What's the surprise? There are several solid formations for White against
> that setup that don't require much if a player is schooled in formations.
>
>
>> Somewhere along the way these introductory comments were snipped. And
>> yes, you can't play E60 against 1.e4. are are stuck playing the
>> simple-minded old Pelikan.
>
> What makes you think I'd ever allow you to play a Pelikan against 1. e4?

If you don't play d4 at move 3, I already take that as equal for black.

Phil

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

Date: 12 May 2006 12:24:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
> Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right? Trained
> Kasparov, and Leko - in fact Leko plays it.

I notice you snipped the part of Ray's response where he asked you to
back up that last assertion so I'll ask again. Neither the Fritz 8
database (which, admittedly, only covers up to 2002) nor
chessgames.com (which, admittedly, has only about 390,000 games) has
any games where Leko plays the White side of any system in E60. Could
you post a couple of examples?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Boss (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ middle manager but it's invigorating!

Date: 16 May 2006 19:17:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right? Trained
>> Kasparov, and Leko - in fact Leko plays it.
>
> I notice you snipped the part of Ray's response where he asked you to
> back up that last assertion so I'll ask again. Neither the Fritz 8
> database (which, admittedly, only covers up to 2002) nor
> chessgames.com (which, admittedly, has only about 390,000 games) has
> any games where Leko plays the White side of any system in E60. Could
> you post a couple of examples?

Leko is one of the most stubborn and booked-up opening players in the world,
as his work with the Pelikan attests. He probably plays the black side of
that oepning better than anyone, and has won games against even the likes of
Anand with it. Even there, however, both players are long out of book by
move 20-25, which goes to show that even the world's best players can't
solve a main line. Still, when they beat each other, it's usually through
superior opening play that is then converted into a win through superior
finishing technique.

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

Date: 12 May 2006 13:05:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:MtF*[email protected]...
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right? Trained
>> Kasparov, and Leko - in fact Leko plays it.
>
> I notice you snipped the part of Ray's response where he asked you to
> back up that last assertion so I'll ask again. Neither the Fritz 8
> database (which, admittedly, only covers up to 2002) nor
> chessgames.com (which, admittedly, has only about 390,000 games) has
> any games where Leko plays the White side of any system in E60.

It would be black side, and I am not sure games are published! Unfortunately
to divert in this direction is to miss the point that E60 is almost unknown.

> Could
> you post a couple of examples?

I think they are on a disk[ette!] i have from AA with Hungarian text. Maybe
i am mistaken? Perhaps these are only repetoire preparations and not
gamescores and I made a mistake? If you have 'forever' the Chapter is
'interupted by darkness' pages 63-66, being all analysis rather than game
score, and where the lines are unattributed. AA certainly played a bunch of
training matches with his protege.

There is a clear TN in the game following that, Kasparov Leko at move 8,
Linares 99 - and if not for the weak move at 30, black would have sunk
Gary's chances.

My point to Ray Gordon is that even top players innovate very early on, and
very many lines that we think 'equivocal' or 'unclear' are only because we
haven't figured them out! And this factor massively amplifies the amount of
opening theory.

Phil

> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Mentholated Boss (TM): it's like
> a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ middle manager but it's
> invigorating!

Date: 16 May 2006 19:23:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> There is a clear TN in the game following that, Kasparov Leko at move 8,
> Linares 99 - and if not for the weak move at 30, black would have sunk
> Gary's chances.
>
> My point to Ray Gordon is that even top players innovate very early on,
> and very many lines that we think 'equivocal' or 'unclear' are only
> because we haven't figured them out! And this factor massively amplifies
> the amount of opening theory.

Yes, they do "innovate" if you mean they haven't played the moves against
top competition in recorded, rated games. That doesn't mean they haven't
run it through the machines or tried it on the servers before then, however.

Many "new" moves were also discarded in the past when played by weak
players, or when not properly followed up by stronger ones.

I use a formation-oriented approach to the opening that makes it all but
impossible to take me "out of book" because even if my large memory of
specific variations fails me, I always have formations and the analysis of
those to guide me, and they form a "book" all their own.

I don't just select openings: I have an entire repertoire that is
interlocked, highly transpositional (to reduce study time and increase the
average time spent in book in a given game), and where I've covered just
about every move I'm ever likely to see in the first dozen or so moves, and
most of the logical ones through about move 17-18.

Until someone reaches the point where they know that no matter who they are
playing, even if it's Kasparov, Leko, Anand, or Polgar, they will be even or
better one or two dozen moves into the game, regardless of color, they don't
know what it means to be strong in the opening. If GMs get "creative"
against me in the opening, they lose the main advantage they have of being a
GM, which is that they'll win an equal or better middlegame, but that
doesn't mean they won't draw or lose an inferior one.

Even Secretariat can lose if he lets the leader stay loose too late into the
race. Weak chessplayers tend to get brave and temporarily much stronger
than their ratings if you let them hang around too long.

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

Date: 12 May 2006 15:35:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neither the Fritz 8 database (which, admittedly, only covers up to
>> 2002) nor chessgames.com (which, admittedly, has only about 390,000
>> games) has any games where Leko plays the White side of any system
>> in E60.
>
> It would be black side, and I am not sure games are published

Ah. Somehow I got the impression that you were talking about an
opening decision by White. There are, as I recall, four games on
chessgames.com with Leko playing the black side of things classified
E60, but I can't get through to the site at the moment.

It would, I think, have been helpful if you'd said exactly what moves
you were talking about: E60 covers a multitude of sins and is,
essentially, `Weird stuff in the King's Indian', including lines where
Black tries to play the KID against things like 1.b4.

> My point to Ray Gordon is that even top players innovate very early
> on, and very many lines that we think 'equivocal' or 'unclear' are
> only because we haven't figured them out!

Indeed.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Surprise Pointy-Haired Boss (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a middle manager that's
completely clueless but not like
you'd expect!

Date: 12 May 2006 18:36:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3PD*[email protected]...
> Chess One <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Neither the Fritz 8 database (which, admittedly, only covers up to
>>> 2002) nor chessgames.com (which, admittedly, has only about 390,000
>>> games) has any games where Leko plays the White side of any system
>>> in E60.
>>
>> It would be black side, and I am not sure games are published
>
> Ah. Somehow I got the impression that you were talking about an
> opening decision by White. There are, as I recall, four games on
> chessgames.com with Leko playing the black side of things classified
> E60, but I can't get through to the site at the moment.
>
> It would, I think, have been helpful if you'd said exactly what moves
> you were talking about: E60 covers a multitude of sins and is,

true, true all very true - these games are stems from 3...e5

> essentially, `Weird stuff in the King's Indian', including lines where
> Black tries to play the KID against things like 1.b4.

?

4. now e4 for white is numb, usual white moves at 4 are Bg5 and dxe5

>
>> My point to Ray Gordon is that even top players innovate very early
>> on, and very many lines that we think 'equivocal' or 'unclear' are
>> only because we haven't figured them out!
>
> Indeed.

While I think this is true, I must admit that Timman and Adorjan said them
first. I just didn't want to 'get-off' into more authoritarianism.

PS: thanks to TK for finding a Leko black with 3...e5. I still haven't
looked it up, and am unsure if this computer even has a diskette drive ;)!

Phil

> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Surprise Pointy-Haired Boss
> (TM):
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a middle manager
> that's
> completely clueless but not
> like
> you'd expect!

Date: 11 May 2006 14:50:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>>> E60 lists several openings, and it doesn't occur if White plays 1. e4.
>>>
>>> What I wrote is that even very booked up people get thrown by E60 at
>>> move 3!
>>
>> If they do, they aren't very strong in the opening.
>
> Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right?

The guy who got his ass whupped by Fischer?

>Trained Kasparov, and Leko - in fact Leko plays it. You want to try a few
>moves with me? Phil

WHERE does Leko play it and AGAINST WHOM?

Leko plays it because he can get away with brain-dead openings. That
doesn't mean he'd not be stronger if he didn't fuck around like that.

There is NO opening that is sound if it allows White's first three moves to
be e4, d4, and c4, without penalty.

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

Date: 11 May 2006 19:04:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>> E60 lists several openings, and it doesn't occur if White plays 1. e4.
>>>>
>>>> What I wrote is that even very booked up people get thrown by E60 at
>>>> move 3!
>>>
>>> If they do, they aren't very strong in the opening.
>>
>> Gordon! This is Adorjan's move! You know who he is, right?
>
> The guy who got his ass whupped by Fischer?
>
>
>>Trained Kasparov, and Leko - in fact Leko plays it. You want to try a few
>>moves with me? Phil
>
> WHERE does Leko play it and AGAINST WHOM?
>
> Leko plays it because he can get away with brain-dead openings. That
> doesn't mean he'd not be stronger if he didn't fuck around like that.
>
> There is NO opening that is sound if it allows White's first three moves
> to be e4, d4, and c4, without penalty.

You wouldn't even try it against me, Ace?

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 e5

My point is that being booked up is a very relative term. This is merely a
TN at move 3, I could go to 2 later. Do you want to play 4 e4? Or vary? And
have you ever seen this formation before?

Phil

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

Date: 16 May 2006 19:15:14
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> There is NO opening that is sound if it allows White's first three moves
>> to be e4, d4, and c4, without penalty.
>
> You wouldn't even try it against me, Ace?
>
> 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 e5
>
> My point is that being booked up is a very relative term. This is merely a
> TN at move 3, I could go to 2 later. Do you want to play 4 e4? Or vary?
> And have you ever seen this formation before?

If someone is booked up properly, they will include every possible reply
(even the bad ones) for the first few moves of the game, so I wouldn't call
it a novelty. 3...e5 is a gambit move that would have to be explored if one
were to allow that position.

My reks were about openings that give White an unopposed three-pawn
center. 3...e5 is hardly "unopposing."

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

Date: 17 May 2006 09:38:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> If someone is booked up properly, they will include every possible
> reply (even the bad ones) for the first few moves of the game, so I
> wouldn't call it a novelty.

That's already at least 2x20^3 = 16,000 lines for the first three
moves for each colour. If I had 16,000 lines to spend, I'd much
rather learn something interesting like the Najdorf than the exact
best reply to 1.a4 2.Na3 3.h4 etc.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Unholy Windows (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a graphical user interface but it's
also a crime against nature and it'll
eat you!

Date: 17 May 2006 16:23:51
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
(replying to Ray)

> That's already at least 2x20^3 = 16,000 lines for the first three
> moves for each colour. If I had 16,000 lines to spend, I'd much
> rather learn something interesting like the Najdorf than the exact
> best reply to 1.a4 2.Na3 3.h4 etc.
>
> Dave.

Dave, ... only a little correction:

it's not approx 2x(20^3) but (20^3)^2 =64,000,000 for 3 moves

I'm sure it was only a swerve/slip.

Antonio
PS: Ray hardly can understand that.
;-)

Date: 17 May 2006 16:46:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
>En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
>> That's already at least 2x20^3 = 16,000 lines for the first three
>> moves for each colour. If I had 16,000 lines to spend, I'd much
>> rather learn something interesting like the Najdorf than the exact
>> best reply to 1.a4 2.Na3 3.h4 etc.
>
> Dave, ... only a little correction:
>
> it's not approx 2x(20^3) but (20^3)^2 =64,000,000 for 3 moves
>
> I'm sure it was only a swerve/slip.

Actually, my calculation was right. :-) The tree only branches at my
opponent's move and I have separate trees for white and black.

I don't need to know the best move in every position that can occur
after my opponent's first, second and third move: I just need to know
the ones that can result given the moves I will play. So, since I
always play 1.d4, I don't need to know how to respond to 1.e4 c5
because Black can never play the Sicilian against me. If my opponent
plays 1... Nf6, I always play 2.c4 so I don't need to know anything
about 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 and so on, as White. However, as Black, I always
respond to 1.d4 with Nf6 so then I need to know what move I'll play in
response to each of White's options after 1.d4 Nf6, including 1.d4 Nf6
2.Nf3.

Does that make sense or have I just made things even more confusing?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Cheese Projector (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a 16mm film projector that's
made of cheese but it could explode
at any minute!

Date: 10 May 2006 22:56:26
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Nick wrote:
>
> I have removed the cross-posting to RGCM and RGCP.

I've reinstated this post to RGCM..

>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > > > > An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
> > > >
> > > > Ron wrote:
> > > > > This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard
> > > > > written about chess.
>
> Evidently, Ron has not been reading rec.games.chess.*
> for long enough. 'Absurd things' about chess are often
> being written in rec.games.chess.*
>
> For example, in the November 2003 RGCP thread,
> 'Sportsmanship and pre-arranged results', Mike Murray
> vehemently argued that there's a close analogy between
> chess and American football. Several writers (including
> me) pointed out that Mike Murray's analogy is poor.
> Mike Murray refused to admit error and he began writing
> more and more dishonest distortions and personal attacks
> against me in particular in his attempts to cover up his errors.
> (Anyone who's interested can read the complete thread
> in the Google archives.)
>
> > > Ralf Callenberg wrote:
> > > > Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.
> > >
> > > A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication [etc.]
> >
> > Thanks. Well I have to agree, in this case the comparison is indeed
> > complete nonsense. I have not the slightest idea on what it could be
> > based.
>
> Like some other American writers, Ray Gordon likes to make
> comparisons between chess and some American sports.
> Ralf Callenberg could retaliate by making a comparison
> between chess and football (soccer). :-)
>
> --Nick

Date: 09 May 2006 17:14:29
From: Nick
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Zero wrote:
> Why does he say to start first with endgames
> when the opening comes first ?

I cannot speak on behalf of Capablanca.

But endgame theory's much less likely
than opening theory to become outdated.
Endgame study is more likely than opening
study to be of *lasting value* to a player.

Let's suppose that Boris spends 100 hours
studying the Sicilian Defence's Polugaevsky
Variation, while Natasha spends 100 hours
studying rook endgames. Then Boris plays
the Polugaevsky Variation and discovers that it
has a theoretical problem that he cannot solve.
So Boris decides to quit the Polugaevsky Variation.
Natasha's investment of 100 hours in chess study
would have been far more productive.

--Nick

Date: 10 May 2006 23:01:50
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Nick wrote:
>
> Zero wrote:
> > Why does he say to start first with endgames
> > when the opening comes first ?
>
> I cannot speak on behalf of Capablanca.
>
> But endgame theory's much less likely
> than opening theory to become outdated.
> Endgame study is more likely than opening
> study to be of *lasting value* to a player.
>
> Let's suppose that Boris spends 100 hours
> studying the Sicilian Defence's Polugaevsky
> Variation, while Natasha spends 100 hours
> studying rook endgames. Then Boris plays
> the Polugaevsky Variation and discovers that it
> has a theoretical problem that he cannot solve.
> So Boris decides to quit the Polugaevsky Variation.
> Natasha's investment of 100 hours in chess study
> would have been far more productive.
>
> --Nick

I've also reinstated this post to rgcm..

Date: 09 May 2006 14:44:42
From: Nick
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

I have removed the cross-posting to RGCM and RGCP.

[email protected] wrote:
> > > > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > > > An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
> > >
> > > Ron wrote:
> > > > This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard
> > > > written about chess.

Evidently, Ron has not been reading rec.games.chess.*
for long enough. 'Absurd things' about chess are often
being written in rec.games.chess.*

For example, in the November 2003 RGCP thread,
'Sportsmanship and pre-arranged results', Mike Murray
vehemently argued that there's a close analogy between
chess and American football. Several writers (including
me) pointed out that Mike Murray's analogy is poor.
Mike Murray refused to admit error and he began writing
more and more dishonest distortions and personal attacks
against me in particular in his attempts to cover up his errors.
(Anyone who's interested can read the complete thread
in the Google archives.)

> > Ralf Callenberg wrote:
> > > Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.
> >
> > A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication [etc.]
>
> Thanks. Well I have to agree, in this case the comparison is indeed
> complete nonsense. I have not the slightest idea on what it could be
> based.

Like some other American writers, Ray Gordon likes to make
comparisons between chess and some American sports.
Ralf Callenberg could retaliate by making a comparison
between chess and football (soccer). :-)

--Nick

Date: 09 May 2006 14:00:26
From:
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> > > > An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
> > >
> > > This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
> > > chess.
> >
> > Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.
>
> A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication [etc.]

Thanks. Well I have to agree, in this case the comparison is indeed
complete nonsense. I have not the slightest idea on what it could be
based.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 11 May 2006 16:48:35
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

<[email protected] > wrote:
>>>>> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>>
>> A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication
>> [etc.]
>
> Thanks. Well I have to agree, in this case the comparison is indeed
> complete nonsense. I have not the slightest idea on what it could be
> based.

Fundamental misconception, I think.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Poetic Tree (TM): it's like a tree
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's in verse!

Date: 09 May 2006 12:26:26
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ron schrieb:

> > An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>
> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
> chess.

Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 11 May 2006 16:47:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ron schrieb:
>>> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>>
>> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
>> chess.
>
> Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

It's the part where each team has only defenders and maybe a couple of
attackers and play focuses on getting one of the defenders to the
other end of the field so they can become an attacker, rather than on
directly checkmating the opponent's coach.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Poetic Cyber-Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven that exists only
in your computer but it's in verse!

Date: 12 May 2006 00:24:30
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

11.05.2006 17:47, David Richerby:

> It's the part where each team has only defenders and maybe a couple of
> attackers and play focuses on getting one of the defenders to the
> other end of the field so they can become an attacker, rather than on
> directly checkmating the opponent's coach.

Yeah, assumed something in this direction but was not quite sure.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 09 May 2006 20:18:33
From: Ron
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Ron schrieb:
>
> > > An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
> >
> > This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
> > chess.
>
> Time to ask: what is a "broken play"? I am not sure about the meaning.

A broken play is what happens when there's a miscommunication, so the
players are running different plays, or don't understand what their
assignments are and have to guess.

Usually when this happens the defense makes a quick tackle for a loss or
no gain, but because of the chaos on the field, sometimes an
improvisational player can make something beautiful and wonderful
happen.

-Ron

Date: 09 May 2006 10:35:17
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>
A Ray Gordon is like a cracked pot in a china factory.

Charles

Date: 09 May 2006 13:46:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>>
> A Ray Gordon is like a cracked pot in a china factory.

I guess "Charles" is another one of those wimps who can't let his aggression
out any other way.

Pity the eunuch.

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

Date: 09 May 2006 11:44:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
> first ?

Very basic endgames are necessary.

What's also necessary is learning how to win a clearly won ending even more
than knowing what to do in an equal one.

An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

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

Date: 09 May 2006 22:12:21
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ray Gordon wrote:
>>Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
>>first ?
>
>
> Very basic endgames are necessary.
>
> What's also necessary is learning how to win a clearly won ending even more
> than knowing what to do in an equal one.

So you'd rather avoid drawing a won game instead of avoiding to lose
drawn ones?

And you wouldn't like to have a good chance of saving lost positions?
Oh, I forget you of course would never have any of those. Well, hardly ever.

> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>

It's the logical result of a lot of chess games.

And try to evaluate the following position (white to play) and find
either the winning move(s), the drawing move(s) or the move(s) offering
the best chance of swindling black (if the position is lost):
1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6

Good luck with that with just "very basic" endgame knowledge + tons of
opening theory ;). I suppose maybe your computer can help you...

--Bj�rn

Date: 09 May 2006 17:13:17
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> 1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
> wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6

Oops, it's not just FEN.

The question, however, is how can you reliably count on getting that
position in a game?

In the opening, you can stay in book for a dozen or more moves, playing
familiar moves every step of the way.

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

Date: 11 May 2006 16:56:36
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> 1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
>> wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6
>
> Oops, it's not just FEN.
>
> The question, however, is how can you reliably count on getting that
> position in a game?

How can you reliably count on getting the position after fifteen moves
in your favourite line in the Sicilian defence in a game?

Jeez, you're the guy who keeps saying he studies `formations'...

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Impossible Gnome
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like a smiling garden
ornament but it can't exist and it's
invigorating!

Date: 09 May 2006 23:35:21
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ray Gordon wrote:
>>1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
>>wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6
>
>
> Oops, it's not just FEN.

Indeed, easy enough to set up in your computer program using copy and
past of the FEN & easy to set up on your board using the second line.

>
> The question, however, is how can you reliably count on getting that
> position in a game?

You can't. I had this position (actually as black) and I've never had
another particularly similar position.

> In the opening, you can stay in book for a dozen or more moves, playing
> familiar moves every step of the way.

Ah, that's the whole point I've been trying to make:

Learn chess not openings, then you'll have success in positions for
which you are not "booked up" - which in practice will be most of the
positions occuring during your games (although you may end up with
familiar structures in the middlegame, but understanding those is also a
more general chess skill than the "being booked up" and "knowing X extra
moves of theory" that you are so enthusiastic about).

--Bj�rn

Date: 09 May 2006 17:39:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> In the opening, you can stay in book for a dozen or more moves, playing
>> familiar moves every step of the way.
>
> Ah, that's the whole point I've been trying to make:
>
> Learn chess not openings, then you'll have success in positions for which
> you are not "booked up" - which in practice will be most of the positions
> occuring during your games (although you may end up with familiar
> structures in the middlegame, but understanding those is also a more
> general chess skill than the "being booked up" and "knowing X extra moves
> of theory" that you are so enthusiastic about).

Ah, but you forget that all-important part of the game where YOU are "out of
book" but I am NOT.

That means YOU will be stuck in a position that I have analyzed for dozens
of hours or even more, and played many, many times. That is when a
chessplayer is most vulnerable. The first mistake often loses a chessgame,
especially at the higher levels, and almost always with computers. Is there
a reason I shouldn't emulate what are obviously the strongest players in
history?

The endgames that result from outbooking your opponent are going to require
far less technical skill than the ones where the opposite is true. From a
rating standpoint, your rating will be higher for any level of "chess
ability" the longer your book runs, simply because you will get to use your
opening book 100 percent of the time, where you might not even live to see
the endgame if you are strong there.

Horses who come from off the pace generally need something to run at. If
the leader gets too far ahead, too easily, he simply won't be caught.

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

Date: 10 May 2006 17:14:41
From: Dr A. N. Walker
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

In article <[email protected] >,
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
["r.g.c.p" snipped -- ANW]
>Ah, but you forget that all-important part of the game where YOU are "out of
>book" but I am NOT.
>That means YOU will be stuck in a position that I have analyzed for dozens
>of hours or even more, and played many, many times.

Can we just put some numbers on this? Let us allow for
hyperbole by assuming that "dozens of hours" means just one hour,
and let us ignore the several hundred minutes per day that you
claim to spend playing bullet. Then you can, by your claim of
spending 72 hours per week studying, analyse 72 positions per week,
so less than 40000 in a decade. You will need a repertoire for
White and one for Black, you will surely need some reserve opening
lines, and you will surely have analysed some positions that turn
out to be duds. So you have, at most, some 10000 analysed positions
in, say, your mainstream repertoire as White after [eg] 1 e4. That
will last you out to move 3 for a complete analysis, about move 4 or
at most 5 for analysis of all non-utterly-stupid moves, and about
move 8 or 9 for analysis of all reasonably good moves.

IOW, "completely booked up" to move 20, let alone 30, is a
chimera. Cut that "one hour per position" down to about 3 minutes,
and you might get to move 11. But, of course, 3 minutes per move
is about what you get during a serious game. For that matter, one
hour per position is very probably less than serious correspondence
players are going to spend on their games. IOW [again], you might
just as well get a lot of your study in by playing actual serious
games.

[It may be different in other countries, but in the UK, almost
all serious chess is played in the evening, over a weekend, or during
a holiday, so your claim that serious chess is expensive would most
certainly not be true here.]

> That is when a
>chessplayer is most vulnerable. [...]

Note that even if you are "fully booked", you are going to
find yourself on the other side of this assertion quite often. For
otherwise, the implication is not that you know openings "in general"
better than the opponent but that you know "almost all" openings
better. Many of us have our own specialisms, lines that we understand
very well even if other bits of our knowledge are more shaky. When
you play such a player, there is a significant amount of "luck" in
whether it is you or your opponent that understands the particular
line better. This happens even to strong GMs, as we can see in WC
matches and also in the fact that modern opening encyclopaedias are
collaborative efforts.

So the question is really -- is it more productive to spend
time learning about particular positions [most of which are never
going to arise in your putative GM practice], or to spend a lot of
that same time learning more general principles? Different players
will, for good reasons, use their time differently.

>The endgames that result from outbooking your opponent are going to require
>far less technical skill than the ones where the opposite is true.

Evidence? ISTM just as technically difficult to rescue a bad
ending against a determined opponent as to push home a good one against
the same determination.

> From a
>rating standpoint, your rating will be higher for any level of "chess
>ability" the longer your book runs, simply because you will get to use your
>opening book 100 percent of the time, where you might not even live to see
>the endgame if you are strong there.

In any particular game, you will get to use some 0.1% of your
"fully booked" analysis. Generic understanding of [eg] R&P endings
may be useless in 90% of your games, but in the remaining 10%, it may
have a 50% chance of changing the result. Go figure.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]

Date: 10 May 2006 03:14:26
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

09.05.2006 23:39, Ray Gordon:

> That means YOU will be stuck in a position that I have analyzed for dozens
> of hours or even more, and played many, many times.

Not necessarily. It is impossible to cover all opening systems and
memorize them.

>The first mistake often loses a chessgame, especially at the higher
levels,

Everybody knows that the *last* mistake loses. Even on highest level the
game goes back and forth, it is rarely already decided in the opening,
even if one side had an advantage. Look at Svidler-Topalov at the recent
Morelia/Linares. Around move 15 according to Svidler they are out of
book. Topalov plays a bit over aggressive, but still kept the balance,
Svidler had only slight advantage. In time trouble Topalov makes an
error resulting in an endgame with advantage for Svidler. Yet, Topalov
came up with some study like defense. It needed a world class player
like Svidler to still keep the edge. The outcome of this game had nearly
nothing to do with mistakes in the opening. On the other hand have a
look at the game Gurevich-Akobian from the last US-championship. White
has a won rook-pawn ending. Yet by weak playing he not only drifted into
a draw but even spoiled it into a loss. What happened in the opening
lost its meaning. Or talking about endgames. Look at Topalov-Leko in
Morelia/Linares. Both are prepared until around move 18. From there they
go more or less directly into an endgame, where Topalov had no clear
advantage. It were mistakes by Leko in the endgame and strong playing of
Topalov in this phase, which decided the game. All the opening
preparation shows worthless if the player is not able to play the
middlegame - and in these examples the endgame strongly as well.

> The endgames that result from outbooking your opponent are going to require
> far less technical skill than the ones where the opposite is true.

Only if the advantage is already decisive. This is rarely the case, even
when one side is outbooked. You really should go out and gather some
more experience outside of this Mickey Mouse bullet chess. Play
regularly in tournaments against players starting with 2200 and above.
You might see, that very often you will simply not be able to keep your
advantage. Yes, the strong opening preparation gives you an edge, you
will gather some points just because of it, but to make it really a big
step from the amateurs level you have to know a lot about the middle
game, its strategy - and of the end game. As long as this is not in
balance, you will not be a strong player.

> From a
> rating standpoint, your rating will be higher for any level of "chess
> ability" the longer your book runs, simply because you will get to use your
> opening book 100 percent of the time,

That a strong opening is of advantage is no question (not to stir any
irritation I just say, you are overrating this advantage), but you will
not cover 100 percent of the time. Every preparation is incomplete and
you simply can not know any refutation to all possible moves. Mistakes
in the middlegame usually prevent the step into the endgame, not in the
opening. I played a few hundred tournament games the last 10 years,
opponents usually in the range between 1800 and 2200. Only a fraction I
lost or won already in the opening, although I am quite weak in opening
preparation. The decisive errors always came later.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 10 May 2006 10:56:24
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> That means YOU will be stuck in a position that I have analyzed for
>> dozens of hours or even more, and played many, many times.
>
> Not necessarily. It is impossible to cover all opening systems and
> memorize them.

Just as impossible to do with all endgames, but there are some shortcuts.

> >The first mistake often loses a chessgame, especially at the higher
> levels,
>
> Everybody knows that the *last* mistake loses.

The *first* mistake is often the *last* mistake that matters.

>Even on highest level the game goes back and forth, it is rarely already
>decided in the opening,

Kasparov said otherwise, that 90 percent of modern chess was based on
opening play.

> even if one side had an advantage. Look at Svidler-Topalov at the recent
> Morelia/Linares. Around move 15 according to Svidler they are out of book.

Or so he wants us to think. Active players generally can't be relied up on
for analysis (according to one ex-champion).

>Topalov plays a bit over aggressive, but still kept the balance, Svidler
>had only slight advantage. In time trouble Topalov makes an error resulting
>in an endgame with advantage for Svidler. Yet, Topalov came up with some
>study like defense. It needed a world class player like Svidler to still
>keep the edge. The outcome of this game had nearly nothing to do with
>mistakes in the opening.

Odds are a computer would have defeated either player long before the
ending.

>On the other hand have a look at the game Gurevich-Akobian from the last
>US-championship. White has a won rook-pawn ending. Yet by weak playing he
>not only drifted into a draw but even spoiled it into a loss. What happened
>in the opening lost its meaning. Or talking about endgames. Look at
>Topalov-Leko in Morelia/Linares. Both are prepared until around move 18.
>From there they go more or less directly into an endgame, where Topalov had
>no clear advantage. It were mistakes by Leko in the endgame and strong
>playing of Topalov in this phase, which decided the game.

Only after the opening battle was tied.

>All the opening preparation shows worthless if the player is not able to
>play the middlegame - and in these examples the endgame strongly as well.

It's not worthless to fend off a super-GM in the opening to get to an equal
endgame.

>> The endgames that result from outbooking your opponent are going to
>> require far less technical skill than the ones where the opposite is
>> true.
>
> Only if the advantage is already decisive. This is rarely the case, even
> when one side is outbooked.

Depends on who is doing the outbooking. Fischer won many games out of the
opening through superior preparation.

>You really should go out and gather some more experience outside of this
>Mickey Mouse bullet chess. Play regularly in tournaments against players
>starting with 2200 and above. You might see, that very often you will
>simply not be able to keep your advantage. Yes, the strong opening
>preparation gives you an edge, you will gather some points just because of
>it, but to make it really a big step from the amateurs level you have to
>know a lot about the middle game, its strategy - and of the end game. As
>long as this is not in balance, you will not be a strong player.

Your attacks on bullet chess aside, I never said the other parts of the game
are unimportant, only that they are LESS important than the opening.

>> From a rating standpoint, your rating will be higher for any level of
>> "chess ability" the longer your book runs, simply because you will get to
>> use your opening book 100 percent of the time,
>
> That a strong opening is of advantage is no question (not to stir any
> irritation I just say, you are overrating this advantage), but you will
> not cover 100 percent of the time. Every preparation is incomplete and you
> simply can not know any refutation to all possible moves.

One cannot do that in the endgame either.

>Mistakes in the middlegame usually prevent the step into the endgame, not
>in the opening. I played a few hundred tournament games the last 10 years,
>opponents usually in the range between 1800 and 2200. Only a fraction I
>lost or won already in the opening, although I am quite weak in opening
>preparation. The decisive errors always came later.

I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY.

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

Date: 10 May 2006 22:58:40
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

10.05.2006 16:56, Ray Gordon:

>
> Kasparov said otherwise, that 90 percent of modern chess was based on
> opening play.

Openings are important, no question. And as a top player you need top
preparation. This is quite different from chess a few generations ago.
But I don't think that Kasparov thinks that the game is decided so
early. Why did he chose such untypical openings when playing against
Deep Blue? I am pretty sure, that his opening preparation was much
better than that of the Deep Blue team. Why did he not rely on it and
play his usual game? Instead he played stuff which was very untypical
for him. The reason: he knew that whatever advantage he would get in
those sharp openings he usually played would be worthless against the
silicon monster.

>> even if one side had an advantage. Look at Svidler-Topalov at the recent
>> Morelia/Linares. Around move 15 according to Svidler they are out of book.
>
> Or so he wants us to think. Active players generally can't be relied up on
> for analysis

Players don't want to give away all their secrets. This is clear. But
why should he be not open about when they left the books? All GMs have
an idea around which move they and their colleagues are out of book.
Svidler is not somebody who is likely to face an average patzer in some
open. So what sense would it make to pretend something else?

> Odds are a computer would have defeated either player long before the
> ending.

Yes, but not based on their opening knowledge but based on their
superior tactical abilities in the game - when the GM has left his
opening preparation. This might also have been one of the reasons of the
Hydra - people to trim down the opening book of Hydra. The GM will just
stand longer on proven ground.

>> It were mistakes by Leko in the endgame and strong
>> playing of Topalov in this phase, which decided the game.
>
> Only after the opening battle was tied.

Sure but it doesn't contradict what I said: the game was not decided by
the opening. You could have chosen the colors after move 18 or so,
either Leko or Topalov would have won against you.

>> All the opening preparation shows worthless if the player is not able to
>> play the middlegame - and in these examples the endgame strongly as well.
>
> It's not worthless to fend off a super-GM in the opening to get to an equal
> endgame.

Yes, but if you lose quickly afterwards? I find it always funny if weak
player are proud about the number of moves they made against me before
they lost, as if this would indicate anything. A short game can be much
more challenging than a long one, if in the first I was on the risk of
loosing and in the second I was just using routine.

I met a very extreme example of a player when I was a teenager. A boy
came to our club. It was the first time he started playing tournament
chess. At home he had intensively studied openings for years before. It
was amazing how much he knew about openings, about problems (mate in 10
and such things). But actually he was a complete patzer. His playing
strength was that of a beginner. So when we played against him, the
first 5 to 10 moves were from the books. We quickly put our moves onto
the board and we knew: the moment he is out of book, he is lost, no
matter what is on the board. So, that he knew all this moves and the
game took a few moves longer than it would have been without, didn't
change the slightest thing. He simply didn't had not even a 1% chance
against the others.

> Depends on who is doing the outbooking. Fischer won many games out of the
> opening through superior preparation.

No doubt. Besides that he had a brilliant strategy, was strong in
tactics and velous in endings. He probably won most of his games
based on those feats.

> Your attacks on bullet chess aside, I never said the other parts of the game
> are unimportant, only that they are LESS important than the opening.

Well, listening to you they seem to be only a minor aspect. A "broken play".

>> Every preparation is incomplete and you
>> simply can not know any refutation to all possible moves.
>
> One cannot do that in the endgame either.

That's why you have to get the general patterns of endgames.

> I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY.

Maybe. Others play hundreds of games of tetris a day. I am solely
talking about tournament chess here, not some derivatives.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 11 May 2006 05:34:17
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> Kasparov said otherwise, that 90 percent of modern chess was based on
>> opening play.
>
> Openings are important, no question. And as a top player you need top
> preparation. This is quite different from chess a few generations ago.

shall-Capablanca suggests otherwise.

> But I don't think that Kasparov thinks that the game is decided so early.

He was quoted in one of my Chess Life issues from the 1980s about this, and
has said it I believe in one of his books.

>Why did he chose such untypical openings when playing against Deep Blue?

Fear, and the mistaken notion that the computer needed its opening book to
beat him.

>I am pretty sure, that his opening preparation was much better than that of
>the Deep Blue team. Why did he not rely on it and play his usual game?

Stupidity.

>Instead he played stuff which was very untypical for him. The reason: he
>knew that whatever advantage he would get in those sharp openings he
>usually played would be worthless against the silicon monster.

Too bad he didn't try to find out. He may have been wrong. It's not like
he found a better idea anyway.

>>> even if one side had an advantage. Look at Svidler-Topalov at the recent
>>> Morelia/Linares. Around move 15 according to Svidler they are out of
>>> book.
>>
>> Or so he wants us to think. Active players generally can't be relied up
>> on for analysis
>
> Players don't want to give away all their secrets. This is clear. But why
> should he be not open about when they left the books? All GMs have an idea
> around which move they and their colleagues are out of book. Svidler is
> not somebody who is likely to face an average patzer in some open. So what
> sense would it make to pretend something else?

To let future opponents underestimate him, of course.

(This is considered part and parcel when GMs analyze each other's writings;
ulterior motives can always be present; not that they are here, but one
should act as if they could be.).

>> Odds are a computer would have defeated either player long before the
>> ending.
>
> Yes, but not based on their opening knowledge but based on their superior
> tactical abilities in the game - when the GM has left his opening
> preparation.

If the GM's opening preparation leaves him tactically vulnerable, according
to Steinitz, that would be weak preparation (relatively speaking).

A human could beat a GM the exact same way, and Kasparov in fact did that
for years. That's how he beat Karpov to keep his title, in fact.

>This might also have been one of the reasons of the Hydra - people to trim
>down the opening book of Hydra. The GM will just stand longer on proven
>ground.

Or so they think. A lot depends upon the ground upon which the GM stands.
The other flaw in this thinking is that cutting Hydra's opening book does
not cut mine. Computers are *extremely* vulnerable when out of book against
a properly booked player who is still in book, IF that player has chosen
lines that truly confound the machines.

There have even been GM games where this has been exploited, where a GM
appears to be losing for many moves due to computer evaluations, only for
the advantage to have been a phantom one.

>>> It were mistakes by Leko in the endgame and strong playing of Topalov in
>>> this phase, which decided the game.
>>
>> Only after the opening battle was tied.
>
> Sure but it doesn't contradict what I said: the game was not decided by
> the opening.

Overtime games aren't decided by regulation either.

>You could have chosen the colors after move 18 or so, either Leko or
>Topalov would have won against you.

Which wouldn't prove anything regarding the validity of studying openings.

Now if I am at my full potential, with overall ability to match theirs, a
superior opening repertoire would destroy either one, though Leko is pretty
tough to beat out of the openings as he plays the same stuff over and over
too (like the Pelikan).

I look like a genius in some middlegames in my pet lines as well.

>>> All the opening preparation shows worthless if the player is not able to
>>> play the middlegame - and in these examples the endgame strongly as
>>> well.
>>
>> It's not worthless to fend off a super-GM in the opening to get to an
>> equal endgame.
>
> Yes, but if you lose quickly afterwards? I find it always funny if weak
> player are proud about the number of moves they made against me before
> they lost, as if this would indicate anything. A short game can be much
> more challenging than a long one, if in the first I was on the risk of
> loosing and in the second I was just using routine.

It indicates one step in a long process of improvement that is far more
significant than being lost in the opening.

Number of moves doesn't matter, but number of moves at equality does. If my
computer says I'm 0.57 better than Nakamura as black on move 22, I believe
I'm on the right track to becoming a GM far more than if I try to "fool" him
with some offbeat line. I can build on the former, but not the latter.

You speak as if chessplayers are born with innate ability that does not
change, or as if a player booking up won't go through the painful process of
losing once out of book while he is developing.

> I met a very extreme example of a player when I was a teenager. A boy came
> to our club. It was the first time he started playing tournament chess. At
> home he had intensively studied openings for years before. It was amazing
> how much he knew about openings, about problems (mate in 10 and such
> things). But actually he was a complete patzer. His playing strength was
> that of a beginner. So when we played against him, the first 5 to 10 moves
> were from the books. We quickly put our moves onto the board and we knew:
> the moment he is out of book, he is lost, no matter what is on the board.
> So, that he knew all this moves and the game took a few moves longer than
> it would have been without, didn't change the slightest thing. He simply
> didn't had not even a 1% chance against the others.

Yet what he was doing was laying the foundation for future improvement.
Those "perfect" moves he did play are ones he will never have to change,
positions he will never again have to analyze.

I've devoted considerable time to middlegame and endgame study, both in the
past and the present. It's just that as a percentage of my overall training
time, it's minimal. However, what is "minimal" to someone who trains 75
hours a week is not going to be "minimal" to you necessarily.

Did you ever spend almost an entire summer with nothing but endgame books?
And by "summer" I mean all working hours of each day and night for that
summer? I did that in 1988, including a full week on nothing but "Queen and
Pawn endings" and another full week on nothing but Bishop v. Minor Piece.

Did you ever spend three months methodically going through every diagram in
ECM (more than once) to cement your tactical ability? I did that in 1987,
and benefit from that work to this day.

The reason I gravitate towards opening study is that my rating benefits far
more from my plugging a weakness in my repertoire than it does by studying
"general principles" in the middlegame and endgame, even though I've done
both of those very extensively.

Now, as my opening repertoire pushes me into "book" middlegame positions, my
main area of study is transition out of the opening and into the middlegame,
but this is a transition that I now make almost exclusively from a position
of strength, so the study time I put into my middlegames is far more
productive, because I can isolate the specific middlegame positions that I
will be involved in.

>> Depends on who is doing the outbooking. Fischer won many games out of
>> the opening through superior preparation.
>
> No doubt. Besides that he had a brilliant strategy, was strong in tactics
> and velous in endings.

He got that way through hard work, not by being named "Bobby Fischer."

>He probably won most of his games based on those feats.

The annotations of his games suggest his ability to destroy opening theory
over the board, often spectacularly, had a lot to do with it.

I still say he played the Poisoned Pawn not because he liked the line, but
because he liked that White played 10. e5 rather than 10. f5, for example.

>> Your attacks on bullet chess aside, I never said the other parts of the
>> game are unimportant, only that they are LESS important than the opening.
>
> Well, listening to you they seem to be only a minor aspect. A "broken
> play".

They are only a minor aspect to me, and always will be. I acknowledge there
are players who are strong finishers, but even they have to learn how to
survive the opening. Many of these players are not even weak in the
opening, but rather very limited.

>>> Every preparation is incomplete and you simply can not know any
>>> refutation to all possible moves.
>>
>> One cannot do that in the endgame either.
>
> That's why you have to get the general patterns of endgames.

Yet one cannot study the opening based on "general formations?"

>> I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY.
>
> Maybe. Others play hundreds of games of tetris a day. I am solely talking
> about tournament chess here, not some derivatives.

It's not "tournament" chess or "recreational" chess, but CHESS.

Training myself to play perfect moves at 70-80 moves per minute (my current
speed) allows me to process far more chess information than some "retard"
who has to spend minutes figuring out something that a bullet player can see
instantly.

Which type of player do you think will wind up on ESPN in ten years?

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

Date: 12 May 2006 01:34:23
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

11.05.2006 11:34, Ray Gordon:

>> Why did he chose such untypical openings when playing against Deep Blue?
>
> Fear, and the mistaken notion that the computer needed its opening book to
> beat him.

But this opening book was prepared by other GMs - which is likely to be
inferior to Kasparov's.

>
>> I am pretty sure, that his opening preparation was much better than that of
>> the Deep Blue team. Why did he not rely on it and play his usual game?
>
> Stupidity.

OK, if Kasparov is stupid, why relying on his other recommendations?

>>>> Every preparation is incomplete and you simply can not know any
>>>> refutation to all possible moves.
>>> One cannot do that in the endgame either.
>> That's why you have to get the general patterns of endgames.
>
> Yet one cannot study the opening based on "general formations?"

It should be part of the preparation. But you are talking about concrete
moves which happen and are in the books.

>>> I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY.
>> Maybe. Others play hundreds of games of tetris a day. I am solely talking
>> about tournament chess here, not some derivatives.
>
> It's not "tournament" chess or "recreational" chess, but CHESS.

Yes, like 100m sprint and 42km athon are both running. As you like
comparisons from the world of sports: you are like somebody training
excessively for the 100m and telling people, next year I will be the top
athon runner. At the end it's just running, and if I am ahead of them
10 meters after the first 100 meters, I should easily outran them for
the rest of the race.

>
> Training myself to play perfect moves at 70-80 moves per minute

Nobody plays 50 or more consecutive perfect moves.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 16 May 2006 19:37:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>>>> Every preparation is incomplete and you simply can not know any
>>>>> refutation to all possible moves.
>>>> One cannot do that in the endgame either.
>>> That's why you have to get the general patterns of endgames.
>>
>> Yet one cannot study the opening based on "general formations?"
>
> It should be part of the preparation. But you are talking about concrete
> moves which happen and are in the books.

The moves are given as a means of achieving middlegame formations. An
experienced bullet player is playing hundreds of gamies a day, and you can't
survive the opening on a consistent basis unless you have perfected your own
book.

>>>> I play a few hundred games of bullet in a DAY.
>>> Maybe. Others play hundreds of games of tetris a day. I am solely
>>> talking about tournament chess here, not some derivatives.
>>
>> It's not "tournament" chess or "recreational" chess, but CHESS.
>
> Yes, like 100m sprint and 42km athon are both running. As you like
> comparisons from the world of sports: you are like somebody training
> excessively for the 100m and telling people, next year I will be the top
> athon runner. At the end it's just running, and if I am ahead of them
> 10 meters after the first 100 meters, I should easily outran them for the
> rest of the race.

I've played "slow" chess before and achieved an Expert's rating within a
little more than two years of my first tournament game, and maybe four years
of serious study.

One-minute chess is superior for training, and since I don't know what the
time controls will be in the future, it makes sense to slow down only at the
very end.

I hold my one-minute games to the same standard as I would a "slow" game.

>> Training myself to play perfect moves at 70-80 moves per minute
>
> Nobody plays 50 or more consecutive perfect moves.

One doesn't have to be "perfect," but playing 20-25 perfect moves right out
of the opening is hardly impossible.

One also is more likely to play "perfectly" if he is stronger than his
opponent, as the opponent is more likely to blunder and less likely to
confound.

I don't have to be Hydra to know that Adams can be beaten in less than 30
moves, regularly, which means that there is a lot he's missing about the
game, and that creates room for someone to become at least a few hundred
points stronger than him just by figuring out what it is he is not seeing.

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

Date: 17 May 2006 20:57:49
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

17.05.2006 01:37, Ray Gordon:
>> As you like
>> comparisons from the world of sports: you are like somebody training
>> excessively for the 100m and telling people, next year I will be the top
>> athon runner. At the end it's just running, and if I am ahead of them
>> 10 meters after the first 100 meters, I should easily outran them for the
>> rest of the race.
>
> I've played "slow" chess before and achieved an Expert's rating within a
> little more than two years of my first tournament game, and maybe four years
> of serious study.

So what? That's clearly above average but not spectacular.

> One-minute chess is superior for training, and since I don't know what the
> time controls will be in the future, it makes sense to slow down only at the
> very end.

The tournament controls won't cross the 20 minutes per game range,
that's for sure - and this is already very different from bullet.

> I hold my one-minute games to the same standard as I would a "slow" game.

A 100 m runner holds his standards for this race high as well. But over
10000 m any mediocre runner from Kenya could surely run away from all
the participants of the last Olympic 100m final . Those guys simply
train differently, develop different strengths. What you achieve in
bullet doesn't tell anything about your possibilities in slower chess,
as other things are required. At one point you are on your own,
preparation is over. Then you have to lean back, think about long
standing strategies, calculate deep variations. This you have to do
without computer aid. You have learned a lot about this from the books
and by playing against the computer. But you never practiced it on
higher than expert level under tournament conditions many years ago.

>>> Training myself to play perfect moves at 70-80 moves per minute
>> Nobody plays 50 or more consecutive perfect moves.
>
> One doesn't have to be "perfect,"

Well, *you* were talking about 70-80 perfect moves, not me.

> but playing 20-25 perfect moves right out
> of the opening is hardly impossible.

And why is no super GM able to do so?

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 17 May 2006 09:44:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> I don't have to be Hydra to know that Adams can be beaten in less
> than 30 moves

You keep banging on about Hydra but Hydra is the proof that your ideas
are wrong. Hydra has a very shallow book: it was out of book by move
fifteen or so in every game and it still won five out of six against
Adams.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Simple Artificial Dictator (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a totalitarian leader that's made
of plastic but it has no moving parts!

Date: 12 May 2006 12:30:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:
> 11.05.2006 11:34, Ray Gordon:
>> Training myself to play perfect moves at 70-80 moves per minute
>
> Nobody plays 50 or more consecutive perfect moves.

That's OK -- most of Ray's games probably aren't long enough that this
limit affects him too much.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Strange Soap (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a personal hygiene product but
it's totally weird and twice as fast!

Date: 10 May 2006 23:23:05
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ralf Callenberg ha escrit:

> 10.05.2006 16:56, Ray Gordon:
>>
>> Kasparov said otherwise, that 90 percent of modern chess was based on
>> opening play.
>
> Openings are important, no question. And as a top player you need top
> preparation. This is quite different from chess a few generations ago.
> But I don't think that Kasparov thinks that the game is decided so
> early.(...)

Ralf, ... Mr Gordon concept of opening preparation is very far from
Kasparov's one (and from any GM's have)

Mr Gordon do not understand that strong people study openings creating
new ideas, checking with computer their own ideas, trying to understand
the middlegame strategical themes of those lines, studying carefully
some particular ending that can be reached, playing training games (with
friends/team mates) and analysing carefully them ...

Antonio

Date: 10 May 2006 03:57:34
From: Ron
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

In article <[email protected] >,
Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:

> That a strong opening is of advantage is no question (not to stir any
> irritation I just say, you are overrating this advantage), but you will
> not cover 100 percent of the time. Every preparation is incomplete and
> you simply can not know any refutation to all possible moves.

The fundamental flaw in Ray's theory is that he seem to believe you can
memorize enough opening theory to get to a trivially won position.

I believe that this is simply beyond human capability.

There are so many plausible deviations in every opening that this is
simply impossible. Certainly, nobody's come close to being able to do it
yet.

Date: 10 May 2006 09:27:37
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ron ha escrit:
> The fundamental flaw in Ray's theory is that he seem to believe you can
> memorize enough opening theory to get to a trivially won position.
>
> I believe that this is simply beyond human capability.

And, as I said in a revious post, that's impossible for computers too
(at least for next years). A simple calculation will convince us.

AT

Date: 10 May 2006 09:19:43
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

10.05.2006 05:57, Ron:

> The fundamental flaw in Ray's theory is that he seem to believe you can
> memorize enough opening theory to get to a trivially won position.
>
> I believe that this is simply beyond human capability.

It's not only beyond human capacity. Machines are able to memorize
everything, but this still doesn't cover all possibilities, not even close.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 10 May 2006 12:16:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 10.05.2006 05:57, Ron:
>
>> The fundamental flaw in Ray's theory is that he seem to believe you can
>> memorize enough opening theory to get to a trivially won position.

Overall, this is an excellent chessic exchange about what we all think we
are doing. I have been lurking in the thread, mostly siding with Ray
Gordon - though Don Groves wrote earlier a fair synopsis that: the opening
should get you to a viable middlegame. Whether you study openings to get you
there, or to avoid mainlines and get you there, is a mere sophistication.

>> I believe that this is simply beyond human capability.
>
> It's not only beyond human capacity. Machines are able to memorize
> everything, but this still doesn't cover all possibilities, not even
> close.

Since machines are not actually calculating anything when they play opening
books moves, they are doing look-ups of positions they themselves could
never calculate!

There is a similar situation /a parallelism/ in learning opening moves with
human beings, who, at the end of the series of book moves, may find
themselves in positions that they do not understand.

So just getting to a viable middlegame is not exactly the point - and,
sorry, I forget who said so - this is often where people go very wrongo!

Quick Survey on endgames: --

3 weeks ago my sometimes sparring partner, 23xx rated, said that he had
never played a K vs K, B, N endgame. I said I hadn't done so either - and
between us that was abt 80 years of chess expereience - and we also said we
have never seen anyone else play that ending. Has anyone here ever done so?

Cordially, Phil Innes

> Greetings,
> Ralf

Date: 11 May 2006 10:14:18
From: Terry
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:VQk8g.528$Ky5.402@trndny08...
>
> "Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 10.05.2006 05:57, Ron:
>>
>>> The fundamental flaw in Ray's theory is that he seem to believe you can
>>> memorize enough opening theory to get to a trivially won position.
>
> Overall, this is an excellent chessic exchange about what we all think we
> are doing. I have been lurking in the thread, mostly siding with Ray
> Gordon - though Don Groves wrote earlier a fair synopsis that: the opening
> should get you to a viable middlegame. Whether you study openings to get
> you there, or to avoid mainlines and get you there, is a mere
> sophistication.
>
>>> I believe that this is simply beyond human capability.
>>
>> It's not only beyond human capacity. Machines are able to memorize
>> everything, but this still doesn't cover all possibilities, not even
>> close.
>
> Since machines are not actually calculating anything when they play
> opening books moves, they are doing look-ups of positions they themselves
> could never calculate!
>
> There is a similar situation /a parallelism/ in learning opening moves
> with human beings, who, at the end of the series of book moves, may find
> themselves in positions that they do not understand.
>
> So just getting to a viable middlegame is not exactly the point - and,
> sorry, I forget who said so - this is often where people go very wrongo!
>
> Quick Survey on endgames: --
>
> 3 weeks ago my sometimes sparring partner, 23xx rated, said that he had
> never played a K vs K, B, N endgame. I said I hadn't done so either - and
> between us that was abt 80 years of chess expereience - and we also said
> we have never seen anyone else play that ending. Has anyone here ever done
> so?
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
>

In 50 years of competitive chess I have played this ending once.
It is worth learning because I believe it teaches you b and n coordination
which is useful in all phases of the game.

Regards

Date: 09 May 2006 21:34:08
From: don groves
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Ron wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ralf Callenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>That a strong opening is of advantage is no question (not to stir any
>>irritation I just say, you are overrating this advantage), but you will
>>not cover 100 percent of the time. Every preparation is incomplete and
>>you simply can not know any refutation to all possible moves.
>
>
> The fundamental flaw in Ray's theory is that he seem to believe you can
> memorize enough opening theory to get to a trivially won position.
>
> I believe that this is simply beyond human capability.
>
> There are so many plausible deviations in every opening that this is
> simply impossible. Certainly, nobody's come close to being able to do it
> yet.

I read somewhere that the purpose of an opening is to get to
a playable middlegame. That sounds good to me.
--
dg

Date: 10 May 2006 09:21:34
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

10.05.2006 06:34, don groves:
>
> I read somewhere that the purpose of an opening is to get to a playable
> middlegame. That sounds good to me.

That it is good to have a sound opening preparation nobody would deny.
What most people reject is the idea, that the concentration on openings
as Ray favours it, will really be of such an advantage he assumes.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 10 May 2006 00:55:42
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

> Ah, but you forget that all-important part of the game where YOU are "out of
> book" but I am NOT.
>
> That means YOU will be stuck in a position that I have analyzed for dozens
> of hours or even more, and played many, many times. That is when a
> chessplayer is most vulnerable. The first mistake often loses a chessgame,
> especially at the higher levels, and almost always with computers. Is there
> a reason I shouldn't emulate what are obviously the strongest players in
> history?
>
> The endgames that result from outbooking your opponent are going to require
> far less technical skill than the ones where the opposite is true. (...)
>
> Horses who come from off the pace generally need something to run at. If
> the leader gets too far ahead, too easily, he simply won't be caught.

Ray, ... sometimes it seems you have studied no chess at all.

Best players in history have defended inferior endings many times and
defended strongly. They know what to do in every position! They have
learned chess not just openings!

Chess opening preparation as you propose is imposible for an human (and
imposible for a computer too).

You seem not to be familiarized with engine help analysis.

And your analogies with tenis, cars and other sports are simply not
acurated: it's like suggesting to eat gaz-oil to be faster at atletism!

AT

Date: 11 May 2006 17:02:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> And your analogies with tenis, cars and other sports are simply not
> acurated: it's like suggesting to eat gaz-oil to be faster at
> atletism!

Hey, that's even legal according to WADA! Sounds like a great idea!
(Unleaded, of course.)

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2006_LIST.pdf

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Love Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail that
you can share with someone special
but it's invigorating!

Date: 10 May 2006 04:39:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> Ah, but you forget that all-important part of the game where YOU are "out
>> of book" but I am NOT.
>>
>> That means YOU will be stuck in a position that I have analyzed for
>> dozens of hours or even more, and played many, many times. That is when
>> a chessplayer is most vulnerable. The first mistake often loses a
>> chessgame, especially at the higher levels, and almost always with
>> computers. Is there a reason I shouldn't emulate what are obviously the
>> strongest players in history?
>>
>> The endgames that result from outbooking your opponent are going to
>> require far less technical skill than the ones where the opposite is
>> true. (...)
>>
>> Horses who come from off the pace generally need something to run at. If
>> the leader gets too far ahead, too easily, he simply won't be caught.
>
> Ray, ... sometimes it seems you have studied no chess at all.

Not the type of chess you are familiar with, I'm sure, but originality is a
good thing. My peak rating of 2000 at age 21 and only a few years of
serious study should count for something. There's nothing in my game that
prohibits further improvement at the same pace (150 Elo points a year if I
work full time).

My game is front-loaded and always will be. It's just how I play, same way
throwing a knight into the center of the Sicilian for sacrifice was how Tal
played. I happen to like being able to hang with the best players in the
world for 20 moves and even put them to the test. That would seem to me to
be the first step in learning how to beat them. It's not like I'm going to
regress to move 12 on that score anytime soon.

> Best players in history have defended inferior endings many times and
> defended strongly.

Not against Fritz.

>They know what to do in every position! They have learned chess not just
>openings!

Not according to Fritz.

> Chess opening preparation as you propose is imposible for an human (and
> imposible for a computer too).

Impossible for you maybe.

> You seem not to be familiarized with engine help analysis.

Of course I am, but I only use engines to build my repertoire. If I have
to win a game in the ending, I've already fucked up. I play that on
intuition, and will defeat an inferior player if I have to. That will
always be the case with me, just like Shaq will never be that good at the
free-throw line.

I approach chess the way Nolan Ryan approached pitching or Mike Tyson
approached boxing. Very direct and high intensity.

> And your analogies with tenis, cars and other sports are simply not
> acurated: it's like suggesting to eat gaz-oil to be faster at atletism!

Other sports are very useful to study for chess improvement. I profile what
wins championships in all sports and study the training habits of each
champion.

If nothing else, chess training supposedly prevents Alzheimer's, so I'm
reducing my nation's medical expense burden by not getting the condition and
instead being able to work, spend, and pay taxes. If I sell chess books to
anyone overseas, I can even reduce the trade deficit while bolstering the
local economy.

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

Date: 10 May 2006 14:39:29
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>Ray, ... sometimes it seems you have studied no chess at all.
>
>>You seem not to be familiarized with engine help analysis.
>
> Of course I am, but I only use engines to build my repertoire.

It sound like bla bla bla,

Let's be concrete. In the game the local junior I posted, you wrote
about some tactical options. Convince us with actual moves and analysis

I answered that some of them were wrong like the comment you made "[Ray
Gordon] Silicon says Black is better after 27...Rxb7. White has already
lost the thread, however."

I wrote that maybe you did not know how to use engines to approach to
truth in some positions because I think black is facing big trouble
after 27...Rxb7 28.Ng4!!.

Have you any improvement here for black?

or maybe you admit you did not analize correctly that position?

AT

Date: 11 May 2006 14:53:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> I wrote that maybe you did not know how to use engines to approach to
> truth in some positions because I think black is facing big trouble after
> 27...Rxb7 28.Ng4!!.
>
> Have you any improvement here for black?
>
> or maybe you admit you did not analize correctly that position?

I didn't see this comment, but I did rek earlier that I said ONE game and
got THREE. Someone as "precise" as you should know the difference between
the two.

I'll go back to the game and see what's there. A full "engine" analysis of
a position can be very protracted (something that giving me three games
instead of one obviously discouraged).

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

Date: 11 May 2006 21:35:59
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>I wrote that maybe you did not know how to use engines to approach to
>>truth in some positions because I think black is facing big trouble after
>>27...Rxb7 28.Ng4!!.
>>
>>Have you any improvement here for black?
>>
>>or maybe you admit you did not analize correctly that position?
>
> I didn't see this comment, but I did rek earlier that I said ONE game and
> got THREE. Someone as "precise" as you should know the difference between
> the two.
>
> I'll go back to the game and see what's there. A full "engine" analysis of
> a position can be very protracted (something that giving me three games
> instead of one obviously discouraged).

Ray, ... that comment was in the "only" game you analized.

I offered 3 games to allow you to make the most interesting choice for
you. I wrote "here you have three to choose".

I do not expect too much about your analysis of that position, it's
needed some kind of intuition or knowledge to search with the help of
the engine in the correct way.

Sure there are here in RGCA players which will do it better than me, but
I think I can know more about that position with help of engine allowed
devoting 15-30 minutes than you can know in days because you spoke like
the people who only "know" to let alone the computer (like a player who
knows nothing about chess with no changes visible in the future).

AT

Date: 12 May 2006 16:55:47
From: Terry
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>I wrote that maybe you did not know how to use engines to approach to
>>>truth in some positions because I think black is facing big trouble after
>>>27...Rxb7 28.Ng4!!.
>>>
>>>Have you any improvement here for black?
>>>
>>>or maybe you admit you did not analize correctly that position?
>>
>> I didn't see this comment, but I did rek earlier that I said ONE game
>> and got THREE. Someone as "precise" as you should know the difference
>> between the two.
>>
>> I'll go back to the game and see what's there. A full "engine" analysis
>> of a position can be very protracted (something that giving me three
>> games instead of one obviously discouraged).
>
> Ray, ... that comment was in the "only" game you analized.
>
> I offered 3 games to allow you to make the most interesting choice for
> you. I wrote "here you have three to choose".
>
> I do not expect too much about your analysis of that position, it's needed
> some kind of intuition or knowledge to search with the help of the engine
> in the correct way.
>
> Sure there are here in RGCA players which will do it better than me, but I
> think I can know more about that position with help of engine allowed
> devoting 15-30 minutes than you can know in days because you spoke like
> the people who only "know" to let alone the computer (like a player who
> knows nothing about chess with no changes visible in the future).
>
> AT
>s

You must be replying to a post from Ray Gordon :-)

Regards

Date: 12 May 2006 21:12:18
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Terry ha escrit:
> You must be replying to a post from Ray Gordon :-)
>
> Regards

Maybe the most intelligent choice is the one you have done.

Antonio

Date: 10 May 2006 14:30:41
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>Ray, ... sometimes it seems you have studied no chess at all.
>
> Not the type of chess you are familiar with, I'm sure, but originality is a
> good thing. My peak rating of 2000 at age 21 and only a few years of
> serious study should count for something. There's nothing in my game that
> prohibits further improvement at the same pace (150 Elo points a year if I
> work full time).

I ask me many times if there is some sense answering you, but I think I
must point you will not pass 2000 rating in many many years with that
wrong attitude.

I admit I can be wrong but, ... do not try to convinve me with nonsense
arguments, ... simply notify all us when you pass that 2000 rating!!

(and if you continue improving with your "method", pelase notify is when
-and only when- you are a +2200 a +2400 and a +2600)

AT

Date: 10 May 2006 07:07:11
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

WOW! Ray thinks he is helping the worlds economy by making chess
books??? The more I read this guys posts the more less I respect his
opinions.

Date: 11 May 2006 05:10:29
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

> WOW! Ray thinks he is helping the worlds economy by making chess
> books???

By selling them, it generates economic activity.

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

Date: 09 May 2006 17:12:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> Very basic endgames are necessary.
>>
>> What's also necessary is learning how to win a clearly won ending even
>> more than knowing what to do in an equal one.
>
> So you'd rather avoid drawing a won game instead of avoiding to lose drawn
> ones?
>
> And you wouldn't like to have a good chance of saving lost positions? Oh,
> I forget you of course would never have any of those. Well, hardly ever.

Ideally, one should not have to play on in lost positions, but a well-booked
player will still not be as "lost" as he otherwise would have been.

I've found some new strength in not resigning, however. I am really amazed
at how some players just don't know how to convert a win. Computers are
great for teaching that, btw.

>> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>>
>
> It's the logical result of a lot of chess games.
>
> And try to evaluate the following position (white to play) and find either
> the winning move(s), the drawing move(s) or the move(s) offering the best
> chance of swindling black (if the position is lost):
> 1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
> wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6

I hate FEN.

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

Date: 09 May 2006 20:01:13
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

On 2006-05-09, Ray Gordon wrote:
>>
>> And try to evaluate the following position (white to play) and find either
>> the winning move(s), the drawing move(s) or the move(s) offering the best
>> chance of swindling black (if the position is lost):
>> 1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
>> wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6
>
> I hate FEN.

Have you discovered a faster way to get a position from the
newsgroup into a chess engine? I just highlight the FEN, move over
xboard, and press 1 (or choose Paste Position from the menu).

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 10 May 2006 04:31:54
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>> 1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
>>> wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6
>>
>> I hate FEN.
>
> Have you discovered a faster way to get a position from the
> newsgroup into a chess engine? I just highlight the FEN, move over
> xboard, and press 1 (or choose Paste Position from the menu).

I also hate cut-and-past and xboard.

Date: 10 May 2006 19:03:01
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

On 2006-05-10, Ray Gordon wrote:
>>>> 1r6/1P2R3/7p/2pp4/6p1/2k3P1/4KP1P/8 w - - 0 43
>>>> wKe2,Re7,Pb7,f2,g3,h2/bKc3,Rb8,Pc5,d5,g4,h6
>>>
>>> I hate FEN.
>>
>> Have you discovered a faster way to get a position from the
>> newsgroup into a chess engine? I just highlight the FEN, move over
>> xboard, and press 1 (or choose Paste Position from the menu).
>
> I also hate cut-and-past and xboard.

You also haven't answered the question.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 11 May 2006 05:09:39
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>> Have you discovered a faster way to get a position from the
>>> newsgroup into a chess engine? I just highlight the FEN, move over
>>> xboard, and press 1 (or choose Paste Position from the menu).
>>
>> I also hate cut-and-past and xboard.
>
> You also haven't answered the question.

Incorrect. I did answer it. Perhaps not to your liking, and perhaps not
with a direct answer to what you seek to find out, but I did answer it.

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

Date: 12 May 2006 22:40:07
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

On 2006-05-11, Ray Gordon wrote:
>>>> Have you discovered a faster way to get a position from the
>>>> newsgroup into a chess engine? I just highlight the FEN, move over
>>>> xboard, and press 1 (or choose Paste Position from the menu).
>>>
>>> I also hate cut-and-past and xboard.
>>
>> You also haven't answered the question.
>
> Incorrect. I did answer it. Perhaps not to your liking, and perhaps not
> with a direct answer to what you seek to find out, but I did answer it.

In other words, you haven't found a faster way.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 09 May 2006 18:05:41
From: Ron
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

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

> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
chess.

Read my response to your other post, Zero, for an answer to your
question.

Date: 09 May 2006 17:10:30
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>
> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
> chess.

Why? Endgames are unscripted, just like broken plays in the NFL.

You don't book up for every specific endgame the way you do for the opening
(just like in the NFL, where you draw the play at first rather than
improvise).

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

Date: 09 May 2006 19:58:03
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

On 2006-05-09, Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> An endgame is like a broken play in the NFL.
>>
>> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
>> chess.
>
> Why? Endgames are unscripted,

Only if you don't know your endgames.

> just like broken plays in the NFL.
>
> You don't book up for every specific endgame the way you do for the
> opening

You mean the way YOU do for the opening.

> (just like in the NFL, where you draw the play at first rather than
> improvise).

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 10 May 2006 04:31:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
>>> chess.
>>
>> Why? Endgames are unscripted,
>
> Only if you don't know your endgames.

So you are booked up with every possible endgame from move 1 of the endgame?

Wow.

I have acknowledged that it can be done if someone "books back" from the
ending, but you wind up out of book for a long time before you get to your
strong suit.

The opening is more important simply because it comes first.

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

Date: 10 May 2006 19:37:11
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

On 2006-05-10, Ray Gordon wrote:
>>>> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
>>>> chess.
>>>
>>> Why? Endgames are unscripted,
>>
>> Only if you don't know your endgames.
>
> So you are booked up with every possible endgame from move 1 of the endgame?

No more than you are with every possible line from move 1 to
whenever.

> Wow.
>
> I have acknowledged that it can be done if someone "books back" from the
> ending, but you wind up out of book for a long time before you get to your
> strong suit.

A "script" is not a bunch of lines, but the method of winning (or
holding a draw), just as in the opening it is a mthod for reaching
a faviourable middle- or end- game. You say you don't just
memorize lines, but look for patterns; it's the same in the
ending.

> The opening is more important simply because it comes first.

There is nothing more important than the end of the game, because
that's what decides the winner.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 11 May 2006 16:52:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

Chris F.A. Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 2006-05-10, Ray Gordon wrote:
>> The opening is more important simply because it comes first.
>
> There is nothing more important than the end of the game, because
> that's what decides the winner.

`Because' was the last word on a page in my newsreader and I was *so*
hoping that the sentence would be `because it comes last.'

Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Slimy Projector (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a 16mm film projector but it's
covered in goo and completely natural!

Date: 10 May 2006 12:41:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>> This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard written about
>>>> chess.
>>>
>>> Why? Endgames are unscripted,
>>
>> Only if you don't know your endgames.
>
> So you are booked up with every possible endgame from move 1 of the
> endgame?
>
> Wow.

I recently suggested E60, Adorjan's opening, which seems to puzzle many
white players by move 4! I doubt many players even know black's third move,
and have ever played out resulting positions - and certainly not black's
sequence to move 8.

> I have acknowledged that it can be done if someone "books back" from the
> ending, but you wind up out of book for a long time before you get to your
> strong suit.
>
> The opening is more important simply because it comes first.

Isn't the main point that the best endings are conducted at move 30? The
longer the game goes the more chance you have to lose! Technically there are
possibilities to simplify to a won endgame, presuming you know what they
are - but winning by move 30 is ipso facto better than winning at move 50.
If that is Ray Gordon's point, which should award him the whole point for
making it.

Phil Innes

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

Date: 10 May 2006 10:33:04
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

>>> Only if you don't know your endgames.
>>
>> So you are booked up with every possible endgame from move 1 of the
>> endgame?
>>
>> Wow.
>
> I recently suggested E60, Adorjan's opening, which seems to puzzle many
> white players by move 4! I doubt many players even know black's third
> move, and have ever played out resulting positions - and certainly not
> black's sequence to move 8.

Listing the actual moves you are talking about, and for which side, would
help.

>> I have acknowledged that it can be done if someone "books back" from the
>> ending, but you wind up out of book for a long time before you get to
>> your strong suit.
>>
>> The opening is more important simply because it comes first.
>
> Isn't the main point that the best endings are conducted at move 30? The
> longer the game goes the more chance you have to lose! Technically there
> are possibilities to simplify to a won endgame, presuming you know what
> they are - but winning by move 30 is ipso facto better than winning at
> move 50.

I aim for the miniature every time I play.

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

Date: 09 May 2006 15:42:50
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: capablanca and endgames

"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why does he say to start first with endgames when the opening comes
> first ?

It is so that you have the confidence that if you see a combination that
wins a pawn you will play it and not look for some bizarre other combination
that might actually lose you the game.