counter/punish of negative players

Main

Date: 25 Feb 2005 08:51:37
From:
Subject: counter/punish of negative players

Hi Group,

I'm a beginning/social chess player who plays solely to enjoy the game.
Lately i've been working through the lovely "Logical Chess: Move by
Move" - Irving Chernev and trying to do some tactical exercises. As a
result, i feel my game have improved substantially and is getting a lot
more interesting (i think i'm actually losing more often, but for me
that's a small price to pay in exchange for the right to practise the
game under a new light)

One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are gone.

I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that common?),
and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.

Thanks for your thoughts..

Date: 25 Mar 2005 09:24:09
From:
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

[email protected] wrote:
...
> One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
> becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
> resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
> meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
> 15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
> admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
> way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
> meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
> rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
> protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
> He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
> gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are
gone.
>
> I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that
common?),
> and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
> counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.
>
First of all, it is difficult to give specific advice without specific
positions to analyze. I am one of those 'cowardly' players who is
more comfortable in a solid position I understanding well-and I love to
grind out a clear, long-term advantage. I also like endgames, so when
appropriate I try to look for ways to initiate exchanges that simplify
and clarify the situation to my benefit. I greatly enjoy a game where
I exchange the 'right' pieces and end up with, say, a good Knight
vs. a bad Bishop, or where I have the Bishop pair vs. a Knight pair, or
an active Rook vs. a passive one. Your opponent might be employing a
similar strategy, so his exchanges might not be as meaningless as you
think.

I recommend studying not just tactics (though they are lots of fun and
quite indispensible), but also endgames - which have their own joys
- and middlegame planning. The series by Jeremy Silman, especially
"How to Reassess Your Chess" is quite accessible to beginning
players and will help you get better at evaluating whether particular
exchanges will create useful imbalances for you or for your opponent.

Also, regarding your reluctance to avoid exchanges by moving the same
piece twice, remember that rules of thumb are just that: rules of
thumb. They are not immutable laws. You will lose games by failing to
analyze the particular position you are in and blindly adhering to such
platitudes as "knights before bishops" or "put pawns in the
center" without regard to the specific needs of THIS position. If
the exchange is clearly bad for you, i.e. gives you a long-term
imbalance that is unfavorable, it's almost certainly better to find a
way to avoid it or make it unpalatable than to just sit and allow it to
happen.

In short, the best approach is to make your study more holistic. This
will enable you to play all positions better.

Date: 25 Mar 2005 09:24:07
From:
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Date: 03 Mar 2005 22:05:23
From: Mike Ogush
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

On 25 Feb 2005 08:51:37 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Hi Group,
>
> SNIP
>
>One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
>becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
>resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
>meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
>15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
>admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
>way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
>meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
>rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
>protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
>He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
>gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are gone.
>
>I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that common?),
>and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
>counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.
>

White's objective in the opening is try to enter the middlegame or
endgame with at least a slight advantage. Black's objective is to
achive equality out of the opening. There is very little you can do
if white is willing to trade down to an equal (or =/+) endgame.
Similarly if Black wants to trade down to an inferior endgame it may
be hard to stop him.

My advice is to go over the games you play against this opponent. Ask
a stronger player than either of you to help with the analysis. Look
for the points where you either did or could have created positions
where if your opponent trades the evaluation of resulting position is
significantly different than the position resulting from not trading,

There are several possibilties:
1. The trading down to endgame is actually the best way for your
opponent to go. [More likely to be true when opponent is playing Black
since Black is trying to get to equality out of the oppening.] to
counteract this change your openings so you don't go into lines where
your opponent can reach a non-inferior endgame so quickly. Ask the
strong player who helped you with the analysis to suggest openings.
2. By trading so much your opponent is actually worsening their
position. To counteract this you'll need to learn how to exploit these
trading mistakes. Ask the strong player for help here as well.
[Note: this may require that you learn endgames so that when you reach
one with a superior position you consistly bring home the win.]

Miek Ogush

Date: 02 Mar 2005 11:42:18
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Ron wrote:
> As should be obvious from the context of the thread, I wasn't
> arguing that the dragon is a poor choice overall.
>
> I was arguing that it was a poor choice for the original poster,
> who has much more important things to worry about in his game.

Well, I was responding to your response to the original poster. My
arguments are based solely on that and nothing more.

Date: 22 Mar 2005 15:06:59
From:
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

[email protected] wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> Well, I was responding to your response to the original poster. My
> arguments are based solely on that and nothing more.

Thanks

[email protected]

Date: 02 Mar 2005 06:34:00
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

David Richerby wrote:
> What do you mean, ``Not really''? Ron's points are:
>
> 1) the dragon often leads to an endgame;
> 2) White might play something other than the open Sicilian, anyway;
> 3) the resulting endgame is often good for Black;
> 4) exchanging just for the sake of exchanging is likely to lead
> to a bad position;
> 5) you need to be able to play endgames.

LOL! Read again.

"...then I think the dragon is actually a very poor choice."--Ron

> The game you post is a dragon (so doesn't support point
> 2) which results in an endgame (supporting point
> 1) that is won by Black (supporting points
> 3 and 5) and the exchange of a big pile of pieces and
> pawns can't be said to have been helpful to White
> (maybe supporting point 4). Since the game you post
> overwhelmingly supports Ron's points, I'm confused by your
> ``Not really''.

LOL! Read again.

"...then I think the dragon is actually a very poor choice."--Ron

That's when I said, not really.

Date: 03 Mar 2005 11:02:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Liam Too <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> What do you mean, ``Not really''?
>
> LOL! Read again.
>
> "...then I think the dragon is actually a very poor choice."--Ron

You quoted three full paragraphs of Ron's post. I think you'll agree that
it's stretching things just a little to expect us to realise that, when
you said `Not really', you were refering to the second half of the last
sentence of the first of those paragraphs and nothing else. Perhaps you
could have trimmed the quoted text a little to enhance clarity?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Chocolate Bulb (TM): it's like a light
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ bulb that's made of chocolate!

Date: 02 Mar 2005 10:51:41
From: Ron
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article <[email protected] >,
"Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

> LOL! Read again.
>
> "...then I think the dragon is actually a very poor choice."--Ron
>
> That's when I said, not really.

As should be obvious from the context of the thread, I wasn't arguing
that the dragon is a poor choice overall.

I was arguing that it was a poor choice for the original poster, who has
much more important things to worry about in his game.

Date: 01 Mar 2005 13:38:27
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Harold Buck wrote:
>
> Recommending specific books is fine. But the answer to this question

> did not lie in recommending that he read a book about a specific
variant
> of a specific opening that he might not encounter for years while
> playing at a beginning level.
>
> The recommendation "Read a variety of chess books," or "Read books
about
> the endgame," or "Read books about general principles" all have to be

> more useful than recomendations like "Read the book '27. Ke5 in the
> Rorschak opening.'"
>
> --Harold Buck

To each his own.

Although it can work on chess, the Rorschak opening can
be best applied in monopoly games.

Date: 01 Mar 2005 13:19:42
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Ron wrote:
> Of course, as anyone with dragon experience will tell you, white
often
> STILL choses an endgame (usually up an exchange for a pawn or two).
So
> if the purpose is to find an opening which prevents white from
heading
> for an endgame, then I think the dragon is actually a very poor
choice.
>
> But it's also poor choice because a beginning white player isn't
going
> to cooperate enough to get to the dragon, but less the yugoslav
attack.
> And while it's true that black is fine in most sicilian endgames, he
> won't be fine if he hasn't done a lot of practical endgame work
first.
>
> A player who tries to exchange willy-nilly is going to be making bad

> exchanges. Other than learning how to play reduced-material positions

> better, it might help to learn to recognize a favorable exchange, and

> how you exploit a bad one. Silman's section on Knights vs. Bishops
in
> "How to Reassess Your Chess" might, therefore, be of great help to
the
> original poster (although I do want to reiterate my comment on
practical
> endings. Learning to play endings even moderately well will get you a

> TON of easy wins.)
>
> -Ron

Not really, an obscure Munoz beat Bobby Fischer playing the Yugoslav
Attack.

[Site "Leipzig ol prel Rd: 2"]
[Date "1960.??.??"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Fischer Robert"]
[Black "C Munoz"]
[ECO "B77"]
[PlyCount "72"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7
7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 a6 10. Bb3 Qa5 11. O-O-O Bd7 12. Kb1 Rac8
13. g4 Ne5 14. Bh6 Nc4 15. Bxc4 Rxc4 16. Nb3 Qe5 17. h4 Rfc8
18. Bf4 Qe6 19. h5 b5 20. hxg6 fxg6 21. Bh6 Bh8 22. e5 b4
23. exf6 bxc3 24. Qh2 Qxf6 25. Bg5 Qf7 26. Qe2 cxb2 27. Qxe7 Qxe7
28. Bxe7 Rxc2 29. Rxd6 Ba4 30. Bg5 Rf2 31. Be3 Rxf3 32. Bd4 Bxb3
33. axb3 Bxd4 34. Rxd4 Rxb3 35. Rd2 Rcb8 36. Rd7 Ra3 0-1

Date: 02 Mar 2005 09:48:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Liam Too <[email protected] > wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>> Of course, as anyone with dragon experience will tell you, white
>> often STILL choses an endgame (usually up an exchange for a pawn or
>> two). So if the purpose is to find an opening which prevents white
>> from heading for an endgame, then I think the dragon is actually a very
>> poor choice.
>>
>> But it's also poor choice because a beginning white player isn't
>> going to cooperate enough to get to the dragon, but less the yugoslav
>> attack. And while it's true that black is fine in most sicilian
>> endgames, he won't be fine if he hasn't done a lot of practical endgame
>> work first.
>>
>> A player who tries to exchange willy-nilly is going to be making bad
>> exchanges. Other than learning how to play reduced-material positions
>> better, it might help to learn to recognize a favorable exchange, and
>> how you exploit a bad one. Silman's section on Knights vs. Bishops
>> in "How to Reassess Your Chess" might, therefore, be of great help to
>> the original poster (although I do want to reiterate my comment on
>> practical endings. Learning to play endings even moderately well will
>> get you a TON of easy wins.)
>
> Not really, an obscure Munoz beat Bobby Fischer playing the Yugoslav
> Attack.

What do you mean, ``Not really''? Ron's points are:

1) the dragon often leads to an endgame;
2) White might play something other than the open Sicilian, anyway;
3) the resulting endgame is often good for Black;
4) exchanging just for the sake of exchanging is likely to lead to a bad
position;
5) you need to be able to play endgames.

The game you post is a dragon (so doesn't support point 2) which results
in an endgame (supporting point 1) that is won by Black (supporting points
3 and 5) and the exchange of a big pile of pieces and pawns can't be said
to have been helpful to White (maybe supporting point 4). Since the game
you post overwhelmingly supports Ron's points, I'm confused by your ``Not
really''.

Further, not that, while ``obscure'', Munoz was good enough to be playing
board 1 in the Olympiad.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Poisonous Mexi-Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail that
comes from Mexico but it'll kill you
in seconds!

Date: 01 Mar 2005 11:18:34
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

David Richerby wrote:
> If one is to become an expert in a particular opening, your simple
logic
> correctly suggests the study of specialist monographs. However, to
> suggest that a beginner could become an expert in any opening is
ludicrous
> -- what's the point of playing the first fifteen moves like a
grandmaster
> if you then spend the next fifteen being checkmated from a position
your
> book told you was gives you a `winning attack'?

If you let yourself be checkmated, then that's what you are. You didn't
learn anything from the book.

Others would become experts and eventually a titled chessplayer if they
apply what they learned from the book. It's really that simple.

Date: 01 Mar 2005 19:40:10
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article <[email protected] >,
"Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> David Richerby wrote:
> > If one is to become an expert in a particular opening, your simple
> logic
> > correctly suggests the study of specialist monographs. However, to
> > suggest that a beginner could become an expert in any opening is
> ludicrous
> > -- what's the point of playing the first fifteen moves like a
> grandmaster
> > if you then spend the next fifteen being checkmated from a position
> your
> > book told you was gives you a `winning attack'?
>
> If you let yourself be checkmated, then that's what you are. You didn't
> learn anything from the book.
>

And how much is an unrated player going to learn from a book like that,
aimed at people who are familiar with tactics and positional play and
strategy and all of the other responses the opponent can make to their
first move besides the Sicilian Dragon or the Yugoslav Attack?

> Others would become experts and eventually a titled chessplayer if they
> apply what they learned from the book. It's really that simple.

It doesn't only matter which books you read, it matters when you read
them. Reading a specific book on a specific variant of a specific
opening as, say, one of your first 10 (or 20 or 30) books is most likely
a waste of time.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 01 Mar 2005 22:06:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Liam Too <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> If one is to become an expert in a particular opening, your simple
>> logic correctly suggests the study of specialist monographs. However,
>> to suggest that a beginner could become an expert in any opening is
>> ludicrous -- what's the point of playing the first fifteen moves like a
>> grandmaster if you then spend the next fifteen being checkmated from a
>> position your book told you was gives you a `winning attack'?
>
> If you let yourself be checkmated, then that's what you are. You didn't
> learn anything from the book.

It's very hard to learn how to play good chess just from the examples in
an openings monograph. It's possible that one might acquire a very good
intuition for the types of position that occur in the opening in question
but I'd be surprised to see anything more than that.

> Others would become experts and eventually a titled chessplayer if they
> apply what they learned from the book. It's really that simple.

My personal feeling is that anyone who can reach titled strength just from
reading openings monographs could have reached that strength without
reading any books at all. But I'd expect anyone who'd not read any books
at all to play the endgame rather too poorly to get that far.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Impossible Flower (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a flower but it can't exist and
it's frozen in a block of ice!

Date: 01 Mar 2005 11:13:33
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Harold Buck wrote:
>
> None of which makes this any less asinine advice to give to a
beginner
> who's trying to figure out how to beat his friend who likes to
exchange
> down to an endgame.
>
> The point being made was that recommending that someone learn the
dragon
> or the Yugoslav is absolutely putrid advice to give a beginner, since

> it's unlikely the people they play will cooperate and allow them to
play
> the variation described in the book pertaining to such specialties.
>
> --Harold Buck

Simple logic tells that it's more asinine to attack someone
who is giving some very good advice to a beginner.

Think about it. Beginners need to read books, lots of them.
I did it when I was a beginner and I learned a lot from them
especially from the Dragon, Yugoslav and other Sicilian books.

>From your perspective, what would beginners do to learn?

Date: 01 Mar 2005 16:25:48
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article <[email protected] >,
"Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Harold Buck wrote:
> >
> > None of which makes this any less asinine advice to give to a
> beginner
> > who's trying to figure out how to beat his friend who likes to
> exchange
> > down to an endgame.
> >
> > The point being made was that recommending that someone learn the
> dragon
> > or the Yugoslav is absolutely putrid advice to give a beginner, since
>
> > it's unlikely the people they play will cooperate and allow them to
> play
> > the variation described in the book pertaining to such specialties.
> >
> > --Harold Buck
>
> Simple logic tells that it's more asinine to attack someone
> who is giving some very good advice to a beginner.
>
> Think about it. Beginners need to read books, lots of them.
> I did it when I was a beginner and I learned a lot from them
> especially from the Dragon, Yugoslav and other Sicilian books.
>
> >From your perspective, what would beginners do to learn?

Recommending specific books is fine. But the answer to this question
did not lie in recommending that he read a book about a specific variant
of a specific opening that he might not encounter for years while
playing at a beginning level.

The recommendation "Read a variety of chess books," or "Read books about
the endgame," or "Read books about general principles" all have to be
more useful than recomendations like "Read the book '27. Ke5 in the
Rorschak opening.'"

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 01 Mar 2005 14:19:43
From: Ron
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article
<[email protected] >,
Harold Buck <[email protected] > wrote:

> "Read the book '27. Ke5 in the
> Rorschak opening.'"

But man, that's such a good book!

:)

-Ron

Date: 01 Mar 2005 19:41:17
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article <[email protected] >,
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Harold Buck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Read the book '27. Ke5 in the
> > Rorschak opening.'"
>
> But man, that's such a good book!
>

I don't know. All of the pages in my copy have ink splotches on them, so
it's kind of hard to follow.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 01 Mar 2005 16:49:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

On Tue, 01 2005 19:41:17 -0500, Harold Buck
<[email protected] > wrote:

>> > "Read the book '27. Ke5 in the
>> > Rorschak opening.'"

>> But man, that's such a good book!

>I don't know. All of the pages in my copy have ink splotches on them, so
>it's kind of hard to follow.

Not splotches. They're dirty pictures.

Date: 01 Mar 2005 11:06:11
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Harold Buck wrote:
> None of which makes this any less asinine advice to
> give to a beginner who's trying to figure out how to
> beat his friend who likes to exchange down to an endgame.
>
> The point being made was that recommending that someone
> learn the dragon or the Yugoslav is absolutely putrid
> advice to give a beginner, since it's unlikely the people
> they play will cooperate and allow them to play the
< variation described in the book pertaining to such specialties.
>
> --Harold Buck

Simple logic tells that it is more asinine to attack someone
who is giving some very good advice to a beginner than the
attacker himself!

Beginners need to read books, lots of them. Reading the Dragon
or the Yugoslav is not a bad idea. I did it when I was a beginner
myself and leared a lot from them. Think about it.

Date: 01 Mar 2005 08:46:57
From: Liam Too
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

David Richerby wrote:
>
> You're presumably recommending that the original poster play
> the black side of the dragon; the Yugoslav attack is a line
> for White. Another > point to note is that most of the sharp,
> aggressive lines in the Sicilian (not restricting to just the
> dragon) occur when White castles long and both players try to
> pawn storm the other's king. I suspect the OP's passive,
> exchanging opponent isn't going to go in for that kind of line
> but will castle short.
>
> There's little point in a beginner reading such a specialized
> book. It would be much better just to look at a few master
> games featuring the opening in order to get an idea of what
> sort of thing goes on. Save the > specialist openings monographs
> until later, when you'll be better able to learn from them by
> understanding rather than memorizing.
>
> In particular, there's no point in knowing the dragon ten
> moves deep if White plays 1.e4 c5 2.c3 or something like that.
> There's little point being booked up until you become quite
> a strong player as your opponents will probably deviate from
> the standard moves very early on.
>
>
> Dave.

A very simple logic tells that if someone is recommending to
to learn the Dragon or the Yugoslav, then a book to read should
pertain to such specialties.

If White plays 1.e4 c5 2.c3, it's not a dragon anymore, it's now
Alapin.

Date: 01 Mar 2005 18:26:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Liam Too <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> There's little point in a beginner reading such a specialized book. It
>> would be much better just to look at a few master games featuring the
>> opening in order to get an idea of what sort of thing goes on. Save
>> the specialist openings monographs until later, when you'll be better
>> able to learn from them by understanding rather than memorizing.
>
> A very simple logic tells that if someone is recommending to learn the
> Dragon or the Yugoslav, then a book to read should pertain to such
> specialties.

If one is to become an expert in a particular opening, your simple logic
correctly suggests the study of specialist monographs. However, to
suggest that a beginner could become an expert in any opening is ludicrous
-- what's the point of playing the first fifteen moves like a grandmaster
if you then spend the next fifteen being checkmated from a position your
book told you was gives you a `winning attack'?

So, since the OP is patently not going to become an expert in the dragon
until the standard of their middlegame and endgame improve, I stand by my
statement that there's little to be gained from consulting specialist
openings books that couldn't be found by looking at a few master games in
the openings in question to pick up the general themes. If those games
have been annotated, so much the better.

>> In particular, there's no point in knowing the dragon ten moves deep if
>> White plays 1.e4 c5 2.c3 or something like that.
>
> If White plays 1.e4 c5 2.c3, it's not a dragon anymore

Exactly. How are you going to use all your l33t dragon knowledge against
a player who doesn't give you chance to play it?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Mexi-Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail
that comes from Mexico but it's full
of holes!

Date: 02 Mar 2005 23:50:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

>> A very simple logic tells that if someone is recommending to learn the
>> Dragon or the Yugoslav, then a book to read should pertain to such
>> specialties.
>
> If one is to become an expert in a particular opening, your simple logic
> correctly suggests the study of specialist monographs. However, to
> suggest that a beginner could become an expert in any opening is ludicrous
> -- what's the point of playing the first fifteen moves like a grandmaster

Gee, I don't know. Why do the GMs do it?

Date: 02 Mar 2005 17:42:56
From: Ron
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

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

> >> A very simple logic tells that if someone is recommending to learn the
> >> Dragon or the Yugoslav, then a book to read should pertain to such
> >> specialties.
> >
> > If one is to become an expert in a particular opening, your simple logic
> > correctly suggests the study of specialist monographs. However, to
> > suggest that a beginner could become an expert in any opening is ludicrous
> > -- what's the point of playing the first fifteen moves like a grandmaster
>
> Gee, I don't know. Why do the GMs do it?

Might have helped if you had read the second half of that sentence.

-Ron

Date: 01 Mar 2005 13:18:25
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article <[email protected] >,
"Liam Too" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> A very simple logic tells that if someone is recommending to
> to learn the Dragon or the Yugoslav, then a book to read should
> pertain to such specialties.
>
> If White plays 1.e4 c5 2.c3, it's not a dragon anymore, it's now
> Alapin.

None of which makes this any less asinine advice to give to a beginner
who's trying to figure out how to beat his friend who likes to exchange
down to an endgame.

The point being made was that recommending that someone learn the dragon
or the Yugoslav is absolutely putrid advice to give a beginner, since
it's unlikely the people they play will cooperate and allow them to play
the variation described in the book pertaining to such specialties.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 01 Mar 2005 02:00:27
From: Kingt takes pawn
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

I recommend playing the sicillian dragon. I started playing short time ago
and became a yellow dragon I played with someone who played quite
negatively and I just shredded it to pieces. It is one of the most aggresive
and overwhelming I am talking about the Yugoslav attack in particular. Try
reading a book on this specific opening and try it for yourself. Good Luck
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi Group,
>
> I'm a beginning/social chess player who plays solely to enjoy the game.
> Lately i've been working through the lovely "Logical Chess: Move by
> Move" - Irving Chernev and trying to do some tactical exercises. As a
> result, i feel my game have improved substantially and is getting a lot
> more interesting (i think i'm actually losing more often, but for me
> that's a small price to pay in exchange for the right to practise the
> game under a new light)
>
> One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
> becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
> resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
> meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
> 15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
> admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
> way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
> meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
> rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
> protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
> He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
> gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are gone.
>
> I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that common?),
> and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
> counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts..
>

Date: 01 Mar 2005 15:33:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Kingt takes pawn <[email protected] > wrote:
> I recommend playing the sicillian dragon. I started playing short time
> ago and became a yellow dragon I played with someone who played quite
> negatively and I just shredded it to pieces. It is one of the most
> aggresive and overwhelming I am talking about the Yugoslav attack in
> particular.

You're presumably recommending that the original poster play the black
side of the dragon; the Yugoslav attack is a line for White. Another
point to note is that most of the sharp, aggressive lines in the Sicilian
(not restricting to just the dragon) occur when White castles long and
both players try to pawn storm the other's king. I suspect the OP's
passive, exchanging opponent isn't going to go in for that kind of line
but will castle short.

> Try reading a book on this specific opening and try it for > yourself.

There's little point in a beginner reading such a specialized book. It
would be much better just to look at a few master games featuring the
opening in order to get an idea of what sort of thing goes on. Save the
specialist openings monographs until later, when you'll be better able to
learn from them by understanding rather than memorizing.

In particular, there's no point in knowing the dragon ten moves deep if
White plays 1.e4 c5 2.c3 or something like that. There's little point
being booked up until you become quite a strong player as your opponents
will probably deviate from the standard moves very early on.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Evil Gigantic Hat (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hat but it's huge and genuinely evil!

Date: 01 Mar 2005 12:21:43
From: Ron
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In article <zLs*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> You're presumably recommending that the original poster play the black
> side of the dragon; the Yugoslav attack is a line for White. Another
> point to note is that most of the sharp, aggressive lines in the Sicilian
> (not restricting to just the dragon) occur when White castles long and
> both players try to pawn storm the other's king. I suspect the OP's
> passive, exchanging opponent isn't going to go in for that kind of line
> but will castle short.

Of course, as anyone with dragon experience will tell you, white often
STILL choses an endgame (usually up an exchange for a pawn or two). So
if the purpose is to find an opening which prevents white from heading
for an endgame, then I think the dragon is actually a very poor choice.

But it's also poor choice because a beginning white player isn't going
to cooperate enough to get to the dragon, but less the yugoslav attack.
And while it's true that black is fine in most sicilian endgames, he
won't be fine if he hasn't done a lot of practical endgame work first.

A player who tries to exchange willy-nilly is going to be making bad
exchanges. Other than learning how to play reduced-material positions
better, it might help to learn to recognize a favorable exchange, and
how you exploit a bad one. Silman's section on Knights vs. Bishops in
"How to Reassess Your Chess" might, therefore, be of great help to the
original poster (although I do want to reiterate my comment on practical
endings. Learning to play endings even moderately well will get you a
TON of easy wins.)

-Ron

Date: 27 Feb 2005 06:12:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

> Hi Group,
>
> I'm a beginning/social chess player who plays solely to enjoy the game.
> Lately i've been working through the lovely "Logical Chess: Move by
> Move" - Irving Chernev and trying to do some tactical exercises. As a
> result, i feel my game have improved substantially and is getting a lot
> more interesting (i think i'm actually losing more often, but for me
> that's a small price to pay in exchange for the right to practise the
> game under a new light)
>
> One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
> becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
> resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
> meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
> 15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
> admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
> way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
> meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
> rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
> protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
> He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
> gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are gone.
>
> I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that common?),
> and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
> counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.

Play sharp, main-line openings, occupy the center, and make sure that any
capture by him can be met with a favorable recapture. If he's going to Play
Bf1-b5-c6 and waste two moves to grab your knight from that square (say in
the French), recapture with bxc6 and you get a strong center with more
development. You can also break open the center, and get control over the
d- or e-files with a rook that makes the last in a series of captures, etc.

If you play properly, his strategy should only play into your hands. If
not, you might be weak at evaluating the value of certain exchanges. Don't
worry too much about the endgame, as you should be getting superior
middlegames and endgames against him.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.

Date: 26 Feb 2005 21:12:51
From:
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Listen to this free lecture by GM Maurice Ashley:

http://www.chesswise.com/gmashley_lecture.htm

You will learn a lot about how a GM analyzes a game, how he thwarts his
opponent's plans not allowing him to develop, how he uses a sacrifice
to obtain a better position even though he doesn't regain the material,
etc. You can apply many of these ideas to your own games.

Date: 27 Feb 2005 01:33:13
From: Craig Franck
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

<[email protected] > wrote

> Hi Group,
>
> I'm a beginning/social chess player who plays solely to enjoy the game.
> Lately i've been working through the lovely "Logical Chess: Move by
> Move" - Irving Chernev and trying to do some tactical exercises. As a
> result, i feel my game have improved substantially and is getting a lot
> more interesting (i think i'm actually losing more often, but for me
> that's a small price to pay in exchange for the right to practise the
> game under a new light)
>
> One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
> becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
> resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
> meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
> 15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
> admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
> way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
> meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
> rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
> protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
> He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
> gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are gone.
>
> I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that common?),

I thought that was standard strategy when going up against a
superior opponent when winning was more important than learning.

> and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
> counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.

I don't mean to be a st ass, but the simplest thing to do would
be to develop your end game and study wide-open positions,
otherwise you're the person who is running away from his kind of
fight. I'd get a book on end games and plug various positions into
the computer and play them out. (At first give yourself a pawn
advantage as an incentive.)

I've also read that the only real way to learn to use pawns well is by
playing a large number of king/pawn endings, if for no other reason
to know how to guide the middle into an end game that's favorable.

You could also suggest playing without queens.

--
Craig Franck
[email protected]
Cortland, NY

Date: 25 Feb 2005 14:39:18
From: Ron
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

Probably what you need to do is study practical endgames. In
particular, I recommend Soltis' "Grandmaster Secrets: Endings" which
will probably make you a lot more comfortable playing in simplified
positions.

And keep working on those tactics -- you'll find that tactics don't go
away even when the queens and minor pieces do.

Date: 25 Feb 2005 21:00:01
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

In the year of our Lord 25 Feb 2005 08:51:37 -0800, [email protected]
wrote:

>Hi Group,
>
>I'm a beginning/social chess player who plays solely to enjoy the game.
>Lately i've been working through the lovely "Logical Chess: Move by
>Move" - Irving Chernev and trying to do some tactical exercises.

An excellent book. There are 5 or 6 chess books out there that nearly
everybody acknowledges as the most useful for average players trying
to get better. This is one of them.

> As a
>result, i feel my game have improved substantially and is getting a lot
>more interesting (i think i'm actually losing more often, but for me
>that's a small price to pay in exchange for the right to practise the
>game under a new light)
>
>One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
>becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
>resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
>meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
>15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
>admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
>way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
>meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
>rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
>protected pieces out of his way - just doesn't sound like good chess.
>He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
>gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are gone.
>
>I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players (is that common?),
>and what specific openings or strategy of play is recommended to
>counter/punish such passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.

It's really hard to evaluate this without knowing your skill level,
what you are playing, and what your current endgame knowledge is.

I would suggest that you post two or three games where this problem
has cropped up and see what people have to say.
>
>
>Thanks for your thoughts..
>

What is now proved was once, only imagin'd. -- William Blake

Date: 27 Feb 2005 00:54:30
From: Craig Franck
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

"Morphy's ghost" wrote

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Hi Group,
> >
> >I'm a beginning/social chess player who plays solely to enjoy the game.
> >Lately i've been working through the lovely "Logical Chess: Move by
> >Move" - Irving Chernev and trying to do some tactical exercises.
>
> An excellent book. There are 5 or 6 chess books out there that nearly
> everybody acknowledges as the most useful for average players trying
> to get better. This is one of them.

What are the other ones?

--
Craig Franck
[email protected]
Cortland, NY

Date: 25 Feb 2005 13:03:11
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

[email protected] wrote:

> Hi Group,
>
> I'm a beginning/social chess player who
> plays solely to enjoy the game.

Like most of us.

> Lately i've been working through the lovely
> "Logical Chess: Move by Move" - Irving Chernev and
> trying to do some tactical exercises. As a result,
> i feel my game have improved substantially and is
> getting a lot more interesting (i think i'm actually
> losing more often, but for me that's a small price
> to pay in exchange for the right to practise the
> game under a new light)

New knowledge has to settle down.

> One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that
> my pieces are becoming more dynamic and effective weapons,
> so he has been recently resorting to going out of his way
> to force exchanging all the pieces meaninglessly

Perhaps not so meaninglessly since he is getting
better results than before. (Do I hear sour grapes? :-)

> I was wondering if anyone dealt with similar players
> (is that common?), and what specific openings or strategy
> of play is recommended to counter/punish such
> passive/negative(cowardly?!) style.
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts..

First of all, learn endings, and learn to like them.
Otherwise you are missing the best chess fun that there is.

Also, to get a reasonable advice you need to
post a couple of your games. Your view of what
is happening in your games does not seem to
reflect well what really is happening. Thus
any advice in such a situation can be counterproductive.

It is possible, for instance, that you should welcome
the existing situation (the exchanges). It is possible
that you are already getting advantage out of them.
However, if your opponent is clearly better in the next
stage than he will still win. It would be foolish for
you to steer away from the good positions which you are
getting (if this is the case). You need to learn in such
a case how to take advantage of them, how to win them.
Otherwise, you will only handicape your game.

Good luck,

Wlod

Date: 25 Feb 2005 12:26:21
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

[email protected] wrote:
> He is obviously losing some time doing so, but the time advantage i
> gain, greatly diminshes anyway when all the attacking pieces are
gone.

Not necessarily. If he is capturing so many of your pieces, you can
still gain in at least two ways.
1) Space: Recaptures up the board, toward your opponent, whether by
pieces or pawns, can increase the amount of the board you control.

2) Development: every time you recapture with a piece, his developed
piece has disappeared, while your recapturing piece is likely to be
better posted than before. A simple illustration is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4. White's queen is now centrally posted,
and in no danger of being bothered by a knight on c6.
If there are only a few developed pieces left, but they are all
yours, you may be able to do him some damage. A development advantage
of 2 pieces to none can be more decisive than an advantage of, say, 6
to 4.
This is especially true if he really chops wood down to just kings
and pawns. If at that point your king is on, say, the fifth rank, while
his is still on his back rank, you may already have a won endgame.
A space advantage can also sometimes lead to a decisive advantage in
king position for the endgame.
And of course, if you have already won a pawn, you should be
delighted to have him trade off all the pieces he wants. It just makes
your endgame easier.

The above is of course just general advice, but it may be helpful.

Date: 25 Feb 2005 19:56:59
From: Alan OBrien
Subject: Re: counter/punish of negative players

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

> One of my chess partners have apparently noticed that my pieces are
> becoming more dynamic and effective weapons, so he has been recently
> resorting to going out of his way to force exchanging all the pieces
> meaninglessly (all but the rooks) very early in the game, before the
> 15th move we'd practically arrive at the end game (which is
> admittingly, not my cup of tea - and he would improve his odds that
> way). It's worth noting that these exchanges don't involve any
> meaningful positional change (such as pawn structure damage, castling
> rights, etc..), and i cannot get myself to waste time moving already
> protected pieces out of his way -

You could fianchetto one bishop, that is one of the points of fianchettoing.
I wouldn't recommend a double fianchetto, but that's a personal thing.
Also the manoeuvre Nb1-d2-f1 to g3 is good in some positions. Knights on f3
and g3 control a lot of squares.