Desert Island Chess

Main

Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:32:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Desert Island Chess

This conversation started in a monitored newsgroup: Basically, you are on a
desert island for a month with a bunch of other chess players and you can
take along

"4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"

What do you chose?

---

One conversation went like this:-

---

Since you are going to bring Kings Gambit for the Creative Aggressor, I'll
cheat and borrow yours, and since you don't know what to do against the
Sicilian, I'll bring along Sveshnikov's book on the Pelikan.

As for tactics; maybe Combinative Motifs, by M. Blokh. a chess book with no
words in it! Instead 1200 positions with 2 exercises each - the 'Russian
method' of engaging pattern recognition.

What are endgames? I never seem to have any, although I notice people talk
about them a lot. Maybe when I get better [or worse] I'll have one?

As for the misc title, I'll bring along the boring old "Chess: Games to
Remember" by Horowitz [which will be the secret popular hit and rent it to
anyone for a coconut per hour]

Cordially, Robinson Parrot

Date: 08 Nov 2007 14:39:50
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 8, 6:01 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> I'm not going to bother addressing your points in detail, since it
> appears you haven't actually read what I wrote. Your argument appears
> to be that playing chess from the following standard position, is
> `creative problem solving'
>
> but that playing chess from this position, which will only come about
> if Black co-operates and plays the right moves, is not `creative
> problem solving'.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to think about why that might be the case.

I removed the diagrams to save space. I am not sure how what I said
came off that way, since I am likely arguing the second. What I am
saying is that having players play games where they don't have
memorized lines of play, or situations where they are unfamilar, is
more able to test "creative problem solving" than the opposite, which
is memory recall.

In memory recall, the brilliance is borrowed from others. In creative
problem solving, it is your own.

Anyhow, what I was saying is my preference would be to never play the
same game twice over only dedicating myself to a single game. This is
why I prefer variants. I like these variants caged and separated from
FIDE chess (which is the point of IAGO), so that purists don't have to
hear about them, or play them if they don't want to.

- Rich

Date: 09 Nov 2007 10:44:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> What I am saying is that having players play games where they don't
> have memorized lines of play, or situations where they are
> unfamilar, is more able to test "creative problem solving" than the
> opposite, which is memory recall.

And what I am saying is that, even if two players rattle off twenty
moves from memory, they still have to play creatively once their
memories are exhausted. It's just like playing ordinary chess but
with a different (and still more or less equal) starting position. It
is extremely rare for a game to be decided while one of the players is
still playing from memory.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Hilarious Newspaper (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a daily broadsheet but
it's a bundle of laughs and preserved
in vinegar!

Date: 09 Nov 2007 13:03:23
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0Tq*[email protected]...
> Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What I am saying is that having players play games where they don't
>> have memorized lines of play, or situations where they are
>> unfamilar, is more able to test "creative problem solving" than the
>> opposite, which is memory recall.
>
> And what I am saying is that, even if two players rattle off twenty
> moves from memory, they still have to play creatively once their
> memories are exhausted. It's just like playing ordinary chess but
> with a different (and still more or less equal) starting position. It
> is extremely rare for a game to be decided while one of the players is
> still playing from memory.
>

Please substantiate your claim of "extremely rare". My guess is that between
weaker amateur players of unequal ability, it's at least 10%.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:17:33
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 7, 12:39 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:06 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If you want a way to do a raw and pure measure of a person's cognitive
> > skills, then offering people new games try is a way to do it.
>
> This comment makes no sense to me. Are you reducing cognitive skills
> to the ability to engage in new experiences? That is one cognitive
> skill, not the whole packet. The very "memorization" you later deride
> is an important cognitive skill!

Yes, memorization is an important one, but so is creative problem
solving in a pressure environment. I have a preference for the
creative problem solving rather than memorization.

> It only becomes rote memorization if you let it. If you take the time
> to actually learn, not just memorize, learning openings can be a
> process of creative problem solving. Few who learn openings are
> studying 4th and 5th moves of play, they are studying 10-20 moves of
> play these days.
>
> However, someone who uses terms like "half shot of Bishop fianchetto"
> probably hasn't engaged the openings well enough to make commentary on
> the value of studying chess books. I realize this was just an off-the-
> cuff comment, but it is still a bad one, like saying, "hey he got half
> a shot of a hole in one!" You either finachetto a bishop or you don't.

I was absurd on purpose, and didn't want to have to go look up some
other name. I made up something for example purpose. Of course you
can't half shot a Bishop fianchetto on a chess board. But you every
think that MAYBE I was referring to someone having an alcoholic
beverage called a "Bishop fianchetto" while they were playing? :-P

> Here I can divine some sense of what you are trying to say - I think.
>
> There are, as I have found recently, all kinds of people like this.I
> started playing online turn-based chess again, and am amazed by how
> many people there are out there who don't have a clue as to what they
> are doing - but apparently still enjoy the game. One guy I played had
> 2200+ games to his credit, and proclaimed in his notes that he had
> "neither time, nor the inclination" to read a chess book. He was
> awful, the worst kind of patzer, down a queen or more in 8 moves. He
> could easily have played 1000 less games and read one chess book and
> at least played a decent game. Just one decent book.
>
> However, I suspect he had no clue to how badly he played. He still won
> games on occasion, and probably thought he was a good player. He was
> also proud of the fact that, as indicated in his notes, that he played
> "every game to its bitter end." If he had learned to resign when down
> 2 rooks and a bishop, again, he would have had more time to actually
> learn the game.

So he loses far more than he wins? Shouldn't that be a sign that his
game needs to improve somehow?

> The game is dominated not just by people who read the books, but those
> who understand them. Your lumping them all into the category of "book
> monkeys" is reductionist to the absurd. People who just want to dick
> around at chess are free to do so; however, the complaint that those
> who take the time to learn something about it are somehow ruining the
> game is ridiculous. The deficit to the game in my eyes, is by people
> who not only play badly (we all do that, with few exceptions), but
> those who somehow think they are treading some sort of moral high
> ground by doing so and remaining ignorant.

My comment went beyond "book monkey" to actually speaking more of
games where you test creative problem solving. Cases where, if you
take a chess grand master and put him in an position that wouldn't
happen in chess, he evaluates far more poorly. I was speaking of
tests that measure like Maurice Ashley seen in this video in the
beginning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILX-nK8TQfE

Yes you can have books and so on, but the raw measure of intellectual
ability, measuring how someone can adapt to all sorts of games.

- Rich

Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:06:55
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 7, 6:09 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I can agree here studying competent players and those better than
> > you, is a way to learn to improve. However, what I am looking for
> > also is for it to be fun. Make it enjoyable. Books can come later.
>
> You say this as if a chess book cannot be enjoyable. I happen to
> rather enjoy studying chess as a hobby. I don't study a lot and I'll
> never be an especially good player but I do find it enjoyable to play
> through annotated games, to solve tactics problems and to read about
> the game.

If your approach to learning is by reading a book, it can be
enjoyable. For other people, they like to ready by doing. Also, I
wasn't speaking on looking at already established games, and
commentary. What I was referring to more, is when lines of play
actually get names, and then they are diagrammed to death as to what
is or is not inferior, to milk out all the mystery of it. The element
of surprise is replaced with ability to crush someone else who didn't
see it spelled out, and didn't know its name,

I personally delight in the Grand Prix, for example, because I
stumbled upon it in playing speed chess once. I found the lines
interesting. What I write to here is that I desire to expand interest
in abstracts by focusing on aspects of abstract games playing that
isn't involved with learning the name of lines of play.

> > But, if someone is going to spend extensive time studying 4th and
> > 5th move lines of play, and books on them (say a fictional, Queens
> > Gambit Decline with a half shot of Bishop fianchetto, and a king
> > side castle) it ends up no longer being a measure of creative
> > problem solving, but of rote memorization.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're seriously
> overestimating the value of opening study for all but the very top
> players. At the very top of the tree, the difference between coming
> out of the opening with a tiny advantage and coming out with a small
> advantage might decide the game. However, if you analyze the game of
> Joe Public-Chessplayer against his peers with a computer, you'll
> probably find that each of them blunders at least a pawn's worth of
> material, at least one a game, without their opponent even noticing.
> Suboptimal opening play really is insignificant compared to the
> mistakes that the casual player makes in the rest of the game.

I was echoing what Bobby Fischer said regarding memorizing openings.
When you analyze openings to the degree they have with chess, you end
up with the element of creative problem being replaced with rote
memorization. I spoke on this and what I prefer in my abstract
strategy games and chess.

> But let's suppose that our player has memorized his line of the
> queen's gambit for five moves (again, you're showing your lack of
> knowledge of chess, here -- five moves is nothing and can be picked up
> just from playing through a couple of master games). Suppose that all
> he has done is memorize these moves by rote, without understanding
> them. There are two possibilities.

And then you are able to name each and everyone one?

> a) Most likely, Joe's opponent doesn't co-operate and plays a
> different opening entirely. Joe's study makes absolutely no
> difference to the game. (I own one of the encyclopaedias of chess
> openings -- just a big book of lists of moves. I once checked my
> tournament games against that book and found that, on average, by
> something like move six, we were already out of the book. I don't
> study the opening, except by playing through master games in the
> openings like to play but I've memorized most of the lines I like
> down to ten moves or so, just because that sort of thing stays in
> my memory. It doesn't do me any good, though, because my opponent
> plays some other random move and then I have to rely on my
> understanding, rather than my accidental memorization.)

Understanding, but what about creativity? Understanding from playing
the same configuration and set of rules over and over is different
than the ability to come up with new solutions. My interest is in
having more of this coming up with new solutions than being a wise old
owl who recalls a configuration they played years before. I am just
saying what interests me. Yes, there is room for the wise old owl,
but also having more creativity and novelty makes things more
interesting to a casual player and people new. The idea is to
increase surprise in a game, and make it not like it is a well worn
sweater you fall back on.

> b) Joe gets lucky and his opponent makes the moves that allow him to
> bash out his memorized replies. Joe knows nothing about the
> resulting position so it's a battle of his wits against his
> opponent's. In other words, it's just like an ordinary game of
> chess but with a different (but still almost level) starting
> position. Joe's study makes hardly any difference.

Again, in this case, there is definitely not a case of creative
problem solving.

> People who are not very familiar with chess imagine that studying the
> opening means learning how to instantly win the other guy's queen (or
> even checkmate him!) if he makes the slightest mistake in the first
> ten moves (twenty for grandmasters). In reality, it just isn't like
> that.

The person who knows all the ins and outs of openings knows all the
traps of lines of play and can avoid them. And the difference in
preserved pawn structure and control from this, can make a big
difference. So, for the sake of winning, memorizing lines of play
comes into play.

> Really, you're condemning a straw man. Memorizing openings just isn't
> very valuable except for extremely strong players. Everybody else
> would do much better to concentrate on the sort of book that tells you
> the sort of thing you might learn by discussing the game with a
> stronger player.

And my point here is I am interested in tests of genuine creative
problem solving. It isn't to diminish reading general books on
strategy, but rather to emphasize what I consider to be more
interesting. This is a personal preference.

> Um. Chess most certainly appeals to people as casual enthusiasts,
> even if they never read the books. Just go to any internet chess site
> and look at the quality of the games being played. Half of them are
> so bad they've obviously never read a single chess book but they play
> game after game after game. Chess obviously appeals to these people
> or they'd go away and do something else.

I am sure there is a range of reasons why people play, and possibility
it would have to do with the number of players.

- Rich

Date: 08 Nov 2007 11:01:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

I'm not going to bother addressing your points in detail, since it
appears you haven't actually read what I wrote. Your argument appears
to be that playing chess from the following standard position, is
`creative problem solving'

+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

Date: 07 Nov 2007 17:39:09
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 7, 11:06 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> If you want a way to do a raw and pure measure of a person's cognitive
> skills, then offering people new games try is a way to do it.

This comment makes no sense to me. Are you reducing cognitive skills
to the ability to engage in new experiences? That is one cognitive
skill, not the whole packet. The very "memorization" you later deride
is an important cognitive skill!

> But, if someone is going to spend
> extensive time studying 4th and 5th move lines of play, and books on
> them (say a fictional, Queens Gambit Decline with a half shot of
> Bishop fianchetto, and a king side castle) it ends up no longer being
> a measure of creative problem solving, but of rote memorization.

It only becomes rote memorization if you let it. If you take the time
to actually learn, not just memorize, learning openings can be a
process of creative problem solving. Few who learn openings are
studying 4th and 5th moves of play, they are studying 10-20 moves of
play these days.

However, someone who uses terms like "half shot of Bishop fianchetto"
probably hasn't engaged the openings well enough to make commentary on
the value of studying chess books. I realize this was just an off-the-
cuff comment, but it is still a bad one, like saying, "hey he got half
a shot of a hole in one!" You either finachetto a bishop or you don't.

At
> what cost to a game is it if the play is dominated by people reading
> such books? I will say here, I am not discounting books being
> written, just that a game needs to still appeal to people as casual
> enthusiasts even if they never read the books.

Here I can divine some sense of what you are trying to say - I think.

There are, as I have found recently, all kinds of people like this.I
started playing online turn-based chess again, and am amazed by how
many people there are out there who don't have a clue as to what they
are doing - but apparently still enjoy the game. One guy I played had
2200+ games to his credit, and proclaimed in his notes that he had
"neither time, nor the inclination" to read a chess book. He was
awful, the worst kind of patzer, down a queen or more in 8 moves. He
could easily have played 1000 less games and read one chess book and
at least played a decent game. Just one decent book.

However, I suspect he had no clue to how badly he played. He still won
games on occasion, and probably thought he was a good player. He was
also proud of the fact that, as indicated in his notes, that he played
"every game to its bitter end." If he had learned to resign when down
2 rooks and a bishop, again, he would have had more time to actually
learn the game.

The game is dominated not just by people who read the books, but those
who understand them. Your lumping them all into the category of "book
monkeys" is reductionist to the absurd. People who just want to dick
around at chess are free to do so; however, the complaint that those
who take the time to learn something about it are somehow ruining the
game is ridiculous. The deficit to the game in my eyes, is by people
who not only play badly (we all do that, with few exceptions), but
those who somehow think they are treading some sort of moral high
ground by doing so and remaining ignorant.

Date: 07 Nov 2007 09:06:16
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 7, 11:47 am, "Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:39 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Well, for myself, I haven't had a chance to play it enough. I
> >> > actually stumbled across it as something I did randomly in a speed
> >> > chess match to for a "what the heck" response, and then found it
> >> > looked very interesting to me. Again, I thought the question was
> >> > "what would you like to do as an opening" and that was it. Anyhow, in
> >> > regards to chess, I would agree with Colbert's assessment about
> >> > reading: "Books are the enemy" :-P
>
> >> If that's the case, we have long since lost the battle. If I had a
> >> dollar for every book every written about chess, I could retire in
> >> great luxury. On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every _good_
> >> book written about chess, I might have enough for the down payment on
> >> a car.
>
> > I don't think the average person wants to read a ton of books to
> > improve their game. Peoplw ant to play, which is why I advocated
> > that. [Heavy clip]
>
> Ignoring the hyperbole of "ton," this is why the average person doesn't
> improve.

And yes, I went a bit hyperbole on what I said.

>As Rossolimo was fond of saying, you can beat your grandmother
> day in and day out and you won't play any better than the day you started.
> Playing interspersed with book study is -- in 999 out of 1000 cases -- the
> only road to improvement.

If you want a way to do a raw and pure measure of a person's cognitive
skills, then offering people new games try is a way to do it. This is
what I am looking for here. I can agree here studying competent
players and those better than you, is a way to learn to improve.
However, what I am looking for also is for it to be fun. Make it
enjoyable. Books can come later. But, if someone is going to spend
extensive time studying 4th and 5th move lines of play, and books on
them (say a fictional, Queens Gambit Decline with a half shot of
Bishop fianchetto, and a king side castle) it ends up no longer being
a measure of creative problem solving, but of rote memorization. At
what cost to a game is it if the play is dominated by people reading
such books? I will say here, I am not discounting books being
written, just that a game needs to still appeal to people as casual
enthusiasts even if they never read the books.

- Rich

Date: 09 Nov 2007 12:15:41
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 7, 11:47 am, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 6, 9:39 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 5, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > Well, for myself, I haven't had a chance to play it enough. I
>> >> > actually stumbled across it as something I did randomly in a speed
>> >> > chess match to for a "what the heck" response, and then found it
>> >> > looked very interesting to me. Again, I thought the question was
>> >> > "what would you like to do as an opening" and that was it. Anyhow,
>> >> > in
>> >> > regards to chess, I would agree with Colbert's assessment about
>> >> > reading: "Books are the enemy" :-P
>>
>> >> If that's the case, we have long since lost the battle. If I had a
>> >> dollar for every book every written about chess, I could retire in
>> >> great luxury. On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every _good_
>> >> book written about chess, I might have enough for the down payment on
>> >> a car.
>>
>> > I don't think the average person wants to read a ton of books to
>> > improve their game. Peoplw ant to play, which is why I advocated
>> > that. [Heavy clip]
>>
>> Ignoring the hyperbole of "ton," this is why the average person doesn't
>> improve.
>
> And yes, I went a bit hyperbole on what I said.
>
>>As Rossolimo was fond of saying, you can beat your grandmother
>> day in and day out and you won't play any better than the day you
>> started.
>> Playing interspersed with book study is -- in 999 out of 1000 cases --
>> the
>> only road to improvement.
>
> If you want a way to do a raw and pure measure of a person's cognitive
> skills, then offering people new games try is a way to do it. This is
> what I am looking for here. I can agree here studying competent
> players and those better than you, is a way to learn to improve.
> However, what I am looking for also is for it to be fun. Make it
> enjoyable. Books can come later. But, if someone is going to spend
> extensive time studying 4th and 5th move lines of play, and books on
> them (say a fictional, Queens Gambit Decline with a half shot of
> Bishop fianchetto, and a king side castle) it ends up no longer being
> a measure of creative problem solving, but of rote memorization. At
> what cost to a game is it if the play is dominated by people reading
> such books? I will say here, I am not discounting books being
> written, just that a game needs to still appeal to people as casual
> enthusiasts even if they never read the books.

Something is amiss if you think good players read a book, let's say an
opening book, to memorize moves. Opening moves should never be memorized:
they should be understood. As you come to understand a move's value to a
position, it becomes less a matter of memorizing it when you play that move
in the position later. As for one's spending "extensive" time to learn four
or five moves of an opening, the less said the better.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
> - Rich
>

Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:09:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> I can agree here studying competent players and those better than
> you, is a way to learn to improve. However, what I am looking for
> also is for it to be fun. Make it enjoyable. Books can come later.

You say this as if a chess book cannot be enjoyable. I happen to
rather enjoy studying chess as a hobby. I don't study a lot and I'll
never be an especially good player but I do find it enjoyable to play
through annotated games, to solve tactics problems and to read about
the game.

> But, if someone is going to spend extensive time studying 4th and
> 5th move lines of play, and books on them (say a fictional, Queens
> Gambit Decline with a half shot of Bishop fianchetto, and a king
> side castle) it ends up no longer being a measure of creative
> problem solving, but of rote memorization.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're seriously
overestimating the value of opening study for all but the very top
players. At the very top of the tree, the difference between coming
out of the opening with a tiny advantage and coming out with a small
advantage might decide the game. However, if you analyze the game of
Joe Public-Chessplayer against his peers with a computer, you'll
probably find that each of them blunders at least a pawn's worth of
material, at least one a game, without their opponent even noticing.
Suboptimal opening play really is insignificant compared to the
mistakes that the casual player makes in the rest of the game.

But let's suppose that our player has memorized his line of the
queen's gambit for five moves (again, you're showing your lack of
knowledge of chess, here -- five moves is nothing and can be picked up
just from playing through a couple of master games). Suppose that all
he has done is memorize these moves by rote, without understanding
them. There are two possibilities.

a) Most likely, Joe's opponent doesn't co-operate and plays a
different opening entirely. Joe's study makes absolutely no
difference to the game. (I own one of the encyclopaedias of chess
openings -- just a big book of lists of moves. I once checked my
tournament games against that book and found that, on average, by
something like move six, we were already out of the book. I don't
study the opening, except by playing through master games in the
openings like to play but I've memorized most of the lines I like
down to ten moves or so, just because that sort of thing stays in
my memory. It doesn't do me any good, though, because my opponent
plays some other random move and then I have to rely on my
understanding, rather than my accidental memorization.)

b) Joe gets lucky and his opponent makes the moves that allow him to
bash out his memorized replies. Joe knows nothing about the
resulting position so it's a battle of his wits against his
opponent's. In other words, it's just like an ordinary game of
chess but with a different (but still almost level) starting
position. Joe's study makes hardly any difference.

People who are not very familiar with chess imagine that studying the
opening means learning how to instantly win the other guy's queen (or
even checkmate him!) if he makes the slightest mistake in the first
ten moves (twenty for grandmasters). In reality, it just isn't like
that.

Really, you're condemning a straw man. Memorizing openings just isn't
very valuable except for extremely strong players. Everybody else
would do much better to concentrate on the sort of book that tells you
the sort of thing you might learn by discussing the game with a
stronger player.

> At what cost to a game is it if the play is dominated by people
> reading such books?

``And all the world over each nation's the same.
They've simply no notion of playing the game.
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won,
And they practise before hand which spoils all the fun!''
-- Flanders and Swann, _The English_

> I will say here, I am not discounting books being written, just that
> a game needs to still appeal to people as casual enthusiasts even if
> they never read the books.

Um. Chess most certainly appeals to people as casual enthusiasts,
even if they never read the books. Just go to any internet chess site
and look at the quality of the games being played. Half of them are
so bad they've obviously never read a single chess book but they play
game after game after game. Chess obviously appeals to these people
or they'd go away and do something else.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Accelerated Cheese (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a lump of cheese but it's twice
as fast and completely natural!

Date: 06 Nov 2007 09:17:21
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 6, 9:39 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well, for myself, I haven't had a chance to play it enough. I
> > actually stumbled across it as something I did randomly in a speed
> > chess match to for a "what the heck" response, and then found it
> > looked very interesting to me. Again, I thought the question was
> > "what would you like to do as an opening" and that was it. Anyhow, in
> > regards to chess, I would agree with Colbert's assessment about
> > reading: "Books are the enemy" :-P
>
> If that's the case, we have long since lost the battle. If I had a
> dollar for every book every written about chess, I could retire in
> great luxury. On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every _good_
> book written about chess, I might have enough for the down payment on
> a car.

I don't think the average person wants to read a ton of books to
improve their game. Peoplw ant to play, which is why I advocated
that.

> > Myself, I am into variants, so I would prefer a customizable set up
> > where players alternate setting up their pieces in the back rows.
>
> Several such variants have been devised in the last 30-40 years by
> Bronstein, Benko, Fischer et al, for example Fischerandom chess.

Ahh Chess960. You know, in my attempt to get an association off the
ground to promote abstract strategy games, I have had people actually
argue with me that Fischer Random Chess is NOT an abstract strategy
game. Even if players played both sides, it was argued to me that it
is not an abstract strategy game, and doesn't belong in an association
to promote abstract strategy games.

> > This would also have potential for castling, if the rooks are outside
> > the king. This way no one is writing "Steenkin' books" on the
> > subject :-)
>
> Oh, but they are already writing "steenking books" on that sort of
> variant, e.g.
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review428.pdf

Ok, I see it. Anyhow, what I am proposing (IAGO Standard Billion
Chess), looks to be so huge in openings (around 1 billion) that not a
lot of books will be written on it. My interest in abstracts is games
that don't require people to have to read on a lot of lines of play to
get better at them, but by playing a range of games. I see Fischer
Random has a book written on it.

- Rich

Date: 07 Nov 2007 09:47:07
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 6, 9:39 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Well, for myself, I haven't had a chance to play it enough. I
>> > actually stumbled across it as something I did randomly in a speed
>> > chess match to for a "what the heck" response, and then found it
>> > looked very interesting to me. Again, I thought the question was
>> > "what would you like to do as an opening" and that was it. Anyhow, in
>> > regards to chess, I would agree with Colbert's assessment about
>> > reading: "Books are the enemy" :-P
>>
>> If that's the case, we have long since lost the battle. If I had a
>> dollar for every book every written about chess, I could retire in
>> great luxury. On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every _good_
>> book written about chess, I might have enough for the down payment on
>> a car.
>
> I don't think the average person wants to read a ton of books to
> improve their game. Peoplw ant to play, which is why I advocated
> that. [Heavy clip]

Ignoring the hyperbole of "ton," this is why the average person doesn't
improve. As Rossolimo was fond of saying, you can beat your grandmother
day in and day out and you won't play any better than the day you started.
Playing interspersed with book study is -- in 999 out of 1000 cases -- the
only road to improvement.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)

Date: 06 Nov 2007 22:16:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anyhow, what I am proposing (IAGO Standard Billion
> Chess), looks to be so huge in openings (around 1 billion) that not
> a lot of books will be written on it.

No disrespect but it seems to be better to have chess variants
invented by strong players, since they're best able to determine
whether the new game is balanced.

> My interest in abstracts is games that don't require people to have
> to read on a lot of lines of play to get better at them, but by
> playing a range of games.

One can become a very strong chess player without ever reading or
learning anything more about the opening than general principles.
Yes, the stereotypical chess book is `Winning with the Hutnik Attack'
full of lines for you to memorize but you don't actually need to read
it to become a good player.

> I see Fischer Random has a book written on it.

I think it's inevitable that any interesting game of skill will have
books written about it. After all, there must be skills specific to
that game and there's always scope for books that explain what those
skills are.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Enormous Dangerous Chicken (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a farm animal but it could
explode at any minute and it's huge!

Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:39:09
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 5, 11:33 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 1:34 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The Grand Prix Attack got a rush of popularity in the early 1980s
> > when it was played with considerable success by such young British
> > masters as Hebden, Hodgson, Rumens et al. But I recall reading back in
> > the late 1980s, or early '90s at the latest, that it had run out of
> > theoretical steam and was no longer considered viable at the higher
> > levels of competition. Has this view changed since then?
>
> Well, for myself, I haven't had a chance to play it enough. I
> actually stumbled across it as something I did randomly in a speed
> chess match to for a "what the heck" response, and then found it
> looked very interesting to me. Again, I thought the question was
> "what would you like to do as an opening" and that was it. Anyhow, in
> regards to chess, I would agree with Colbert's assessment about
> reading: "Books are the enemy" :-P

If that's the case, we have long since lost the battle. If I had a
dollar for every book every written about chess, I could retire in
great luxury. On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every _good_
book written about chess, I might have enough for the down payment on
a car.

> Myself, I am into variants, so I would prefer a customizable set up
> where players alternate setting up their pieces in the back rows.

Several such variants have been devised in the last 30-40 years by
Bronstein, Benko, Fischer et al, for example Fischerandom chess.

> This would also have potential for castling, if the rooks are outside
> the king. This way no one is writing "Steenkin' books" on the
> subject :-)

Oh, but they are already writing "steenking books" on that sort of
variant, e.g.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review428.pdf

Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:33:28
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 5, 1:34 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This conversation started in a monitored newsgroup: Basically, you are on a
> > > desert island for a month with a bunch of other chess players and you can
> > > take along
>
> > > "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> > > What do you chose?
>
> > I will only answer opening here. Do you count the Grand Prix response
> > to the Sicilian Defense as an opening?
>
> > This is a very dangerous line I wish I could get a chance to play more
> > (Shoot, I wish I could play more chess period).
>
> The Grand Prix Attack got a rush of popularity in the early 1980s
> when it was played with considerable success by such young British
> masters as Hebden, Hodgson, Rumens et al. But I recall reading back in
> the late 1980s, or early '90s at the latest, that it had run out of
> theoretical steam and was no longer considered viable at the higher
> levels of competition. Has this view changed since then?

Well, for myself, I haven't had a chance to play it enough. I
actually stumbled across it as something I did randomly in a speed
chess match to for a "what the heck" response, and then found it
looked very interesting to me. Again, I thought the question was
"what would you like to do as an opening" and that was it. Anyhow, in
regards to chess, I would agree with Colbert's assessment about
reading: "Books are the enemy" :-P

Myself, I am into variants, so I would prefer a customizable set up
where players alternate setting up their pieces in the back rows.
This would also have potential for castling, if the rooks are outside
the king. This way no one is writing "Steenkin' books" on the
subject :-)

- Rich

Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:30:05
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Desert Island Chess

On Nov 5, 12:45 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> > I will only answer opening here. Do you count the Grand Prix
> > response to the Sicilian Defense as an opening?
>
> Sure, it's an opening, but you were supposed to be choosing books.

I am not interested in playing any game where I have to read books as
part of playing it, so I discounted it. If you ask me to pick books,
then give me any books on the Grand Prix opening :-)

> > This is a very dangerous line I wish I could get a chance to play
> > more
>
> I'm rather fond of the black side of the Tal Gambit in response to
> the Grand Prix without 2.Nc3: 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5. But I don't play the
> Sicilian any more -- Black needs to come up with too many `only
> moves'.

I will have to try it out on a board sometime. So, you personally
don't open with King's Pawn when playing white? I thought Grand Prix
was a counter to the Sicilian.

- Rich

Date: 06 Nov 2007 11:58:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Desert Island Chess

Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm rather fond of the black side of the Tal Gambit in response to
>> the Grand Prix without 2.Nc3: 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5. But I don't play
>> the Sicilian any more -- Black needs to come up with too many `only
>> moves'.
>
> I will have to try it out on a board sometime. So, you personally
> don't open with King's Pawn when playing white? I thought Grand
> Prix was a counter to the Sicilian.

I open with the queen's pawn. I used to play the Sicilian as black
but, these days, I play the Caro-Kann against 1.e4.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Metal Puzzle (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intriguing conundrum that's made
of steel!

Date: 05 Nov 2007 18:53:14
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 5, 12:34 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This conversation started in a monitored newsgroup: Basically, you are on a
> > > desert island for a month with a bunch of other chess players and you can
> > > take along
>
> > > "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> > > What do you chose?
>
> > I will only answer opening here. Do you count the Grand Prix response
> > to the Sicilian Defense as an opening?
>
> > This is a very dangerous line I wish I could get a chance to play more
> > (Shoot, I wish I could play more chess period).
>
> The Grand Prix Attack got a rush of popularity in the early 1980s
> when it was played with considerable success by such young British
> masters as Hebden, Hodgson, Rumens et al. But I recall reading back in
> the late 1980s, or early '90s at the latest, that it had run out of
> theoretical steam and was no longer considered viable at the higher
> levels of competition. Has this view changed since then?

Don't know, but I read a news item today about Hebden being now the
senior member of the British team... time does fly, but I don't
remember having the fun.....

Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:34:38
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

On Nov 5, 11:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This conversation started in a monitored newsgroup: Basically, you are on a
> > desert island for a month with a bunch of other chess players and you can
> > take along
>
> > "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> > What do you chose?
>
> I will only answer opening here. Do you count the Grand Prix response
> to the Sicilian Defense as an opening?
>
> This is a very dangerous line I wish I could get a chance to play more
> (Shoot, I wish I could play more chess period).

The Grand Prix Attack got a rush of popularity in the early 1980s
when it was played with considerable success by such young British
masters as Hebden, Hodgson, Rumens et al. But I recall reading back in
the late 1980s, or early '90s at the latest, that it had run out of
theoretical steam and was no longer considered viable at the higher
levels of competition. Has this view changed since then?

Date: 05 Nov 2007 21:31:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Grand Prix Attack (was: Desert Island Chess)

Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Grand Prix Attack got a rush of popularity in the early 1980s
> when it was played with considerable success by such young British
> masters as Hebden, Hodgson, Rumens et al. But I recall reading back
> in the late 1980s, or early '90s at the latest, that it had run out
> of theoretical steam and was no longer considered viable at the
> higher levels of competition.

I've not heard anything to the contrary, though I'm not exactly
Mr Opening Theory.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Apple (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ tasty fruit but you can never put
it down!

Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:16:35
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Desert Island Chess

On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This conversation started in a monitored newsgroup: Basically, you are on a
> desert island for a month with a bunch of other chess players and you can
> take along
>
> "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> What do you chose?

I will only answer opening here. Do you count the Grand Prix response
to the Sicilian Defense as an opening?

This is a very dangerous line I wish I could get a chance to play more
(Shoot, I wish I could play more chess period).

- Rich

Date: 05 Nov 2007 17:45:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Desert Island Chess

Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> I will only answer opening here. Do you count the Grand Prix
> response to the Sicilian Defense as an opening?

Sure, it's an opening, but you were supposed to be choosing books.

> This is a very dangerous line I wish I could get a chance to play
> more

I'm rather fond of the black side of the Tal Gambit in response to
the Grand Prix without 2.Nc3: 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5. But I don't play the
Sicilian any more -- Black needs to come up with too many `only
moves'.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Clock (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but it'll hurt your eyes!

Date: 04 Nov 2007 07:43:02
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Desert Island Chess

On Nov 4, 7:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This conversation started in a monitored newsgroup: Basically, you are on a
> desert island for a month with a bunch of other chess players and you can
> take along
>
> "4 books: one opening, one tactic, one endgame and one misc"
>
> What do you chose?

To be on the desert island with an attractive, interesting woman who
felt reciprocal attraction and interest, and definitely *_without_* "a
bunch of other chess players."