Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 13:07:12 12/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 1999 at 11:10:29, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On December 10, 1999 at 07:38:04, Sune Larsson wrote: > >>On December 09, 1999 at 17:35:24, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 1999 at 04:28:20, Sune Larsson wrote: >>> >>>>On December 08, 1999 at 16:41:24, John Warfield wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> One of the Arguments used by those who advocate that Programs are not GM >>>>>Strength is that Programs lose to 2200 players or less, whereas sopposedly GM's >>>>>don't. I want to debunk this view by presenting this game played at the national >>>>>open where six time U.S Champion Walter Browne gets crushed by a 2070!! Player. >>>>>There are many other such games. Just where people are getting the ideal that >>>>>grandmasters don't lose to lower rated players escapes me completely. >>>> >>>> Very interesting game! I will look closer at it in the evening. A bit busy at >>>> the office right now. Colourful personality this Walter Shawn. Met with him >>>> at a tourney way back in the 70th. Remember we had some good poker with the >>>> Yugoslaves Janosevic and Damjanovic in the evenings, between the rounds. >>>> Think Parma won that tournament. By the way, I see many talented persons >>>> posting here. People that also say that they understand little about chess >>>> and think they play badly. Can't really understand this, if of course you >>>> have given chess some time. Think it's a matter of training. It´s not so >>>> difficult to get a ELO of 2350. These people are not so strong. To become >>>> a strong IM of 2450 you have to work much or have some talent. To become >>>> an "ordinary" GM is more difficult - not to mention advancing to + 2600... >>>> A nice way of learning the game is to play through lots of games. Just for >>>> fun. See what happens and draw some conclusions of your own. Myself I do this >>>> instead of reading alot of newspapers. Thousands of games through the years... >>>> Then, when looking at a game, it's a matter of your eyes - to see and under- >>>> stand what the position is all about. Then it's possible to understand why >>>> in a certain position it´s "impossible" to play h3 - because you see and >>>> feel that the tension in the center is what it's all about - or the importance >>>> of quickly getting your knight to c5. Then you just can't think of moves like >>>> h3. Talking to your pieces is good. "Hallo my little Knight on e2 - just >>>> where would you like to go? Feeling good on this square? Aha, c5 nice "hole" >>>> there - hm the way would be Ne2-c1-b3-c5... And what about my friend the >>>> Bishop g2 just looking on the walls of pawns on e4, d5. And so on. >>>> Nice game chess... >>>> >>>> Sune >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>This is just the kind of reasonning that take us to defeat against computers. >>>Positional considerations about what to do "in general" but not -maybe- looking >>>hard enough to tactic resources hidden in a combinaton between 5 or 10 moves. >>>Once and again I lose games because I expend 95% of my time understanding the >>>position and only 5% looking at what the bloody monster can muster against me. >>>To become a 2300 player is not that easy as you say it is. You need that this 5% >>>expended in tactical calculations be enough accuater and deep. There is where we >>>-lesser players- fail. Problem is that computer does not forgive nothing of the >>>sort. Esentialy chess is -for us- a tactic game where you lose or win on tactic >>>terms. If you never got in yiuth an automatic almost unconciues tactical skill >>>to avoid that, youl will not get it in adulthood. It always will be a non natral >>>effort prone to mistakes at each step. At leas that is my experience. I know >>>more but I commit the same number -or more- tactical mistakes. >>>fernando >> >> Yes, chess is a complex game. Hm, I forgot that tactics came very easy to >> me when I started playing (much too late, I was 15). So without trainer, >> focus was on openings, tactics and active play, heavily influenced by Fischer. >> Never really trained endgames. Deep positional understanding? Not in my games >> anyway. But this was sufficient to reach ELO 2300 in 4-5 years. No big deal. >> So you may be right in "If you never got in youth an automatic almost >> unconscious tactical skill, you will not get it in adulthood." And now, I´m >> more interested in strategy and endgames. Still, if you give 95% of your >> time and energy trying to understand the position and just 5% to tactics I >> can understand your losses... Studied the games of young Radjabov in Wch Youth >> 18 - Ortopesa del Mar. This boy is 12 years old! Just look at his games >> against Kundin and Ghonimy! Playing so strong positional games at this age! >> You really can sense the competent chesstrainer behind him... Of course this >> boy will be a GM. No doubt about that. But also as an adult there are ways >> of improving your chess. For example exercises like clearing the board, >> putting one Knight on h1, closing your eyes and try to visualize the shortest >> way for the Knight to reach a8. Or putting up a position with just a Knight >> and 6-8 pawns for each side and play it out vs Fritz/Hiarcs, etc. >> And having fun... >> >> Sune >>>> >Clearly you and me have different kind of minds. Are you a pro or student in >some hard science perhaps? I tend to believe that there are calculators kind of >minds and there are organic kind of minds. Calculators has a gift for counting >beans in maths or whatever. For them is natural the "I do, he do, then I do", >etc. And then we have organics, tipical in writers and I am one of them. We are >slowers thinkers, not very good at counting; we tend to be good to imagine, to >perceive psy patterns, etc. Our thinhking is verbal, qualitative, not >quantitative. So as a rule writers tend to be louzy chess players. But of course >this is just an example of merely bverbal, qualitative judgement...:-) >Fernando I'm neither this nor that... And I refuse to categorize people your way. In my profession, I every day see the complexity of human beings. Everyone has their own thinking, feelings, fears, imagination, dreams, inner world etc. Was just giving a few hints about chesstraining. And if you are raised with Evans-Morra-Marshallgambits, trying to let your intuition and fantasy flow, influenced by the intense style of US Fischer himself - well then you are far far away from any sort of beancounting... Sune >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[Event "U.S Open"] >>>>>[Site "U.s "] >>>>>[Date "1999.12.08"] >>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>[White "GM Walter Brown "] >>>>>[Black "Lawrence Stevens "] >>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>[WhiteElo "2500"] >>>>>[BlackElo "2046"] >>>>>[ECO "D20"] >>>>> >>>>>1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Bxd2+ 6. Nbxd2 exd4 7. >>>>>Bxc4 c5 8. Rc1 Nc6 9. Bb5 Nge7 10. Rxc5 Bg4 11. Qa4 O-O 12. O-O a6 13. >>>>>Bxc6 Nxc6 14. Rd5 Qf6 15. Re1 Rfd8 16. Qa3 Be6 17. e5 Qe7 18. Rd6 Rd7 19. >>>>>Ne4 Rad8 20. Qc5 Nxe5 21. Rxd7 Nxf3+ 22. gxf3 Qxd7 23. Qg5 Kf8 24. Nc5 >>>>>Qe7 25. Qe5 Qd6 26. Nxe6+ Qxe6 27. Qxe6 fxe6 28. Rxe6 d3 29. Re1 d2 30. >>>>>Rd1 Kf7 31. Kf1 Kf6 32. Ke2 Kf5 33. Rg1 d1=Q+ 34. Rxd1 Rxd1 35. Kxd1 Kf4 >>>>>36. Ke2 h6 37. h3 g6 38. b3 h5 39. Ke1 Kxf3 40. Kf1 b5 41. Kg1 g5 42. Kf1 >>>>>b4 43. Kg1 g4 44. hxg4 Kxg4 45. Kg2 Kf4 0-1
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.