09 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetleNail, board, joist, building, done.
So our Rabbie bows to Big Aron (the simultaneous investigation of positions of different types gives rise only to muddled thoughts, whereas the thorough study of a single type cannot fail to raise the level of one's positional knowledge, etc etc). And he explored some single pawn structures with the intention to examine them in depth.
But our Greenpa ...[text shortened]... merely said "first things first", and this sounds like a fine piece of advice to me
😵
Got it. (Mr. beetle sent it outta the ball-park)
Q
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen someone says "It stands to reason" it means they don't have any arguments.
yes that's exactly what i am saying, the bishop does not belong on f4 ever, ok, you
may have a reason in trying to weaken the d5 square, but there are more subtle ways
to get black to give up control of the d5 square than that. Citing what others have
done is hardly conclusive, it merely demonstrates the point at hand, they never
understood t ...[text shortened]... of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else} 0-1[/pgn]
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetlenah hes talking tosh beetle, he produces 476 chess criminals, who, without recourse
So our Rabbie bows to Big Aron (the simultaneous investigation of positions of different types gives rise only to muddled thoughts, whereas the thorough study of a single type cannot fail to raise the level of one's positional knowledge, etc etc). And he explored some single pawn structures with the intention to examine them in depth.
But our Greenpa ...[text shortened]... merely said "first things first", and this sounds like a fine piece of advice to me
😵
to the pawn structure, without recourse to any element in the game, without the
slightest understanding of the position, produce and play the positionally,
strategically and tactically abysmal Bf4 and who manage to get away with it as
evidence of why someone should dismiss the formation and its proper evaluation
and play with recourse to mere tactics, i dont think so. I could practice a zillion
pawn fork tactical exercises, i could go to a tournament gleeful that i will never get
forked again, my opponent plays a formation that i have never seen, regardless and
safe in the knowledge that i will never get forked i simply get outplayed positionally,
i come away delirious, for i dont even understand why i got beat up because i am
looking at chess positions solely on the basis of tactics! Even the great Anderssen, a
man gifted with infinite imagination realised that Morphy out played him positionally
and changed his style laterally to accommodate this new understanding. Yes
indeed, i make no apology for chess is an inherently strategic game.
Originally posted by Vartiovuoriwhen someone says it stands to reason it generally means they have a reason of which
When someone says "It stands to reason" it means they don't have any arguments.
i have given many, perhaps you might like to point out the flaw in those reasons.
Originally posted by Pacifiquewe were talking about the opening and how one might consider where the best piece
Evaluation based solely on pawn structure (without taking into account other pieces) is nonsense. I tend to agree with Greenpawn - player of 1500-1600 should study tactics, tactics & tactics (+ maybe also elementary strategic principles).
placements should be, perhaps you have a better method for evaluating the positions
which arise from the opening, well, let it be heard.
Originally posted by greenpawn34this is tosh! pure unadulterated double triple hyper tosh, GP, you are a chess Robin
"He is like that in the spirituality forum too."
There he knows what he is talking about.
I don't know what book he has been reading this week but he
wants to toss it on the fire.
Ah Ronnie I see you posted a game. It was not there last time I looked.
The final note is:
"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and no his is better.}
6. Nxc3 Bxc3 7. Qe2 Bxa1 8. Rxa1 O-O {Draw?}[/pgn]
Hood and you need to be brought to justice! you and your merry band of
tacticians! white played the positionally abysmal b3???? yes look at that move
b3??? no forks, no tactics, no pins, no skewers, no discovered attacks, a simple
positional blunder, why? because it undermines a key defender of the d5 square,
the c3 knight, he had no time for c4, his knight was going to be leaving the
board otherwise.
1. b3?? wow look at that, undermining the support of a key defender of the d5
square, had beatlemania a proper and correct understanding of the position based
upon the pawn structure he would never have considered the positionally suicidal,
b3??
1...Qc7
2. Bd3 Rc8
3. Ne2 and a key defender of the all important d5 square must move, normally one
needs to play b5-b4 to do this, but here because of the tragic consequences of
failing to understand the position based upon the pawn structure, the knight is
forced to move of its own accord
4. d5 every Najdorf d pawns dream, to reach the d5 square, why? pawn structure!
Now the question is GP how many of your band of merry tacticians would have
looked at b3 with any significance? they would all be busy calculating this variation
or that variation instead of gaining a proper evaluation of the position based upon
pawn structure, i rest my case!
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEdit: “nah hes talking tosh beetle… … i dont think so.”
nah hes talking tosh beetle, he produces 476 chess criminals, who, without recourse
to the pawn structure, without recourse to any element in the game, without the
slightest understanding of the position, produce and play the positionally,
strategically and tactically abysmal Bf4 and who manage to get away with it as
evidence of why someone s ...[text shortened]... s new understanding. Yes
indeed, i make no apology for chess is an inherently strategic game.
I fail to see how Bf4 can be severely punished by the Black anyway, anytime, anyhow. It seems you think Bf4 is a blunder under all circumstances. If I understand your thesis alright, this thesis looks to me inaccurate (not only because possible positional elements could arise according to a specific plan and calculation within the frame of the evaluation of a specific position, but also due to possible pins, sacs, x-ray attacks and other tactical elements of the position that could be deployed according to the evaluation of the position). Therefore, Bf4 could be whatever, always according to the position. And, during the evaluation of the position, we do not just evaluate the pawn structure.
On the other hand, I am sure the studies related to specific pawn structures do not work for players hovering at 1700. These studies are suitable for stronger players and require knowledge and dynamism that a 1700 player has not.
Edit: “I could practice… …tactics!”
Yes.
However, methinks in this case you were outplayed because you failed to evaluate the dynamics of a specific setup during the opening; then you failed to develop your pawns and pieces so that the opposite pawns end up weak whilst the opposite pieces could be either outmaneuvered, or unable to support their pawns or attack or defend crucial squares, or blocked or end up overloaded according to your evaluation of the position; then you failed to deploy a successful attacking plan; and then you failed to survive the endgame, if you ever managed to go this far. In other words, your chess knowledge, experience and fantasy did not help you to conduct the proper holistic evaluation that could enable you to win.
Edit: “Even the great… …understanding.”
Methinks infinite imagination in the Royal Game becomes finite when your opponent restricts it.
Edit: “Yes… …strategic game.”
To me, chess is meditation over objects😵
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetleyes beetle you are correct, but we have shifted from looking at pawn structures in
Edit: “nah hes talking tosh beetle… … i dont think so.”
I fail to see how Bf4 can be severely punished by the Black anyway, anytime, anyhow. It seems you think Bf4 is a blunder under all circumstances. If I understand your thesis alright, this thesis looks to me inaccurate (not only because possible positional elements could arise according to a spec ...[text shortened]... nt restricts it.
Edit: “Yes… …strategic game.”
To me, chess is meditation over objects😵
the opening phase of the game and trying to evaluate where the best piece
placements are, to looking at middle games, thus the goal posts have mysteriously
shifted and perceptions are changing as the target gets moved around.
I do not think it proper to evaluate chess positions solely on the basis of tactics, its
pure folly, I know, i have lost sooo many games where without recourse to anything
i have tried to sharpen the game, where no initiative existed and i was punished for
doing so. I have also lost sooo many games trying to keep the position balanced
and been punished for failing to take a tactical nuance into consideration, but the
point is of course one must be practical.
Yes the opponent may restrict our imagination, but you highlight the point at hand, if
there is no basis, no framework for our evaluation, our thoughts become what the
poet terms, 'smoke rings of the mind', they drift and dissipate, we make purposeless
moves, pseudo developing moves or worse still, positionally and tactically dubious
moves from which we may never recover.
yes it is good, without reflection it is impossible to play well, that is why, blitzing
moves out is the greatest folly in this type of chess.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChess is inherently tactical game. Strategy is about ideas, tactics is about moves. Strategy is a way for humans to overcome their limited calculation ability. One day computers will be able to calculate any position all the way to mate or draw. That will be perfect play without strategy - just pure tactics.
i make no apology for chess is an inherently strategic game.
Originally posted by iruPlease take a look at Morgski and Q thread, note Q's references to pawns and squares,
Chess is inherently tactical game. Strategy is about ideas, tactics is about moves. Strategy is a way for humans to overcome their limited calculation ability. One day computers will be able to calculate any position all the way to mate or draw. That will be perfect play without strategy - just pure tactics.
their weakening effects or otherwise , that is how a game of chess should be played,
we are human, we do not play chess like computers, we do not think like computers
either. Here is a game i played on my smartphone against the computer, some
things are of interest to note, take away a computers ability to calculate and it gets
lost, take it out of its opening book and it gets lost, play strategically and it will lose,
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no way to win a game by just following the ideas and not calculating the moves. There is a way to win a game by just calculating the moves if you can calculate deep enough. No doubt that humans need both tactics and strategy to play well. I was just saying that your statement about "inherently strategic game" was nonsense. I'd love to see your strategic win against Houdini running without opening book on modern PC.
Please take a look at Morgski and Q thread, note Q's references to pawns and squares,
their weakening effects or otherwise , that is how a game of chess should be played,
we are human, we do not play chess like computers, we do not think like computers
either. Here is a game i played on my smartphone against the computer, some
things are of i ...[text shortened]... s
lost, take it out of its opening book and it gets lost, play strategically and it will lose
Originally posted by iruthen good luck to you, you keep calculating, ill keep beating up on my computer! and
There is no way to win a game by just following the ideas and not calculating the moves. There is a way to win a game by just calculating the moves if you can calculate deep enough. No doubt that humans need both tactics and strategy to play well. I was just saying that your statement about "inherently strategic game" was nonsense. I'd love to see your strategic win against Houdini running without opening book on modern PC.
its not nonsense, its only nonsense to those who dont know anything other than how to
calculate, that would be you and your computer.
You initially asked about opening systems, will you now state why looking at pawn
formations does not help with the placement of pieces? In fact i challenge you to do so.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere did I say that "looking at pawn formations does not help with the placement of pieces"? Of course it does. Just I tend to agree with greenpawn that Bf4 should be rejected first of all for tactical reasons, only then for strategical ones.
then good luck to you, you keep calculating, ill keep beating up on my computer! and
its not nonsense, its only nonsense to those who dont know anything other than how to
calculate, that would be you and your computer.
You initially asked about opening systems, will you now state why looking at pawn
formations does not help with the placement of pieces? In fact i challenge you to do so.
By the way I still don't understand with which of these statements you disagree:
1. There is no way to win a game by just following the ideas and not calculating the moves.
2. There is a way to win a game by just calculating the moves if you can calculate deep enough. (that's mathematical fact)
3. Humans need both tactics and strategy to play well.
Originally posted by iruGreenpawn, pah! that Zorrow of Chess! They are going to write a book about him,
Where did I say that "looking at pawn formations does not help with the placement of pieces"? Of course it does. Just I tend to agree with greenpawn that Bf4 should be rejected first of all for tactical reasons, only then for strategical ones.
By the way I still don't understand with which of these statements you disagree:
1. There is no way to win a game by ...[text shortened]... p enough. (that's mathematical fact)
3. Humans need both tactics and strategy to play well.
the Pride and Zorrow of chess! 😛
1. I have not stated that calculation is not important, this is a misunderstanding, the
positions that i posted were given with reference to the opening phase of the game,
it appears to me that they have been taken out of context, never the less, i still hold
that a proper understanding of BOTH static and dynamic elements is essential.
However, the danger is, that without a strategic understanding, we try to calculate
every move, which in some instances is not very helpful, indeed, the only time we
do need to calculate is when the pieces come into contact with each other directly, or
are about to come into contact with each other directly.
2. Yes tactics kill a game outright, but its also understood that tactics , 'flow from a
superior position', R.Fischer.
3. Yes humans need both tactics and strategy to play well.