Originally posted by greenpawn34very clever.
Well Robbie are you happy now.
[fen]4r2r/pp1nkp1p/2p1b1p1/5q2/2BP4/4QN2/PP3PPP/4RK1R w - - 0 1[/fen]
Karpov v Yusupov, 55th Russian championship, 1988
Skeets talk chess all the time. You are just simply not good enough to spot it.
She posted:
"Nice sky in Canterbury tonight - balmy 18 degrees. Couple of salmon steaks,
Greek salad and a ...[text shortened]... nswer "Dee - Five" which translates to d5.
Which is the move Karpov played.
Originally posted by greenpawn34this sounds so good, i am not even going to check the facts, otherwise this riddle might be unveiled as not-totally true, which would so much disappoint me.
Well Robbie are you happy now.
[fen]4r2r/pp1nkp1p/2p1b1p1/5q2/2BP4/4QN2/PP3PPP/4RK1R w - - 0 1[/fen]
Karpov v Yusupov, 55th Russian championship, 1988
Skeets talk chess all the time. You are just simply not good enough to spot it.
She posted:
"Nice sky in Canterbury tonight - balmy 18 degrees. Couple of salmon steaks,
Greek salad and a ...[text shortened]... nswer "Dee - Five" which translates to d5.
Which is the move Karpov played.
happy, the one who calls himself a fool...
Originally posted by greenpawn34thankyou Dan Brown, i always knew skeety was illuminati, although i suspect more of a
Well Robbie are you happy now.
[fen]4r2r/pp1nkp1p/2p1b1p1/5q2/2BP4/4QN2/PP3PPP/4RK1R w - - 0 1[/fen]
Karpov v Yusupov, 55th Russian championship, 1988
Skeets talk chess all the time. You are just simply not good enough to spot it.
She posted:
"Nice sky in Canterbury tonight - balmy 18 degrees. Couple of salmon steaks,
Greek salad and a nswer "Dee - Five" which translates to d5.
Which is the move Karpov played.
Daemon than an Angel, now i suspect you might be too! next time ill write no peeky
peeky skeety weety! Pair of blethers! Why are there no positional problem chess
books? All we get are tom toms tactics and other stuff?
Originally posted by tharkeshThat would depend on whether or not you are currently perceived to be a fool or not. And whether you have recently been mistaken for a board game. Only yesterday I was accused of resembling Ludo, or was it Snakes and Ladders?
by the way, if i call myself a fool, would that be slander? or would i become a duck loving son of a mallard ?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan You be a Positional Chess Genius? Angus Dunnington.
thankyou Dan Brown, i always knew skeety was illuminati, although i suspect more of a
Daemon than an Angel, now i suspect you might be too! next time ill write no peeky
peeky skeety weety! Pair of blethers! Why are there no positional problem chess
books? All we get are tom toms tactics and other stuff?
Alternatively there must be a Kama Sutra puzzle book out there somewhere.
There, now you can try any position you like!
Hi Robbi.
"Why are there no positional problem chess books?
All we get are tom toms tactics and other stuff?"
First of all I'd say let's not run before we can walk.
But I'll have a stab at answering.
If you play through the game that produced the tactical puzzle you
will often find it was good v bad positional play that led up to the critical position.
There is every chance you will pick up a smattering of positional play
whilst playing over games with a tactical nature.
Learning on the cuff so to speak.
I think there are such books but they can have very long solutions.
Often a positional blunder does not bear fruit till 20 or 30 moves later.
And that is what the solution or the key to the set postion must have.
Also a position can be very open-ended. A choice of plans.
Your 'soultion' may also be correct but it is not the one given by the author.
Unlike a tactical puzzle where a sac, sac mate can be clearly demonstrated.
Here you could end up arguing with the book.
And I used to fight against every word I read until I was convinced.
Without a tactical solution a book cannot tell you where you are going wrong.
If indeed you are wrong.
Your chosen move may be right for you. You chose it.
There must have been something you liked when choosing it.
So you look again and can see nothing wrong with your idea.
In desperation (and I would have to be deperate) you drop the said postion
into a box but if your chosen move is not a tactical blunder then the chances
are you will get a similiar score. Maybe even higher!
I think after a few 'arguments I would close the book and put it with the
rest of the unread collection. (which outnumbers the read by approx 10 to 1).
IMO such a book of set positions will have to have a very carefully chosen set of
unknown examples with narrow solutions and plausible other choices explained.
Too much like hard work for the average chess writer.
They would most likely fill it with famous examples, crib and pan out the notes.
Originally posted by greenpawn34yes GP, this is so true, having played over more than 100 of Fishers games with just
Hi Robbi.
"Why are there no positional problem chess books?
All we get are tom toms tactics and other stuff?"
First of all I'd say let's not run before we can walk.
But I'll have a stab at answering.
If you play through the game that produced the tactical puzzle you
will often find it was good v bad positional play that led up to the critic riter.
They would most likely fill it with famous examples, crib and pan out the notes.
board and pieces I was astounded at the simplicity of the tactics in the end. I'm
not talking of his brilliancies, which of course were genius, but in the majority of
instances the tactics which ensued from the position anyone of us here would have
found. Thus tactics flow from a superior position, this we know. At first they may be
hazy, in outline only, but as the game progresses, they become clearer. Now this is
the paradox, when one plays considerably higher rated players the tactical shots are
not so apparent as when one plays someone lower rated, without positional
knowledge, what happens is that we try to sharpen the game unnecessarily, for what
else can we do, we have no positional understanding, our opponent knows that it is
folly, simply maintains the balance and we get punished for attacks which have no
chance of succeeding.
Of course what you say is true, when one looks at a positions there may be different
solutions to the same problem in a positional sense, but i think its also true that
when strong players look at a position even though their ways of solving the
problems may be different, their knowledge of the position will lead them to the
same conclusion, thus, their plan will be the same but their way of achieving it,
slightly different. Is it not the case?
To study positional concepts through tactics I think is the best idea i have heard for
ages and it will surely yield fruit. I still think someone should write a positional
problem chess book, how hard can it be? you gather positions, explain the concepts
which led to the choice of move and why it was chosen. It may even be possible to
demonstrate an alternative solution to the same problem, if its not too wordy! You
and your mate Kief, could do it!
Originally posted by DiophantusCan You be a Positional Chess Genius? Angus Dunnington.
Can You be a Positional Chess Genius? Angus Dunnington.
Alternatively there must be a Kama Sutra puzzle book out there somewhere.
There, now you can try any position you like!
cool, ill check it out, didn't Pogo write a book about chess and Kama Sutra, I
remember some were salivating over the prospect of reading it. Shes too skinny for
me, i like meaty chicks like skeety!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think Silman's Reassess Your Chess Workbook has positions that you are supposed to assess in positional terms, along with other stuff. I looked at it once and decided it looked like hard work. I'll stick to Simple Chess.
Can You be a Positional Chess Genius? Angus Dunnington.
cool, ill check it out, didn't Pogo write a book about chess and Kama Sutra, I
remember some were salivating over the prospect of reading it. Shes too skinny for
me, i like meaty chicks like skeety!
Originally posted by Diophantusyes i have the book although i lent it to a friend, his other book, The Amateurs mind is a little annoying. The problem with it is, is that he spends more time looking at faulty plans than actually discussing good plans, you need to wade through the text to find the bits that you want. He has a tendency to make things more complicated than they actually are. I have read the section on 'space advantage' three times, and still have no idea how to make use of a 'space advantage'.
I think Silman's Reassess Your Chess Workbook has positions that you are supposed to assess in positional terms, along with other stuff. I looked at it once and decided it looked like hard work. I'll stick to Simple Chess.