24 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis woman in this video link says the refutation to the fishing pole trap is just to ignore it. Ha!
there are not a few games of relatively weaker players giving masters some degree of
trouble with the line GP. I don't know what the refutation is, if there is one, probably
something simple like Nc3, d3 and Bg5 forcing ...f6 and blocking the queens diagonal
and then playing h3 as you hint at in your text.
24 Dec 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat woman is often in the top 100 women players in the US. Also I'd think that if anyone knew their way around that line it would be her since LM Wall is her pal and coach.
This woman in this video link says the refutation to the fishing pole trap is just to ignore it. Ha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkCk6zdtSLk
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI just found her comment funny. She gave no specific line of play that refutes it.
That woman is often in the top 100 women players in the US. Also I'd think that if anyone knew their way around that line it would be her since LM Wall is her pal and coach.
P.S. Her name is Anthea Carson and on the USCF website her present rating is 1799 with her highest rating at 1835. So she is good enough to give me some competition.
Originally posted by RJHindsRon, she'd widen the existing one and then rip you a new one.
I just found her comment funny. She gave no specific line of play that refutes it.
P.S. Her name is Anthea Carson and on the USCF website her present rating is 1799 with her highest rating at 1835. So she is good enough to give me some competition.
25 Dec 12
Originally posted by RJHindsDon't you understand chess? Oh wait you're rating is fake, that's right.
I just found her comment funny. She gave no specific line of play that refutes it.
P.S. Her name is Anthea Carson and on the USCF website her present rating is 1799 with her highest rating at 1835. So she is good enough to give me some competition.
The point is that the trap is no good.
25 Dec 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIts called hope chess and it doesn't "work" any more than a player making a blunder at any other time. Get a life.
It was good enough to use in beating a chess grandmaster and many other chess players. So like any chess trap, it is good if it works.
28 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMethinks that if the chessplayer does not learn, he suffers of a lack of specific methods of learning and training. So don’t question the capabilities of your mind, but the value of the differ learning methods that you follow.
Hi Thabtos, I think you are correct but it struck me as i was doing some puzzles that it essentially comes down to the decision making process and how on earth one even goes about improving that process. For example, its relatively easy to go through ones own games and find mistakes, tactical ones especially, because they stick out. So what is the ...[text shortened]... ove a mentor is a must, its simply not possible to be completely objective, at least not for me.
I assume that you did your homework and you are already familiar with the tactical and positional aspects of the Royal Game (if not, then you have to go back there).
I also assume that you already know that you have to plan. In order to plan, you must evaluate the position (static and dynamic evaluation). It follows that the learning methods in order to go further must cope with specific needs of the chessplayer (exploitation of tactical and positional aspects) in relation to the dynamism of the position; can the position be transformed to a new one, according to your convenience? How? Over here, rearrange and calculate. We may be unable to calculate very deeply, but we are still able to contribute for a successful transformation. To realize how hard is to predict an occurring position, you must realize how hard was to predict the current position that must be evaluated right now. For there is always a turning point that you must be aware of its existence. If you cannot spot such a turning point, you have to study in depth specific openings. The spot is the transformation of the position from the phase of the opening to the phase of the middlegame; another spot is the transformation of the position from the phase of the middlegame to the phase of the endgame; other spots arise during the game whenever there is a chance for a tactical blow, a chance for achieving a positional advantage, a chance for transforming a specific positional advantage into another or others that cause more problems to the opponent, a chance to press on time, a chance to keep the pieces you want to keep and to exchange the ones you want to exchange, a chance to immobilize the pawns and thus the whole army of the opponent, a chance to mobilize in full your pawns by means of breaks in one or more areas, a chance to get the initiative and turn it into a concrete advantage... If you cannot identify such spots, you must go back and learn how to evaluate;
To me, Chess is revolutionary; if you want to go further, you have to apply constantly fruitful learning methods with a single aim: to be able to plan how the position will change.
Remember: a revolutionary process is accelerated whenever it uses its own means for further evolution. I see the Royal Game as a constant struggle (in the mind) between education and demolition. The “openings” are not “designed” in order to help “us” to overcome the difficulties the chessplayers do face today. They were designed to ease specific chessplayers to cope with Their specific needs back then, and to ease Them to overcome the challenge they faced. So it is not enough to “train”. One has to Change. Therefore, to believe that the “opening” is just a preparation drill that must be followed for “something” that will happen “later on”, to me means simply that the person who holds this belief thinks that the first 16-18 moves are nothing but a “preparation”. However, the War starts from the very first move. One can well go down the drain during the opening. So a learning method that envelops specific repertoires, to me is a good learning method;
Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein did not answered an old problem. The merely posed a new question. Success in chess is related to the exploitation of specific learning methods, and of course of the way the educated chessplayer thinks. Our theses and beliefs can turn us into slaves of the opponent, or they can serve us so that our opponent ends up defeated. There is no comfort zone during the game. The dynamism of the position is the chessplayer alone; if the mind of the chessplayer is blocked, the dynamism of the position is non-existent to him. So a learning method that points towards dynamism (Suba), to me is a good learning method;
The mind copes with the differ drills we follow or we follow not. We have fantasy. The fantasy that works, is a concrete fantasy that wins games. So a learning method that envelops fantasy and hard work (Kotov), to me is a good learning method;
We don’t see the position “as it is” but through lenses. So a learning method that envelops specific ways of evaluation (Przewoznick & Soszynski), to me is a good learning method;
Creativity is crucial (be prepared to make mistakes and blunders, and learn how to minimize the blunders; get to know what works and what does not work. Creativity goes through differ phases, and in most situations it is impossible to come up with a total analysis and thus a totally clear image of the position we want to reach. Do not think that you are not creative simply because you tend to believe that creativity means “to have a totally clear image”. Creativity is the tetraktys of the Royal Game, a plexus of different ways of Seeing, Thinking, Evaluating and Acting). So a learning method that envelops creativity (ie endgame puzzles, studies etc), to me is a good learning method;
Individuality and authenticity! The way you feel and the way you think, in relation to the way your opponent feels and thinks, is the generator of the positions you enjoy. Since we play the Royal Game in order to Enjoy, a learning method that envelops individuality and authenticity (as many OTB and CC games as possible), to me is a good learning method;
All the best to you and yours my trusty feer Robbie, I wish you a Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to everybody and to all RHP members and friends too😵
29 Dec 12
Originally posted by Habeascorp“Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark; professionals built the Titanic.”--Anonymous
How many are open to accepting the critism that allows us to progress further? All happy to do tactics, book study etc. but chess is a very ego driven game which makes it as hard as accepting 'constructive comments' at work.