A great game.

My apologies to anyone easily offended, but I cannot resist ...

Fat Lady said, "Wow, what a coincidence! Who'd have thought it was GreenPawn's own son who played the trick on Andersson, who played the trick on Shirov, who played the trick on Topov?'

then greenpawn34 said, "That's my boy! of course he got it from me."

GM Murray Chandler is age 49.
greenpawn states on his profile he is age 58.
Conclusion: greenpawn was a rather precocious lad. 😉

On a more serious note, in his fine book The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, Rowson discusses a game Rozentalis-Appel where White plays an unusual concept ( 29. Qa3! ). After the game was over, Rowson queried Rozentalis about his thought process and Rozentalis specifically mentioned that he adapted the idea from a much older game (Smyslov-Reshevsky, 1948, 26. Qh4! ). This is quite consistent with what the last few posts have been saying.

This also gives me the opportunity to show a nice swindle I pulled recently in a blitz game:

Black to move

From a material perspective, Black isn't doing badly, but the two passed pawns are quite menacing and confer upon White a significant advantage. Had I been unfamiliar with simpler tactics, I never would have found 1 ... Nf4!? . My opponent obligingly played 2. Rxf4?? and the rest is left to the reader. ( At the time, I thought I was merely setting a trap, but interestingly enough, computer analysis confirms that 1 ... Nf4 is probably best, though White can maintain the advantage with 2. Qd7 )

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I m of the opinion that every combination you play you will have seen the pattern or the idea before.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Pattern recognition is a vital part of chess and many players, especially GMs, recognise such a large amount of patterns that they don't need to "reinvent the wheel" often. They recognise the pattern and apply the familar solution. This approach to chess works well for them.

But now let's consider the vast majority of chess players. These players don't recognise anywhere near as many patterns in comparison to GMs Shirov, Rozentalis, etc. Furthermore, due to limitations in time for study, ability, etc. I believe such class level players need to avoid the constant "I didn't see the idea because I've never seen it before" syndrome because they'll never get their "pattern store" to a high level. Instead, such players should also see chess as a problem solving activity where finding new ideas is a central part of it. Sure, the ideas may not be "new" in the eyes of a GM, but it can still be new to a class player. This approach encourages creativity and imagination.

Of course, I'm not saying class level players should try to discover all patterns for themselves. They should keep on learning patterns (tactics, typical endgames, etc). There's probably a fundamental set of patterns that any player has to know. But they should be prepared to discover new things while playing too.

I've always liked this quote:
"After all, in the end, what chess creativity consists of is non-routine thinking." – Alexander Suetin

Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozer
My apologies to anyone easily offended, but I cannot resist ...

Fat Lady said, "Wow, what a coincidence! Who'd have thought it was GreenPawn's own son who played the trick on Andersson, who played the trick on Shirov, who played the trick on Topov?'

then greenpawn34 said, "That's my boy! of course he got it from me."

GM Murray Chandler is ...[text shortened]... n states on his profile he is age 58.
Conclusion: greenpawn was a rather precocious lad.

Greenpawn must have put his age as 58 as a joke. I've seen pictures of him and he's 68 if he's a day.

Look at the picture of "Dad" on the cover of this book by Murray Chandler entitled "How to Beat your Dad at Chess":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/1901983056/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books

And here is a picture of Greenpawn corrupting some budding chess players:
http://www.dundee-congress.co.uk/photos%202008/chandler%20(3).JPG

Like two peas in a pod.

He's my son I tells yah.

That book he wrote. "How to Beat your Dad at Chess"
That's games played between him and me when he was 8.

I christened him Murgatroid but he never uses that, he prefers Murray.

In the previous diagram 1...Rc1 is also a shot in a blitz game.

I forgot I have my program's evaluation function set to always display from White's perpective. So, in fact, the passed pawns are nowhere near as dangerous as I thought and the program evaluates 1 ... Nf4 in Black's favor. The program evaluates your suggestion of 1 ... Rc1 as roughly equal if White responds with the correct 2. Kg1. I can't remember if I considered 1...Rc1, but even in a blitz game, a decent player will see that taking the rook is unplayable, so even if 1 ... Nf4 was not objectively better, I think it sets a much cuter trap.

On a different topic (endgames), I thought I'd mention the following, which I found interesting: after 1 ... Nf4 2. Rxf4 Rc1+, if White realizes the danger and plays 3. Qf1, then after 3 ... Rxf1+ 4. Rxf1 Black should still win the endgame. However, if we now give White an extra tempo (with 5. Kg1), then White should be able to hold the draw.

Looking through Murgatroid Chandler's lost games from before 1987 to see what alibi Greenpawn was going by back then (When I find a game Murgatroid lost to an opposite-colored bishop sac, I'll know it was Greenpawn that played it.)

Anyways, came across this game whose final position is pretty:

Another Chandler loss:




This is the most clever queen trap I've seen.

A lovely game of chess by Larsen.
You just knew he was going to sac his Queen for Rook and Knight
when it went onto the a-file.

Nice three piece mate to close. When Larsen was in this mood he
was nigh unbeatable.

I said to Murgatroid before the game.

"Watch him son, this one aint too bad."

Would he listen? Huh....Kids.

Thanks for all you all work finding those Bishop endings ResigningSoon.

Nice handle by the way, you will have to have a game with User 447790

Originally posted by ResigningSoon
Another Chandler loss

Heavens to Murgatroid!

Reveal Hidden Content

Your very welcome.

Sadly, I couldn't find a clear example of a bishop sac to gain tempo or a passed pawn in an endgame that Chandler lost.

I found a few games with trades that leave Chandler's king in the corner of the board while his opponent's king grabs the center. And this may be all the idea one needs--an active king.

So I think this ends my research into this sacrifice. Store it for later use and don't believe those that say opposite-colored bishop endings are drawn. All you have to do is get rid of your bishop.

Originally posted by Varenka
I agree with a lot of what you say. Pattern recognition is a vital part of chess and many players, especially GMs, recognise such a large amount of patterns that they don't need to "reinvent the wheel" often. They recognise the pattern and apply the familar solution. This approach to chess works well for them.

But now let's consider the vast majority o ...[text shortened]... hat chess creativity consists of is non-routine thinking." – Alexander Suetin

Hi

I just noticed this post - it got lost in all the hilarity about Murray.

Of course creativity and imagination must not be stifled in anyway.
It has to be encouraged and nurtured.

But how do you teach creativity and imagination. Who can?

In my experience the class of player you mention who does not
have the time to study remains stuck in a rut.

You say;

"...they should be prepared to discover new things while playing."

But they don't.

The imaginative, creative and gifted players advance the rest
need a nudge up.

They think they have reached their ceiling and fancy combinations
are beyond their capabilities. They are not.

If they want to improve and gain further enjoyment from the game
then the solution is there. Play over instructive games and solve
puzzles to build up a pattern recognition base.

If they have not got the time to study then how can you help them,.
If they are not prepared to put something into the game they will get
nothing out of the game.

What do you say to a player who has been 1500-1600 for the last
four years and asked you for assistance.

"Off you go and be more creative."

Creativity and imagination is not a tap one can turn on and off.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Creativity and imagination is not a tap one can turn on and off.

I agree. Maybe some players will just never improve regardless of what they try.

But creativity will definitely not be developed if a player sits down at the board and believes they can only make use of patterns they've seen previously. I believe you've read Rowson's "Chess for Zebras". Isn't patterns an example of knowledge, and creativity a skill?

I totally accept that many patterns must be learned. But some players become slaves to such training. They see an open file, they automatically occupy it with a rook. When they can castle, they blindly do so. Their play becomes routine and dogmatic. They seldom think "out of the box".

Originally posted by Varenka
I agree. Maybe some players will just never improve regardless of what they try.

But creativity will definitely not be developed if a player sits down at the board and believes they can only make use of patterns they've seen previously. I believe you've read Rowson's "Chess for Zebras". Isn't patterns an example of knowledge, and creativity a skill?
...[text shortened]... ly do so. Their play becomes routine and dogmatic. They seldom think "out of the box".

"I agree. Maybe some players will just never improve regardless of what they try."

I did not quite say that.
I believe any player can improve, but they must be preapred to
do a bit of graft. There is no magic wand.

The part about taking open files with Rooks and Castling has no
part in what we were discussing.

Tactics & Combinations remember.

However, I know of one often quoted game by Botvinnik where
taking the open file was NOT the best move.
But taking the file was not a mistake.

However 99% of the time taking an open file is usually a good thing.

I'll take those odds.

I'll win 99 games by taking the open file and NOT LOSE the one
game where I did not take the file.

And Castle because you MUST and not because you CAN is a
golden rule that can be taught or learned.

Nothing much creative there.

The more games you play over and the more puzzles you solve
the better player you will become.

The dogmatic and routine players you mentioned are not armed
with these patterns and ideas.

But creativity will definitely not be developed if a player sits down
at the board and believes they can only make use of patterns
they've seen previously.

If a player is confronted with a position that hides a combination
and he has never seen the stem iidea before then he will struggle
to see it, if at all.

The more patterns you have stored the more creative and confident
you can become in using them.