Originally posted by Varenkacan't white just give the a-pawn with Bc6 a4? then get the angry rooks out of the bottle by attacking your a-pawn sooner or later and pillaging the black backcountry.
So what is White going to do after Black moves Bc6 (with Ba4 to follow)?
maybe white can even give an exchange back after Ba4, break your queenside and rob you blind.
it just seems senseless to attack where white's the strongest.
Hi V.
Good.
I thought you might have a 15 move mate up your sleeve.
Egg on my face if you had, but no twinge so felt sure nothing was on.
So what part of my....
" All the Black pieces, including the King can take up more active postions
than those of White's. So spike up the position and see what happens. "
....Did you not understand?
Spike = start the ball rolling.
First thing I saw was Bishop to c6 and a4. On a8 it's not doing much.
Thought about getting it to d3.
What happened to rule that if you don't know what to do then
improve your worse placed piece.
Black's whole game is bristling with active ideas.
"You cannot prove the man has a limp till you challenge him to a race."
(I think I have just mis-quoted Nimzovitch.)
Cannot see a clear win without a blunder (even a mini blunder from White will do).
But get the boys doing things and White will stumble.
To me things will become clearer when the pieces have peaked and see
what White does.
But I'm still baffled at your lack of ideas in this postion.
And your claim you learned something from the box.
The old you would have played on.
See the game below when you were the exchange down.
You are Black.
Another good game.
You did not need the box to teach you then.
Something (guess what) is sucking the creativity out of you.
You are now at the shrug your shoulders stage.
Agree a draw and the box will tell you what to do.
It's like you are re-inventing yourself to suit your new teacher.
You have convinced yourself that the thing has taught you something
you already know and I'm posting the games to prove it.
(I have loads more) 😉
You are a good player V. That thing cannot teach you anything you don't
already know. Sling it. It's doing more harm than good.
If you had set that position up on a board and started moving just a few
bits about then you would have played on.
AllIn - Varenka. RHP 2007 (4 years ago).
Originally posted by greenpawn34Did you not understand?
Hi V.
Good.
I thought you might have a 15 move mate up your sleeve.
Egg on my face if you had, but no twinge so felt sure nothing was on.
So what part of my....
" All the Black pieces, including the King can take up more active postions
than those of White's. So spike up the position and see what happens. "
....Did you not understand? ...[text shortened]... g1 Bd3e2 52. g5 h5 53. Rg1c1 Be2g4 54. Rc1a1 c2 0-1[/pgn]
I understood fine. Stop all the wishy-washy throwing around of general principles. The position had the very specific idea of getting the Black rook to d3 and neither you nor I saw that. The computer highlighted this instructive concrete idea, whereas you suggested some "shuffling" till White blundered.
You did not need the box to teach you then.
How do you know how much I used engines back then? Instead, consider that during the last 4 years I've played 7 OTB games (less than 2 per year). The previous 4 years saw 10 times that figure. But you just pull assumptions out of the air and try to desparately blame everything on using an engine for analysis.
You have convinced yourself that the thing has taught you something
you already know and I'm posting the games to prove it.
Something I already know? You make it sound like chess is just about learning some principles and then they're automatically mastered. Of course it's not. It's more like hundreds of principles each competing and contradicting each other, the mastery of which is a never ending process. Do I give up the bishop pair to weaken his pawn structure? Are my active pieces compensation of the sacrificed pawn? etc. Nothing to do with "I already know".
The thing I find so ironic is that when I've analysed with stronger players, most of their comments are things "I already know". e.g. I got told that I underestimated the importance of space because I had gave priority to completing my development instead. So if the computer's feedback is redundant, you can apply that to a lot of comments from stronger players too. Humans don't provide a list of magical things I didn't know - they criticise my understanding of the things I do know and so does engine analysis.
To turn your criticism 180 degrees, if you're doing all the right things, then why aren't you making more progress? Where is your personal proof that not using an engine results in significant progress? But I'm not naive enough to forget that there are other factors that contribute more, rather than just look at an RHP rating and make wild conclusions.
Hi V
Admit the idea of getting a Rook to d3 did not figure.
(any chance of seeing how the box thinks the game should go).
Just saw an awkward postition for a human to handle.
And I know how human handle these positions, they will lash out the first
chance they get and bingo. They are wretched postions to defend.
Our meaning of shuffling about seems to differ. (my fault).
Shuffling in that sense meant pushing and probing putting the squeeze on.
(tacking = shuffling about about when there is nothing on, that was something
I've never been any good at).
My first mention of the word 'shuffle' is aimed at the game of yours I posted.
Where you had the pinned piece and shuffled onto to it.
If you read it again you will see that was so.
"You make it sound like chess is just about learning some principles."
In the position you posted (and me not knowing what the box was saying)
and in the absense of concrete analysis then principles are all we have to guide us.
So the plan of getting a Rook to d3 is good in that postion what have you learned?
Don't agree a draw when you feel you have the upper hand and you
have exhausted all posibilities? You knew that 4 years ago.
I'm looking at games where you turned marginal plusses into wins.
If you had said you were happy with a draw, or could not be bothered
playing anymore or anything like that, but to say you could not see a plan....
V you appear to be going backwards.
I can tell by your tone you are getting annoyed.
Sorry.
You mentioned principles. I stand by my principles.
Running your games through a box under the pretext that you will learn
something is pointless. Especially at the level you are at.
"Where is your personal proof that not using an engine results in significant progress?
I'm too old now, this dog had it's day in the sun.
My OTB staminia has gone, pity, I loved OTB chess and I do miss it dearly.
Players of my ilk burn out.
As for personal proof without a box.
Can I say I was good once? And no box got me there.
Off the board I always considered myself a one trick pony but as an OTB
player yourself you know there are two types of chess player.
The one who studies and studies and reads all the right things and yet
at the board flies off into the clouds.
The good players conquer this, the so-so players never do.
If not me then what about the 100's of great players who were great before
computers. That V is a proven track record, you cannot argue against it.
I suppose the important thing is if you really believe that it is helping you
then really who am I to interfere.
A has-been who never quite made the 'has.'
A good debate this, I know I'm ruffling you but try and stay the course.
Please just show the mainline on what the box says.
I am interested. Hell it's chess, of course I'm interested.
Originally posted by RegiscydeI agree with ragwort. Contact some of the top players here on RHP and ask them to help anaylize your finished games. It will be a great education.
I'm a 1200 player looking to improve my game...I've tried to use CM9K to analyze my games and have gotten little out of the long variation lines and scant commentary it produces...I've recently picked up Fritz 12 and it seems a little less intuitive to use...I'll have to mess with it more... I need more verbal commentary and less playthough of deep variati ...[text shortened]... How does one use analysis programs to get better? Maybe I'm just not there yet?
Thanks
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
It has already been mentioned but I also agree - if you want to improve - join a club - play games vs. players with the same rating or upwards of 200 points higher. Go over all - I repeat all of your games - even your wins - since we always make mistakes - if you didn't, eval your opponents mistakes and what you would have done if they played better. Go over your games with a club player who is higher rated. Also, read chess books - lots of them - all types. Buy some books with tactical (and positional) positions to solve - I've worn out multiple copies of Walter Korn's "Brilliant Touch In Chess" - those Dover reprints were great - and inexpensive! Also, don't give up or get frustrated if you can't solve problems right away - struggle to a point - then look up the answer - repeated often enough will build up your chess memory and you will eventually be able to solve the problems. Good luck!
Originally posted by bill718not always a top player-pick someone a couple hundred points ahead of you. Pick someone too advanced and their analysis will be over your head.
I agree with ragwort. Contact some of the top players here on RHP and ask them to help anaylize your finished games. It will be a great education.
By the same token, whatever advice you get, you are getting temporary guidelines, not hard and fast rules. As your game progresses, you will see and think about different things which clarify the feedback you've picked up in the past.
Originally posted by greenpawn34If not me then what about the 100's of great players who were great before computers.
Hi V
Admit the idea of getting a Rook to d3 did not figure.
(any chance of seeing how the box thinks the game should go).
Just saw an awkward postition for a human to handle.
And I know how human handle these positions, they will lash out the first
chance they get and bingo. They are wretched postions to defend.
Our meaning of shuffling about hat the box says.
I am interested. Hell it's chess, of course I'm interested.
They were also great before the Internet, DVDs and all the recent books. By your reasoning, none of these are useful either. Just because something is not vital, doesn't prove that it's not useful. Similarly there are many strong blind players... so maybe a physical board isn't needed either...
Please just show the mainline on what the box says.
26... Bc6 27. Ra1 Ba4 28. Rf1 (28. Rd5 h6 {idea: Ke6 and if Rh5 then Bd8, etc}) 28... Rf5 29. f3 Rg5+ 30. Kh2 Rd5 31. fxe4 Rd3 -/+
Originally posted by Darax The Goodall good players can explain the basics, with easily understandable practical examples that immediately ring true. it's the engine users who spill the cryptic bs that makes no sense at all.
not always a top player-pick someone a couple hundred points ahead of you. Pick someone too advanced and their analysis will be over your head.
By the same token, whatever advice you get, you are getting temporary guidelines, not hard and fast rules. As your game progresses, you will see and think about different things which clarify the feedback you've picked up in the past.
the good players will also usually bend over backwards to help, as they all love chess and love to talk chess. if they just have the time, that is.