Originally posted by greenpawn34it really amazes me how people can be so stubborn about things they have no idea of. trust me, when it comes to chess history, annotations, chess jokes etc, you're good at those, but not this one. you don't know much about it. you only have some logical explanations for your assumptions, but obviously no experience about it.
(are you really watching two comouters play each other - have to get you out more?)
It was a wee joke.
Relax we are talking about a game and a pocket calculator with an attitude.
To continue....
Playing and getting trashed by a box is not teaching you a thing.
Where did you go wrong?
You will have work out it for yourself and if you get apow' game over.
You must learn how to swindle in bad positions - at least put
up a fight.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes, when you are faced with a chess position and have to find a move there are three possibilities: you are either winning, losing or drawing. There is no move that you can make which will improve your position, all you can do is make it worse. From this point of view the only error you can make is to make a move that changes the result (from a win to a draw or loss, or a draw to a loss). So even Damiano´s opening is not a mistake since the position after 2. ... f6 is still drawn.
(are you really watching two comouters play each other - have to get you out more?)
It was a wee joke.
Relax we are talking about a game and a pocket calculator with an attitude.
To continue....
Playing and getting trashed by a box is not teaching you a thing.
Where did you go wrong?
You will have work out it for yourself and if you get apow' game over.
You must learn how to swindle in bad positions - at least put
up a fight.
The problem with this is that it is a lot easier to make a result changing mistake in some positions than others. Damiano´s opening is bad because it is very hard for a human to find the only saving move time after time. So we normally consider a move which makes your position more difficult an error even though it doesn´t change the result. The corollary to this is that even when your position is lost you can make it hard for your opponent to convert their won position. You are relying on them making a result changing error, so you give yourself the best chance to save the game by heading for positions where your opponent has the best chance of making that type of mistake.
Engines make result changing errors, but the things you need to do to cause an engine and a human to make a result changing error are quite different. In positions where you are lost but still have play, you are hoping to induce your opponent into making a result changing error in order to save the game. Against a human it is often sufficient to complicate in this situation, engines see straight through that type of thing. Against an engine in a lost position you need to find some type of plan where either it ends up not being able to make progress or it´s positional evaluation becomes faulty due to material imbalances. This is something of a speciality even among grandmasters, since you need detailed knowledge about the algorithms which evaluate leaf nodes (I´m thinking more of the top of the scale engines here).
I think that playing engines is fine, but you have to think about what you are getting out of it. Against engines you can practice openings and how to play a tight game and spot opponent´s opportunities, but I find unless I set up the position I don´t spend much time getting into or converting won positions...
Computers can be a useful tool to sharpen your chess. I have a Kasparov 2150L. You can play a specific opening by creating a position, thus allowing a student to explore an opening or a defense. You can also set up endgame positions and play them out.
Computers are a useful tool to help improve your chess. It is not and should not be your only tool. Playing against people is better, especially face to face.
It is merely another training method that can be utilized by a chess player.
In the abstract this discussion is interesting and insightful. For many of us, there are practical considerations as well.
A central consideration is which humans, which computers.
In my town, although I'm a USCF Class B player (a real patzer, in other words), I'm often the top or nearly the top player in club events. In order to get better, I must play others that are better and get some postgame analysis.
RHP certainly helps, as does FICS and Playchess, and many other chess sites. But, training and evaluating my games without computer assistance is unthinkable.
Chessmaster is of little, but not no value to me. Fritz and company is indispensable.
Originally posted by WulebgrQuote:
In the abstract this discussion is interesting and insightful. For many of us, there are practical considerations as well.
A central consideration is which humans, which computers.
In my town, although I'm a USCF Class B player (a real patzer, in other words), I'm often the top or nearly the top player in club events. In order to get bett ...[text shortened]... ble.
Chessmaster is of little, but not no value to me. Fritz and company is indispensable.
"....training and evaluating my games without computer assistance is unthinkable. "
Have you never sat down with a good player going over your games?
If not then give it a try, you opinion may change on how unthinkable it is.
I'm not trying to force my will on you but give it an open minded try.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Of course I have sat down with a good player. When a master was home from college in the summer a few years ago, I paid him $200 for lessons at $20 per hour. That's how I got into class B.
Quote:
"....training and evaluating my games without computer assistance is unthinkable. "
Have you never sat down with a good player going over your games?
If not then give it a try, you opinion may change on how unthinkable it is.
I'm not trying to force my will on you but give it an open minded try.
But, as I improve and continue to live where I do, the definition of "good" moves towards the realm of impossibility locally.
280 miles from my home there are dozens of titled players. In my city, there is one. He comes out about once a year to defend his city championship title.
We drew the last time I played him.
There are many ways to improve. If I lived in a town with a strong community of chess players, I would have more opportunities for the sort of analysis that is preferred--human. Even so, I would find value in computer training. From where I live, computer training is the surest road to improvement.
Originally posted by WulebgrHey Wulebgr, have you considered lessons online? I've done lessons on ICC and IMO it's not bad at all. In my city you can count the # of titled players on your fingertips (even then not all of them teach) so I went the online route. All you need is a decent internet connection and VOIP like Skype. You don't even need to subscribe to ICC.
Of course I have sat down with a good player. When a master was home from college in the summer a few years ago, I paid him $200 for lessons at $20 per hour. That's how I got into class B.
But, as I improve and continue to live where I do, the definition of "good" moves towards the realm of impossibility locally.
280 miles from my home there are ...[text shortened]... in computer training. From where I live, computer training is the surest road to improvement.
One cool thing is that you can play someone on ICC around your level, while the coach watches live. Talk about pressure! Ha! But it's great analysis afterwards.
In person is still probably the best, but like you say, it's not possible for all of us, myself included.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by WulebgrI thought you might live in the countryside and not have a
Of course I have sat down with a good player. When a master was home from college in the summer a few years ago, I paid him $200 for lessons at $20 per hour. That's how I got into class B.
But, as I improve and continue to live where I do, the definition of "good" moves towards the realm of impossibility locally.
280 miles from my home there are ...[text shortened]... in computer training. From where I live, computer training is the surest road to improvement.
handful of good players to call on.
Did you find the time with the teacher more beneficial?
Or have you learned more the computer than you did from the Master?
To me, computers are just hardcore tactical analysis. I have never learned how to create clear clut plans/planning from playing a computer. They are great for post game analysis. It's fun to play a game and then look at all the tactics both sides miss afterwards. The trick is to try to analyze yourself first and only then use the computer to check your own work. To me playing computers is very demoralizing too. There is always a tactic or line that you overlook.
I too had no one near me to play. I didn't get one lick better by playing computers, myself. I did by studying the games of the masters and reading (2000+ rating in all speeds of chess).
Also, playing a ton of games online against human opponents helped.
Playing gambits and learning to dig hard for that win made me stronger. If I had been playing a computer, I would have been sacking a pawn and still losing every game. I would have no fighting spirit.
You can play a computer from day to night, but it will never explain to you some strategic concepts.
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.f4 Nf6 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0
The computer won't tell you that black's play is on the queenside. You don't learn that Rb8 and b5 is the typical plan. The general idea being to play b4, a5, a4, and a3 and create all sorts of havoc on the diagonal.
Sometimes you need plain language from a writer (or teacher) to explain these things.
Also, a computer won't tell you that you go on the defensive way too early or that you are making the same anti-positional moves over and over (or other similar problems you keep repeating).
I'm not an old player, but I really believe in the old school technique.
Play, study, and analyze (with a real chess set).
Wins against computers are nothing like real chess either. You actually have to employ a totally different strategy to outwit a computer. Play off its greed. Sac piece after piece. While it is grabbing material, it sometimes overlooks the winning attack until it is too late.
Slow kingside buildups work against a computer as well.
These are my best systems against computers (missed wins, draws, and missed draws).
A human would see what was going on and prevent it. A computer doesn't have that kind of dimensional depth.
I have to agree with Greenpawn on this one.
Humans are much better opponents.
Originally posted by greenpawn34It is hard to measure which method of study is most beneficial. Each of them reaches a point of diminishing returns when employed to the exclusion of the others.
I thought you might live in the countryside and not have a
handful of good players to call on.
Did you find the time with the teacher more beneficial?
Or have you learned more the computer than you did from the Master?
I have hundreds of chess books, dozens of chess programs, several regular playing sites, and get what help I can from players that can teach me something, including those I beat most of the time.
As for online lessons, I have and do consider them. But the most I've spent is a few ducats to listen to archived broadcasts by Dennis Monokrousses or live commentary by Yasser Seirawan.
The British countryside bears almost no relationship to the Western United States. The entire British Isles can fit within Montana, but less than 1 million people live in that state: ~30% larger than the county in which I live. Spokane is the largest city between Seattle and Denver, yet in many ways it is a small town.
Between here and Seattle is a mountain range comparable to the Alps. Even so, I've driven it more than 100 times.
Originally posted by WulebgrMontana - and Idaho are the same type of territory
It is hard to measure which method of study is most beneficial. Each of them reaches a point of diminishing returns when employed to the exclusion of the others.
I have hundreds of chess books, dozens of chess programs, several regular playing sites, and get what help I can from players that can teach me something, including those I beat most of the time. attle is a mountain range comparable to the Alps. Even so, I've driven it more than 100 times.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=glacier+national+park&gbv=2
these photos are of Glacier National park which is 21 miles from where i live. ( I'm there everyday in the summertime )
There is a small poem that really describes Montana:
When it’s springtime in Montana,
and the gentle breezes blow,
About seventy miles an hour
And it’s fifty-two below.
You can tell you’re in Montana
‘cause the snow’s up to your butt,
And you take a breath of springtime air
And your nose holes both freeze shut.
The weather here is wonderful,
So I guess I’ll hang around,
I could never leave Montana
My feet are frozen to the ground.
The weather in Spokane doesn't differ to much, its not quite as harsh, and not quite as beautiful... but its closer to Montana than it is to the British Isles.
-GIN
Movation is key too. There's something about losing to a human player (even if I'm supposed to lose based on rating) that really drives me to get better, especially if there's the potential to play them again. When I play against an engine, whatever I "learned" just doesn't seem to stick. In one ear and out the other.
Originally posted by diskamylYou are right - I accept I don't know how these things work - I have
it really amazes me how people can be so stubborn about things they have no idea of. trust me, when it comes to chess history, annotations, chess jokes etc, you're good at those, but not this one. you don't know much about it. you only have some logical explanations for your assumptions, but obviously no experience about it.
Fritz 6 (which is a toy).
I have very little experience with the top machines.
I am not offended in the least. you are correct I am making logical
assumptions.
But based on experience....please don't forget the time I've put in
at the chessboard. 36 years must count for something.
I'd like to 'Shrug' and move on but I did promise a game.
I ceded a point to you - I played over a game between two computers.
So please stay and see my side.
The Scene:
You have been working all day - get home, no time for anything for eat,
jump into car and go 18 miles to play a game fo Chess.
Your playing room is a cold dimly lite Kitchen. Yes Kitchen. People are
wondering in and out making cups of coffee.
Thankfully it's a standard chess set but the board is b/w squares
and you are use to the green/white brown/white boards.
36 move in 1½ hours sharing a kitchen table with another board.
Your opponent is graded 1600-1700.
The game starts. I try to get things going with an early pawn push
but soon recognise that if he ever consolidates he will have an
easy game.
Important to get things all hairy before it's too late.
I'm good enough to know when I'm getting beat (have loads
of experiance in that department).
You must act quick or get crushed like a bug. You cannot allow him
to have an easy game. He must be presented with problems.
So I sac a few things to mess thing up really bad.
I then 0-0-0 and wait.
By the way all moves have been played with stone faced confidence.
Throw the position into a box after my Rook sac- bet it comes back
with -5 or -6 or something like that.
You will never beat a box when it has -2 on you.
V a human you can turn it around - believe me.
Play out the game and see what happens.
The conditions and the position got to him - he saw things that
were not there.
I'm lost - totally sunk. All my own doing.
But I did this week in week out for years in league matches and tournaments.
Yes I lost a few but won 75% more than I lost.
I'm not unique - loads of players hack like this.
The question is.
Tell me where playing a computer is going to assist you in this setting
and in with this type of really god awful - but good for a laugh game.
OTB play is vastly different from playing a box.
I suppose if you want to be good at playing a computer, then play
against computers.
But sooner or later you will have to venture out of your cosy bedroom
and sit in someone's cold kitchen. Or an old school hall with 100's
of other bods coughing, scratching. picking their nose.
Sitting on a hard chair looking a chess set that is a mixture of
different sets put together. Your heart pounding with expectation.
Your opponent suddenly produces a can of pepsi and a sandwich.
OH No. He's going to have picnic at the board.
"Start White's Clock." shouts the controller.
You offer a handshale - it comes back covered in mayo...
G. Chandler - D. Gebbie
Bells v Livingstone I, 1999
I love it when a plan comes together.
Originally posted by greenpawn34OK, your wish is my command. Not Rybka though, HIARCS 12 on an elderly Mac so this is no super computer.
Please someone throw the position after my Rook sac into Rybka
and tell me the evaluation.
If it comes back and says:
" Losing but difficult for a human to play against in a cold, dimly lit kitchen."
Then I agree - computers can assist you with OTB play.
HIARCS starts off with -6 but that score climbs quite spectacularly. After two minutes the computer's assessment is zero, a flat draw and the score is still climbing, albeit slower than at first. After five minutes the score is +0.05.
By the looks of it you weren't losing at all despite the dimly lit kitchen.