Ok, I'm watching Jay Cutler on TV single-handedly increasing the risk of strokes all over Chicago, and the idle question pops in my head:
If IM Mark Dvoretsky, IM Jacob Aagard, IM John Watson, and IM Jeremy Silman all played in a round robin a la AVRO 1938, who would win? (and my apologies if any of these guys have been awarded the GM title, but I will immediately disqualify them)
If they collaborated on a book of the annotated games of the match, I'd buy it in a heartbeat- and if they disagreed on the analysis and put the "give/take" in the book, I'd pay double.
Paul
Aagaard is a GM and if played next week I think he would win.
The idea of double notes per game is good but would it work?
The winners notes would be OK but getting a strong player to annotate his
loss is like pulling teeth. They have more excuses than a beaten track runner.
I was not feeling well.
I was tired from the previous game.
It was too hot.
It was too cold.
I did not look at this variation when preparing for the game.
I did look at this variation when preparing for the game but forgot my analysis.
I moved too quick/
I moved too slow.
There was fly in the room.....
Anything but admit their opponent played better chess than them.
Originally posted by philidor positionThere is much logic behind this though, i.e. in a position you have a White pawn on h6 and the Black King on h8, you will first want to discover that a Queen on g7 would be handy, and then maneuver in such a way that she will eventually end up there
if it were correspondence chess match, dvoretsky would probably come clear first.
In live chess, I'm pretty sure Silman would be the last, he would lose all games by time, trying to imagine a dream position before starting to calculate 🙂
Originally posted by heinzkatI still don't see the logic behind this because the process is completely impractical and it's tautological: it solely describes the game of chess itself. king on h8, pawn on h6, queen on g7? yeah I would love to mate the king, that would be nice.
There is much logic behind this though, i.e. in a position you have a White pawn on h6 and the Black King on h8, you will first want to discover that a Queen on g7 would be handy, and then maneuver in such a way that she will eventually end up there
[hidden](I have not read any of his books)[/hidden]
ideas like "you want your rook on b1 and always eye a b4 push in these types of positions" is different from trying to come up with dream positions. and if that's what he tries to teach, he's found the worst possible way of doing so.