Originally posted by diskamylI had the same initial impression myself especially as synesis hasn't played any games here and I do find spamming annoying. But I just find this a little different and I'm happy with the content of the post...just seems a reasonable and interesting item to tell us about.
someone talkes about a brilliant, brilliant method for a whole page, only that he/she doesn't explain the method itself, just how brilliant it is, and says "here you can buy the method". and people start racing to buy it. this looks so typical you may encounter it in fairytales.
Originally posted by diskamylVery simply, your accusation of spamming isn't credible to me. In my opinion, synesis is completely credible and doesn't deserve to have yahoos like you throwing around baseless accusations. I think you've allowed yourself to become cynical to the point of irrationality. I suggest that you reread the entire thread. (That's assuming that you've even read the entire thread.) I, for one, am thankful that synesis started the thread and invested the time to share his discovery with us.
someone talkes about a brilliant, brilliant method for a whole page, only that he/she doesn't explain the method itself, just how brilliant it is, and says "here you can buy the method". and people start racing to buy it. this looks so typical you may encounter it in fairytales.
3 edits
Originally posted by synesisnope, you're wrong on that. I woudn't want complete silence. I don't believe in copy rights. I'd like to hear the method, though I don't think it will help improve anyone's gameplay the slightest. (but ok, that's just prejudice).
Look. I had several options.
Alternatively, I could have also chosen option 3. I suppose that would have pleased the likes of diskamyl, but all the rest of the people here who are interested in learning new techniques would have never known that something like this method even existed.
I don't like the "there's an amazing method, oh man, it's so amazing I can't tell you. so go buy it" -and yes, that's not a real quote, I'm just making it up to make my point stronger(!)- explanation type. you practically didn't even describe the book. you just mystified it.
in chess, if you really keep believing every master's "rapid improvement plan", you practically would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year, and to my opinion, would not improve anymore than you'd improve with only different but free sources. so I'm just on the skeptical side, that's all.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad Rookwell, now, after a quick check about the starter of the thread (synesis), I must admit, he/she has been a helpful contributor to the chess forums, and I withdraw all my accusations back -if it would mean anything for anyone. when I had seen the 0 moves mark, and -sorry, but I have to say- the salesmen writing type -with the attractive introduction and yet still not giving a clue about the 'object' and all-, it just "came" to me.
Very simply, your accusation of spamming isn't credible to me. In my opinion, synesis is completely credible and doesn't deserve to have yahoos like you throwing around baseless accusations. I think you've allowed yourself to become cynical to the point of irrationality. I suggest that you reread the entire thread. (That's assuming that you've even read the ...[text shortened]... nkful that synesis started the thread and invested the time to share his discovery with us.
sorry if I offended anyone.
Originally posted by diskamylYou're welcome to not believe in copyrights and be as skeptical as you like. Personally, I'd prefer not to turn this in to a copyright debate, so I'll stay away from that one. And if you want to be skeptical about the method working at all, be my guest. It's no skin off my back.
nope, you're wrong on that. I woudn't want complete silence. I don't believe in copy rights. I'd like to hear the method, though I don't think it will help improve anyone's gameplay the slightest. (but ok, that's just prejudice).
I don't like the "there's an amazing method, oh man, it's so amazing I can't tell you. so go buy it" -and yes, that's not a r ...[text shortened]... different but free sources. so I'm just on the skeptical side, that's all.
However, as for finding the same information as what's in this book for free, good luck. I've never seen any other source (free or not) even try to address the knight-move counting issue, much less propose any kind of method for making the counting easier, faster, or more reliable.
The fact that the author of this book has actually come up with a novel technique while there are a mountain of chess books appearing each year that simply regurgitate the same things over and over again gets my respect, and my best wishes to this author (wishes which include him getting rewarded for his contribution).
Originally posted by diskamylSalesmen don't tell you the limitations...
the salesmen writing type
"Alexander's Technique does have its limitations, the most obvious one being that the presence of other pieces on the board might delay or completely stop the knight from reaching a given square in the minimum number of moves. For example, some moves might be illegal given the situation on the board at a given time (such as having a piece of the same color as the knight block one of the squares the knight needs to move to), or if the knight gets captured on its way, etc... In this case, the player is pretty much on his own in taking account of these possibilities. Still, he can be certain that the knight will not reach the destination square in less than the number of moves Alexander's Technique tells him it will.
Another limitation is that the player could still make a mistake in applying Alexander's Technique, perhaps requiring a double check of some sort (by either re-applying Alexander's Technique, or manually counting out the moves). "
D
"rapid improvement plan"Unless I've misread the original post I don't see any claim for a rapid improvement plan nor was this really implied...just a claim that there is a method to speed up the process of counting how many knight moves it takes to reach a square. Of course this may well improve chess playing in some circumstances....but anyway you clearly found the post annoying.
But I do find this of interest in itself, as a curiosity if you like so I remain grateful for the original post. When the book does eventually come - the posties are on strike here - I will be happy to inform you if I feel I've been ripped of or not.
Originally posted by synesisFor me, I am not quite seeing the use. There are always hostile pieces on the board opposing your plans. If I have a need to get from g6 to e4, my opponent obviously is opposed to me getting there. On a crowded board he can attack squares I need to get to my destination.
Well, counting knight moves can become quite useful in endgames involving knights... and also sometimes in the middlegame. Though I couldn't give you any stats, I know it's happened in my own games from time to time, and up till now I've had to rely on the "ordinary", error-prone method of counting moves.
As to whether that happens often enough to take i ...[text shortened]... sted far more than that reading chess books that didn't teach us anything new at all. 😉
I really love knight-pawn(s) verses bishop-pawn(s) endgames and usually like having the knight. But once I decide where I want my knight, usually the bishop can attack intermediate squares and cause great trouble.
I can't imagine a situation where a quick count of knight moves from from one square to another would give me much of an edge. Of course I'm not a grand-master either so I'm sure there's lots I can't imagine.
Originally posted by diskamylfair comment..no offense taken
well, now, after a quick check about the starter of the thread (synesis), I must admit, he/she has been a helpful contributor to the chess forums, and I withdraw all my accusations back -if it would mean anything for anyone. when I had seen the 0 moves mark, and -sorry, but I have to say- the salesmen writing type -with the attractive introduction and yet s ...[text shortened]... ng a clue about the 'object' and all-, it just "came" to me.
sorry if I offended anyone.
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad Rook
It does seem to be an interesting (but thin) book. But I'm wondering how often someone needs to count these knight moves from one square to another square. Any opinions about whether the method is used enough in games to warrant learning the method?
its just something else to add to your skill... even if it was used very little. It is still worth learning just because it will only make you better.
7 edits
Originally posted by techsouthSo you don't think it would be useful to not only quickly, but with near certainty figure out that your knight will be able to stop your opponent's pawn from queening in a knight and pawn endgame (without bishops) ? And even when bishops are involved, I don't think that would render this method useless. It would still give you the minimum number of moves your knight would need to get to its destination square. You'd just need to figure in the bishop's effect (if any) by other means.
I can't imagine a situation where a quick count of knight moves from from one square to another would give me much of an edge. Of course I'm not a grand-master either so I'm sure there's lots I can't imagine.
Or how about knowing that in a position you're considering your knight will be able to get to a critical square before your opponent's knight?
Again, it's not just a quick count of the minimum number of moves a knight needs to get to a square, but a certain (or near certain) count. When you're counting a long series of knight moves, or comparing the routes to more than one destination square, the time spent using the ordinary trial and error method to figure out that you've in fact got the shortest route could really add up.
Of course, your mileage may vary... but I think this is a pretty useful method for what it's designed to do.