Originally posted by ChipotleI find it easier to crush 1100-1200s who rely on opening theory to make it the middle game instead of playing what makes sense to them. You just play an out of book move and they proceed to blunder and get mopped up.
Even 1200 rated players on some sites will bang out 10 moves of theory in their favorite opening. It lets people play 3 0 games without getting blown off the board in the first 8 moves.
Originally posted by Chipotle"]There are three types of 'less than optimum moves', the ??, ? and ?!."
There are three types of 'less than optimum moves', the ??, ? and ?!.
The first allows a crusher of a reply. The second may refute the line, but may not be an obvious loss immediately. The final, to paraphrase Ruben Fine, may only show its defects 20 moves later vs a master.
The point is every single move in a game is important. The best move won't b ...[text shortened]... . It lets people play 3 0 games without getting blown off the board in the first 8 moves.
I suggest you obtain some games annotated by some top grandmasters, such as would be found in any issue of NIC, or off Mega database, etc. Then you'll realize that there are often a great many legitimate sidelines that crop up in a typical chess game. They can't all be the objectively "best" move. Not being best doesn't necessarily make them "?, ??, or ?!" either. They could very well be "!?" or just " ".
Chess is an EXTREMELY complex game and you're trying to reduce it to something like tic tac toe, where the quality of the moves are easy to assess. I have news for you.....they're not. Theory is still, even today, evolving and new lines are being created, old ones busted. But this is done behind a computer. And what I'm saying confirms that "every single move" is important. What you need to understand is that mindlessly memorizing computer or GM given evaluations will not win chess games for you. Chess skill and understanding wins chess games. GM's and computers are often wrong with the evaluations they give, and even if they aren't wrong, if you don't understand *why* the evaluation is given, it's meaningless to you.
It's a game of human competition in which one player tries to outplay (or at least avoid being outplayed by) another human opponent. The players' predilections and preferences, theoretical knowledge, and temperament are all factors that should go into the decision making for what moves to play. Read some articles by Anand, Kasparov, Ivanchuk, etc and you'll see them describe countless times where they picked a certain move because they believe it would be a problem for their particular opponent, who is most certainly another super GM. If this idea is valid at the top of the food chain, it is certainly, and more than ever, valid at the amateur level.
As I said, beginners, such as yourself, focus too much on abstract evaluations in substitution of developing real chess skill and understanding. These evaluations have minimal importance because they don't understand what's going on in the position and don't have the technique to be able to convert advantages. The typical game play of these two players is tantamount to a couple of blind inebriates throwing alternating hail makers at each other in a boxing ring. The position often goes from being lost, to drawn, to lost, to won, to lost to won, etc, after every move.
I don't know if you've ever looked at any GM games, but you'll see a great many of them reaching completely drawn positions where one player continues to play for the win and put pressure on his human opponent who is forced to continue to come up with correct moves to hold the draw. It's easier said than done. Many of Fischer's wins were from drawn positions (or even sometimes lost positions) where his opponent crumbled under the pressure of playing with Fischer. Chess is a beautiful game BECAUSE of it's incredible complexity and element of human competition. It's not the same as solving a math problem.
Originally posted by MindWarsTrue, but a 1200 will do this 99% of the time he follows theory he doesn't understand, whereas a 2600+ will understand the book move 99% of the time. It is true that anybody who plays a line they don't understand is more prone to blundering at any time controls. That goes back to your point, stop following the abstract evaluations and start forming your own ideas based on your own understanding of the position.
This is true even at levels far above 1200.
Originally posted by tomtom232You seem to be talking as if "book" moves are gospel truths. Theory is just a guideline in chess, not an proven, exclusively correct course of action. Theory changes constantly as OTB results come in.
True, but a 1200 will do this 99% of the time he follows theory he doesn't understand, whereas a 2600+ will understand the book move 99% of the time. It is true that anybody who plays a line they don't understand is more prone to blundering at any time controls. That goes back to your point, stop following the abstract evaluations and start forming your own ideas based on your own understanding of the position.
The key difference from the 1200 to the 2600 is UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSITION, not susceptibility to theoretical novelties. Novelties work on amateur and professional player alike. And it's not all about "blundering". Mistakes don't need to be so dramatic. At the higher levels a chess game is often lost after a series of slightly innacurate moves. This is where technique and skill come into play. Look at the games of the Kramnik - Kasparov match, especially the Grunfeld game.
Well I'm not suggesting to completely ignore the evaluations, but they should be taken in context and not overvalued. And I agree.....a player who is able to competently form ideas and adjust to changes in the position is miles ahead of a book worm.
Originally posted by MindWarsI merely said that the master will understand the book moves not agree with them , I only play by the book when I think, based on my own evaluation, the book move is best. To be honest I only know a few book lines. For example, in another thread this opening line was given.
You seem to be talking as if "book" moves are gospel truths.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 c6 8.Qe2 Qb6 9.Ne4 Qxd4 10.c3 Qb6 11.f4 Nh6 and here 12.h4 was apparently book so nobody offered any evaluations until after move 13 but I thought what is the point for f4 if not f5? And decided I did not agree with 12.h4 no matter who would tell me it's the best move, I decided 12.f5 as that's what the best move is based on my own evaluation of the position and it seemed to be the logical next move after 11.f4.
I may have come across as believing book is the gospel so I apologize and will choose better words to make my point.
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232That looks like an Irish Gambit. Not a very good line for White. If you're beating your opponent with that, you could probably beat him/her with any opening, lol.
I merely said that the master will understand the book moves not agree with them , I only play by the book when I think, based on my own evaluation, the book move is best. To be honest I only know a few book lines. For example, in another thread this opening line was given.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 c6 8.Qe2 Qb6 9.Ne4 Qxd4 1 as believing book is the gospel so I apologize and will choose better words to make my point.
I'm a bit confused about 6...Ng8. I thought perhaps you meant to say 6...Ng8-f6, but then 9.Ne4 isn't possible either because Nc3 hasn't been played yet. Could you double check the line?
I might seem like a nitpick with my choice of words, etc, but chess indeed is a game of precision and detail. Slight inaccuracies in thought can mean the difference between winning and losing.
Originally posted by MindWars6...Ng8 the line black played and it wasn't my game. White was Paul and he posted it in a thread asking for improvements. Lol, I played my roommate three times and scored 2 1/2 using my 12.f5 move because he was surprised with 12.f5 Nxf5? 13.Rf1 Be7 Bxf7+! The first time and lost again trying 13...Kd8 when he finally realized 12...Nxf5? Was where he went wrong and instead played 12...Nxe5 where I still managed to draw.
That looks like an Irish Gambit. Not a very good line for White. If you're beating your opponent with that, you could probably beat him/her with any opening, lol.
I'm a bit confused about 6...Ng8. I thought perhaps you meant to say 6...Ng8-f6, but then 9.Ne4 isn't possible either because Nc3 hasn't been played yet. Could you double check the line?
I m ...[text shortened]... d detail. Slight inaccuracies in thought can mean the difference between winning and losing.
Originally posted by tomtom232Well whether or not it's your game doesn't change the fact that there is no such move as 6...Ng8, (or 5...Ng8 for that matter) It's not legally possible. You're also missing move 3. And the White queen's knight can't move from b1 to e4 in one move. Nc3 or Nd2 would have had to have been played first. Neither of which was.
6...Ng8 the line black played and it wasn't my game. White was Paul and he posted it in a thread asking for improvements. Lol, I played my roommate three times and scored 2 1/2 using my 12.f5 move because he was surprised with 12.f5 Nxf5? 13.Rf1 Be7 Bxf7+! The first time and lost again trying 13...Kd8 when he finally realized 12...Nxf5? Was where he went wrong and instead played 12...Nxe5 where I still managed to draw.
Please review and correct your errors.
Originally posted by MindWarsAha, sorry about that 3.Nc3 Nf6. Did not realize I missed typing a whole move.
Well whether or not it's your game doesn't change the fact that there is no such move as 6...Ng8, (or 5...Ng8 for that matter) It's not legally possible. You're also missing move 3. And the White queen's knight can't move from b1 to e4 in one move. Nc3 or Nd2 would have had to have been played first. Neither of which was.
Please review and correct your errors.
Originally posted by MindWarsWell said. Rec`ed.
"]There are three types of 'less than optimum moves', the ??, ? and ?!."
I suggest you obtain some games annotated by some top grandmasters, such as would be found in any issue of NIC, or off Mega database, etc. Then you'll realize that there are often a great many legitimate sidelines that crop up in a typical chess game. They can't all be the objecti ...[text shortened]... n competition. It's not the same as solving a math problem.
Originally posted by MindWarsI think you completely mis-understood my post. The point was there isn't an absolute best move in every position. There is a difference between a legitimate sideline that takes the game to a position you want, and a poor move that results in a weakness several moves later.
"]There are three types of 'less than optimum moves', the ??, ? and ?!."
I suggest you obtain some games annotated by some top grandmasters, such as would be found in any issue of NIC, or off Mega database, etc. Then you'll realize that there are often a great many legitimate sidelines that crop up in a typical chess game. They can't all be the objecti ...[text shortened]... n competition. It's not the same as solving a math problem.
The rest of your troll comments, keep to yourself.
Originally posted by Chipotle"I think you completely mis-understood my post"
I think you completely mis-understood my post. The point was there isn't an absolute best move in every position. There is a difference between a legitimate sideline that takes the game to a position you want, and a poor move that results in a weakness several moves later.
The rest of your troll comments, keep to yourself.
Not at all my rather simple-minded little friend. It's you who is devoid of any understanding here. You just finished saying that any move that isn't the "best" move is a blunder (??), a mistake (?), or at best dubious (?!). Go re-read YOUR OWN post and see for yourself. This proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you haven't even scratched the surface of beginning to understand the rudiments of the game of chess, and I doubt you ever will. A mind like yours is always looking for a simple, 12-step, paint-by-numbers approach to things, but in a complex game like chess, it's an understatement to say that's a recipe for disaster.
I didn't make any "troll-comments", little man. I'm sorry if the concepts I tried to teach you are a bit over your head. If you STILL can't understand the logic of what I've told you, it's too bad. Please stop polluting this forum with your whining drivel!