Interesting Dvoretsky Article

Hi, Korch pointed me towards this.

Some of you are not going to like it.

http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi, Korch pointed me towards this.

Some of you are not going to like it.

http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm

awe man i was enjoying it up until the endgame stuff! 🙁

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi, Korch pointed me towards this.

Some of you are not going to like it.

http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm

--
Back to the quote:

This means that White can either maintain the balance, or play for an advantage with 14.Nd4.

Astounding! Look how the theory has reduced White’s choices: he can either play for advantage, or maintain equality! Without the theory, we might instead have played for the loss – what else could there be?

--
I love this man's style. He's not like the overly-sympathetic Silman and Seirawan, nor like the overly "literate" Nimzowitsch. His objectivity feels like it washes my brain (in a good way). I have the same taste when reading Nunn's works. and also when I watch southpark. (honestly).

you know what, I had always delayed studying his books till I was 1800. Now that I am over that, I'm going to start his tactical play. thanks for pointing at this article.

As a sidenote - I have not had the time yet to read that whole article - I like this, from Korch's blog too:

EPIC FAIL

A few minutes ago I totally failed in Chess Tactics Server - during 10 minutes I dropped my CTS rating approx. 100 points. It's really horrible result.

That is about what I do too these days, log in, lose zillions of points in the first tries and then try to recover, I am sure I am not the only one 😛

Originally posted by heinzkat
As a sidenote - I have not had the time yet to read that whole article - I like this, from Korch's blog too:

EPIC FAIL

A few minutes ago I totally failed in Chess Tactics Server - during 10 minutes I dropped my CTS rating approx. 100 points. It's really horrible result.

That is about what I do too these days, log in, lose zillions of points in the first tries and then try to recover, I am sure I am not the only one 😛

isn't that what always happens to everyone? It's the same loop for me in chesstempo, my only hope is to sneak in and grab a few more points in the comeback. it goes in circles. of course this happens in the course of like 10 days, as I only solve one or two puzzles a day.

it's like
x-> (x-20) (shouting, cursing, blaming the site's computer for a few minutes, then checking the solution with an engine, again shouting, cursing, then closing the browser window and taking a walk around the house while grumbling) -> (x-14-) ->->-> (x-4) -> (x+5) (hey, you know what, I'm DEFINITELY at least expert material, I kick ass!) -> (x-16) (shouting, cursing, telling yourself what a pathetic parody of a chess player you are, blaming the site's computer for a few minutes, then checking the solution with an engine, again shouting, cursing, then closing the browser window and taking a walk around the house while grumbling) -> (..) loop.

I don't regret much things I've done (or not done).

But I do regret not going to The Dvoretsky Seminars in Scotland.
I was invited have the stubborn feeling you cannot teach an old dog
new tricks. Sometimes I am a fool.

Keith went and said it was brilliant.
I turned the Corner over to him to report on it.

http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=75

Mark Dvoretsky is the greatest instructor ever! I have all of his books, and will spend the rest of my life trying to understand everything in them. Wouldn't it be great if Jeremy Silman would co-write his books. Dvoretsky is the greatest teacher, but Silman is by far the best writer. I would love to see Silman rewrite Paul Kere's Endgame manual as well.

I love Dvoretsky, but the article bothered me because he disparaged Dorfman. I don't know enough disagree with either one of them, but I read both of Dorfman's books, and I think they really helped my chess, especially in terms of assessing a position. Dorfman was Kasparov's trainer and second for a good amount of time, so the guy can't be that far off of things. IMHO, anyway.

I think we just have to over-look those comments. It was purely political. I read it about like party politics in the news. I can't say anything bad about either one of them -- both of them are exceptional trainers.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I love Dvoretsky, but the article bothered me because he disparaged Dorfman. I don't know enough disagree with either one of them, but I read both of Dorfman's books, and I think they really helped my chess, especially in terms of assessing a position. Dorfman was Kasparov's trainer and second for a good amount of time, so the guy can't be that far off of things. IMHO, anyway.

Dvoretsky has an amazing way to back up his strategy -excellent analysis and evaluation and solid variations. It seems to me that his argument against Dorfman' s thesis at that excellent article has to do mainly with Dorfman's innability to cope with the reality, and on the other hand with the fact that everybody, regardless of his level, has always to learn more about the Immortal Game -and to do so one has to be open-minded.
And, OK, I think that Dvoretsky was also a bit pissed off with Dorfman's attitude -and he really catched him on the wrong leg
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Dvoretsky has an amazing way to back up his strategy -excellent analysis and evaluation and solid variations. It seems to me that his argument against Dorfman' s thesis at that excellent article has to do mainly with Dorfman's innability to cope with the reality, and on the other hand with the fact that everybody, regardless of his level, has always to ...[text shortened]... lso a bit pissed off with Dorfman's attitude -and he really catched him on the wrong leg
😵

Indeed, it seems Dorfman was full of garbage and Dvoretsky simply refutes him. I'm waiting for the same to be done to Silman about his "dream position" theory, where you're supposed to dream about a position first, and then try to reach it with calculation. It's utter garbage in my opinion.

There are some question marks around Dorfman's bettings during Kasparov-Karpov match too. At least Kasparov thinks he was passing information to Karpov's team:

HR: The openings – what information was given to Karpov about your opening preparation?

GK: We assumed that there was the regular recording of the information that was available in our rooms. That some of the staff there – the maids – were working for the KGB, which is normal behavior in Russia. Today some people say Garry Kasparov was paranoid. I’m not paranoid; I’m just giving you the harsh realities of the Soviet Union, which unfortunately are resurrected in modern Russia as well. They were doing their regular search and I’m sure the information landed in the hands of people who passed it to Karpov. But also the story about Dorfman’s being part of this betting line and offering inside information. It was clear that in game eleven Karpov decided to avoid the Grünfeld by playing Nf3, which had no other explanation unless he knew…

HR: You think Dorfman passed information?

GK: He was playing this betting line. He confessed later that he was offered nice conditions at the betting line, and he was participating, and in game eleven he said the dark-squared bishop would be fianchettoed – and Karpov played Nf3. There’s only one explanation for a professional player.

HR: He knew what was going to happen.

GK: To make sure whether it was Grünfeld or not. If I want to play Tarrasch, Nf3 doesn’t make any difference.

HR: On page 95, in the notes to the seventh game, after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c5, you write “the time was spent hesitating, even though I had decided beforehand to play the Tarrasch Defence. Of course, Karpov was expecting this system: both in Niksic (1983) and in the Candidates matches (1983-84) I employed it with great success. In addition, as it later transpired, from the 1st to the 11th game one of my helpers, Iossif Dorfman, secretly played on the match totaliser, and before the 7th game he bet that in reply to 1 d4 it would be a Tarrasch Defense, but the totaliser was run by a man who was close to the Karpov camp…” This paragraph by itself is very confusing to someone who doesn’t have any information, so please explain what is the totaliser?

GK: There are many betting lines no matter what you do. There was a betting line on the openings, on the sealed moves, and Dorfman participated. He provided vital inside information.

HR: So what you mean is that in the seventh game of the match, he put his money on your playing the Tarrasch?

GK: Yes. Which, by the way, was not a big deal; Karpov could have anticipated the Tarrasch. It helps when you know the openings, but still there was an eighty percent probability that I would play the Tarrasch if I faced 1 d4. Actually, we prepared well. In game seven I had a very good position; we had an excellent opening novelty and I used it, but I spent too much time. After this horrible defeat in game six, my confidence was shattered. The problem is not game seven, the problems occurred later, especially game eleven, and other games where I assumed Karpov had very specific knowledge of the ideas. But that’s not what happened in 1986. In 1984-85 there was a general knowledge, but there was no access to my notebooks. After game eleven Dorfman stopped, because he recognized that it was a trap. He went to play the Soviet Championship, the first league, and he came back after game thirty-two.

Originally posted by philidor position
Indeed, it seems Dorfman was full of garbage and Dvoretsky simply refutes him. I'm waiting for the same to be done to Silman about his "dream position" theory, where you're supposed to dream about a position first, and then try to reach it with calculation. It's utter garbage in my opinion.

There are some question marks around Dorfman's betting ...[text shortened]... o play the Soviet Championship, the first league, and he came back after game thirty-two.

!!