The 200 points question

Originally posted by wormwood
yeah, looks like a clear case of insufficient opening theory.

😛 I'm not sure if that is completely serious or not (the biggest reason for the nonsense was "mouse fatigue"😉, but it is true that behind the curtains there is a lack of opening knowledge that "explains" a bit of my whacky play too. (as I tried to line out)

This sentence "book up" I have no idea what you want me to do with it.

And I thought the Rossolimo is 3. Bb5 against 2 .... Nc6, not against 2. ... d6, huh?

Originally posted by heinzkat
And I thought the Rossolimo is 3. Bb5 against 2 .... Nc6, not against 2. ... d6, huh?

You're right, after Nc6 it is a transposition to rossolimo, I looked it up and this variatio is called Moscow Variation or the Canal-Sokolsky Attack.

Originally posted by Gatusso
You're right, after Nc6 it is a transposition to rossolimo, I looked it up and this variatio is called Moscow Variation or the Canal-Sokolsky Attack.

Moscow variation is just the name for 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6

See, I know some things.

"heinzkat just misses the knowledge of concrete variations."

Yes, especially the plenitude of subsystems. 😕 😳 😞 :'( But as I mentioned before, this lack of knowledge also has its benefits for me.

Originally posted by Nowakowski

Are there more words explaining your moves, or more variations improving them?

-GIN

Hi nowakowski,
Great post, but I have a question for you: what do you value more, words or variations?

I mean variations mean profound search for a better continuation, but how many times does that mean you understand the position? Isn't it sometimes better to write down, with words, what is happening, explaining the most intrinsicate aspects of the position? I believe it is be learning to describe your various positions that you learn how to evaluate the metaphisics of a position, while with variations you will only learn the concrete, better line, in that position, knowledge that may prove less important in other games you will be playing.

I believe the same happens with books, I don't like those who give us line after line of variations, while actually explaining anything of what is going on. I will gain very little of those kind of books, while I would probably gain quite a bit if some of these aspects were described. So, what is your opinion on this?

Originally posted by orion25
Hi nowakowski,
Great post, but I have a question for you: what do you value more, words or variations?

I mean variations mean profound search for a better continuation, but how many times does that mean you understand the position? Isn't it sometimes better to write down, with words, what is happening, explaining the most intrinsicate aspects of the posi ...[text shortened]... ly gain quite a bit if some of these aspects were described. So, what is your opinion on this?

very true. this is why the stats say the players who work a lot on openings from books never get to the A-class.

I want to have an edge coming out of the opening, but I have to remind myself that if I play some GM line and come go into the middlegame with an edge it doesnt really matter as I have lost the nuances of the position long ago

Originally posted by orion25
Hi nowakowski,
Great post, but I have a question for you: what do you value more, words or variations?

I mean variations mean profound search for a better continuation, but how many times does that mean you understand the position? Isn't it sometimes better to write down, with words, what is happening, explaining the most intrinsicate aspects of the posi ly gain quite a bit if some of these aspects were described. So, what is your opinion on this?

Well, personally I value well studied variations best.


When annotating your own games, the more words your writing; the more entrenched
you are in theory in that position. Sometimes thats not a good thing. Other times it is.

As a general rule (which of course has exceptions) the more pieces on the board, the
more wordy your analysis should be. The less, the more concrete variations you should
recognize. If you have neither, play through it again.

Note: The aforementioned is in cases of annotating your own games for your own
private growth. If your displaying your annotations, then you'll need to keep it short
and to the point.

-GIN

Originally posted by heinzkat
Moscow variation is just the name for 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6

See, I know some things.

No,white's third move (3.Bb5+) makes it the Canal-Sokolsky or Moscow variation.

If not then this 1.e4,c5 2.Nf3,d6 3.d4,cxd4 would be the moscow variation too

Originally posted by Nowakowski
Well, personally I value well studied variations best.


When annotating your own games, the more words your writing; the more entrenched
you are in theory in that position. Sometimes thats not a good thing. Other times it is.

As a general rule (which of course has exceptions) the more pieces on the board, the
more wordy your analysis should ...[text shortened]... your displaying your annotations, then you'll need to keep it short
and to the point.

-GIN

ok. thanks nowa 🙂

What about Lars Bo Hansen's "Foundations of Chess Strategy"? Does anybody know more about that?

Originally posted by heinzkat
Question: why is your playing strength not 200 rating points higher than it is now? What elements of chess are holding you back?

This site.

Originally posted by Ajuin
This site.

This site is filled with chess wisdom
😛

Originally posted by heinzkat
This site is filled with chess wisdom
😛

Right!I'll take your word for it.

I didn't mean the content though.The problem is when I'm solving puzzles or going over games I find I constantly interrupt myself to check if an opponent has moved.Makes me feel ridiculous but I keep doing it.