14 Aug 09
Hi,
It started off as a wee jokey sketch because Keith Arkell said
he was fed up seeing only his losses published.
So I found one of his games (a short win).
I invented a theme for the game and stuck with it.
Suddenly I realised there was something in what I making up on the spot.
I've stumbled upon the secret of being a good chess player.
What have I done? Everyone will be doing this now.
I think I've killed off Chess.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=357
14 Aug 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34That's dumb black is stupid anyways.
Hi,
It started off as a wee jokey sketch because Keith Arkell said
he was fed up seeing only his losses published.
So I found one of his games (a short win).
I invented a theme for the game and stuck with it.
Suddenly I realised there was something in what I making up on the spot.
I've stumbled upon the secret of being a good chess player ...[text shortened]... hink I've killed off Chess.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=357
Originally posted by greenpawn34keeping the balance is the hardest thing in the world, it requires patience, playing the board rather than our own creative ideas. i will soon lose a game simply for having an idea that did not work, where is the justice in that? it was a brilliantly creative idea, a little too ambitious perhaps. my opponent simply kept the balance, how annoying is that?
Hi,
It started off as a wee jokey sketch because Keith Arkell said
he was fed up seeing only his losses published.
So I found one of his games (a short win).
I invented a theme for the game and stuck with it.
Suddenly I realised there was something in what I making up on the spot.
I've stumbled upon the secret of being a good chess player ...[text shortened]... hink I've killed off Chess.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=357
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobierobbie robbie robbie. If you have learned anything at all from GP here then you know that chess is NOT about keeping things balanced. It is, my good fellow, quite the opposite.
keeping the balance is the hardest thing in the world, it requires patience, playing the board rather than our own creative ideas. i will soon lose a game simply for having an idea that did not work, where is the justice in that? it was a brilliantly creative idea, a little too ambitious perhaps. my opponent simply kept the balance, how annoying is that?
15 Aug 09
3 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232maybe for maestros like you my friend, but for us noobs and (Steintz), is not balance the key until one finds an appropriate moment to rock the boat? for if one rocks the boat and our opponent is perfectly poised, he shall, as in the martial arts, use our own weight against us and we shall be thrown overboard!
robbie robbie robbie. If you have learned anything at all from GP here then you know that chess is NOT about keeping things balanced. It is, my good fellow, quite the opposite.
is it not better to suffer the winters wind than the tigers breath?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI believe wilhelm may have meant balance as in equal chances, whereas you mean balance as in symmetry. You can not win unless you have a target to attack, an imbalance as mister silman puts it, and with no target you have to create one. Also, what would you do with an initiative if you were just trying to keep the balance?
maybe for maestros like you my friend, but for us noobs and (Steintz), is not balance the key until one finds an appropriate moment to rock the boat? for if one rocks the boat and our opponent is perfectly poised, he shall, as in the martial arts, use our own weight against us and we shall be thrown overboard!
is it not better to suffer the winters wind than the tigers breath?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by tomtom232ah one sees the folly of the assumption, i did not for one moment mean symmetry, what is symmetry but a reflection? what i and Steinitz was referring to was the balance between our pieces, their mobility and any chances that we have for an attack. i do not hold the view that Mr.Silman holds, as to the nature of imbalances (yes i have read his books, both of them, well one and a half i suppose). it is a good place to start, but is too simplistic, for everything is relative to the position and as Fischer has shown, an active knight may be exchanged for a poor bishop, if the position merits it! this is further enhanced when one considers that a bishop with little scope, may be an excellent defensive piece, so as for Mr.Silmans imbalances, yes one must try to create them and take advantage of them, but i do not buy his idea wholesale, for everything is relative to the position.
I believe wilhelm may have meant balance as in equal chances, whereas you mean balance as in symmetry. You can not win unless you have a target to attack, an imbalance as mister silman puts it, and with no target you have to create one. Also, what would you do with an initiative if you were just trying to keep the balance?
rather interestingly, what is positional play? how would you define positional play my friend?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgreed.
ah one sees the folly of the assumption, i did not for one moment mean symmetry, what is symmetry but a reflection? what i and Steinitz was referring to was the balance between our pieces, their mobility and any chances that we have for an attack. i do not hold the view that Mr.Silman holds, as to the nature of imbalances (yes i have read his books ...[text shortened]...
rather interestingly, what is positional play? how would you define positional play my friend?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think its very similar to another study. Geology.
how would you describe the play for position Nowakowski my friend, for there are many ideas. i.e. the accumulation of small advantages etc etc
The study of pressure, and time.
The board, from the beginning is equal, or, persay! Their is an
imbalance from the start, and that is initiative. The first force, awaiting
the reaction of the second, however the fight for position lies in the
continuous build-up of pressure upon the weaknesses (not imbalances)
of the erosion of time. There are several underlying factors which are
at fault for the passing of time, to erode the position on the chess
board. To begin, is this initiative, from the very beginning white must
struggle to apply the most lasting pressure on the position, and black
must play in such a way to relieve this constant pressure until equality
lingers near enough, to apply his own pressure. Hence both sides are
suffering from the same disease, constantly conducting pressure, by
means of movement. Due to the inherit weaknesses of each position
pressure can be applied in millions of ways. The more time passes,
the more difficult to protect all the inconvenient points of pressure.
Pressure is typically defined by a large scale coordination on one, or
several dependent points. Should this pressure spill out, and cause a
breach (or simplification) then the side which had greater pressure, will
move forward, with momentum. Initiative often, alongside other new
strengths is gained, allowing more, heightened, pressure.
Time is the factor which is most difficult to understand, and certainly
more difficult to explain. On the board time is represented by two
ideas (according to my own analysis) one, the pawns advance, which
act as a timeline, and as they move forward, create their own gravity
upon their space, and an enormous void in their wake.
Further, is the movement of the pieces, these factors I'm still trying to
comprehend myself, although it seems, they swallow time, and the
more they swallow, the larger the weakness they create, and the more
pressure they allow to be built on themselves. A very strange cycle,
that I can't pretend to teach.
-GIN
15 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Nowakowskimy friend black beetle says that the advantage of the first move is hidden, i wish he were here to explain this.
I think its very similar to another study. Geology.
The study of pressure, and time.
The board, from the beginning is equal, or, persay! Their is an
imbalance from the start, and that is initiative. The first force, awaiting
the reaction of the second, however the fight for position lies in the
continuous build-up of pressure upon the w llow to be built on themselves. A very strange cycle,
that I can't pretend to teach.
-GIN
as for positional play, the best i have heard so far is Purdys, in which he states that it simply means to strengthen our own position or weaken our opponents, or if neither course is possible, a minimal weakening of our own position. and this is what led me to think of the greenpawn dudes post, for there are many times when one party shall 'assume the initiative', when he shall suffer for it! it would have been better for him to maintain the status quo! How many of us have pressed for a win when there is none there? i myself shall lose quite soon a game simply for being brave and assuming the initiative when none was present, oh the injustice! had i maintained the balance as best i could i would have had a draw at least, but i was impatient and now i suffer!
Therefore it seems to me, that even if we have a slightly inferior position, if we avoid activity which shall compromise our position, our opponent may be tempted into an act of indiscretion and we simply win, by doing nothing as the greepawn dude had originally shown!
Better still would be to feign a retreat (see the battle of Hastings, 1066, William the conqueror), when our opponent shall over extend themselves and we shall win the day. Ah those rash young Saxons, if they had only kept their discipline.
But is seems to me, brothers of the royal game, that this is the art of positional judgement, and who can fathom it?
15 Aug 09
Originally posted by greenpawn34That's some secrets you have there Mr. Greenpawn
Hi Guys.
This charming piece of wisdom was posted on another site. (not by me)
It could apply to 'what is positional chess.'
"The secret is to make your position less worse than your opponent
does with their moves."