| |
Main
Date: 06 Sep 2005 21:21:17
From: Richard
Subject: A couple of games
|
Here are a couple of games I played tonight. These are typical of my
playing and you can see I need a lot of improvement. Any comments?
Thanks,
Richard
I played black:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe4 5. Nxc6 dxc6 6. Bd3 Bf5 7.
O-O Be7
8. Nd2 Nd6 9. Nc4 O-O 10. Bf4 Qd7 11. Bxd6 Bxd6 12. Nxd6 cxd6 13. Qh5
c5
14. Bxf5 Qe7 15. Qxh7# 1-0
I played white:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Qd3 Qe7 7. a3
Nxe4
8. axb4 Nxc3+ 9. Be3 Nd5 10. Be2 Qxb4+ 11. c3 Qxb2 12. Rd1 Nxc3 13. Qd2
Nxd1
14. Qxb2 Nxb2 15. O-O d5 16. Rb1 Na4 17. Bf4 O-O 18. Bb5 Nc5 19. Bxc6
bxc6
20. Nxc6 Bf5 21. Rb5 Ne4 22. Bxc7 a6 23. Rxd5 Rfc8 24. Bd8 Rxc6 25. Re5
Rc1# 0-1
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 02:36:34
From: matt -`;'-
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
"Richard" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Here are a couple of games I played tonight. These are typical of my
> playing and you can see I need a lot of improvement. Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe4 5. Nxc6
{This appears to be a waste of tempo for white.} 5... dxc6 6. Bd3 Bf5 7. O-O Be7
{This was a good move that prevents any terrible pins like Re1 or Qe1. Without cover by the bishop a pin would have been difficult
to deal with.}
8. Nd2 Nd6 9. Nc4 O-O
{Look at your back rank and then look at white's. You have a lead in development because only your queen stands between tying your
rooks. White has 2 pieces to move before that can happen. There are 2 threats by each side, but exchanges will equalize if
properly executed. Example: Nc4xd6, Bxd3; Qxd3, Bxd6}
10. Bf4 Qd7 11. Bxd6 Bxd6 12. Nxd6 cxd6
{It is an almost equal position at this point. Black has a gain in space.} 13.
Qh5
{This is the turning point, but only because you did not see the threat. If Bxd3 then it would eliminate the mating threat by Q & B
at h7. Or Bg6, then if Bd3xg6, fxg6 and you have a rook ready to be mobilized.}
13... c5 14. Bxf5 Qe7 15. Qxh7# 1-0
------------------
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Qd3
{Better is Bd3 so you can castle quickly.} 6... Qe7
{The threat is Nf6xe4 because only the Q is protecting the pawn since the knight on c3 is pinned to the king.}
7. a3 Nxe4
{Now there is another threat when the knight on e4 moves it reveals check on the king. Nd4-e2 would be effective.}
8. axb4 Nxc3+
{Revealed check is always tough to deal with. After you get hit with enough of them you start to see them in advance and can try to
stop the moves that lead up to them. Always keep track of the knights, they can be particularly tricky.}
9. Be3 Nd5 10. Be2
{Try to look for your unguarded pieces before commiting to making a move. You need to focus on what you can attack, but also you
need to see what it is that your opponent is attacking. Look for immediate attacks for both sides and then look for any 2 move
attacks.}
10... Qxb4+ {Unguarded piece.} 11. c3 Qxb2 {Next unguarded piece.} 12. Rd1
{Try to look for attacking moves when you can. Rb1 which is supported by the queen would attack the black queen forcing a retreat.}
12... Nxc3 {An underguarded piece.} 13. Qd2 Nxd1
{Watch how the knight works in the exchange of pieces. Try to remember this for your own plans for your next game. It takes a
while to get used to exchanges and I am still learning myself, but you can only learn by trying and paying attention to how they
work.}
14. Qxb2 Nxb2 15. O-O d5
{Take a look at how the bishop on e2 works against the squares the knight on b2 would need to use to move. Also look at an attack
of your own of Nb5 threatening Nxc7. Only the king can protect c7 and would forfeit castling to do so. When you can take a look at
the squares that the knight can move to in 1 step, then in 2 steps, then in 3. Get used to seeing these patterns because it helps
when you work against an opposing knight.}
16. Rb1 Na4 17. Bf4 O-O 18. Bb5
{The knight on d4 is hanging so this could be an equal exchange.} 18... Nc5 19.
Bxc6 (19. Nxc6 bxc6 20. Bxc6 Nb7 21. Bxb7 Bxb7 22. Rxb7) 19... bxc6 20. Nxc6 Bf5
21. Rb5 Ne4 22. Bxc7 a6 23. Rxd5 Rfc8 24. Bd8
{Ne7 to fork king and rook is better.} 24... Rxc6 25. Re5
{Watch the back rank during the endgame. A move like h7 earlier would have saved the king.}
25... Rc1# 0-1
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 16:52:18
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Let's see second game.
En/na matt -`;'- ha escrit:
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "?"]
> [Black "?"]
> [Result "0-1"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Qd3
> {Better is Bd3 so you can castle quickly.} 6... Qe7
> {The threat is Nf6xe4 because only the Q is protecting the pawn since the knight on c3 is pinned to the king.}
(I suppose matt mean Bd3 with a previous Nd4xc6)
Here matt saw that 6.Bd3 has many advantages to Qd3:
- it allows 0-0
- the Qd3 closes the diagonal for the Bf1
- There are tactical problems with e4 /after 6...Qe7!)
That kind of "natural moves" are easy for some players but not so easy
for other ones. I think that if someone tell Richard that 6.Bd3 is
better, Richard will improve his schess skills but if He study
previously that game (obtaining that conclusion or not) He will improve
more and faster.
> 7. a3 Nxe4
> {Now there is another threat when the knight on e4 moves it reveals check on the king. Nd4-e2 would be effective.}
> 8. axb4 Nxc3+
> {Revealed check is always tough to deal with. After you get hit with enough of them you start to see them in advance and can try to
> stop the moves that lead up to them. Always keep track of the knights, they can be particularly tricky.}
> 9. Be3 Nd5 10. Be2
> {Try to look for your unguarded pieces before commiting to making a move. You need to focus on what you can attack, but also you
> need to see what it is that your opponent is attacking. Look for immediate attacks for both sides and then look for any 2 move
> attacks.}
> 10... Qxb4+ {Unguarded piece.} 11. c3 Qxb2 {Next unguarded piece.} 12. Rd1
> {Try to look for attacking moves when you can. Rb1 which is supported by the queen would attack the black queen forcing a retreat.}
> 12... Nxc3 {An underguarded piece.} 13. Qd2 Nxd1
Only a second comment here.
matt points some moments during the game where white could avoid losing
more material and that's a good help. But here He failed (as I failed
too when I had a look at that game) finding a difficult tactic.
The move is 13.Bc1!! (My Fritz told me instantly and later Claus Juergen
also published here about it) and it saves the game meaning last
12....Nxc3 was a mistake.
But that mistake do not "spot" white help who has suggested many
improvements to Richard. My opinion is that matt (or anybody else) could
have helped better Richard if last one had wrote his feelings and
thoughs about his own game.
> {Watch how the knight works in the exchange of pieces. Try to remember this for your own plans for your next game. It takes a
> while to get used to exchanges and I am still learning myself, but you can only learn by trying and paying attention to how they
> work.}
> 14. Qxb2 Nxb2 15. O-O d5
> {Take a look at how the bishop on e2 works against the squares the knight on b2 would need to use to move. Also look at an attack
> of your own of Nb5 threatening Nxc7. Only the king can protect c7 and would forfeit castling to do so. When you can take a look at
> the squares that the knight can move to in 1 step, then in 2 steps, then in 3. Get used to seeing these patterns because it helps
> when you work against an opposing knight.}
> 16. Rb1 Na4 17. Bf4 O-O 18. Bb5
> {The knight on d4 is hanging so this could be an equal exchange.} 18... Nc5 19.
> Bxc6 (19. Nxc6 bxc6 20. Bxc6 Nb7 21. Bxb7 Bxb7 22. Rxb7) 19... bxc6 20. Nxc6 Bf5
> 21. Rb5 Ne4 22. Bxc7 a6 23. Rxd5 Rfc8 24. Bd8
> {Ne7 to fork king and rook is better.} 24... Rxc6 25. Re5
> {Watch the back rank during the endgame. A move like h7 earlier would have saved the king.}
> 25... Rc1# 0-1
AT
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 09:26:30
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
En/na matt -`;'- ha escrit:
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "?"]
> [Black "?"]
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe4 5. Nxc6
> {This appears to be a waste of tempo for white.} 5... dxc6 6. Bd3 Bf5 7. O-O Be7
> {This was a good move that prevents any terrible pins like Re1 or Qe1. Without cover by the bishop a pin would have been difficult
> to deal with.}
> 8. Nd2 Nd6 9. Nc4 O-O
> {Look at your back rank and then look at white's. You have a lead in development because only your queen stands between tying your
> rooks. White has 2 pieces to move before that can happen. There are 2 threats by each side, but exchanges will equalize if
> properly executed. Example: Nc4xd6, Bxd3; Qxd3, Bxd6}
> 10. Bf4 Qd7 11. Bxd6 Bxd6 12. Nxd6 cxd6
> {It is an almost equal position at this point. Black has a gain in space.} 13.
> Qh5
> {This is the turning point, but only because you did not see the threat. If Bxd3 then it would eliminate the mating threat by Q & B
> at h7. Or Bg6, then if Bd3xg6, fxg6 and you have a rook ready to be mobilized.}
> 13... c5 14. Bxf5 Qe7 15. Qxh7# 1-0
Another good point is that publising here the game, chess "helpers"
(some specially instructive as Claus Juergen, ... or Ron or k or ...)
can help little because they do not know player ideas but publishing the
game with comments they can say much more. For example:
matt has not seen the tactics CJ (Clas Juergen) pointed in a previous
message with 5.Qe2. I and CJ were alert because we knew that theme from
the Petrov. Here calculation and previous experience were important.
That tactics show us that 4...Nxe4 was not good.
mat did not see the second tactical oppotunity 10.Nd6 Bd3 11.Nb7 (a
"desperado+intermediate move" theme) which wins at least a pawn (CJ
pointed that too).
mat pointed the main mistake who forced resignation 13...c5??.
...
matt advice was useful because He shoved with his comments He saw black
obtained advantage in development and suggested a point were that can be
produced and corrected for next time.
And he showed too He need to improve his tactical skills, he recognized
the main themes (pin in the e file) but failed to be aware of them in
the critical moment ... well it's not the same a game played with 100%
concentration than some comments we can have written in home when our
little daughter is asking for us. :-)
AT
|
| |
Date: 09 Sep 2005 11:47:28
From: Richard
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Ray,
Actually, I thought your comment was pretty funny. I didn't take it as
rude at all. I've been playing chess off and on since I was a kid and
I've never gotten very good. (In fact I held the record in highschool
for the most consecutive games lost -- yet for some reason, I still
love playing ?!) I don't know if I just lose focus or if I'm missing
something fundamental. I figure if I could have some people point out
some "obvious" mistakes I'm making, something might click.
Thanks,
Richard
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 03:05:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
> Ray,
>
> Actually, I thought your comment was pretty funny. I didn't take it as
> rude at all. I've been playing chess off and on since I was a kid and
> I've never gotten very good. (In fact I held the record in highschool
> for the most consecutive games lost -- yet for some reason, I still
> love playing ?!) I don't know if I just lose focus or if I'm missing
> something fundamental. I figure if I could have some people point out
> some "obvious" mistakes I'm making, something might click.
Chess isn't about individual mistakes: you either "get" how the game is
supposed to be played, or you don't. If you do get it, you improve almost
every time you play. If not, well.
If you search the web for "Train Like A Chess Champion" you'll find a free
e-book I wrote on how to improve. If someone wants to learn from me, they'd
have to start by going through all of that material first because that's the
way I believe the game should be played.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 09:00:50
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>Ray,
>>
>>Actually, I thought your comment was pretty funny. I didn't take it as
>>rude at all. I've been playing chess off and on since I was a kid and
>>I've never gotten very good. (In fact I held the record in highschool
>>for the most consecutive games lost -- yet for some reason, I still
>>love playing ?!) I don't know if I just lose focus or if I'm missing
>>something fundamental. I figure if I could have some people point out
>>some "obvious" mistakes I'm making, something might click.
>
>
> Chess isn't about individual mistakes: you either "get" how the game is
> supposed to be played, or you don't. If you do get it, you improve almost
> every time you play. If not, well.
>
> If you search the web for "Train Like A Chess Champion" you'll find a free
> e-book I wrote on how to improve. If someone wants to learn from me, they'd
> have to start by going through all of that material first because that's the
> way I believe the game should be played.
To Richard,
You must know that some (much?) people here do not trust Mr Gordon
ideas. Ray is a weak player (no matter He claims to be better than his
rating) and we know nothing about his training or teaching experiences.
And more, He defends ideas in the opposite side to most known/reputed
teachers in the world.
At your level the best way to improve is to combine practice and study.
- You need to play slow time control games (Ray only play blitz) and
then analize them yourself trying to discover the moves you would had
changed for a second opportunity.
- You need to study some basics about tactics, endings, strategy,
openings. To help you some books included in his list can be useful, but
other suggestions are completely non-sense (in my opinion). There are
many book list published from reputed people and I suggest you to prefer
those last ones.
As example: to learn tactics it's needed a book explaining themes and
patterns and then do many many exercises. There are many good books
(curiously I can not see any of them in Gordon list) for this and there
are also free collections of exercises in PGN or PDF in the web.
yours,
Antonio T.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 09:43:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
>> Chess isn't about individual mistakes: you either "get" how the game is
>> supposed to be played, or you don't. If you do get it, you improve
>> almost every time you play. If not, well.
>>
>> If you search the web for "Train Like A Chess Champion" you'll find a
>> free e-book I wrote on how to improve. If someone wants to learn from
>> me, they'd have to start by going through all of that material first
>> because that's the way I believe the game should be played.
>
> To Richard,
>
> You must know that some (much?) people here do not trust Mr Gordon ideas.
God, how lame.
>Ray is a weak player (no matter He claims to be better than his rating) and
>we know nothing about his training or teaching experiences.
Ask the former Washington High coach in Philadelphia, who lost third place
to my group of "beginners" by a 9-1 match score (two matches), with the
typical game being a miniature. That was in 1991.
My peak rating was 2000, something only about 10 percent of tournament
players rank higher than at any given time.
That is hardly what one would call "weak."
> And more, He defends ideas in the opposite side to most known/reputed
> teachers in the world.
Only if you don't count Paul Morphy, Alexander Alekhine and Bobby Fischer
among that group.
Note that all three were world champions. My style is influenced equally by
all three players.
> At your level the best way to improve is to combine practice and study.
I never said it wasn't.
> - You need to play slow time control games (Ray only play blitz)
Why? So he can learn one opening every month instead of 30 an hour?
I play one-minute online because it's the only time control where it's very
difficult to cheat.
>and then analize them yourself trying to discover the moves you would had
>changed for a second opportunity.
I trust post-mortems to the computers.
> - You need to study some basics about tactics, endings, strategy,
> openings. To help you some books included in his list can be useful, but
> other suggestions are completely non-sense (in my opinion).
Exactly: your opinion.
>There are many book list published from reputed people and I suggest you to
>prefer those last ones.
My list has several rules that disqualify most of the lousy chess authors in
the world.
For example, why do I want a book from a 2200-rated player telling me what
was going on in Fischer's head during his games?
> As example: to learn tactics it's needed a book explaining themes and
> patterns and then do many many exercises.
Video game players have proven that it's possible to learn simply through
practice. If computers can correct your every major mistake, they are the
most efficient teachers.
>There are many good books (curiously I can not see any of them in Gordon
>list) for this and there are also free collections of exercises in PGN or
>PDF in the web.
So why not do what most great players do and take in ALL the material as a
reference?
Back in 1990 I owned well over 100 chess books, including obscure titles
like "King Power In Chess" (essential for learning when not to castle).
I told him to read my book if he wanted to learn the game FROM ME. I never
said he shouldn't read other books.
I wrote my book so that he doesn't have to ask me a zillion questions and
instead can do so himself, without any drain on my time or his wallet.
>
> yours,
> Antonio T.
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 16:33:43
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>To Richard,
>>
>>You must know that some (much?) people here do not trust Mr Gordon ideas.
>
> God, how lame.
>
>>Ray is a weak player (no matter He claims to be better than his rating) and
>>we know nothing about his training or teaching experiences.
>
> Ask the former Washington High coach in Philadelphia, who lost third place
> to my group of "beginners" by a 9-1 match score (two matches), with the
> typical game being a miniature. That was in 1991.
>
> My peak rating was 2000, something only about 10 percent of tournament
> players rank higher than at any given time.
>
> That is hardly what one would call "weak."
Well, it's my opinion: you are a weak inactive player to and I think too
your ideas are negative. I do not mean weak players ideas are negative,
only yours (the ideas you have exposed here).
Sure I can be wrong.
>>And more, He defends ideas in the opposite side to most known/reputed
>>teachers in the world.
>
> Only if you don't count Paul Morphy, Alexander Alekhine and Bobby Fischer
> among that group.
>
> Note that all three were world champions. My style is influenced equally by
> all three players.
My perception is you understand badly the meaning of being prepared in
openings and the style of those players. You have written here you are
not interested in studying endings and your main task is to be prepared
in opening play. Well, ... you have wrote the name of reputed ending
players but maybe you did not note that.
>>At your level the best way to improve is to combine practice and study.
>
> I never said it wasn't.
You have written here you only play with computers in home and blitz in
chess servers (exactly 1 minute games). In my opinion practice is to
play OTB tournaments with people at low time control. Maybe we use the
same words but with different meaning.
>>- You need to play slow time control games (Ray only play blitz)
>
> Why? So he can learn one opening every month instead of 30 an hour?
>
> I play one-minute online because it's the only time control where it's very
> difficult to cheat.
There exist too OTB chess, .. maybe if you discover it you will change
your mind.
>>and then analize them yourself trying to discover the moves you would had
>>changed for a second opportunity.
>
> I trust post-mortems to the computers.
That kind of analysis only serves to recognize tactical mistakes but not
to improve. To improve it's necessary another kind of analysis and games
slower than 1 minute games.
>>- You need to study some basics about tactics, endings, strategy,
>>openings. To help you some books included in his list can be useful, but
>>other suggestions are completely non-sense (in my opinion).
>
> Exactly: your opinion.
>
>>There are many book list published from reputed people and I suggest you to
>>prefer those last ones.
>
> My list has several rules that disqualify most of the lousy chess authors in
> the world.
>
> For example, why do I want a book from a 2200-rated player telling me what
> was going on in Fischer's head during his games?
First you claimed to have that 2200 level, then someone published your
actual rating (much lower). Your dream published here is to be near to a
2400 player level (without playing tournaments!!) from the study of
openings. I think a 2200 player can teach many many thing to you. You
only need to discover that reading their notes!
>>As example: to learn tactics it's needed a book explaining themes and
>>patterns and then do many many exercises.
>
> Video game players have proven that it's possible to learn simply through
> practice. If computers can correct your every major mistake, they are the
> most efficient teachers.
>
>>There are many good books (curiously I can not see any of them in Gordon
>>list) for this and there are also free collections of exercises in PGN or
>>PDF in the web.
>
> So why not do what most great players do and take in ALL the material as a
> reference?
>
> Back in 1990 I owned well over 100 chess books, including obscure titles
> like "King Power In Chess" (essential for learning when not to castle).
>
> I told him to read my book if he wanted to learn the game FROM ME. I never
> said he shouldn't read other books.
>
> I wrote my book so that he doesn't have to ask me a zillion questions and
> instead can do so himself, without any drain on my time or his wallet.
I have read many books (maybe I have more than 500 in my library most
part of them read) and I have learned from almost all some things,
sometimes more sometimes less.
I would not use the name "book" for your advice in your web and I think
I must point to beginners asking for advice here, that I think your
recomendations about study are not the best way to use our time.
I simply think that it's better to try to improve alone than to improve
with "your help".
AT
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2005 07:18:11
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
>> My peak rating was 2000, something only about 10 percent of tournament
>> players rank higher than at any given time.
>>
>> That is hardly what one would call "weak."
>
> Well, it's my opinion: you are a weak inactive player to and I think too
> your ideas are negative.
I'm not an inactive player. I just don't play tournaments. I'm also not
weak. Your *opinion* is that my ideas are *negative* because YOU do not
agree with them.
>I do not mean weak players ideas are negative, only yours (the ideas you
>have exposed here).
> Sure I can be wrong.
I preach opening strength first. There's no 'negativity' in that
whatsoever.
>>>And more, He defends ideas in the opposite side to most known/reputed
>>>teachers in the world.
>>
>> Only if you don't count Paul Morphy, Alexander Alekhine and Bobby Fischer
>> among that group.
>>
>> Note that all three were world champions. My style is influenced equally
>> by all three players.
>
> My perception is you understand badly the meaning of being prepared in
> openings and the style of those players. You have written here you are not
> interested in studying endings and your main task is to be prepared in
> opening play. Well, ... you have wrote the name of reputed ending players
> but maybe you did not note that.
Those players had superior positions in almost every endgame they reached.
They also had strong openings long before they developed their endgame
strength.
Another thing they had were ideas that contradicted the conventional wisdom
of the day.
How often do you wind up in an endgame against Fritz on its highest level?
>>>At your level the best way to improve is to combine practice and study.
>>
>> I never said it wasn't.
>
> You have written here you only play with computers in home and blitz in
> chess servers (exactly 1 minute games).
That is "practice." Analyzing the games with a computer is "study."
>In my opinion practice is to play OTB tournaments with people at low time
>control. Maybe we use the same words but with different meaning.
So train against a human rated 1600 instead of a computer rated 3000.
>>>- You need to play slow time control games (Ray only play blitz)
>>
>> Why? So he can learn one opening every month instead of 30 an hour?
>>
>> I play one-minute online because it's the only time control where it's
>> very difficult to cheat.
>
> There exist too OTB chess, .. maybe if you discover it you will change
> your mind.
I played OTB for years. Not into paying $20 a game to play chess. They
also have to seriously upgrade the anti-cheating measures taken at
tournaments.
>>>and then analize them yourself trying to discover the moves you would had
>>>changed for a second opportunity.
>>
>> I trust post-mortems to the computers.
>
> That kind of analysis only serves to recognize tactical mistakes but not
> to improve. To improve it's necessary another kind of analysis and games
> slower than 1 minute games.
If a computer is loaded up with my repertoire, I've handled the positional
end of things.
>>>There are many book list published from reputed people and I suggest you
>>>to prefer those last ones.
>>
>> My list has several rules that disqualify most of the lousy chess authors
>> in the world.
>>
>> For example, why do I want a book from a 2200-rated player telling me
>> what was going on in Fischer's head during his games?
>
> First you claimed to have that 2200 level, then someone published your
> actual rating (much lower). Your dream published here is to be near to a
> 2400 player level (without playing tournaments!!) from the study of
> openings. I think a 2200 player can teach many many thing to you. You only
> need to discover that reading their notes!
Let a 2200 player play me for money at 3-1 odds (what our ratings say I
should get).
>> So why not do what most great players do and take in ALL the material as
>> a reference?
>>
>> Back in 1990 I owned well over 100 chess books, including obscure titles
>> like "King Power In Chess" (essential for learning when not to castle).
>>
>> I told him to read my book if he wanted to learn the game FROM ME. I
>> never said he shouldn't read other books.
>>
>> I wrote my book so that he doesn't have to ask me a zillion questions and
>> instead can do so himself, without any drain on my time or his wallet.
>
> I have read many books (maybe I have more than 500 in my library most part
> of them read) and I have learned from almost all some things, sometimes
> more sometimes less.
>
> I would not use the name "book" for your advice in your web and I think I
> must point to beginners asking for advice here, that I think your
> recomendations about study are not the best way to use our time.
That's your opinion.
> I simply think that it's better to try to improve alone than to improve
> with "your help".
Again, your opinion.
I play a very strong game of chess. I published the method that got me to
that level.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2005 18:59:13
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> I'm not an inactive player. I just don't play tournaments.
ROTFL!
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2005 01:14:35
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
In article <T2vVe.31304$%[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Those players had superior positions in almost every endgame they reached.
> They also had strong openings long before they developed their endgame
> strength.
>
> Another thing they had were ideas that contradicted the conventional wisdom
> of the day.
>
> How often do you wind up in an endgame against Fritz on its highest level?
Ray's philosophy is misguided. He seems to believe that the "story" of a
game of chess is that one player acheives an advantage in the opening
and carries it home to the end of the game.
This is absolutely not the case, as even a passing familiarity with
master-level chess would make clear. For those with any doubt, I
strongly recommend either Jan Timman's "The Art of Chess Analysis" or
Burgess et. al's "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games."
The extensive annotation in both of these books makes it abundantly
clear that games of chess between evenly-matched opponents are
back-and-forth affairs, where the first mistake is rarely decisive.
I lose to strong computers not because they outplay me in the opening
(where, in fact, I do rather well, relatively speaking) but because I
can't keep up with their middlegame complications. This is,
unsurprisingly, also why most GMs lose games to strong chess engines.
That somebody like Lasker could be successful flies in the face of Ray's
suggestions. Lasker often gave his opponent a favorable position,
believing (accurately) that he would be able to take advantage of his
opponent's inability to play that position properly.
Ray's recommendation for how to study chess also goes against the advice
of nearly every world champion who's spoken on the subject, as well as
being against the advice of almost every respected teaching professional
in the game, whether writing for beginners or masters. On one hand:
Capablanca, Lasker, Botvinnik, Tarrasch, Silman, Dvoretsky, Chernev. On
the other, Ray Gordon.
Choose wisely.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2005 06:02:36
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
>> Those players had superior positions in almost every endgame they
>> reached.
>> They also had strong openings long before they developed their endgame
>> strength.
>>
>> Another thing they had were ideas that contradicted the conventional
>> wisdom
>> of the day.
>>
>> How often do you wind up in an endgame against Fritz on its highest
>> level?
>
> Ray's philosophy is misguided. He seems to believe that the "story" of a
> game of chess is that one player acheives an advantage in the opening
> and carries it home to the end of the game.
That worked pretty well for Hydra, don't you think? Fischer used to win
"wire to wire" all the time.
Consider this: Fischer played the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian for over a decade.
Everyone played 10. e5 against him. Finally, Geller plays the line as Black
against Fischer, and Fischer plays 10. f5!, which suddenly becomes the main
line.
> This is absolutely not the case, as even a passing familiarity with
> master-level chess would make clear.
Morphy used to win wire to wire too.
>For those with any doubt, I
> strongly recommend either Jan Timman's "The Art of Chess Analysis" or
> Burgess et. al's "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games."
Timman never came close to winning the world title.
How many of Steinitz's openings are still the *main line* 100 years after
his passing?
> The extensive annotation in both of these books makes it abundantly
> clear that games of chess between evenly-matched opponents are
> back-and-forth affairs, where the first mistake is rarely decisive.
The world champion is evenly matched with no one.
> I lose to strong computers not because they outplay me in the opening
> (where, in fact, I do rather well, relatively speaking) but because I
> can't keep up with their middlegame complications.
Which result from their superior openings.
>This is,
> unsurprisingly, also why most GMs lose games to strong chess engines.
>
> That somebody like Lasker could be successful flies in the face of Ray's
> suggestions. Lasker often gave his opponent a favorable position,
> believing (accurately) that he would be able to take advantage of his
> opponent's inability to play that position properly.
Lasker could afford to do that against weak players. Capablanca dusted him,
however.
> Ray's recommendation for how to study chess also goes against the advice
> of nearly every world champion who's spoken on the subject, as well as
> being against the advice of almost every respected teaching professional
> in the game, whether writing for beginners or masters. On one hand:
> Capablanca, Lasker, Botvinnik, Tarrasch, Silman, Dvoretsky, Chernev. On
> the other, Ray Gordon.
> Choose wisely.
Going against conventional wisdom has always been profitable.
You also left out FRITZ on my side of the debate. Computers play the
opening from a SCRIPT. Humans should too.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2005 22:17:31
From: Ron
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
In article <0q7Xe.35760$%[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Fischer used to win
> "wire to wire" all the time.
No, actually, he didn't - at least not against top opposition.
Of course he did occasionally, but if you look at Fischer's greatest
games against top players (game 1 against Larsen, game 7 against
Peotrosian) you see Fischer's middlegame skills dominating.
Only an idiot would claim, for example, that Fischer's loss in game one
against Spassky had anything to do with the opening play. (In game six,
on the other hand, it's possible that Fischer won because of his opening
preparation. I'm not claiming it never happened.)
Fischer himself would disagree with you strongly, in any event, as
evidenced by his own notes in "My Sixty Memorable Games." Even a passing
familiarity with this work would make it clear that Fischer was fighting
in unfamiliar territory while most these games were still in doubt.
> Consider this: Fischer played the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian for over a decade.
> Everyone played 10. e5 against him. Finally, Geller plays the line as Black
> against Fischer, and Fischer plays 10. f5!, which suddenly becomes the main
> line.
Playing an unexpected line against a well-prepared opponent is just
st strategy. Are you going to claim that Fischer won this game
because of his opening preparation? (I don't have this game score in
front of me at the moment, but perhaps the group can analyze it together
and see what we come up with?) In fact, many of Fischer's opening
choices (including 1.c4! against Spassky) were not done with the idea of
beating his opponent in the opening, but rather with throwing his
opponent on his own middlegame devices (where Fischer was confident he
could outplay anyone.)
> Timman never came close to winning the world title.
And yet his book is widely recognized - even by world champions - as one
of the best published examples of deep, complex analysis. So your
comment is a non-sequitir. Perhaps deflecting from the lack of real
argument to your position?
> > The extensive annotation in both of these books makes it abundantly
> > clear that games of chess between evenly-matched opponents are
> > back-and-forth affairs, where the first mistake is rarely decisive.
>
> The world champion is evenly matched with no one.
Your knowledge of chess history is flawed. I encourage you to look over
the Kasparov-Karpov matched (ironic that you should be so unaware of
them, since they were probably the matches that most emphasized opening
preparation). Botvinnik was evenly matched, at different times in his
career, with Petrosian, Tal, and Smyslov. Euwe, Alekhine, and Keres were
all very close in strength in the late 30s.
> You also left out FRITZ on my side of the debate. Computers play the
> opening from a SCRIPT. Humans should too.
Actually, I think fritz is a great example for my side. Turn off it's
opening book, and it will still beat many players. Computers began to
consistently beat grandmasters not when their opening books were
improved (they've ALWAYS played the opening as well as top masters, even
when top mastered creamed them) but because their middlegame prowess
became much stronger (do to both better algorythyms and faster
computers.)
Put a modern opening book in a 1990 computer, and it'll get clobbered.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2005 19:01:51
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
All excellent points, Ron. Thanks for the input.
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| |
Date: 08 Sep 2005 15:03:34
From: Richard
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
What!? and not chase after the big professional chess money? :)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Sep 2005 22:20:09
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
> What!? and not chase after the big professional chess money? :)
Ah, sorry for being so rude.
Seriously, look for your FIRST mistake, and try to fix that.
If you were a boxer, a mistake in the second round would be much worse for
you than one made in say the tenth.
|
| |
Date: 08 Sep 2005 20:01:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
> Here are a couple of games I played tonight. These are typical of my
> playing and you can see I need a lot of improvement. Any comments?
Don't quit your day job?
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2005 16:01:24
From: Richard
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
This is great. I'll set up the board and study these tonight. Thank you
very much!
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2005 23:49:47
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Richard wrote:
> Here are a couple of games I played tonight. These are typical of my
> playing and you can see I need a lot of improvement. Any comments?
Prime advice: guard your pieces, look for opponents threats. Tactics:
exercise forks, pins, removing defenders. Also look up a beginners guide
to openings. You don't have to memorize much, but a basic knowledge in
the openings you play would help.
> I played black:
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nf6
You answered the attack on your pawn with a counterattack. This
sometimes may be an appropriate answer but not in this case. Here a bit
of opening theory comes in handy. Common practise in this particular
position is to eliminate the threat on your pawn first and counterattack
only after: 3...exd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6.
> 4. Nxe5
Instead White could have played 4. d5 removing the defender of e5. Black
will get in a bad position after 4...Nb8 (4...Ne7 5. Nxe5 Nxe4 6. Qe2 f5
(after 6...Nf6 7. d6 cxd6 8. Nc4 the black king is caught in the middle)
7. Nd2 Nf6 8. Ndf3 with the threat Ng5) 5. Nxe5 Qe7 (5...d6 6. Bb5+
costs a pawn) 6. Qd4 d6 (what else to get the pawn back?) 7. Bb5+ Kd8 8.
Nf3 Qxe4+ 9. Qxe4 Nxe4 10. 0-0.
> 4...Nxe4
This is also a dangerous move as White could play 5. Qe2 setting up
threats on the e-file. This is known from the Petroff Defense (1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4?! 4. Qe2). Now 5...d5 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. f3 loses a
piece. 5...Nf6 6. Nxc6+ loses the queen. The only way out is 5...Qe7 6.
Qxe4 d6 but Black is getting into trouble after 7. Bg5 f6 (7...Qxg5 8.
Nxc6+ wins White a piece) 8. Bb5 Bd7 (8...fxg5 9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. Qxc6+;
8...dxe5 9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. Qxc6+ wins the exchange) 9. Nc3 dxe5 10. Nd5
Qd8 11. dxe5! and Black is in deep trouble (11...fxg5 12. e6 Bc8 13. Qf5
Qd6 14. 0-0-0 with a winning attack; 11...Nxe5 12. Bxd7+ Kxd7 (12...Qxd7
13. Bxf6 - wins Ne5 - gxf6? 14. Nxf6+) 13. Qf5+ Kc6 14. 0-0-0 and it's
hard to believe Black can survive this).
The correct method is to close the e-file first. 4...Nxe5 5. dxe5 Nxe4.
Now 6. Qe2 isn't dangerous because the knight can move away. 6...Nc5 and
White has no threats.
> 5. Nxc6 dxc6 6. Bd3 Bf5
Safer was 6...Nf6 which puts the knight out of harms way. Black follows
up with Be7 and 0-0.
> 7. O-O
Sharper was 7. Qf3 which attacks both the Ne4 and the Bf5. The only
valid defense is 7...Qd5 (7...Qe7 8. 0-0 Bg6 9. Re1 f5 10. Nc3 loses a
pawn) 8. 0-0 (threats Re1, c4) 8...Nd6 9. Re1+ Be7 (better Kd7) 10. Qg3
with a very dangerous attack for White.
> 7...Be7
After 7...Qxd4 8. Nd2 the development advantage of White is worth the
pawn, maybe more. 8...Nxd2? 9. Bxf5, 8...Nd6 9. Nf3 Qb6 10. Re1+ Be7 11.
Qd3, 8...Be7 9. Bxe4 Bxe4 10. c3 Qd3 11. Nxe4 Qxe4 12. Re1 Qh4 13. Qe2.
> 8. Nd2
Again 8. Qf3 was the sharper move that gets White an advantage. 8...Qd5
9. c4 Qxd4 (9...Qe6 10. d5 cxd5 11. cxd5 Qg6 (11...Qxd5 12. Nd2 loses a
piece because the knight is pinned to the queen) 12. Re1 and Black has
problems on the e-file) 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11. Bxf5 Na4 12. Re1 Qf6 13. Qh5
(threat Bg5) 13...h6 14. Bf4. White will win back the pawn on c7 and has
the better position.
> 8...Nd6
When on the defensive, it's often good to trade off the attackers. After
8...Nxd2 9. Qxd2 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 the psoition is equal.
> 9. Nc4
9. Nf3 would be better as it doesn't allow Black to trade as much
pieces. White retains a small advantage because of the better pawn
structure and better piece placement.
> 9...O-O
White attacked the defender of the Bf5 and put up the threat Nxd6+ and
Bxf5. 0-0 doesn't quite remedy the situation as White still could win a
pawn with 10. Nxd6 Bxd3 11. Nxb7 Qc8 (11...Bxc2? 12. Nxd8 Bxd1 13. Nxc6
and both e7 and d1 are attacked. White wins a piece) 12. Qxd3 Qxb7.
Luckily White didn't see this.
A good defense was again to trade off the attackers with 9...Bxd3 10.
Qxd3 Nxc4 11. Qxc4 0-0 when White only has a very small advantage
because of the better pawn structure.
> 10. Bf4 Qd7 11. Bxd6
Without doubt 11. Ne5 or Ne3 would have been more interesting. I would
favor Ne3 with the plan c4 and d5.
> Bxd6 12. Nxd6 cxd6
Now the game has to be dead equal.
> 13. Qh5 c5
Missed a simple threat. Of course 13...Bxd3 14. cxd3 gives Black a small
advantage because of the better pawn structure.
> 14. Bxf5 Qe7 15. Qxh7# 1-0
> I played white:
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bb4+
Apparently this develops a piece with tempo as White has to react to the
check. But White can reverse the situation and put the black bishop into
peril with 5. c3. Obviously the bishop has to move again, losing the
assumed gained tempo. After the bishop relocates it is in effect White
who has gained the move c3 for nothing. So Black has to determine if c3
hurts White or rather is of use to him. The pawn on c3 prevents the Nb1
from settling there himself, but also c3 backs the knight on d4. After
for example 5...Bc5 White doesn't have to protect the knight and is free
to play 6. Bc4. Compare this to 4...Bc5 which attacks the knight. Here
White has to do something about the knight and isn't free for something
else. Clearly c3 is useful for White, so Bb4+ is essentially a loss of
tempo.
> 5. Nc3
Better is c3. Nc3 justifies the last black move.
> Nf6 6. Qd3
This move has two drawbacks: it hems in the Bf1 and deprives the pawn e4
of the defense of the Bf1. It is preferable to use the bishop for the
defense of the pawn. As 6. Bd3 loses the Nd4, White cares about the
knight first, then protects the pawn. 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 is the
standard reaction in this position. White doesn't have to worry about
Black deteriorating the white pawn structure with Bxc3 as White gets the
advantage of the bishops pair in an open position.
> Qe7
Black goes directly for the pawn.
> 7. a3
Can the pawn be saved? 7. f3 Ne5 8. Qe3 d5 (puts up the threat c5 and
d4) 9. a3 Bxc3 10. Qxc3 (10. bxc3 doesn't save the pawn, 10...dxe4 11.
fxe4 Neg4 and 12...Qxe4+) 10...dxe4 11. Bb5+ c6 (after 11...Kf8 12. 0-0
White has lots of compensation for the pawn. The f-file will be opened
soon and the black king comes under attack.) 12. Nxc6 Nxc6 13. Bxc6+
bxc6 14. Qxc6+ Nd7 15. Qxa8 exf3+ 16. Kd2 Qe2+ 17. Kc3 Qe5+ 18. Kb3 Nb6
and although White has a big material advantage it is hard to imagine
that White can survive this.
As it turns out 7. a3 doesn't help White a bit as Black even doesn't
have to move the Bb4. Even if he would have, Black would win the pawn
after 7...Bxc3 8. Qxc3 Qxe4+. Better is Bd2, which prevents Nxe4 and
tries to get at least a little development advantage out of the time
Black needs to capture the pawn. 7. Bd2 Bxc3 8. Bxc3 Qxe4+ 9. Be2 Qxd3
10. Bxd3 Nxd4 11. Bxd4. This is not much but better than nothing.
> Nxe4
> 8. axb4 Nxc3+ 9. Be3 Nd5 10. Be2 Qxb4+
Black goes for more pawns but now really neglects development. Safer was
10...Ncxb4 when White doesn't have much to show for the pawns.
> 11. c3 Qxb2 12. Rd1
12. 0-0 would have defended the rook as well, activated the other rook
and brought the king into safety. There would be even a threat: 13. Nb5
and the black queen is trapped. If Black goes for more pawns White can
stuff in just more material for an attack, like 12. 0-0 Nxc3 13. Rfb1
Nxb1 (better is 13...Nxe2+ aiming to get the queen back to the defense
after 14. Nxe2 Qf6. White would play 14. Kh1 of course, keeping the
queen shut off from defense.) 14. Rxb1 Qa2 15. Qe4+ Kf8 16. Nxc6 bxc6
17. Bc4 Qa5 18. Bd4 and Black has to defend very carefully.
When in a lost position you should look to activate your pieces as much
as possible, even if it costs more material. You might be creating some
threats and if your opponent gets overconfident you can still get him.
> Nxc3
Example: overconfident like this. A surprise move like 13. Bc1 would
have been a very hard blow to the black effort. 13...Qb4 (only square to
defend the knight) 14. Nxc6 bxc6 15. Bd2 and a black piece has to go.
> 13. Qd2 Nxd1
> 14. Qxb2
A move like this with the intent to play on is only justified if the
opponent is in really hard time trouble (seconds left). Else you can
give up here for good. 14. Qxd1 captures a piece.
> Nxb2 15. O-O d5 16. Rb1 Na4 17. Bf4
This looks like your concentration is gone, maybe under the impression
of playing on a lost game. If you feel your concentration is gone and
your game lost then consider giving up, making a little break, maybe
take in a little carbohydrated snack or drink and begin a new game. The
Nd4 is left without protection.
> O-O
Black is also quite relaxed (17...Nxd4).
> 18. Bb5 Nc5
18...Nxd4 19. Bxa4 Ne2+ 20. Kh1 Nxf4 puts another piece in the box.
> 19. Bxc6 bxc6
> 20. Nxc6 Bf5 21. Rb5
21. Ne7+ forks king and bishop.
> Ne4
21...Re8 (any), Ne6 or Nd3 saves the piece.
> 22. Bxc7
22. Ne7+
> a6 23. Rxd5 Rfc8 24. Bd8
24. Ne7+ family check.
> Rxc6 25. Re5
> Rc1# 0-1
Hope this helps.
Claus-Juergen
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2005 09:33:30
From: Richard
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Thanks for the help Antonio. These questions will definitely help me
out.
Thanks,
Richard
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2005 15:58:28
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
En/na Richard ha escrit:
> Here are a couple of games I played tonight. These are typical of my
> playing and you can see I need a lot of improvement. Any comments?
I think, the best way to improve is to analize that games yourself in
first place, ... to help you, I will add some questions.
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> I played black:
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe4 5. Nxc6 dxc6 6. Bd3 Bf5 7.
> O-O Be7 8. Nd2 Nd6 9. Nc4 O-O 10. Bf4 Qd7 11. Bxd6 Bxd6 12. Nxd6 cxd6
> 13. Qh5 c5 14. Bxf5 Qe7 15. Qxh7# 1-0
What was the worst move played by black in this game?
What was the worst move played by white in this game?
How do you evaluate the position after 12....cxd6?
What black moves did you feel proud of them?
What moves you would change if it was possible during the game?
> I played white:
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Qd3 Qe7 7. a3
> Nxe4 8. axb4 Nxc3+ 9. Be3 Nd5 10. Be2 Qxb4+ 11. c3 Qxb2 12. Rd1 Nxc3
> 13. Qd2 Nxd1 14. Qxb2 Nxb2 15. O-O d5 16. Rb1 Na4 17. Bf4 O-O 18. Bb5
> Nc5 19. Bxc6 bxc6 20. Nxc6 Bf5 21. Rb5 Ne4 22. Bxc7 a6 23. Rxd5 Rfc8
> 24. Bd8 Rxc6 25. Re5 Rc1# 0-1
What was the worst move played by black in this game?
What was the worst move played by white in this game?
What white moves did you feel proud of them?
What moves you would change if it was possible during the game?
What black moves you think are good?
AT
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2005 23:25:06
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:
> En/na Richard ha escrit:
>
>> Here are a couple of games I played tonight. These are typical of my
>> playing and you can see I need a lot of improvement. Any comments?
>
> I think, the best way to improve is to analize that games yourself in
> first place, ... to help you, I will add some questions.
> (...)
From Jorge Bucay "Tales to think"
(a personal traslation from Spanish, sorry from my bad English)
"The master allways tell a tale at the end of each class but students
not allways understand his meaning...
- Master, you tell us a tale but you do not explain us his meaning...
- It's tru, I'm sorry. Hum ... let me to invite you a peach!
- Thank you master.
- I would like to peel it for you, would you mind?
- Thanks master.
- Would you like I cut it in little pieces?
- Ok, thanks master ... but maybe that's too much!
- No, I only wish to please you. Let me to masticate it before giving it
to you ...
- No, I would not like you to do that!
The master continued after a pause.
- If I would explain the meaning of each tale it would be like giving
all you masticate fruit."
I hope this traslation to be understandable.
;-)
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 11:54:04
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> From Jorge Bucay "Tales to think"
> (a personal traslation from Spanish, sorry from my bad English)
Since you ask about it in your followup, I would translate your
translation as:
``The master always tells a tale at the end of each class but the students
do not always understand its meaning...
- Master, you tell us a tale but you do not explain its meaning...
- It's true: I'm sorry. Hum... let me offer you a peach!
- Thank you, master.
- I would like to peel it for you. Would you mind?
- Thanks, master.
- Would you like me to cut it into little pieces?
- OK, thanks, master... but you don't have to!
- No, I only wish to please you. Let me chew it before giving it to
you...
- No, don't do that!
The master continued after a pause,
- If I were to explain the meaning of each tale, it would be like giving
you all chewed fruit.''
> I hope this traslation to be understandable.
Perfectly understandable, yes.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Strange Pants (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers but
it's totally weird and completely
transparent!
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2005 22:15:10
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Thanks!
AT
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>From Jorge Bucay "Tales to think"
>>(a personal traslation from Spanish, sorry from my bad English)
>
> Since you ask about it in your followup, I would translate your
> translation as:
>
> ``The master always tells a tale at the end of each class but the students
> do not always understand its meaning...
>
> - Master, you tell us a tale but you do not explain its meaning...
> - It's true: I'm sorry. Hum... let me offer you a peach!
> - Thank you, master.
> - I would like to peel it for you. Would you mind?
> - Thanks, master.
> - Would you like me to cut it into little pieces?
> - OK, thanks, master... but you don't have to!
> - No, I only wish to please you. Let me chew it before giving it to
> you...
> - No, don't do that!
>
> The master continued after a pause,
>
> - If I were to explain the meaning of each tale, it would be like giving
> you all chewed fruit.''
> (...)
> Dave.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Oct 2005 03:17:22
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:miu*[email protected]...
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From Jorge Bucay "Tales to think"
> > (a personal traslation from Spanish, sorry from my bad English)
>
> Since you ask about it in your followup, I would translate your
> translation as:
>
> ``The master always tells a tale at the end of each class but the students
> do not always understand its meaning...
>
> - Master, you tell us a tale but you do not explain its meaning...
> - It's true: I'm sorry. Hum... let me offer you a peach!
> - Thank you, master.
> - I would like to peel it for you. Would you mind?
> - Thanks, master.
> - Would you like me to cut it into little pieces?
> - OK, thanks, master... but you don't have to!
> - No, I only wish to please you. Let me chew it before giving it to
> you...
> - No, don't do that!
>
> The master continued after a pause,
>
> - If I were to explain the meaning of each tale, it would be like giving
> you all chewed fruit.''
>
> > I hope this traslation to be understandable.
>
> Perfectly understandable, yes.
( )...me too (very practical).
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Crystal Strange Pants (TM): it's
like
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers
but
> it's totally weird and completely
> transparent!
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2005 00:11:02
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
(second version)
two corrections and a doubt.
En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:
> From Jorge Bucay "Tales to think"
> (a personal traslation from Spanish, sorry from my bad English)
>
> "The master allways tell a tale at the end of each class but students
> not allways understand his meaning...
... it's meaning?
> - Master, you tell us a tale but you do not explain us his meaning...
> - It's tru, I'm sorry. Hum ... let me to invite you a peach!
- It's true,
> - Thank you master.
> - I would like to peel it for you, would you mind?
> - Thanks master.
> - Would you like I cut it in little pieces?
> - Ok, thanks master ... but maybe that's too much!
> - No, I only wish to please you. Let me to masticate it before giving it
> to you ...
> - No, I would not like you to do that!
> The master continued after a pause.
> - If I would explain the meaning of each tale it would be like giving
> all you masticate fruit."
... masticated fruit
>
> I hope this traslation to be understandable.
> ;-)
Well, a "corrected version" from a native English would be great!
> AT
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2005 18:55:22
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: A couple of games
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> ... masticated fruit
Lucky you translated that one word right...! :-D
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
|
