| |
Main
Date: 17 Aug 2005 20:23:48
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
I had Fritz 8 playing itself at 40/120 controls and it made this
sequence of moves:
1. e4 b6
2. d4 Bb7
3. Bd3 e6
4. Nf3 Nc6
5. c3 Nce7
6. Qe2 f6
7. Kd1 Kf7
The whole thing is a bit bizarre, but I don't get the last two moves at
all. I stopped the game at this point in an effort to try to understand
it. Does anyone here get what is gained by moving both kings?
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2005 03:01:17
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> I had Fritz 8 playing itself at 40/120 controls and it made this
> sequence of moves:
>
> 1. e4 b6
> 2. d4 Bb7
> 3. Bd3 e6
> 4. Nf3 Nc6
> 5. c3 Nce7
> 6. Qe2 f6
> 7. Kd1 Kf7
I can't see any logic to those two moves. Computer strength can vary
widely with what's going on with your computer (if you starve it for
proccesor cycles by running other power-hungry apps, you can get bizzare
play from even a strong program) and computers generally aren't that
great in the opening, and/or when the position is relatively closed (as
this one is.)
7. 0-0 is clearly vastly superior to 7.Kd1.
But honestly 5.Nce7 makes no sense, and f6 is pretty questionable, too.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2005 19:37:17
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
Ron wrote:
> I can't see any logic to those two moves. Computer strength can vary
> widely with what's going on with your computer (if you starve it for
> proccesor cycles by running other power-hungry apps, you can get bizzare
> play from even a strong program) and computers generally aren't that
> great in the opening, and/or when the position is relatively closed (as
> this one is.)
Nope. Nothing else running. Shut down all Window-hogging utilities.
> 7. 0-0 is clearly vastly superior to 7.Kd1.
>
> But honestly 5.Nce7 makes no sense, and f6 is pretty questionable, too.
What would you have played instead of f6?
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2005 17:46:33
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> > But honestly 5.Nce7 makes no sense, and f6 is pretty questionable, too.
>
> What would you have played instead of f6?
There are many moves which are more reasonable.
...d6 is better (intending Qd7 and 0-0-0).
...Ng6 is better, freeing up room for the bishop and giving the other
knight a way to develop.
...Nh6 is probably better, although there are complications which you
may want to avoid after Bxh6.
...Nf6 is better, although black's going to have to be careful about an
...e5 thrust.
...d5 is better.
White is better after all of these moves, of course, but that's in large
part because black has made one rather stupid move (Nce7) whereas some
of white's moves may not be optimal but they're all basically solid,
reasonable moves.
Black is also playing a bit more of a high-wire act - anytime you don't
secure a pawn foothold in the center, you're courting danger
(particularly for a player of what I perceive your strength to be).
Controlling the center from afar is a perfectly legitimate strategy, but
it's one that you need a great deal of experience to execute well.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2005 17:55:56
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
> Black is also playing a bit more of a high-wire act - anytime you don't
> secure a pawn foothold in the center, you're courting danger
> (particularly for a player of what I perceive your strength to be).
> Controlling the center from afar is a perfectly legitimate strategy, but
> it's one that you need a great deal of experience to execute well.
??? What do you mean "particularly for a player of what I perceive your
strength to be"? I didn't play any of these moves. This is a computer
playing itself. That's why I'm posting. I've never seen moves quite
like this.
But thanks for the input.
J
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2005 19:26:06
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> ??? What do you mean "particularly for a player of what I perceive your
> strength to be"? I didn't play any of these moves. This is a computer
> playing itself. That's why I'm posting. I've never seen moves quite
> like this.
I know you weren't black.
I just meant, the fact that you're asking questions about moves like
...f6 tells me something about your strength. I didn't mean to insult
you. I was merely trying to discourage you from emulating black's
control-the-center-from-afar strategy until you have more experience.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 02:08:13
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>??? What do you mean "particularly for a player of what I perceive your
>>strength to be"? I didn't play any of these moves. This is a computer
>>playing itself. That's why I'm posting. I've never seen moves quite
>>like this.
>
>
> I know you weren't black.
>
> I just meant, the fact that you're asking questions about moves like
> ...f6 tells me something about your strength. I didn't mean to insult
> you. I was merely trying to discourage you from emulating black's
> control-the-center-from-afar strategy until you have more experience.
Oh, heh, heh, thanks. I know I don't do well with hypermodern stuff.
Though, oddly, in his Microsoft Press book on openings, Yasser Seirawan
recommends a closed fianchettoed system in the last chapter as a way for
the beginner or at least not too advanced student to not have to worry
about learning the newest wrinkle in various openings. I tried his
advice, but it rarely worked for me and I never really felt comfortable
playing it. I still keep experimenting, though.
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 09:54:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected] > wrote:
> Though, oddly, in his Microsoft Press book on openings, Yasser Seirawan
> recommends a closed fianchettoed system in the last chapter as a way for
> the beginner or at least not too advanced student to not have to worry
> about learning the newest wrinkle in various openings.
That is odd, yes. Beginners don't need to know the latest wrinkles
because they mainly play against other beginners so their opponents don't
know the wrinkles, either. Beginners don't lose because they play bad
openings; they lose because they play bad chess.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Aluminium Gnome (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a smiling garden ornament
that's really light but it's perfect
for your grandparents!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2005 09:00:22
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
>> Though, oddly, in his Microsoft Press book on openings, Yasser Seirawan
>> recommends a closed fianchettoed system in the last chapter as a way for
>> the beginner or at least not too advanced student to not have to worry
>> about learning the newest wrinkle in various openings.
>
> That is odd, yes. Beginners don't need to know the latest wrinkles
> because they mainly play against other beginners so their opponents don't
> know the wrinkles, either. Beginners don't lose because they play bad
> openings; they lose because they play bad chess.
Since when is playing a bad opening not playing bad chess?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2005 17:54:36
From: Jim Hill
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
news:GMfPe.19507$%[email protected]...
>>> <John - The Man Behind The Curtain>
>>> Though, oddly, in his Microsoft Press book on openings, Yasser Seirawan
>>> recommends a closed fianchettoed system in the last chapter as a way for
>>> the beginner or at least not too advanced student to not have to worry
>>> about learning the newest wrinkle in various openings.
<Jim H >
Agreed.
>> <David R>
>> That is odd, yes. Beginners don't need to know the latest wrinkles
>> because they mainly play against other beginners so their opponents don't
>> know the wrinkles, either.
<Jim H >
Agreed.
>> <David R>
>> Beginners don't lose because they play bad
>> openings; they lose because they play bad chess.
<Jim H >
Agreed, and when I first read this I thought I knew exactly what you meant
by "bad openings".
> <Ray G>
> Since when is playing a bad opening not playing bad chess?
<Jim H >
An interesting point, and at first I thought the comment was rather facile,
but on reflection I realised that "bad opening" is not easily defined
objectively.
Prior to the Kramnik vs Kasparov [PCA World Championship] I considered the
Berlin Defence to be intrinsically inferior to the Sicilian (and I still
do).
However, as the match developed I came to realise the brilliance of
Kramnik's strategy.
The Sicilian would have been "bad" for him to use against the world's
foremost authority,
whereas a well prepared Berlin was "good" and proved to be Kasparov's
downfall.
Perhaps a way to define a " good opening" is one that:
(a) you hope you understand better from your side of the board than your
opponent does from his;
and / or
(b) gives you the best chance of achieving the result you want
( be that a win; a win / draw; or just an interesting game against a much
stronger player who will probably beat you).
--
Regards - Jim
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 20:06:42
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
In article <v0w*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
> That is odd, yes. Beginners don't need to know the latest wrinkles
> because they mainly play against other beginners so their opponents don't
> know the wrinkles, either. Beginners don't lose because they play bad
> openings; they lose because they play bad chess.
Well, yes, but on the other hand, the hypermodern-vs-classical battle
isn't about "the latest wrinkles."
It's easier to understand how to control the center with the pawns,
rather than with the pieces. A minor mistake is less likely to result in
an easily-overrun position when you've got a pawn foothold in the
center.
So I'm not really talking about openings - I'm talking about middlegame
strategies. In my opinion, in a battle between beginners of equal
strength, one who plays more classically and the other who plays in a
more hypermodern style, the one who plays classically will win a far
disproportionate percentage of the time.
Not because of opening knowledge, but because his positions will be
easier to play.
This is something that I think a lot of people overlook when talking
about openings. Just because a position is theoretically equal doesn't
mean it's equally easy to play.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2005 09:01:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
> This is something that I think a lot of people overlook when talking
> about openings. Just because a position is theoretically equal doesn't
> mean it's equally easy to play.
As anyone who has ever faced the Latvian knows!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 18:11:30
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Can someone explain these moves to me?
|
David Richerby wrote:
> The Man Behind The Curtain <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Though, oddly, in his Microsoft Press book on openings, Yasser Seirawan
>>recommends a closed fianchettoed system in the last chapter as a way for
>>the beginner or at least not too advanced student to not have to worry
>>about learning the newest wrinkle in various openings.
>
>
> That is odd, yes. Beginners don't need to know the latest wrinkles
> because they mainly play against other beginners so their opponents don't
> know the wrinkles, either. Beginners don't lose because they play bad
> openings; they lose because they play bad chess.
Well, maybe not *beginners,* but this book is obviously for
lowish-ranked people--darned close to beginners.
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
|
