Main Date: 27 Oct 2005 03:32:43 From: Subject: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Hi As per the title I'm seeking recommendations for repetoire book(s) for both the white and black pieces. By nature I prefer an open/attackin game (with both white and black) as opposed to a postional game. As it is not always possible to play an open attacking game the ideal candidate book should strike a balance. What I specifically do not want are books that contain reams and reams of example games, variations and continuations with little explanation of the why. I have seen too many books that seem to assume that their audience are all GM's. What I would like in an ideal candidate book is one that spends a lot of time explaining the principles and ideas behind their chosen openings and why a particular move is good/bad/OK As an aside, I'm playing a lot of online chess at the moment so I was wondering if it is worth considering having two repetoires, one for playing on-line where my opponent has several days to consider his reponse and one for playing over the board where you are more likely to get away with openings that might be considered suspect/less than sound (and fun to play) but are unlikely to be successful when playing online? Regards Roger   Date: 14 Nov 2005 02:48:36 From: Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Do you know, I wish I hadn't asked now! :-) Regards Roger     Date: 14 Nov 2005 14:17:43 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) <roger_varley@yahoo.com > wrote: > Do you know, I wish I hadn't asked now! :-) Heh. I hope there was some useful information before the flamefest started. Dave. -- David Richerby Natural Old-Fashioned Hi-Fi (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a music system but it's perfect for your grandparents and completely natural!   Date: 12 Nov 2005 17:20:38 From: Inconnux Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >I do know that when I played Nakamura after having been back barely a month, >I held him even for 22 moves before crumbling. The computer said I had an >advantage of slightly more than half a pawn. As black. sounds like you should stop studying openings and work on your endgame JLohner ICC 'Inconnux'   Date: 11 Nov 2005 13:34:34 From: David Ames Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon wrote: > > > This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months. > > Can your gain be documented? Can you stipulate that your rating was a correct estimation of your playing strength, both before and after the gain took place? David Ames   Date: 11 Nov 2005 08:11:14 From: Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Mr. Gordon is talking about USCF ratings, not FIDE ratings. Mr. Gordon's USCF rating peaked at around 2000, which at that time (before USCF rating deflation in the mid-1990's) would have been equivalent to around 1900-1950 FIDE strength. So, if Sr. Torrecillas's FIDE rating peaked at around 2400 FIDE, and Mr. Gordon's rating peaked at around 1950 FIDE (giving him the benefit of the doubt on the rating conversion), Sr. Torrecillas' peak rating was approximately 450 ELO points higher than Mr. Gordon's. The conclusion I draw from this admittedly limited evidence is that it strongly suggests that Sr. Torrecillas knows more than Mr. Gordon about what it takes to become a master-level player, because Sr. Torrecillas has been there and Mr. Gordon has not. I have serious doubts about Mr. Gordon's premise that someone can become much stronger by only studying (or studying and playing casual blitz games) and not playing serious OTB games. I don't know (or even know of) anybody who has ever done that. Maybe the chess historians can give some historical example(s), but then we would probably be talking about someone with a first-rate chess talent. And with all due respect to Mr. Gordon, nothing in his relatively short OTB playing career suggests that he is a first-rate talent, or that he will prove an exception to the general rule that to seriously improve, you must play serious OTB games, and a lot of them. I also seriously doubt that a 2000 player can become a 2800 player merely by studying openings. What Mr. Gordon fails to note in his "Hydra" analogy is Hydra is tactically very strong, probably 2850+ FIDE tactically. Very few humans, if any, will ever be even remotely close to that strong tactically, no matter how much they study. So using Hydra (with its large opening book and 2800+ tactics) as a training example for a human seems very misguided. Of course there are many possible approaches to chess training. But common sense suggests if you want to learn an effective way to become a very strong player, you are more likely to succeed by asking a very strong player (such as Sr. Torrecillas) who knows from personal experience what qualities make up a strong player, than by asking a relatively weak player (and I do mean "relatively weak" only...a player like Mr. Gordon who has been rated 2000 USCF is quite a good player in the overall scheme of things) who clearly does not. Just my two bits. - Geof Strayer     Date: 14 Nov 2005 10:02:32 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) <Equinorm@AOL.com > wrote: > What Mr. Gordon fails to note in his "Hydra" analogy is Hydra is > tactically very strong, probably 2850+ FIDE tactically. Very few > humans, if any, will ever be even remotely close to that strong > tactically, no matter how much they study. So using Hydra (with its > large opening book and 2800+ tactics) as a training example for a human > seems very misguided. It's further misguided because Hydra doesn't have a large opening book. I can't find the cite now, but I remember reading at the time of the Adams-Hydra match that the opening book they were using typically only went ten moves deep, after which the machine was on its own. Their opening preparation mainly involved choosing lines that would lead to positions where Hydra plays well, rather than coming up with new moves. Dave. -- David Richerby Hungry Lotion (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ soothing hand lotion but it'll eat you!     Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:17:19 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Equinorm@AOL.com ha escrit: (...) > Of course there are many possible approaches to chess training. But > common sense suggests if you want to learn an effective way to become a > very strong player, you are more likely to succeed by asking a very > strong player (such as Sr. Torrecillas) who knows from personal > experience what qualities make up a strong player, than by asking a > relatively weak player (and I do mean "relatively weak" only...a player > like Mr. Gordon who has been rated 2000 USCF is quite a good player in > the overall scheme of things) who clearly does not. > > Just my two bits. > > - Geof Strayer Thanks for your kind words Geof, I would like to observe that our rating is not the only objective difference between us. I think I try to convince people here with examples and with logical reasons. And I think too I have more experience both in training people and in knowing true masters. There are many players (maybe rated 2000) who work hardly with chess students and know very well how to train with them to achieve the best improvement. Those players have a wide experience teaching chess and their thoughs are very important too. Another detail is that contact with many people at master level can help us in thoughts about improvement. I obvioulsy have that contact but other players with less rating can have a similar or greater contact. But Ray case is very obscure: He says He do not play OTB chess, He do not post games here, He do not uses logic in his comments/opinions, He do not analize games posted here trying to help people with constuctive advice or arguments, ... And he defend a "revolutionary" method (opposite to known experience) only repeating empty arguments. My experience tells me that his advice is clearly negative and it difficult the improvement. I ask him to post some own game, to comment one of the games posted here, ... but with no positive answer. An if He do not do that (not giving us the possibility to show He is absolutely wrong), I ask him to stop recommending negative advice. AT Pd: About mine being a "very strong player", ... all we think people rated 200 points higher than us, are strong players no matter how easy we win people rated 200 points down us. In my case it's the same, I have lost too much games with GM to think I'm an strong player (specially for the low dificulty they have had). To have won many games in simultaneus exibitions with people rated higher than Ray do not convince me of the opposite.   Date: 31 Oct 2005 08:20:25 From: blueghost73@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Just out of curiousity, what level of player are you? I'm only a 1400 (USCF) player, but something I've found from my own experience, and most recommendations I've seen seem to agree, is that reading opening books is a waste of time for anyone below expert or master level. I bought a repertoire book by Purdy (I think it's called "Action Chess"), which I thought was a pretty good book, but my games really didn't stick to the repertoire provided often enough for it to be that useful. And even if I do get to play out "book" lines for 8-10 moves, my games are still almost always determined by tactics or endgame knowledge. So that's where I'm focusing my energy now. Besides, I find that it's more fun to experiment with lots of different openings, instead of sticking to the same few over and over. I see stuff recommended here and on various web sites, and I'll try it out for a few games on the internet to see how it goes. If I like the feel of the games that I get from a particular opening, I'll stick with it. Otherwise, I won't play it again. I think I learn more that way, anyway, since I need to understand a wide variety of positions, rather than just memorizing lines in a particular position. So my recommendation is to get MCO or NCO. Use one of those to get some ideas for stuff to try, and to review your games to see where you left book and what you could have done better. Other than that, avoid the opening books, unless you're near master level and really know what you're doing. Just my 2 pawns worth... --Richard     Date: 04 Nov 2005 09:46:25 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) blueghost73@yahoo.com <blueghost73@yahoo.com > wrote: > So my recommendation is to get MCO or NCO. Use one of those to get some > ideas for stuff to try, and to review your games to see where you left > book and what you could have done better. Other than that, avoid the > opening books, unless you're near master level and really know what > you're doing. The OP was asking for a book that *explains* the opening. [MN]CO is just a list of moves, with hardly any explanation and is therefore exactly what the OP doesn't want. A book that explains the opening without going into enormous detail is very useful to a player below master strength. Now, you don't want to spend a large proportion of your time studying the opening but some well-directed study, based on understanding rather than memorization, is useful. The OP is looking for a repertoire book and I don't have any recommen- dations for those. I would suggest Saddler's books on the queen's gambit for either colour, as they contain excellent explanations of what the openings are about but the OP says he prefers the more tactical stuff so probably isn't going to play 1.d4 or want to play the QGD. Some lines of the semi-Slav can get very tactical but most tournament players of my strength (~105BCF) seem to play 2.Nf3 after 1.d4. Dave. -- David Richerby Happy Lotion (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ soothing hand lotion that makes your troubles melt away!     Date: 01 Nov 2005 13:55:02 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) > Just out of curiousity, what level of player are you? I'm only a 1400 > (USCF) player, but something I've found from my own experience, and > most recommendations I've seen seem to agree, is that reading opening > books is a waste of time for anyone below expert or master level. Here we go again: those who are under expert and master level don't stay that way when they read opening books!!! > I bought a repertoire book by Purdy (I think it's called "Action > Chess"), which I thought was a pretty good book, but my games really > didn't stick to the repertoire provided often enough for it to be that > useful. And even if I do get to play out "book" lines for 8-10 moves, > my games are still almost always determined by tactics or endgame > knowledge. So that's where I'm focusing my energy now. The idea behind building a repertoire is to grow with it over time. > Besides, I find that it's more fun to experiment with lots of different > openings, instead of sticking to the same few over and over. Fischer never knew what he was missing, did he? >I see > stuff recommended here and on various web sites, and I'll try it out > for a few games on the internet to see how it goes. If I like the feel > of the games that I get from a particular opening, I'll stick with it. > Otherwise, I won't play it again. I think I learn more that way, > anyway, since I need to understand a wide variety of positions, rather > than just memorizing lines in a particular position. Musicians don't do that with songs, do they? No, they practice them thousands of times to master every nuance. > So my recommendation is to get MCO or NCO. Those are repertoire books. Just bigger ones. >Use one of those to get some > ideas for stuff to try, and to review your games to see where you left > book and what you could have done better. Other than that, avoid the > opening books, unless you're near master level and really know what > you're doing. Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.       Date: 04 Nov 2005 09:31:48 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: >> I see stuff recommended here and on various web sites, and I'll try it >> out for a few games on the internet to see how it goes. If I like the >> feel of the games that I get from a particular opening, I'll stick with >> it. Otherwise, I won't play it again. I think I learn more that way, >> anyway, since I need to understand a wide variety of positions, rather >> than just memorizing lines in a particular position. > > Musicians don't do that with songs, do they? No, they practice them > thousands of times to master every nuance. Huh? Musicians don't try all kinds of things to see what they like and then practice those ones? Which planet are you on? > Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. > > FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989. So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'. Dave. -- David Richerby Frozen Homicidal Cheese (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a lump of cheese but it wants to kill you and it's frozen in a block of ice!         Date: 04 Nov 2005 21:31:25 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. >> >> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989. > > So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'. I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way.           Date: 05 Nov 2005 04:34:30 From: Chris F.A. Johnson Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) On 2005-11-04, Ray Gordon wrote: >>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. >>> >>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989. >> >> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'. > > I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way. But did you get there? -- Chris F.A. Johnson             Date: 06 Nov 2005 16:08:30 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >>>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. >>>> >>>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989. >>> >>> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'. >> >> I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way. > > But did you get there? In strength? Yes. In rating? No. How many people make expert in two years however? Class prizes are not set up to reward people for going over 2000 unless they want a title.               Date: 07 Nov 2005 08:35:41 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: >>>>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989. >>>> >>>> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'. >>> >>> I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way. >> >> But did you get there? > > In strength? Yes. In rating? No. You must have been very unfortunate to be playing 2200+ chess and only get a rating of 2000. Did your opponents keep kicking you under the table at critical moments causing you to drop your queen on unprotected squares? Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds like an awful lot of lag. Dave. -- David Richerby Edible Car (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but you can eat it!                 Date: 07 Nov 2005 10:53:23 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >>> But did you get there? >> >> In strength? Yes. In rating? No. > > You must have been very unfortunate to be playing 2200+ chess and only get > a rating of 2000. Did your opponents keep kicking you under the table at > critical moments causing you to drop your queen on unprotected squares? I concerned myself with long-term development rather than pushing up my rating. Of course, the prizes for u-2200 are usually much greater than for u-2000, so I guess I'm missing out. > Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their > performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds > like an awful lot of lag. Not when one studies full-time.                   Date: 07 Nov 2005 22:24:06 From: Ron Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) In article <DmGbf.13882$u43.11266@twister.nyc.rr.com >, "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: > > I concerned myself with long-term development rather than pushing up my > rating. > The funny thing is that everybody does this sort of justification - you just rarely see someone be so baldfaced about it. You have a good result, that result becomes your new "talking point." "I just got a 2200 performance rating!" Nevermind that if your strength really was 2000, you'd expect some 2200-performance ratings, and some 1800 ones, too. Everybody likes to look at their best couple of performance ratings and hypothesize that those represent their true strength. Hey, I had some performance ratings 300 points above my published, too, and I quit when I thought like I was improving rapidly. But there's a world on difference between "being on pace for ..." a given rating and actually earning it. -Ron                     Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:24:33 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> I concerned myself with long-term development rather than pushing up my >> rating. >> > > The funny thing is that everybody does this sort of justification - you > just rarely see someone be so baldfaced about it. > > You have a good result, that result becomes your new "talking point." "I > just got a 2200 performance rating!" > > Nevermind that if your strength really was 2000, you'd expect some > 2200-performance ratings, and some 1800 ones, too. Everybody likes to > look at their best couple of performance ratings and hypothesize that > those represent their true strength. > > Hey, I had some performance ratings 300 points above my published, too, > and I quit when I thought like I was improving rapidly. But there's a > world on difference between "being on pace for ..." a given rating and > actually earning it. I had no incentive to leave the A-sections, for which I am still eligible. The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure.                       Date: 08 Nov 2005 09:52:56 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: > The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger > if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure. That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter lower sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging. Dave. -- David Richerby Chocolate Umbrella (TM): it's like an www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ umbrella that's made of chocolate!                         Date: 08 Nov 2005 22:06:22 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger >> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure. > > That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter lower > sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging. So is being much stronger than one's rating. If this discussion were being held in Washington Square Park, you'd have the audience in stitches.                           Date: 10 Nov 2005 08:56:29 From: Jerry Creed Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) So, Mrs. Lincoln, aside from that, how was the play? Are the surprise books by Bosch any good? Do you two geniuses have any real suggestions? I will look at the dvantage White/Black mention way, way way above; any others? "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote in message news:yj9cf.4236$ek6.1386@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... >>> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger >>> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure. >> >> That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter lower >> sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging. > > So is being much stronger than one's rating. > > If this discussion were being held in Washington Square Park, you'd have > the audience in stitches. > > >                             Date: 10 Nov 2005 17:48:55 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) > So, Mrs. Lincoln, aside from that, how was the play? > > Are the surprise books by Bosch any good? > > Do you two geniuses have any real suggestions? > > I will look at the dvantage White/Black mention way, way way above; any > others? I have a free chess book on my site that explains my approach to the opening. > > > "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message > news:yj9cf.4236$ek6.1386@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... >>>> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a >>>> sandbagger >>>> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure. >>> >>> That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter >>> lower >>> sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging. >> >> So is being much stronger than one's rating. >> >> If this discussion were being held in Washington Square Park, you'd have >> the audience in stitches. >> >> >> > >                   Date: 07 Nov 2005 11:37:15 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their >> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds >> like an awful lot of lag. > > Not when one studies full-time. You said you peaked at 2000 in the late 1980s but were already at 2200+ strength in those days. Now, since you were playing in tournaments at that point (how else would you have a rating?), it seems that you weren't studying full-time. So, would you care to explain again how there was a 200-point gap between your `true strength' and your rating? Dave. -- David Richerby Homicidal Radioactive Priest (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man of the cloth but it'll make you glow in the dark and it wants to kill you!                     Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:22:29 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >>> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their >>> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds >>> like an awful lot of lag. >> >> Not when one studies full-time. > > You said you peaked at 2000 in the late 1980s but were already at 2200+ > strength in those days. Now, since you were playing in tournaments at > that point (how else would you have a rating?), it seems that you weren't > studying full-time. Yes, I was studying full-time AND playing in tournaments. I would study about 75 hours a week and play tournaments. I used to carry a half-dozen chess books with me to study while in transit as well. >So, would you care to explain again how there was a > 200-point gap between your `true strength' and your rating? I had a performance rating of over 2260 for 20 straight games, which would have been my rating had they been my first games. Any performance rating you can sustain for 20 games or more consecutively is your "strength" for at least that period. Ratings do not move up that fast, unfortunately, and by the time the next list came out, I had quit chess and performed horribly in my last dozen games, since I was no longer into it.                       Date: 08 Nov 2005 15:15:12 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: >>>> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their >>>> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds >>>> like an awful lot of lag. >>> >>> Not when one studies full-time. >> >> You said you peaked at 2000 in the late 1980s but were already at 2200+ >> strength in those days. Now, since you were playing in tournaments at >> that point (how else would you have a rating?), it seems that you weren't >> studying full-time. > > Yes, I was studying full-time AND playing in tournaments. I would study > about 75 hours a week and play tournaments. I used to carry a half- > dozen chess books with me to study while in transit as well. Oh, I see. I misunderstood ``study full-time'' as meaning that study was your only chess-related activity. My apologies. >> So, would you care to explain again how there was a 200-point gap >> between your `true strength' and your rating? > > I had a performance rating of over 2260 for 20 straight games, which > would have been my rating had they been my first games. Impressive. It seems that your rating would have caught up pretty quickly, then. > Ratings do not move up that fast, unfortunately, and by the time the > next list came out, I had quit chess and performed horribly in my last > dozen games, since I was no longer into it. And herein lies the problem. I played four successive tournaments (twenty games) over which my performance rating was 116BCF, compared to my end-of- season grade of 107. But I don't claim that 116 is my true strength because I had a poor tournament before that run and a complete shocker[1] after and I realise that, whatever my strength on a good day, I blunder enough pieces to reduce my strength. On the other hand, I find it comforting that, if I can be more careful, I can push my grade up a little without needing any more chess understanding. Dave. [1] 2/5 and the two wins were against a guy in his second tournament and a little girl whose BCF grade was then under 20. -- David Richerby Transparent Sadistic Radio (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a radio but it wants to hurt you and you can see right through it!                         Date: 08 Nov 2005 22:05:30 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> Ratings do not move up that fast, unfortunately, and by the time the >> next list came out, I had quit chess and performed horribly in my last >> dozen games, since I was no longer into it. > > And herein lies the problem. I played four successive tournaments (twenty > games) over which my performance rating was 116BCF, compared to my end-of- > season grade of 107. But I don't claim that 116 is my true strength > because I had a poor tournament before that run and a complete shocker[1] > after and I realise that, whatever my strength on a good day, I blunder > enough pieces to reduce my strength. My dip was caused by my loss of interest in chess, not a dip in my strength. I had already given up eligibility in three classes because I didn't want to be a sandbagger. I felt no need to rush the rating improvement since the class prizes were the only way I could get paid before becoming a GM back in the day. Instead, I got paid by finding office work. > On the other hand, I find it > comforting that, if I can be more careful, I can push my grade up a little > without needing any more chess understanding. If you can sustain a 116 for 20 games then that is your true strength.                 Date: 07 Nov 2005 10:20:36 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na David Richerby ha escrit: > Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote: >>>>>>Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond. >>>>>>FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989. >>>>>So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'. >>>>I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way. >>>But did you get there? >>In strength? Yes. In rating? No. > > You must have been very unfortunate to be playing 2200+ chess and only get > a rating of 2000. Did your opponents keep kicking you under the table at > critical moments causing you to drop your queen on unprotected squares? > > Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their > performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds > like an awful lot of lag. > > Dave. Good remark Dave, :-) I can imagine his answer: I only play 1 minute games or computers games, those games do not count for rating systems. I will return playing human people when I reach +2800 strengh. AT                   Date: 07 Nov 2005 10:54:07 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their >> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds >> like an awful lot of lag. >> >> Dave. > > Good remark Dave, :-) What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again? Oh yeah: zilch.                     Date: 07 Nov 2005 21:44:23 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>>Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their >>>performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds >>>like an awful lot of lag. >>> >>>Dave. >> >>Good remark Dave, :-) > > What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again? > > Oh yeah: zilch. Gordon, ... no idea, I'm interested in another objectives when playing chess tournaments. My advice for you is forget prize money and concentrate in enjoying chess (improving youe level and understanding it better each day) AT Pd: Respect to your "full dedication" to chess, ... can you post here some example of Gordon-Gordon game or Gordon-Machine game with a minimal of interest? Maybe your games are as interesting as the ones we can read at: http://www.unorthodoxchess.com/losergames.zip                       Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:19:57 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again? >> >> Oh yeah: zilch. > > Gordon, ... > > no idea, I'm interested in another objectives when playing chess > tournaments. > > My advice for you is forget prize money and concentrate in enjoying chess > (improving youe level and understanding it better each day) The day those who send me bills for life's expenses forget that money, I'll forget prize money. > > AT > > Pd: Respect to your "full dedication" to chess, ... can you post here some > example of Gordon-Gordon game or Gordon-Machine game with a minimal of > interest? Maybe your games are as interesting as the ones we can read I've posted a few games here so far. I generally don't like doing so.                     Date: 07 Nov 2005 11:33:53 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: > What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again? > > Oh yeah: zilch. Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? Was available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could make any difference... Dave. -- David Richerby Portable Voodoo Soap (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a personal hygiene product that has mystical powers but you can take it anywhere!                       Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:17:55 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again? >> >> Oh yeah: zilch. > > Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 because > there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? Was > available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those > days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could > make any difference... The difference is that rather than "perfect my mediocrity" as Jeremy Silman calls it, which would have yielded a higher rating, I developed my game for the long haul, which *naturally* results in a lower rating, without any lower prizes to compete for.                         Date: 08 Nov 2005 15:03:19 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Ray Gordon <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: >> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 >> because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? >> Was available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those >> days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could >> make any difference... > > The difference is that rather than "perfect my mediocrity" as Jeremy > Silman calls it, which would have yielded a higher rating, I developed > my game for the long haul, which *naturally* results in a lower rating, > without any lower prizes to compete for. By `perfecting your mediocrity', Silman means getting really good at beating players rated a little below your current level but not learning the techniques required to beat stronger players. It's good that you didn't do that and therefore became a stronger player. Nonetheless, this doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. By arming yourself with the skills to beat stronger and stronger players, you should have started beating these players and gaining the rating points... To argue that your increased strength naturally lowers your rating just doesn't make sense. You might experience a brief dip while you throw out the old techniques that only worked against 2000 players and practiced the new techniques for beating stronger players than that but your peak rating, by construction, can't be the result of a dip. For a dip, your rating has to go down; for a peak, it has to go up, see. Dave. -- David Richerby Cheese Wine (TM): it's like a vintage www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Beaujolais that's made of cheese!                           Date: 08 Nov 2005 22:03:55 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >>> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 >>> because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? >>> Was available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those >>> days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could >>> make any difference... >> >> The difference is that rather than "perfect my mediocrity" as Jeremy >> Silman calls it, which would have yielded a higher rating, I developed >> my game for the long haul, which *naturally* results in a lower rating, >> without any lower prizes to compete for. > > By `perfecting your mediocrity', Silman means getting really good at > beating players rated a little below your current level but not learning > the techniques required to beat stronger players. Exactly. This is why people don't study sharp openings: they don't want to get killed for the first year they play them. >It's good that you > didn't do that and therefore became a stronger player. One becomes higher-rated, but not stronger, if they don't push their boundaries. > Nonetheless, this > doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I been unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official rating. >By > arming yourself with the skills to beat stronger and stronger players, you > should have started beating these players and gaining the rating points... Had I not quit the game, I may very well have done that. After a 13-year layoff, I had to catch up to all the new theory, a lot of which was computer-enhanced. Think of a doctor or lawyer who has been out of practice that long if you want an example. > To argue that your increased strength naturally lowers your rating just > doesn't make sense. The process of increasing one's strength will lower one's rating. For example, if one plays the closed Sicilian and gets to 2000, then decides to switch to the open sicilian, he's going to lose a lot of rating points while he learns the new opening, but his long-term improvement will be quicker. > You might experience a brief dip while you throw out > the old techniques that only worked against 2000 players and practiced the > new techniques for beating stronger players than that but your peak > rating, by construction, can't be the result of a dip. The dips are not brief unless the improvement is mild. > For a dip, your > rating has to go down; for a peak, it has to go up, see. My rating dipped because I got a regular job and quit the game. Now with internet chess there's really no way to "quit" so that's no longer an issue. I am on pace to be a GM in about six years. The only question is whether or not my body will hold up before my brain gets there. Chess is extremely easy to learn now, thanks to machines correcting my errors, although the process is ridiculously tedious. On the other hand, there may be others like me who don't bother with rated chess until they have a good reason to. The only reason I would enter a tournament now is to grab a GM norm or win a class prize, and both require roughly the same level of ability. I am not yet ready, but that will change. I am currently one of the hardest-working chessplayers in America, not that anyone gives a shit or wants to help me fund my training (that won't be forgotten, I assure you).                             Date: 09 Nov 2005 00:56:36 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: >>>>Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 >>>>because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? > >>Nonetheless, this >>doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. > > I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I been > unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official rating. Hello, Ray, .. if a 2000 player plays a 2260 performance in 20 games He will have a NEW rating of 2095, ... (tht's easy to do, there are free ELO calculators on the net)) A player can have performances 200 points up his rating but also performances 200 points down his rating. If you allways obtain 2260 performances you will soon become a 2260 player but it's not the case. Myself is an example of that. I play very few tournaments: - This year (july 2005 list) I obtained 7,5 of 9 with an average opposition rated 2308. That is a 2550 performance. I was lucky and I gaigned 28 points. - But in the precedent tournament (luly 2004 list) I obtained 4,5 of 9 with a 2250. This is easy I obtained a 2250 performance and I lost 26 points. It will be nonsense for my part to claim to be a 2550 player. All that can be checked a FIDE website: http://www.fide.com http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=2200392 http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=2200392&moder=4 Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance in 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you. AT                               Date: 25 Nov 2005 11:01:58 From: Amarande Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: > >>>>> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 >>>>> because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? >> >> >>> Nonetheless, this >>> doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. >> >> >> I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I >> been unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my >> official rating. > Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance > in 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you. In any case, I have to wonder about the "veracity" of the chess ratings system as a whole. This is mostly due to how modern tournaments and other rated things in chess (such as Internet chess) are set up. Back in the day, I would consider ratings much more reliable, as almost all the old classic tournaments were round-robins, to my knowledge they didn't normally have sections (for non-invitational tournaments, there was Open and there was ... well, Open), and thus there was a rather wider range of strength in the tournament, a wider range of people who had to play all the other people. In these days of Swiss and sections, on the other hand, it becomes much rarer for there to be significant strength spreads within a tournament, and the ratings tend to get based mainly on how players do against same-strength players. This has a number of main effects - 1) Significant inflation at the top - Top players end up mainly playing in sections that consist mostly/completely of top players. This is known to lead to ratings inflation (it's also why some top players - though this seems to be less common now - on sites like ICC set their formulas up to refuse to play anyone who's significantly below their rating, I think. This 'protects' the rating by avoiding the chance of a significant upset. The fact that zero-increment blitz and the holding strategy* are endemic on ICC also conspires to encourage this among people whose ratings are important to them ...). 2) The *presence* of lower rating sections, while on the one hand encouraging lesser lights to play chess by the fact that they have a chance at the prizes too, also tends to have a 'back of the bus' impression about it; lower rated players, if even just by the prize enticements and better chances to win, are encouraged to stick to their sections, rather than play in the Open section. Or worse, the top players will be kept in an Invitational section preventing even Open players from playing them even if they could possibly hold their own. This stunts rating growth, by lowering the average rating of such players' opponents - the average rating of opponents is vital as it is the main moderating factor that affects how high one can go. The 'backwater player' factor is another example of such Elo inaccuracy - a player may be capable of consistent GM chess but if they live in an area with few or no other strong players and do not travel regularly so as to be able to play in more urban tournaments, they may not break 2200 or even 2000 or possibly even 1800. There's only so high above your opponents you can be before rating increases slow to a crawl, and as no one is beating you sufficiently often and you're the top player among your Elo-pool, no one becomes strong enough to become your next 'stepping stone' ... I have to think this problem is probably actually quite frequent, given that chess, to my knowledge (except in the old Soviet days) hasn't really had a such thing as a 'talent search'. You may play like a Capablanca but unlike, say, a great high school or college football or basketball player, who's really going to notice? 3) The fact that the tournament standard these days has shifted from the classic RR to the Swiss format, also tends to maintain compartmentalization of ratings; Swiss seeding is in the first place based upon ratings, and secondly keeps players with the same or similar scores together, which except in the case of short events will tend to cause the top rated players to percolate back to the top. If I understand the Swiss format correctly you will mostly see top/bottom rating pairings in the 2nd or 3rd rounds or so at the most. Occasionally a lower rated player may get to play several top flights if they keep winning upset games but this is unlikely (the sectionalization often prevents this, anyway, as I said). Basically, for the ratings system to really have better veracity, I think we need two things to return to chess. Unfortunately one is quite unlikely and the other, I think, is almost surely an "ain't gonna happen" ... a) Sectionalization needs to be abolished, or greatly limited. No U-sections with their prize-based magnetic effects. No Invitational section to sequester the top players. Any player should have an opportunity to play any other player. This causes the ratings to reflect how well a player does against the chess world as a whole, rather than against a mostly handpicked selection of other similar players. (Isn't this what Elo ratings are meant to reflect, anyway?) b) There needs to be a focus shift back to the RR. Unfortunately, especially with abolished sectionalization I'm not sure how possible this is ... sadly, the singularity of focus required to make it in the professional world these days (to have enough money to be globetrotting to tournaments and taking the 2-3 week vacations needed for the time a large RR takes) is, I think, mainly incompatible with the singularity of focus needed to make it in the chess world. With the result that you'd end up with mostly the top professional players (who CAN make it as professional chessplayers), and some rich people who don't need to actually hold down a job without being fired for taking so much time off ... it seems that something vital has shifted badly since 1850-1930 or so ... Footnote: * - Holding strategy: A despicable time strategy. Basically one player gets maybe a 10-second advantage in a position which has no *real* winning chances for either player (or if there are any, there isn't the time for either player to consider a plan), and in which a piece can be simply moved around in a quick and simple manner without being a blunder, e.g., a Rook that is protected by its King and can be moved back and forth maintaining this protection. That player will then simply move the piece back and forth until the time runs down to that extra 10 seconds for them while the other player flags because the human brain and body simply don't allow fast enough reaction time to physically make the moves fast enough to overcome it. A most unsportsmanlike strategy, I think; fortunately, it is viable only in certain circumstances - there must be no clock increment or delay, either of which will basically invalidate the whole thing; it also mainly only works in blitz, because longer TCs allow enough moves to be physically made to call the 3-repetition or 50-move rule, and it also, sadly, works mainly against humans (against whom being sporting is rather more important - nobody cares if you are rude to silicon chips), not modern computers (I have had it work against computers in certain cases, but for the most part comps are able to make moves fast enough now that I've mostly only seen other comps be able to do this) ... Honestly, I consider using the clocks to eke out a win in this manner when there is no viable OTB win available (especially if the other player actually is moving the pieces as fast as they possibly can in tempo with you), to be QUITE out of the spirit of the game. Even Sitzfleisch, I think, was more sporting ... It's especially bad when the game actually IS drawn (such as inevitable threefold repetition or perpetual check) and you refuse the draw and do the holding strategy, just because you know that, say, the opponent will not be able to check you the necessary 50 times within their last 10 seconds even if OTB it is indeed unavoidable. And this does tie into ratings and their accuracy; 1) when there is no prize money available (this is mostly seen on ICC) the only motivation to treat your opponent in this manner is to get the win and its associated ratings bonus, and 2) how accurately can a rating really reflect your chess strength when you win games on flag without being able to win them OTB (mind you, the aforementioned STRICTLY relates to games that are won SOLELY because of the flag. A time pressure blunder that leads to a loss OTB is still an OTB blunder/loss)? It seems that this does stunt the correctness of ratings ...                                 Date: 19 Dec 2005 13:48:20 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) [Sorry for the late response. I was going to explain why I disagree with your analysis of the `inaccuracy' of the rating system but I haven't had time and probably won't for the forseeable future.] Amarande <nospam@lunasanguine.com > wrote: > * - Holding strategy: A despicable time strategy. Basically one player > gets maybe a 10-second advantage in a position which has no *real* > winning chances for either player (or if there are any, there isn't the > time for either player to consider a plan), and in which a piece can be > simply moved around in a quick and simple manner without being a > blunder, e.g., a Rook that is protected by its King and can be moved > back and forth maintaining this protection. That player will then simply > move the piece back and forth until the time runs down to that extra 10 > seconds for them while the other player flags because the human brain > and body simply don't allow fast enough reaction time to physically make > the moves fast enough to overcome it. I draw your attention to FIDE Law 10.2: ``10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter. a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.'' (Sections b, c and d explain what happens if the arbiter postpones his decision.) > A time pressure blunder that leads to a loss OTB is still an OTB > blunder/loss)? It seems that this does stunt the correctness of ratings > ... You are under the mistaken impression that a rating is a measure of the quality of moves that a player will produce with enough time to analyze. This is not the case. A rating is a measure of how successful a player has been over a period of time. Getting into time trouble decreases success so decreases rating. Dave. -- David Richerby Salted Clock (TM): it's like a clock www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's covered in salt!                                 Date: 26 Nov 2005 00:38:20 From: Ron Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) In article <OzGhf.3009$G11.1033@fe07.lga >, Amarande <nospam@lunasanguine.com > wrote: > 1) Significant inflation at the top - Top players end up mainly playing > in sections that consist mostly/completely of top players. This is known > to lead to ratings inflation Is this really /known/ to cause inflation? I've yet to here somebody make a compelling mathematical argument that this is the case. In any event, if stratification leads to inflation, then you'd expect to see inflation at every level, wouldn't you? Not just at the top. If the rating system is mathematically accurate - if the # of points you win is inversely proportional to the percentage chance of victory - then I don't see why you would expect to see inflation just because you have players of similar strength playing ecah other. > (it's also why some top players - though > this seems to be less common now - on sites like ICC set their formulas > up to refuse to play anyone who's significantly below their rating, I > think. This 'protects' the rating by avoiding the chance of a > significant upset. The fact that zero-increment blitz and the holding > strategy* are endemic on ICC also conspires to encourage this among > people whose ratings are important to them ...). I think the rationale for this has less to do with rating and more with wanting a good game. You're less likely to get a good game against someone rated 200 points below you than with someone aproximately your rating. > 2) The *presence* of lower ratingsections, while on the one hand > encouraging lesser lights to play chess by the fact that they have a > chance at the prizes too, also tends to have a 'back of the bus' > impression about it; lower rated players, if even just by the prize > enticements and better chances to win, are encouraged to stick to their > sections, rather than play in the Open section. Of course, open sections quickly stratify, anyway. As the stronger players win and the weaker players lose, the weaker players will quickly find themselves paired with similarly-strengthed players. > It's especially bad when the game actually IS drawn (such as inevitable > threefold repetition or perpetual check) and you refuse the draw and do > the holding strategy, just because you know that, say, the opponent will > not be able to check you the necessary 50 times within their last 10 > seconds even if OTB it is indeed unavoidable. > > And this does tie into ratings and their accuracy; 1) when there is no > prize money available (this is mostly seen on ICC) the only motivation > to treat your opponent in this manner is to get the win and its > associated ratings bonus, and 2) how accurately can a rating really > reflect your chess strength when you win games on flag without being > able to win them OTB (mind you, the aforementioned STRICTLY relates to > games that are won SOLELY because of the flag. A time pressure blunder > that leads to a loss OTB is still an OTB blunder/loss)? It seems that > this does stunt the correctness of ratings ... Since a small increment makes this problem go away, I fail to see why more drastic measures are required. Simply play with a small increment and forget about it. In any event, there are much large problems with the rating system online (having to do with time control and playing conditions) than the small problems created by a few unsportsmanlike players.                               Date: 09 Nov 2005 08:43:53 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >>>Nonetheless, this >>>doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. >> >> I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I >> been unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official >> rating. > > Hello, > > Ray, .. if a 2000 player plays a 2260 performance in 20 games He will have > a NEW rating of 2095, ... If a NEW PLAYER has a 2260 performance rating, he will have a 2260 OFFICIAL rating (at least in 1990 he would have). > (tht's easy to do, there are free ELO calculators on the net)) > > A player can have performances 200 points up his rating but also > performances 200 points down his rating. If you allways obtain 2260 > performances you will soon become a 2260 player but it's not the case. Playing to improve and playing to win are not the same thing. For 20 games, I stopped playing to improve and started playing to win, just to see where I stood. My performance rating for those 20 games was 2260. Further, back in the day, the rating supplements came out every three months. > Myself is an example of that. I play very few tournaments: > - This year (july 2005 list) I obtained 7,5 of 9 with an average > opposition rated 2308. That is a 2550 performance. I was lucky and I > gaigned 28 points. > - But in the precedent tournament (luly 2004 list) I obtained 4,5 of 9 > with a 2250. This is easy I obtained a 2250 performance and I lost 26 > points. > It will be nonsense for my part to claim to be a 2550 player. If you sustain a 2550 performance rating for 25 games, that would be your official rating. > Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance in > 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you. I couldn't care less who believes or trusts me. Even if my strength *was* 2260 in 1991, theory has advanced by leaps and bounds now. I know where I'm headed and at what rate I'm improving now. I expect to be able to secure a GM norm within four years, and achieve the title within six, IF I keep training, which is a very big IF.                                 Date: 10 Nov 2005 01:07:26 From: Ron Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) In article <dFicf.4308$ek6.612@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >, "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: > If a NEW PLAYER has a 2260 performance rating, he will have a 2260 OFFICIAL > rating (at least in 1990 he would have). Right. But you weren't a new player, were you? The "new player" rating system is provides what's called a "provisional" rating - eg, one that's not expected to be accurate. With an established player - like, say, YOU at the time - we have more information. We have your established rating. You can't just ignore that information because you think you were improving. This isn't complicated. -Ron                                   Date: 10 Nov 2005 03:02:05 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> If a NEW PLAYER has a 2260 performance rating, he will have a 2260 >> OFFICIAL >> rating (at least in 1990 he would have). > > Right. But you weren't a new player, were you? Not the point. > The "new player" rating system is provides what's called a "provisional" > rating - eg, one that's not expected to be accurate. 20 games establishes the rating. On the internet, you can change your handle and be "reborn." In USCF, you cannot. > With an established player - like, say, YOU at the time - we have more > information. We have your established rating. Which is tilted towards recent performance anyway. In fact, this issue often comes up with junior players, who improve rapidly and are recognized as being ahead of the rating curve because they improve too fast. My rating was also artificially low because I played to fix my weaknesses rather than exploit my strengths. I stopped doing that to see what my true strength was, for 20 specific games, the only time I did it, and my rating for those 20 games was 2260. I wanted to see if I could win an u-2000 section as well. Unfortunately, you have to be 2450 to do that. > You can't just ignore that information because you think you were > improving. I know I was improving. Any player who trains 60+ hours a week knows this. > This isn't complicated. No, it's not. I did not quit chess because I was failing at it, but because I had 11 years to get to my peak, it cost a lot of money to play, women aren't really into chess or chessplayers, and to study full time meant that I couldn't work a full-time job. Now I work at home, making enough doing several things not to have to punch a time clock or work more than a day or two each week, and I can play world-class opponents anytime of the day or night, for nothing. Not only that, I can run every one of my games through a computer to find the errors and fix them. I have improved 287 points in the last 18 months (this takes into account the fluctuations). That works out to about 175 points a year, or 1,000 points in six years. About the same pace as one masters a musical instrument. I would not be playing this game at all if I did not *know* I could become a GM. I am 38 years old and surely would have better things to do with my time. I did this before as a youth and knew what it would take to get me where I was going. I was on track (had improved at about 100 points a year), but that meant another 7-8 years to get to GM, and I simply didn't want to invest the time. If I knew I would be properly compensated for it, I would reveal all I know about the game, but there is no financial interest in it. This is why my free chess book only deals with generalities in both my repertoire and concepts. Most of the opening lines you will find there, I no longer play in their entirety.                               Date: 08 Nov 2005 19:36:36 From: Major Cat Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > > En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: > >>>>Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 > >>>>because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? > > > >>Nonetheless, this > >>doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. > > > > I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I been > > unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official rating. > > Hello, > > Ray, .. if a 2000 player plays a 2260 performance in 20 games He will > have a NEW rating of 2095, ... > (tht's easy to do, there are free ELO calculators on the net)) > > A player can have performances 200 points up his rating but also > performances 200 points down his rating. If you allways obtain 2260 > performances you will soon become a 2260 player but it's not the case. > > Myself is an example of that. I play very few tournaments: > - This year (july 2005 list) I obtained 7,5 of 9 with an average > opposition rated 2308. That is a 2550 performance. I was lucky and I > gaigned 28 points. > - But in the precedent tournament (luly 2004 list) I obtained 4,5 of 9 > with a 2250. This is easy I obtained a 2250 performance and I lost 26 > points. > It will be nonsense for my part to claim to be a 2550 player. > > All that can be checked a FIDE website: > http://www.fide.com > http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=2200392 > http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=2200392&moder=4 > > Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance > in 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you. Mr. Torrecillas, I believe that Mr. Ray Gordon and yourself argue from different premises. Your thinking is eminently empirical. That is, anyone on his way to becoming a GM is bound to leave an _extended_ trail of ELO ratings "on his way there". By all means, this is what one might _expect_ as a reasonable observer of the "real" world. However, an empirical premise does not necessarily exclude the potential validity of a theoretical premise, no matter how probabilistically unlikely the reality behind that premise may be. In essence, Mr. Ray Gordon hopes to "secretly" perfect a powerful "chessic" weapon, that is, himself. So be it...! 8 >) The "chessic" battlefield shares some similarities with actual ones. Among other things, "secret" weapons can prove to be unexpectedly effective or just...duds. Hence, the difference and inherent tension between military science and military history! Mr. Ray Gordon seems to be confusing the issue by making frequent references to ELO ratings computed half a generation ago. In my humble opinion, he need not do so. If and when he enters the fray of GM competition, empirical reality will render all theoretical speculation irrelevant. The "secret" weapon will have to prove itself empirically... > > AT Major Cat                                 Date: 09 Nov 2005 15:56:13 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Major Cat ha escrit: > Mr. Torrecillas, > > I believe that Mr. Ray Gordon and yourself argue from > different premises. Your thinking is eminently empirical. > That is, anyone on his way to becoming a GM is bound to > leave an _extended_ trail of ELO ratings "on his way > there". By all means, this is what one might _expect_ > as a reasonable observer of the "real" world. > (...) > In essence, Mr. Ray Gordon hopes to "secretly" perfect > a powerful "chessic" weapon, that is, himself. > (...) If and when he enters the fray of GM > competition, empirical reality will render all > theoretical speculation irrelevant. The "secret" > weapon will have to prove itself empirically... > > Major Cat Mr Majorcat, I admit some player can obtain GM strengh playing secret games in his home. I admit some player can have an strengh of 2800 only training with computers. All that is possible!! (with a very little probability but possible) But I think Mr Gordon has not +2000 strengh. I deduce that from his comments here in RGCA. He seems convinced He will be GM in 4 years but I'm convinced He will never in his life be an +2300 player. Some of the chess comments He has wrote here are completely nonsense. I have not seen ANY instructive comment from him here in RGCA. It's very different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!! You can compare his aportations with much others ... Here you have some examples of today: - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect." I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest". - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the 10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate." Ray knows nothing about openings. Opening repertoire of top players is constantly being reed and more: they know how to handle any kind of position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ... - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it" Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing. AT                                   Date: 09 Nov 2005 16:34:31 From: Major Cat Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Mr. Torrecillas, Thank you for your comprehensive response. Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > > > Mr Majorcat, > > I admit some player can obtain GM strengh playing secret games in his > home. I admit some player can have an strengh of 2800 only training with > computers. All that is possible!! (with a very little probability but > possible) > > But I think Mr Gordon has not +2000 strengh. I deduce that from his > comments here in RGCA. He seems convinced He will be GM in 4 years but > I'm convinced He will never in his life be an +2300 player. I am afraid that my rather limited chess expertise does not allow me to make such a prediction! 8 >) > > Some of the chess comments He has wrote here are completely nonsense. I > have not seen ANY instructive comment from him here in RGCA. Again, I am not that well versed in chess theory to have an opinion on this. > It's very > different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to > comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!! In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present. Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a comment, it would not be about middlegames or endings. That brings us to comments about open- ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness. That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr. Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_ at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can tell us. > You can compare his aportations with much others ... > > Here you have some examples of today: > > - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess > strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their > Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect." > > I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were > very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest". I am not aware of the contents of this book. > > - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening > repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the > 10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate." This seems like a convoluted tautology to me. Logically, a chess player would tend to stick with opening lines that work for him. To this effect, extending opening lines to take into account new theory or opinions would make a lot of sense. However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment does not appear to allow for the possibility that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed countermeasure or elty that shakes it closer to its previously assumed secure roots... > > Ray knows nothing about openings. With all these books around? 8 >) > Opening repertoire of top players is > constantly being reed Just like in military tactics and strategy... > and more: they know how to handle any kind of > position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ... By his own admission, Mr. Ray Gordon has not tackled these aspects of chess at the _GM_ level yet. > > - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to > the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without > leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it" It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_ by focusing almost exclusively on the opening phase. Moreover, the opening phase can be arbitrarily long! > > Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing. > > AT Since Mr. Ray Gordon seems to focus exclusively on aspects of _training_ specifically applicable to _GM aspirants_, may I ask the following question: namely, in the opinion of the experienced participants that may stumble across this thread, are there any _critical_ issues underlying the training of _GM aspirants_ that call for a radically different approach to "playing" chess on the way to...FIDE glory from the one that most of us ordinary chess players can imagine or identify with? Major Cat                                     Date: 10 Nov 2005 01:13:12 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Major Cat ha escrit: > Mr. Torrecillas, > > Thank you for your comprehensive response. > > Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > >>It's very >>different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to >>comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!! > > In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening > theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present. > Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a > comment, it would not be about middlegames or > endings. That brings us to comments about open- > ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems > to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to > his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness. That's not entirely correct. He posted as a "brillancy" a Sicilian Dragon game where He played a bad line and his opponent made a big mistake losing in near 16 moves. After some criticaL COMMENTS from people here He stopped sending games to RGCA (stop broken posting his lost to Nakamura, a 1 minute game) > That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr. > Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_ > at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can > tell us. He is wasting his time here because He has not more interesting things to do (like would be to improve and become GM) >>- (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening >>repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the >>10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate." > > This seems like a convoluted tautology to me. > Logically, a chess player would tend to stick > with opening lines that work for him. To this > effect, extending opening lines to take into > account new theory or opinions would make a lot > of sense. However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment > does not appear to allow for the possibility > that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious > or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed > countermeasure or elty that shakes it closer > to its previously assumed secure roots... It's a simple mathematical question. Some strong players have reached move 20 or 30 in his analysis of SOME critical lines but to memorize a completely 20 move book (only considering best move for white and all possible moves for black) is beyond human possibilities. We are speaking of a number of position who not only is impossible to memorize, it is needed more than 1 zillion lifes to reproduce at least once each one. It's about memorizing between 20^20 and 30^20 lines. Considering the lower case and considering in one life we can study chess for 50*365*10*60= 10950000 minutes (50 years, 365 days, 10 hours a day) and using 1 minute to memorize each line that mean (it's a simple quotient), you need 10^25 lifes to memorize all 20ply repertoire. Grandmasters do not memorize all lines to 20th ply. He only memorize the critical lines He have worked in home and in the rest of lines they trust in his skills (strategical, endgame, tactical, ...) from a certain point. Do you need any example or it is clear enough? >>- (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to >>the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without >>leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it" > > It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes > that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_ > by focusing almost exclusively on the opening > phase. Moreover, the opening phase can be > arbitrarily long! That's like thinking that a "true patzer like my daughter 5 years old" can be correspondence world chess champion using only opening books. ... completely nonsense!!! AT                                       Date: 10 Nov 2005 03:12:11 From: Major Cat Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) Antonio Torrecillas wrote: > > In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening > > theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present. > > Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a > > comment, it would not be about middlegames or > > endings. That brings us to comments about open- > > ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems > > to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to > > his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness. > > That's not entirely correct. > > He posted as a "brillancy" a Sicilian Dragon game where He played a bad > line and his opponent made a big mistake losing in near 16 moves. > After some criticaL COMMENTS from people here He stopped sending games > to RGCA (stop broken posting his lost to Nakamura, a 1 minute game) > > > That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr. > > Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_ > > at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can > > tell us. > > He is wasting his time here because He has not more interesting things > to do (like would be to improve and become GM) That may be so, but what if the rest of us were to focus on the issues raised by these postings as opposed to the particulars of Mr. Ray Gordon's abilities and aspirations? I mean, would this not be a more productive use of our time on USENET? > > >>- (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening > >>repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the > >>10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate." > > > > This seems like a convoluted tautology to me. > > Logically, a chess player would tend to stick > > with opening lines that work for him. To this > > effect, extending opening lines to take into > > account new theory or opinions would make a lot > > of sense. However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment > > does not appear to allow for the possibility > > that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious > > or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed > > countermeasure or elty that shakes it closer > > to its previously assumed secure roots... > > It's a simple mathematical question. Some strong players have reached > move 20 or 30 in his analysis of SOME critical lines but to memorize a > completely 20 move book (only considering best move for white and all > possible moves for black) is beyond human possibilities. We are speaking > of a number of position who not only is impossible to memorize, it is > needed more than 1 zillion lifes to reproduce at least once each one. > > It's about memorizing between 20^20 and 30^20 lines. Considering the > lower case and considering in one life we can study chess for > 50*365*10*60= 10950000 minutes (50 years, 365 days, 10 hours a day) and > using 1 minute to memorize each line that mean (it's a simple quotient), > you need 10^25 lifes to memorize all 20ply repertoire. > > Grandmasters do not memorize all lines to 20th ply. He only memorize the > critical lines He have worked in home and in the rest of lines they > trust in his skills (strategical, endgame, tactical, ...) from a certain > point. > > Do you need any example or it is clear enough? No examples are necessary, I think. I always wondered what the human limits re: "booking up" in FIDE chess might be... 8 >) > > >>- (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to > >>the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without > >>leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it" > > > > It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes > > that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_ > > by focusing almost exclusively on the opening > > phase. Moreover, the opening phase can be > > arbitrarily long! > > That's like thinking that a "true patzer like my daughter 5 years old" > can be correspondence world chess champion using only opening books. > > ... completely nonsense!!! This may be a bit of an unfair comparison! 8 >) It is my impression that Mr. Ray Gordon does acknowledge the fact that a _GM_ must be well versed in "technically exploiting a sufficient advantage". Moreover, he seems to define the opening phase as that first part of the game that ends with one side having acquired that elusive "sufficient advantage". > > AT Major Cat                                         Date: 10 Nov 2005 19:25:03 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> Grandmasters do not memorize all lines to 20th ply. He only memorize the >> critical lines He have worked in home and in the rest of lines they >> trust in his skills (strategical, endgame, tactical, ...) from a certain >> point. >> >> Do you need any example or it is clear enough? > > No examples are necessary, I think. I always > wondered what the human limits re: "booking up" > in FIDE chess might be... 8>) Even if I "fail" in my quest, I have a damn strong repertoire that other players will benefit from once they see it. I "study" the middlegame and endgame simply by not analyzing my games, and therefore not correcting my repertoire. Then, when I correct my repertoire based on my games, I eliminate some of the mistakes that were keeping my rating down. This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months. > This may be a bit of an unfair comparison! 8>) > It is my impression that Mr. Ray Gordon does > acknowledge the fact that a _GM_ must be well > versed in "technically exploiting a sufficient > advantage". Moreover, he seems to define the > opening phase as that first part of the game > that ends with one side having acquired that > elusive "sufficient advantage". The opening ends when both players are out of their book. It is the window where one player is in book and the other is out of book that the advantage of this method of training is greatest, especially at shorter time controls.                                           Date: 10 Nov 2005 21:21:36 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit: > Even if I "fail" in my quest, I have a damn strong repertoire that other > players will benefit from once they see it. > > I "study" the middlegame and endgame simply by not analyzing my games, and > therefore not correcting my repertoire. Then, when I correct my repertoire > based on my games, I eliminate some of the mistakes that were keeping my > rating down. > > This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months. You are not aware that any experienced player will discover you have no idea about chess. You only wrote stupid nonsense statements. Do you have any sense of ridicule? And respect to your ELO, .... it that ELO a FIDE or national ELO or simply a nomatterwahtserver ELO?? I have reached +2700 (gaining from 1400 what was starting elo) in some internet chess server but I was not very happy because right there I have seen people rated 3300 (And He was not Kasparov). I have seen people trying to gaign 1000 elo points in a day from a new nick playing 1 minute games. Do you think that gaigns shown any chesstraining method of those people or maybe it's better to refer to a serious rating??? or maybe you are writing about "RayHome ELO". AT                                             Date: 11 Nov 2005 04:16:03 From: Ray Gordon Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) >> This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months. > > You are not aware that any experienced player will discover you have no > idea about chess. You only wrote stupid nonsense statements. Do you have > any sense of ridicule? I teach chess for money. You're getting on dangerous legal territory with this repeated disparagement of my methods that are not supported by anything. It's one thing to say you don't agree with me, quite another to attack my trade out of malice. > And respect to your ELO, .... it that ELO a FIDE or national ELO or simply > a nomatterwahtserver ELO?? > > I have reached +2700 (gaining from 1400 what was starting elo) in some > internet chess server but I was not very happy because right there I have > seen people rated 3300 (And He was not Kasparov). > I have seen people trying to gaign 1000 elo points in a day from a new > nick playing 1 minute games. Do you think that gaigns shown any > chesstraining method of those people or maybe it's better to refer to a > serious rating??? My "serious" rating gained 620 points in two years from 1987-1989. > or maybe you are writing about "RayHome ELO". Keep insinuating like that and you're going to need an attorney.                                               Date: 11 Nov 2005 08:43:24 From: Ron Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) In article <7WUcf.19588$u43.13872@twister.nyc.rr.com >, "Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote: > > I teach chess for money. You're getting on dangerous legal territory with > this repeated disparagement of my methods that are not supported by > anything. Nonsense. Your methods are absurd. They are the absolute antithesis of what every respected teaching master advocates. And there's nothing legally questionable about saying so. Save your empty threats.                                               Date: 11 Nov 2005 09:38:08 From: Antonio Torrecillas Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s) En/na Ra