| |
Main
Date: 13 Apr 2006 20:26:46
From: Dmitri
Subject: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Hi All.
What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
--
D.P.
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2006 16:54:41
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
A proper replay would be 1. e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7.
A proper REPLY? Well, you'd be better off having played 2. Nf3. 4. Qe2
commits White to castling Queenside, and there are lines where that works,
but you're a bit early to be tipping your hand like that.
I would try 4. Bc4 or 4. d4 in this position.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2006 13:37:41
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
[email protected] wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ken Lovering wrote:
> >[ . . . ]
> > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> > > > Every American likes to deny being a racist.
> >
> > My statement (above) means that a simple denial of
> > racism does not constitue any evidence of non-racism.
A simple denial of racism has no relevance to the extent
of the denier's racism.
If all denials of racism were true, then the United States
should have become a completely non-racist society by now.
> >[ . . . ]
> > > Go take flying lessons bitch.
> >
> > That's another example of 'American courtesy'
> > as practised by Ken Lovering.
I wrote that it's an "example of 'American courtesy'
*as practised by Ken Lovering*", *not as practised
by all Americans*.
I know that Ken Lovering does *not* represent all
Americans, though he likes to act here as though
he does represent all Americans.
"So now, you can fuck off and die, as I am done with you."
--Ken Lovering (20 April 2006)
I suppose that Ken Lovering might imagine that all
other Americans should approve of his statement (above),
but I hope that most Americans should find that it
reveals far more about Ken Lovering's base character
than it could reveal about me.
By the way, being called a 'bitch' by Ken Lovering gives
me something else in common with a woman chess
player of my acquaintance, who sometimes has been
called a 'bitch' by her losing male opponents.
> Nick, without saying you have,
Nick Cramer has acknowledged that what I have written
has *not* stereotyped all Americans as the same.
> please don't tar all Americans with the same brush.
> We are not all abusive or white supremecists.
Thanks to Nick Cramer for apparently recognising
that Ken Lovering has behaved abusively toward me.
I have many friends and relatives who live in the United States.
I have lived in the United States and met thousands of diverse
Americans. Based on my experiences, I can say that
Americans include some of the best and some of the worst
people whom I have ever known. Some Americans admire
respect, trust, and, yes, even love me.
> As a child, I was taught that everyone else was as good as me. It took me
> decades to realize that we are all as good as each other, and that I am not
> the Gold Standard of comparison. It's what we do with the tools we were
> handed that determines our craftsmanship in life.
Someone (now deceased) in my family served in the (racially
segregated) US Armed Forces during the Second World War.
After returning to his home in the United States, he, notwithstanding
his status as a wartime veteran, did not have the same legal rights,
let alone the same practical opportunities, as white Americans.
He could not stay in 'whites-only' hotels or eat at 'whites-only'
restaurants. He said that while the United States has become
significantly less racist than it was in, say, 1945, the United
States remains a deeply racist society in many ways.
> My father, Sicilian-Hungarian ancestry, was considered 'swarthy' by my
> mother's family, whose heritage was Swedish, French, Dutch and English.
> My children can all claim broader heritages. Only one of my uncles ever lost
> my love, and that when he asked, "Why did you ry one, when we used to
> own them?" My 8 year old grandson of that union is the Chess player to whom
> I have referred in prior threads.
>
> Now vacating the soap-box.
>
> BTW I know some French history and like your nic, Nick.
Mr Cramer, I always attempt to communicate in civil terms
with anyone who's civil and honest in communicating with me.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2006 21:52:20
From:
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Ken Lovering wrote:
> > >[ . . . ]
> > > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> > > > > Every American likes to deny being a racist.
> > >[ . . . ]
> I suppose that Ken Lovering might imagine that all
> other Americans should approve of his statement (above),
> but I hope that most Americans should find that it
> reveals far more about Ken Lovering's base character
> than it could reveal about me.
>[ . . . ]
> Thanks to Nick Cramer for apparently recognising
> that Ken Lovering has behaved abusively toward me.
>[ . . . ]
> Someone (now deceased) in my family served in the (racially
> segregated) US Armed Forces during the Second World War.
> After returning to his home in the United States, he, notwithstanding
> his status as a wartime veteran, did not have the same legal rights,
> let alone the same practical opportunities, as white Americans.
> He could not stay in 'whites-only' hotels or eat at 'whites-only'
> restaurants. He said that while the United States has become
> significantly less racist than it was in, say, 1945, the United
> States remains a deeply racist society in many ways.
Nick, I thank and salute your late relative for his service. I have a good
friend, "Bill" Terry, who was a pilot with the Tuskeegee Airmen (the Red
Tails) in WW II. I know some of what he went through. I also know what my
black wife and I went through when we first got to Los Angeles, even from
some blacks. And yes. I've gotten the 'hate look'.
>[ . . . ]
> Mr Cramer, I always attempt to communicate in civil terms
> with anyone who's civil and honest in communicating with me.
>
As you have demonstrated, Nick. Please call me Nick, that should confuse
some! Also, if you'd like to play an e-mail chess game with me, drop my
SPAM and let me know (Nick Bourbaki ONLY).
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 19:42:40
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
Of course, the context was completely snipped
on purpose by Ken Lovering.
Less than one hour before his latest post (personal attack
against me) in this thread, Ken Lovering wrote with his
characteristic charm and courtesy:
"So now, you can fuck off and die, as I am done with you."
--Ken Lovering (20 April 2006)
"As I am done with you" may be reasonably construed
as Ken Lowering's promise to stop writing anything
about me in this thread.
Ken Lowering's latest personal attack against me in
this thread has shown that *Ken Lowering is a liar*.
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> > Every American likes to deny being a racist.
My statement (above) means that a simple denial of
racism does not constitue any evidence of non-racism.
I have met thousands of Americans, and I never
have known any of them to admit to being a racist.
I have met some white Americans who passionately
believed that the United States should become an
'all-white' country someday, and they emphatically
denied that they were racists.
> Gee Nick, have a problem with Americans?
My many friends and relatives who are US citizens
(On account of their racial appearance(s), many of
them tend *not* be perceived and accepted as
'real Americans'.) have no particular problems
in their relationships with me. In general, we
are appalled by the racism of many Americans.
Perhaps Ken Lovering will begin jingoistic
US 'flag-waving' in a desperate attempt to
distract attention from the evidence of his
arrogance, dishonesty, and other abuses.
> Go take flying lessons bitch.
That's another example of 'American courtesy'
as practised by Ken Lovering.
To what extent, if any, would David Richerby
appreciate the unsolicited 'support' that Ken
Lovering has been offering him?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2006 03:06:19
From:
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ken Lovering wrote:
>[ . . . ]
> > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> > > Every American likes to deny being a racist.
>
> My statement (above) means that a simple denial of
> racism does not constitue any evidence of non-racism.
>[ . . . ]
> > Go take flying lessons bitch.
>
> That's another example of 'American courtesy'
> as practised by Ken Lovering.
>
Nick, without saying you have, please don't tar all Americans with the same
brush. We are not all abusive or white supremecists.
As a child, I was taught that everyone else was as good as me. It took me
decades to realize that we are all as good as each other, and that I am not
the Gold Standard of comparison. It's what we do with the tools we were
handed that determines our craftsmanship in life.
My father, Sicilian-Hungarian ancestry, was considered 'swarthy' by my
mother's family, whose heritage was Swedish, French, Dutch and English. My
children can all claim broader heritages. Only one of my uncles ever lost
my love, and that when he asked, "Why did you ry one, when we used to
own them?" My 8 year old grandson of that union is the Chess player to whom
I have referred in prior threads.
Now vacating the soap-box.
BTW I know some French history and like your nic, Nick.
--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 18:57:56
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
> I'm not a racist.
Every American likes to deny being a racist.
"...the extent of his racism remains unclear to me at this time."
--Nick
> I wanted to General Colin Powell to run for President.
> I made the Air Force a career and worked alongside and
> under the leadership of people of numerous races.
My friends and relatives who have served in the US Armed Forces
have said that they have experienced or observed racism there.
> I had no idea who you were,
Then Ken Lovering should *not* have been writing his
ignorant offensive personal presumptions about 'me'.
> it was nothing more than just your original egotistical
> thread that I that set me off.
Again, Ken Lovering has shown his inability to read,
if not also his dishonesty.
I did *not* create this thread. I did *not begin* any
interaction with Ken Lovering by responding to any
post that he has written. I responded to a post by
David Richerby in which I included 1) some criticism
of another of David Richerby's illegal moves 2) some
praise of David Richerby for his *past* comparative
honesty and 3) a suggestion to David Richerby that
he improve his visualization of the chessboard.
Then Ken Lovering jumped in to attack me personally
(in terms that were much harsher than any used by
David Richerby) on account of my response to
David Richerby.
It's Ken Lovering who's solely responsible for initiating
any personal conflict between himself and me.
> So now, you can fuck off and die,
That seems be 'American courtesy'
as practised by Ken Lovering.
> as I am done with you.
Apparently, Ken Lovering has admitted in effect that the
facts cannot support what he has written to attack me.
--Nick
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ken Lovering wrote:
> >
> > Of course, most of the context was snipped by Ken Lovering.
> > Unsurprisingly, Ken Lovering prefers to snip the evidence of
> > his ignorant, offensive, and wrong presumptions about me.
> >
> > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > I believe that a writer usually has the responsibility to make it as
> > > > easy as possible for readers to understand what he or she means.
> > > > I have noticed that most writers in rec.games.chess.* prefer *not*
> > > > to admit that their writings can be readily improved (they prefer
> > > > to deny or to excuse the evidence of their errors), preferring to
> > > > hold the readers solely responsible for the writers' shortcomings.
> >
> > What Ken Lovering wrote (below) is another example of my point
> > about a writer, Ken Lovering, *not* making it easier for readers to
> > understand what he or she means.
> >
> > Also, my context was about the arrogant and disingenuous writers,
> > such as Ken Lovering, in rec.games.chess.*, *not* Andrew Soltis.
> >
> > > Why don't you take that up with Andrew Soltis, who, in his book "The
> > > Inner Game of Chess" failed to do so in his very first example on page
> 4.
> >
> > I note that Ken Lovering prefers *not* to describe the position
> > in Andrew Soltis's book, 'The Inner Game of Chess', on page 4.
> > Apparently, Ken Lovering expects everyone who reads his post to
> > be able to refer conveniently on one's own to GM Soltis's book.
> >
> > That's another unwarranted presumption by Ken Lovering.
> >
> > > In the last paragraph of pg.4, he states: "He sees quickly
> > > that 1.Rh2 and 2.Rdh1 is one method.........."
> > >
> > > 1.Rh2 however, is met by 1....Bxh2, a gross oversight Mr. Soltis.
> > >
> > > In addition, the example he gives does not afford a winning sacrifice
> for
> > > White, since with correct play by Black, White will have nothing but
> > > perpetual check.
> >
> > I do *not* have GM Andrew Soltis's book, 'The Inner Game of Chess',
> > at hand, and I suspect that many readers in rec.games.chess.analysis
> > do *not* have that book at hand. Ken Lovering has preferred *not*
> > to describe the specific position in question. Apparently, Ken
> > Lovering expects us to accept whatever he writes without any
> > need for our independent corroboration of his claims.
> >
> > > Mr. Soltis charged me $15.00 for his book.
> >
> > Did Ken Lovering buy that book directly from Andrew Soltis?
> >
> > Apparently, Ken Lovering believes that his discovery of one alleged
> > error in a book by GM Andrew Soltis makes that entire book
> > worthless or at least not worth what Ken Lovering has paid for it.
> >
> > That's Ken Lovering's problem, not mine. Perhaps Ken Lovering
> > should consider suing Andrew Soltis for alleged consumer fraud.
> >
> > > You really should find some other way to exhibit your
> > > resentment towards "Westerners" as you refer to them.
> >
> > In fact, some of the men and women who are closest to
> > my heart happen to be of white European heritage.
> >
> > At least several racist white American writers in rec.games.chess.*
> > have written their ignorant offensive stereotypical fantasies about
> > 'me', and now Ken Lovering (though the extent of his racism
> > remains unclear to me at this time) seems inclined to add
> > his 'contribution' in that way. Given that Ken Lovering
> > already has shown his eagerness to make ignorant
> > personal comments about me, someone about whom
> > he could know almost nothing, who's Ken Lovering?
> >
> > Is Ken Lovering the same person as 'Kenneth W Lovering'
> > of West Virginia (as of 2001)?
> >
> > Here's the USCF member record for Kenneth W Lovering:
> > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12405965
> >
> > Ken Lovering has a USCF rating of 1275 and evidently
> > a peak USCF rating (since 1991) of 1351.
> >
> > "...I am only an average player."
> > --Ken Lovering (19 April 2006)
> >
> > If it's true that Ken Lovering's USCF rating is 1275,
> > then would his USCF rating be below average for
> > adult USCF members with established ratings?
> >
> > --Nick
> >
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 22:10:26
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message > Every American likes
to deny being a racist.
Gee Nick, have a problem with Americans? Go take flying lessons bitch.
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 15:40:48
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
Of course, most of the context was snipped by Ken Lovering.
Unsurprisingly, Ken Lovering prefers to snip the evidence of
his ignorant, offensive, and wrong presumptions about me.
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I believe that a writer usually has the responsibility to make it as
> > easy as possible for readers to understand what he or she means.
> > I have noticed that most writers in rec.games.chess.* prefer *not*
> > to admit that their writings can be readily improved (they prefer
> > to deny or to excuse the evidence of their errors), preferring to
> > hold the readers solely responsible for the writers' shortcomings.
What Ken Lovering wrote (below) is another example of my point
about a writer, Ken Lovering, *not* making it easier for readers to
understand what he or she means.
Also, my context was about the arrogant and disingenuous writers,
such as Ken Lovering, in rec.games.chess.*, *not* Andrew Soltis.
> Why don't you take that up with Andrew Soltis, who, in his book "The
> Inner Game of Chess" failed to do so in his very first example on page 4.
I note that Ken Lovering prefers *not* to describe the position
in Andrew Soltis's book, 'The Inner Game of Chess', on page 4.
Apparently, Ken Lovering expects everyone who reads his post to
be able to refer conveniently on one's own to GM Soltis's book.
That's another unwarranted presumption by Ken Lovering.
> In the last paragraph of pg.4, he states: "He sees quickly
> that 1.Rh2 and 2.Rdh1 is one method.........."
>
> 1.Rh2 however, is met by 1....Bxh2, a gross oversight Mr. Soltis.
>
> In addition, the example he gives does not afford a winning sacrifice for
> White, since with correct play by Black, White will have nothing but
> perpetual check.
I do *not* have GM Andrew Soltis's book, 'The Inner Game of Chess',
at hand, and I suspect that many readers in rec.games.chess.analysis
do *not* have that book at hand. Ken Lovering has preferred *not*
to describe the specific position in question. Apparently, Ken
Lovering expects us to accept whatever he writes without any
need for our independent corroboration of his claims.
> Mr. Soltis charged me $15.00 for his book.
Did Ken Lovering buy that book directly from Andrew Soltis?
Apparently, Ken Lovering believes that his discovery of one alleged
error in a book by GM Andrew Soltis makes that entire book
worthless or at least not worth what Ken Lovering has paid for it.
That's Ken Lovering's problem, not mine. Perhaps Ken Lovering
should consider suing Andrew Soltis for alleged consumer fraud.
> You really should find some other way to exhibit your
> resentment towards "Westerners" as you refer to them.
In fact, some of the men and women who are closest to
my heart happen to be of white European heritage.
At least several racist white American writers in rec.games.chess.*
have written their ignorant offensive stereotypical fantasies about
'me', and now Ken Lovering (though the extent of his racism
remains unclear to me at this time) seems inclined to add
his 'contribution' in that way. Given that Ken Lovering
already has shown his eagerness to make ignorant
personal comments about me, someone about whom
he could know almost nothing, who's Ken Lovering?
Is Ken Lovering the same person as 'Kenneth W Lovering'
of West Virginia (as of 2001)?
Here's the USCF member record for Kenneth W Lovering:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12405965
Ken Lovering has a USCF rating of 1275 and evidently
a peak USCF rating (since 1991) of 1351.
"...I am only an average player."
--Ken Lovering (19 April 2006)
If it's true that Ken Lovering's USCF rating is 1275,
then would his USCF rating be below average for
adult USCF members with established ratings?
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 21:38:44
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
I'm not a racist. I wanted to General Colin Powell to run for President. I
made the Air Force a career and worked alongside and under the leadership of
people of numerous races.
I had no idea who you were, it was nothing more than just your original
egotistical thread that I that set me off. So now, you can fuck off and die,
as I am done with you.
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ken Lovering wrote:
>
> Of course, most of the context was snipped by Ken Lovering.
> Unsurprisingly, Ken Lovering prefers to snip the evidence of
> his ignorant, offensive, and wrong presumptions about me.
>
> > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > I believe that a writer usually has the responsibility to make it as
> > > easy as possible for readers to understand what he or she means.
> > > I have noticed that most writers in rec.games.chess.* prefer *not*
> > > to admit that their writings can be readily improved (they prefer
> > > to deny or to excuse the evidence of their errors), preferring to
> > > hold the readers solely responsible for the writers' shortcomings.
>
> What Ken Lovering wrote (below) is another example of my point
> about a writer, Ken Lovering, *not* making it easier for readers to
> understand what he or she means.
>
> Also, my context was about the arrogant and disingenuous writers,
> such as Ken Lovering, in rec.games.chess.*, *not* Andrew Soltis.
>
> > Why don't you take that up with Andrew Soltis, who, in his book "The
> > Inner Game of Chess" failed to do so in his very first example on page
4.
>
> I note that Ken Lovering prefers *not* to describe the position
> in Andrew Soltis's book, 'The Inner Game of Chess', on page 4.
> Apparently, Ken Lovering expects everyone who reads his post to
> be able to refer conveniently on one's own to GM Soltis's book.
>
> That's another unwarranted presumption by Ken Lovering.
>
> > In the last paragraph of pg.4, he states: "He sees quickly
> > that 1.Rh2 and 2.Rdh1 is one method.........."
> >
> > 1.Rh2 however, is met by 1....Bxh2, a gross oversight Mr. Soltis.
> >
> > In addition, the example he gives does not afford a winning sacrifice
for
> > White, since with correct play by Black, White will have nothing but
> > perpetual check.
>
> I do *not* have GM Andrew Soltis's book, 'The Inner Game of Chess',
> at hand, and I suspect that many readers in rec.games.chess.analysis
> do *not* have that book at hand. Ken Lovering has preferred *not*
> to describe the specific position in question. Apparently, Ken
> Lovering expects us to accept whatever he writes without any
> need for our independent corroboration of his claims.
>
> > Mr. Soltis charged me $15.00 for his book.
>
> Did Ken Lovering buy that book directly from Andrew Soltis?
>
> Apparently, Ken Lovering believes that his discovery of one alleged
> error in a book by GM Andrew Soltis makes that entire book
> worthless or at least not worth what Ken Lovering has paid for it.
>
> That's Ken Lovering's problem, not mine. Perhaps Ken Lovering
> should consider suing Andrew Soltis for alleged consumer fraud.
>
> > You really should find some other way to exhibit your
> > resentment towards "Westerners" as you refer to them.
>
> In fact, some of the men and women who are closest to
> my heart happen to be of white European heritage.
>
> At least several racist white American writers in rec.games.chess.*
> have written their ignorant offensive stereotypical fantasies about
> 'me', and now Ken Lovering (though the extent of his racism
> remains unclear to me at this time) seems inclined to add
> his 'contribution' in that way. Given that Ken Lovering
> already has shown his eagerness to make ignorant
> personal comments about me, someone about whom
> he could know almost nothing, who's Ken Lovering?
>
> Is Ken Lovering the same person as 'Kenneth W Lovering'
> of West Virginia (as of 2001)?
>
> Here's the USCF member record for Kenneth W Lovering:
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12405965
>
> Ken Lovering has a USCF rating of 1275 and evidently
> a peak USCF rating (since 1991) of 1351.
>
> "...I am only an average player."
> --Ken Lovering (19 April 2006)
>
> If it's true that Ken Lovering's USCF rating is 1275,
> then would his USCF rating be below average for
> adult USCF members with established ratings?
>
> --Nick
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 14:56:09
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
David Richerby wrote:
Much of the context was snipped by David Richerby.
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > With regard to at least some of Eric Schiller's errors in writing
> > chess moves, it seems rather 'obvious' what he meant to write
> > instead (Eric Schiller *is* sloppy) but that has not stopped many
> > writers in RGC* from harshly criticising Eric Schiller for his errors.
>
> Perhaps when I start charging you twenty dollars to read my posts,
> this comparison will become relevant.
My quick look at Amazon (US) shows that most of Eric Schiller's
chess books evidently are being sold at prices less than 20 USD.
I concur that Eric Schiller has a greater responsibility than
David Richerby to be writing chess moves correctly, but the
general principle that it's better to be factually accurate
than factually inaccurate remains the same.
Does David Richerby believe that he has a responsibility
to admit his errors *only if* someone else has suffered
a significant financial penalty on account of them?
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 18:46:12
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> For example, consider the position after 1.f3 e5 2.g4. Imagine (if
> >> you can!) that White used to do really well from here, winning nine
> >> games out of nine in the database. But then, some Kasparov comes
> >> along and plays 2... Qh5# refuting the whole variation.
> >
> > Of course, I can tell easily that David Richerby intended to write
> > 2 ...Qh4# rather than '2...Qh5' (sic), which is an illegal move,
> > but could a beginning player who's reading '2...Qh5' (sic) be
> > able to tell as easily?
>
> Yes, Nick, they could. It's pretty obvious that I meant
> `Bring the queen out and deliver checkmate', for Christ's sake.
With regard to at least some of Eric Schiller's errors in writing
chess moves, it seems rather 'obvious' what he meant to write
instead (Eric Schiller *is* sloppy) but that has not stopped many
writers in RGC* from harshly criticising Eric Schiller for his errors.
> There's probably an interesting point here about thought processes
> and how you saw that `h5' was the most important part of the notation
> while I was concentrating on `Q#'
David Richerby seems to be about as poor in reading my
mind as he is in consistently writing chess moves correctly.
> but frankly, I'm too sick of your constant carping to be bothered.
In my earlier post, I had made a point of making some positive
comments about David Richerby in order to make clear enough,
I hoped, that I was not motivated by any antagonism toward him.
I hereby retract my earlier positive comments about David Richerby.
I have given David Richerby a suggestion (about improving his
visualization of the chessboard) that I sincerely thought may
be helpful to him. Of course, he has the right to ignore it.
Speaking of my alleged 'constant carping', I have noticed that
David Richerby *frequently* writes illegal moves, and he earlier
has admitted that those illegal moves are *not* just typos.
On many, if not most, of the occasions in which I have noticed
David Richerby's writing of illegal moves, I have made no comment
at all. I have *not* bothered to criticise David Richerby on
several other occasions in which I have noticed that he has
made dubious or mistaken assertions about chess.
As far as I can recall, I have noticed that David Richerby has
at least on several occasions written pedantic criticisms
(which may have been meant in part as humourous) about
inadvertent errors in other writers' posts. David Richerby
seems to be far more sensitive when someone else writes
such a criticism about his errors.
I consider it excessively careless for David Richerby to have given
his illustrative game of *only* two moves ("1. f3 e5 2. g4 Qh5#" sic)
*without* being able avoid writing an illegal move. If Eric Schiller
had done that, then he would have been harshly condemned.
I suppose that David Richerby, if he likes to seem consistent,
should have much sympathy for Eric Schiller with regard to
the 'constant carping' of Eric Schiller's critics.
In my view, chess players who are unable to bring themselves
to face sufficiently honest self-criticism tend not to improve by
much. But if they already are completely satisfied with their
levels of play, then I shall not disturb their self-congratulations.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 11:13:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> With regard to at least some of Eric Schiller's errors in writing
> chess moves, it seems rather 'obvious' what he meant to write
> instead (Eric Schiller *is* sloppy) but that has not stopped many
> writers in RGC* from harshly criticising Eric Schiller for his errors.
Perhaps when I start charging you twenty dollars to read my posts,
this comparison will become relevant.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Homicidal Dish (TM): it's like a fine
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ ceramic dish but it wants to kill you!
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 15:50:55
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > David Richerby wrote:
> > > Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores
> > > > below average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4
> > > > is White's best chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
> > > > This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
> > > > When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does
> > > > worse against that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated
> > > > line.
> > >
> > > Note that these statistics must be treated with a pinch of salt.
> > > It might be that the line is now known to be unsound so, while Black
> > > did well early on, White now knows how to win easily so Black doesn't
> > > play the variation any more.
> >
> > Some people seem to believe that the 'ultimate truth' about chess
> > can be determined by looking only at chess database statistics
> > and chess engine evaluations.
>
> Who have you identified as those who believe that?
When they have been asked to support their assertions about
some chess positions, those people prefer not to give any
chess analysis (specific variations) but only to cite chess
database statistics or chess engine evaluations.
That usually seems like a lazy approach.
> Are they any good at the game?
I do not know what Ken Lovering means by 'any good',
(a comparative term) in this context.
> > > For example, consider the position after 1.f3 e5 2.g4. Imagine (if
> > > you can!) that White used to do really well from here, winning nine
> > > games out of nine in the database. But then, some Kasparov comes
> > > along and plays 2... Qh5# refuting the whole variation.
> >
> > 'Some Kasparov' would be in a losing position after '1. f3 e5
> > 2. g4 Qh5 (sic)', which should be refuted by 3. gxh5. :-)
>
> Brilliant catch! Thank you.
In this case, David Richerby was unable to write down the
moves correctly for an illustrative game of only two moves.
Given his record of frequently writing illegal moves, that
seems to show an excessive degree of carelessness.
> > Of course, I can tell easily that David Richerby intended to write
> > 2 ...Qh4# rather than '2...Qh5' (sic), which is an illegal move,
> > but could a beginning player who's reading '2...Qh5' (sic) be
> > able to tell as easily?
>
> So did we.............and I have faith, that the "beginner" would have to
> break out the board to make the moves, as he/she would not be able to
> visualize, and realize the mistake themselves. And........if they did try &
> visualize, they would "mistakedly" put the Queen on h4...........or, scratch
> their head when they realized gxh5 is possible and setup the board.
Ken Lovering apparently expects that a beginner should have to
set up all the pieces on a chessboard in order to follow a simple
comment in rec.games.chess.analysis. All of this could have
been readily avoided if the correct move had been written in
the first place.
I believe that a writer usually has the responsibility to make it as
easy as possible for readers to understand what he or she means.
I have noticed that most writers in rec.games.chess.* prefer *not*
to admit that their writings can be readily improved (they prefer
to deny or to excuse the evidence of their errors), preferring to
hold the readers solely responsible for the writers' shortcomings.
> > > Obviously, nobody ever plays 1.f3 e5 2.g4 again
> >
> > Obviously, someone should play 1. f3 e5 2. g4 again *if*
> > 'some Kasparov' intends to play 2...Qh5 (sic) again. :-)
> >
> > > but the database says that White scores 90%.
> > > Now, that's a silly example
> >
> > Quite so.
> >
> > > but the point still holds: it might only take one win
> > > to refute a whole variation
> >
> > And it should take only one unchallenged illegal move
> > to refute any opening variation. :-)
> >
> > > so it's important to check that not only are the statistics favourable
> > > but also, the opening is still in current use (or, at least, the last
> > > game wasn't a spectacular loss).
> >
> > In my view, David Richerby's frequent writing of illegal moves tends
> > to undermine the value of his otherwise well-meaning and often
> > sensible comments about chess.
>
> How so, does an illegal move "undermine" the value of
> one's comments about a line?
Does Ken Lovering believe that there should be no difference
between writing the moves correctly and writing the moves
incorrectly (i.e. illegal moves) in giving chess analysis?
As far as I can recall, Eric Schiller's a chess writer who often
has been criticised in rec.games.chess.* on account of the
frequency of errors (incorrect moves) in his published books.
> Is it really that big of deal to those of us who don't use Winboard?
I don't use Winboard.
> No.........not at all.
Ken Lovering presumes to speak for everyone else.
> > To his credit, David Richerby has been honest enough (and
> > shown a good sense of humour) in admitting that he has a
> > problem with writing illegal moves.
I hoped that this comment (above) should have made it clear
enough that what I wrote was *not* motivated by personal
antagonism toward David Richerby.
> > I suspect that David Richerby has some difficulty in visualizing
> > chess squares when described in algebraic notation. Even as a
> > beginning player (which I suppose that I still am in some ways),
> > I could *instantly* visualize a square on a chessboard (and I
> > instantly visualized it as a dark or a light square) whenever
> > it's described in algebraic notation.
>
> Well, you have a gift.
As a beginning player, I (I don't look like a white European,
so I often have been and am considered 'racially inferior') was
told explicitly and emphatically in racist terms on more than a
few occasions that it's impossible for me ever to become even
an average club player.
> I have been playing for 35 years and if someone asked
> me if e5 was white or black...........I'd think:
> e1 is black, so all odd numbered squares on the e file are black.
> You know what! For 35 years, I never gave it any thought,
> because the board was in front of me...........but now that you
> mention it..........it's pretty simple and you're not such a
> brilliant mind for knowing the color of the squares after all.
Ken Lovering seems determined to attack me personally
on account of a position that I have *not* expressed.
I have *not* asserted and I do *not* believe that it needs
a 'brilliant mind' to be able to perceive a square *instantly*
in one's 'mental chessboard'.
> It's simple, I'm here "visualizing" without a board, and we know the queen
> goes on its own color and the Queen is on the d file, so the d-file is an
> even numbered file: a(1) b(2) c(3) d(4) e(5) f(6) g(7) h(8)
> So, all even numbered files are the same color as your pieces:
> b,d,f,h..........and so on
> And, since there are 8 ranks, the color of the square will change 7 times
> (an odd number) so the 8th rank will be the opposite of your 1st rank.
> So, since I am White, my king is on e1, which is a dark square, as the King
> sits on a colored square opposite its own color, so naturally, all odd
> numbered files are black also. So now I know that the center four squares,
> d4,d5 e4 & e5, are:
> d4: black
> d5: white
> e4: white
> e5:black
As I wrote earlier, I do *not* have to go through that kind of process
(described above by Ken Lovering) in order to perceive the squares
in my 'mental chessboard'.
> However, I never gave it any thought, as I always had a board in front of
> me, and never played "blindfold" chess, although, I understand the GM's get
> to look at an empty board on the computer that they input their moves into,
> when they play blindfold chess.
Like many other players, I have played blindfold chess.
> So, I'm guessing you took lessons when you 1st started out,
Ken Lovering's presumption is wrong.
> and were taught the board to begin with, and, having a solid foundation
> upon which to build your chess abilities upon, you have exceeded the
> goals of most of us.
I never have received any formal chess instruction.
As a beginning player, no chess books were available to me,
though later I was able to borrow a few chess books (I could
not afford to be particular; a mediocre book by GM Keene
was perceived as a treasure by me). I am accustomed
to facing opponents (including a few Russians who attended
chess schools for years in the USSR) who come from far
more privileged backgrounds of 'chess culture'.
I was brought up in a family with no chess tradition, who
regarded chess as a complete waste of my time and a
harmful distraction from my education. I was strongly
discouraged from playing chess. My family would
have preferred that I had lost every game of chess
because that would have motivated me more to quit.
Unlike most privileged 'Westerners', evidently, I grew
up being accustomed to receiving extremely harsh
direct personal criticisms all of the time. Some
'Westerners' have told me that they never could
have survived an upbringing comparable to mine.
> Therefore, you have a problem of not looking down upon those of us
> who make such simple errors, which you obviously consider "ignorant."
> But that is Ok. Most of us, well, we can forgive you, as we know that
> most GM's are quite Egotistical.
Ken Lovering likes to presume to speak for everyone else,
and he likes to pontificate ignorantly about someone whom
he fantasizes to resemble me.
I could not care less what Ken Lovering thinks of me
because I have no reason whatsoever to respect him.
> > I did *not* to have to work out, for example, that 'e6' is a light
> > square that's in the fifth column and the sixth row from the left
> > bottom corner--I perceived 'e6' *instantly* in my 'mental chessboard'.
>
> Can you perceive me "instantly" thinking: "what an egotist!" ?
I have accurately described my experience of perception.
It's Ken Lovering's problem if it's beyond his comprehension.
> > So I would advise David Richerby to improve his visualization,
> > which should help him become a stronger player as well as
> > reduce the number of illegal moves that he writes.
> > --Nick
>
> Well Mr. DeFirmian,
I have met GM Nick DeFirmian, and we got on well together.
> I must say, you have outdone yourself in this thread. Now, why don't you
> just come out and tell us what you really think of us "average common folk"
> chess players, who will never be within 100 pts of Expert?
Ken Lovering's evident insecurities are his problem, not mine.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 23:12:30
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message
> I believe that a writer usually has the responsibility to make it as
> easy as possible for readers to understand what he or she means.
> I have noticed that most writers in rec.games.chess.* prefer *not*
> to admit that their writings can be readily improved (they prefer
> to deny or to excuse the evidence of their errors), preferring to
> hold the readers solely responsible for the writers' shortcomings.
Why don't you take that up with Andrew Soltis, who, in his book "The Inner
Game of Chess" failed to do so in his very first example on page 4.
In the last paragraph of pg.4, he states: "He sees quickly that 1.Rh2 and
2.Rdh1 is one method.........."
1.Rh2 however, is met by 1....Bxh2, a gross oversight Mr. Soltis.
In addition, the example he gives does not afford a winning sacrifice for
White, since with correct play by Black, White will have nothing but
perpetual check.
Mr. Soltis charged me $15.00 for his book.
You really should find some other way to exhibit your resentment towards
"Westerners" as you refer to them.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 14:25:19
From: Nick
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores
> > below average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4
> > is White's best chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
> > This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
> > When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does
> > worse against that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated line.
>
> Note that these statistics must be treated with a pinch of salt.
> It might be that the line is now known to be unsound so, while Black
> did well early on, White now knows how to win easily so Black doesn't
> play the variation any more.
Some people seem to believe that the 'ultimate truth' about chess
can be determined by looking only at chess database statistics
and chess engine evaluations.
> For example, consider the position after 1.f3 e5 2.g4. Imagine (if
> you can!) that White used to do really well from here, winning nine
> games out of nine in the database. But then, some Kasparov comes
> along and plays 2... Qh5# refuting the whole variation.
'Some Kasparov' would be in a losing position after '1. f3 e5
2. g4 Qh5 (sic)', which should be refuted by 3. gxh5. :-)
Of course, I can tell easily that David Richerby intended to write
2 ...Qh4# rather than '2...Qh5' (sic), which is an illegal move,
but could a beginning player who's reading '2...Qh5' (sic) be
able to tell as easily?
> Obviously, nobody ever plays 1.f3 e5 2.g4 again
Obviously, someone should play 1. f3 e5 2. g4 again *if*
'some Kasparov' intends to play 2...Qh5 (sic) again. :-)
> but the database says that White scores 90%.
> Now, that's a silly example
Quite so.
> but the point still holds: it might only take one win
> to refute a whole variation
And it should take only one unchallenged illegal move
to refute any opening variation. :-)
> so it's important to check that not only are the statistics favourable
> but also, the opening is still in current use (or, at least, the last game
> wasn't a spectacular loss).
In my view, David Richerby's frequent writing of illegal moves tends
to undermine the value of his otherwise well-meaning and often
sensible comments about chess. To his credit, David Richerby
has been honest enough (and shown a good sense of humour)
in admitting that he has a problem with writing illegal moves.
I suspect that David Richerby has some difficulty in visualizing
chess squares when described in algebraic notation. Even as a
beginning player (which I suppose that I still am in some ways),
I could *instantly* visualize a square on a chessboard (and I
instantly visualized it as a dark or a light square) whenever
it's described in algebraic notation. I did *not* to have to
work out, for example, that 'e6' is a light square that's in the
fifth column and the sixth row from the left bottom corner--
I perceived 'e6' *instantly* in my 'mental chessboard'.
So I would advise David Richerby to improve his visualization,
which should help him become a stronger player as well as
reduce the number of illegal moves that he writes.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 10:19:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> For example, consider the position after 1.f3 e5 2.g4. Imagine (if
>> you can!) that White used to do really well from here, winning nine
>> games out of nine in the database. But then, some Kasparov comes
>> along and plays 2... Qh5# refuting the whole variation.
>
> Of course, I can tell easily that David Richerby intended to write
> 2 ...Qh4# rather than '2...Qh5' (sic), which is an illegal move,
> but could a beginning player who's reading '2...Qh5' (sic) be
> able to tell as easily?
Yes, Nick, they could. It's pretty obvious that I meant `Bring the
queen out and deliver checkmate', for Christ's sake.
There's probably an interesting point here about thought processes and
how you saw that `h5' was the most important part of the notation
while I was concentrating on `Q#' but frankly, I'm too sick of your
constant carping to be bothered.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Pickled Cheese (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ lump of cheese but it's preserved
in vinegar!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 23:45:36
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores
> > > below average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4
> > > is White's best chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
> > > This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
> > > When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does
> > > worse against that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated
line.
> >
> > Note that these statistics must be treated with a pinch of salt.
> > It might be that the line is now known to be unsound so, while Black
> > did well early on, White now knows how to win easily so Black doesn't
> > play the variation any more.
>
> Some people seem to believe that the 'ultimate truth' about chess
> can be determined by looking only at chess database statistics
> and chess engine evaluations.
Who have you identified as those who believe that? Are they any good at the
game?
>
> > For example, consider the position after 1.f3 e5 2.g4. Imagine (if
> > you can!) that White used to do really well from here, winning nine
> > games out of nine in the database. But then, some Kasparov comes
> > along and plays 2... Qh5# refuting the whole variation.
>
> 'Some Kasparov' would be in a losing position after '1. f3 e5
> 2. g4 Qh5 (sic)', which should be refuted by 3. gxh5. :-)
Brilliant catch! Thank you.
>
> Of course, I can tell easily that David Richerby intended to write
> 2 ...Qh4# rather than '2...Qh5' (sic), which is an illegal move,
> but could a beginning player who's reading '2...Qh5' (sic) be
> able to tell as easily?
So did we.............and I have faith, that the "beginner" would have to
break out the board to make the moves, as he/she would not be able to
visualize, and realize the mistake themselves. And........if they did try &
visualize, they would "mistakedly" put the Queen on h4...........or, scratch
their head when they realized gxh5 is possible and setup the board.
>
> > Obviously, nobody ever plays 1.f3 e5 2.g4 again
>
> Obviously, someone should play 1. f3 e5 2. g4 again *if*
> 'some Kasparov' intends to play 2...Qh5 (sic) again. :-)
>
> > but the database says that White scores 90%.
> > Now, that's a silly example
>
> Quite so.
>
> > but the point still holds: it might only take one win
> > to refute a whole variation
>
> And it should take only one unchallenged illegal move
> to refute any opening variation. :-)
>
> > so it's important to check that not only are the statistics favourable
> > but also, the opening is still in current use (or, at least, the last
game
> > wasn't a spectacular loss).
>
> In my view, David Richerby's frequent writing of illegal moves tends
> to undermine the value of his otherwise well-meaning and often
> sensible comments about chess.
How so, does an illegal move "undermine" the value of one's comments about a
line? Is it really that big of deal to those of us who don't use Winboard?
No.........not at all.
>To his credit, David Richerby
> has been honest enough (and shown a good sense of humour)
> in admitting that he has a problem with writing illegal moves.
>
> I suspect that David Richerby has some difficulty in visualizing
> chess squares when described in algebraic notation. Even as a
> beginning player (which I suppose that I still am in some ways),
> I could *instantly* visualize a square on a chessboard (and I
> instantly visualized it as a dark or a light square) whenever
> it's described in algebraic notation.
Well, you have a gift. I have been playing for 35 years and if someone asked
me if e5 was white or black...........I'd think:
e1 is black, so all odd numbered squares on the e file are black.
You know what! For 35 years, I never gave it any thought, because the board
was in front of me...........but now that you
mention it..........it's pretty simple and you're not such a brilliant mind
for knowing the color of the squares after all.
It's simple, I'm here "visualizing" without a board, and we know the queen
goes on its own color and the Queen is on the d file, so the d-file is an
even numbered file: a(1) b(2) c(3) d(4) e(5) f(6) g(7) h(8)
So, all even numbered files are the same color as your pieces:
b,d,f,h..........and so on
And, since there are 8 ranks, the color of the square will change 7 times
(an odd number) so the 8th rank will be the opposite of your 1st rank.
So, since I am White, my king is on e1, which is a dark square, as the King
sits on a colored square opposite its own color, so naturally, all odd
numbered files are black also. So now I know that the center four squares,
d4,d5 e4 & e5, are:
d4: black
d5: white
e4: white
e5:black
However, I never gave it any thought, as I always had a board in front of
me, and never played "blindfold" chess, although, I understand the GM's get
to look at an empty board on the computer that they input their moves into,
when they play blindfold chess.
So, I'm guessing you took lessons when you 1st started out, and were taught
the board to begin with, and, having a solid foundation upon which to build
your chess abilities upon, you have exceeded the goals of most of us.
Therefore, you have a problem of not looking down upon those of us who make
such simple errors, which you obviously consider "ignorant."
But that is Ok. Most of us, well, we can forgive you, as we know that most
GM's are quite Egotistical.
> I did *not* to have to
> work out, for example, that 'e6' is a light square that's in the
> fifth column and the sixth row from the left bottom corner--
> I perceived 'e6' *instantly* in my 'mental chessboard'.
Can you perceive me "instantly" thinking: "what an egotist!" ?
>
> So I would advise David Richerby to improve his visualization,
> which should help him become a stronger player as well as
> reduce the number of illegal moves that he writes.
>
> --Nick
Well Mr. DeFirmian,
I must say, you have outdone yourself in this thread. Now, why don't you
just come out and tell us what you really think of us "average common folk"
chess players, who will never be within 100 pts of Expert?
Ken
>
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 23:49:39
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"Ken Lovering" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:L8Odnd-> > So
I would advise David Richerby to improve his visualization,
> > which should help him become a stronger player as well as
> > reduce the number of illegal moves that he writes.
> >
> > --Nick
>
> Well Mr. DeFirmian,
> I must say, you have outdone yourself in this thread. Now, why don't you
> just come out and tell us what you really think of us "average common
folk"
> chess players, who will never be within 100 pts of Expert?
>
> Ken
P.S.
I'm almost positive, that a man of your intellect, had no problems in
surmising that my "Mr. DeFirmian" was in no way an expression of respect,
however, just in case, I'll clear that up here.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 09:34:28
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> You're right. I think the key though, is finding the game that happened
> around 2000 that put this line for Black out of business.
Ah, well, there I'm not much help. My chess knowledge is of a
peculiar sort: I know more about the chess of 50 or more years ago than
I do about the chess of today. I'm especially uninformed about the
current critical lines of openings I never play, and the 1999 edition
of NCO is the latest general reference I have.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 06:02:12
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> My Chessbase is 2001, however, I have downloaded all the games since then
> from theweekinchess.com.
> What I didn't do, however, was put any games into the megadatabase, any
> games where both of the players were not rated at least 2000.
> So, either a lot of U2000 players play this line as Black, since you have
> almost twice as many games, or I'm missing something.
When I add to the search criteria that one player must be Elo 2000 or
higher, I get about 400 games instead of 900. If both must be, then
it's down to about 200 games.
However, it's clear this database takes only official FIDE ratings
into account. The rating restrictions end up excluding such players as
Morphy, Euwe, von der Lasa, Bird, Gunsberg, and other greats. It also
excludes every game played before 1978, even though FIDE adopted the
Elo system in 1970.
So it seems that in this case, a rating criterion throws out more
good games than bad.
> Ken
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Ken Lovering wrote:
> > > I have a database of over 1,034,000 games, where both Black & White are
> > > rated at least 2000.
> > > There are only 143 games in which Black played 3....Be7
> >
> > ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005 has about 900 games with the Cunningham
> > Gambit, dating from 1842 to 2004. Among the more famous names playing
> > it as Black are Bird, Euwe, Alatortsev, Evans, Unzicker, Estrin,
> > O'Kelly, Korchnoi, Olafsson, Ivkov, Bolbochan, Sliwa, Najdorf,
> > Bisguier, Chiburdanidze, Sarapu, Piket, and I. Sokolov. Must not be
> > half-bad.
> >
> > > In the line Dmitri gives, there are two games where Black played
> 5....Nh5
> > > instead of Ng4
> > >
> > > Furhoff 2295 v. Fridh 2235; 1991 Black won in 44 moves.
> > >
> > > Asanov 2400 v. Malaniuk 2510; 1991 draw after 56 moves.
> > >
> > > In the line 5....Ng4, there are 46 games. Black wins 18, & draws 17.
> > > In the 143 games with the line 3........Be7.........White wins 51 Black
> wins
> > > 48 and the rest are draws.
> > >
> > > It appears to be one of the least complicated setups for Black that
> gives
> > > him an above avg score...........That is, when both players are rated at
> > > least 2000.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > Dmitri wrote:
> > > > > Hi All.
> > > > >
> > > > > What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> > > > > I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
> > > >
> > > > 3...Be7 is an old book line, known as the Cunningham Gambit, named
> > > > for the Scottish historian Alexander Cunningham (1654-1737), though
> the
> > > > line is known as far back as Greco in the early 1600s.
> > > > I know next to nothing about it, but I'm sure you can find
> something
> > > > in any decent openings encyclopedia. "Nunn's Chess Openings" gives the
> > > > main line as 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d5 7.Bb3 Ne3 8.Bxe3 fxe3 9.0-0
> Be6
> > > > 10.Qd3 c6 11.Qxe3 with slight advantage to White.
> > > >
> >
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 11:40:12
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Taylor,
You're right. I think the key though, is finding the game that happened
around 2000 that put this line for Black out of business.
Ken
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ken Lovering wrote:
> > Taylor,
> >
> > My Chessbase is 2001, however, I have downloaded all the games since
then
> > from theweekinchess.com.
> > What I didn't do, however, was put any games into the megadatabase, any
> > games where both of the players were not rated at least 2000.
> > So, either a lot of U2000 players play this line as Black, since you
have
> > almost twice as many games, or I'm missing something.
>
> When I add to the search criteria that one player must be Elo 2000 or
> higher, I get about 400 games instead of 900. If both must be, then
> it's down to about 200 games.
> However, it's clear this database takes only official FIDE ratings
> into account. The rating restrictions end up excluding such players as
> Morphy, Euwe, von der Lasa, Bird, Gunsberg, and other greats. It also
> excludes every game played before 1978, even though FIDE adopted the
> Elo system in 1970.
> So it seems that in this case, a rating criterion throws out more
> good games than bad.
>
> > Ken
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Ken Lovering wrote:
> > > > I have a database of over 1,034,000 games, where both Black & White
are
> > > > rated at least 2000.
> > > > There are only 143 games in which Black played 3....Be7
> > >
> > > ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005 has about 900 games with the Cunningham
> > > Gambit, dating from 1842 to 2004. Among the more famous names playing
> > > it as Black are Bird, Euwe, Alatortsev, Evans, Unzicker, Estrin,
> > > O'Kelly, Korchnoi, Olafsson, Ivkov, Bolbochan, Sliwa, Najdorf,
> > > Bisguier, Chiburdanidze, Sarapu, Piket, and I. Sokolov. Must not be
> > > half-bad.
> > >
> > > > In the line Dmitri gives, there are two games where Black played
> > 5....Nh5
> > > > instead of Ng4
> > > >
> > > > Furhoff 2295 v. Fridh 2235; 1991 Black won in 44 moves.
> > > >
> > > > Asanov 2400 v. Malaniuk 2510; 1991 draw after 56 moves.
> > > >
> > > > In the line 5....Ng4, there are 46 games. Black wins 18, & draws 17.
> > > > In the 143 games with the line 3........Be7.........White wins 51
Black
> > wins
> > > > 48 and the rest are draws.
> > > >
> > > > It appears to be one of the least complicated setups for Black that
> > gives
> > > > him an above avg score...........That is, when both players are
rated at
> > > > least 2000.
> > > >
> > > > Ken
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > Dmitri wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> > > > > > I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3...Be7 is an old book line, known as the Cunningham Gambit,
named
> > > > > for the Scottish historian Alexander Cunningham (1654-1737),
though
> > the
> > > > > line is known as far back as Greco in the early 1600s.
> > > > > I know next to nothing about it, but I'm sure you can find
> > something
> > > > > in any decent openings encyclopedia. "Nunn's Chess Openings" gives
the
> > > > > main line as 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d5 7.Bb3 Ne3 8.Bxe3 fxe3
9.0-0
> > Be6
> > > > > 10.Qd3 c6 11.Qxe3 with slight advantage to White.
> > > > >
> > >
>
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 14:44:35
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> However, it's clear this database takes only official FIDE ratings
> into account. The rating restrictions end up excluding such players as
> Morphy, Euwe, von der Lasa, Bird, Gunsberg, and other greats. It also
> excludes every game played before 1978, even though FIDE adopted the
> Elo system in 1970.
It might be best to do two searches: one for 2000+ games since 1978
and one for all games before 1978. Before 1978 (one could probably
even say 1990) I doubt anyone bothered to record the games of sub-2000
players and put them in databases. The obvious exception to this
would be the various master vs patzer games (simuls and whatnot) but I
imagine they'd have a comparatively small effect on such searches.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Edible Surprise Clock (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a clock but not like you'd expect and
you can eat it!
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 05:37:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering wrote:
> I have a database of over 1,034,000 games, where both Black & White are
> rated at least 2000.
> There are only 143 games in which Black played 3....Be7
ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005 has about 900 games with the Cunningham
Gambit, dating from 1842 to 2004. Among the more famous names playing
it as Black are Bird, Euwe, Alatortsev, Evans, Unzicker, Estrin,
O'Kelly, Korchnoi, Olafsson, Ivkov, Bolbochan, Sliwa, Najdorf,
Bisguier, Chiburdanidze, Sarapu, Piket, and I. Sokolov. Must not be
half-bad.
> In the line Dmitri gives, there are two games where Black played 5....Nh5
> instead of Ng4
>
> Furhoff 2295 v. Fridh 2235; 1991 Black won in 44 moves.
>
> Asanov 2400 v. Malaniuk 2510; 1991 draw after 56 moves.
>
> In the line 5....Ng4, there are 46 games. Black wins 18, & draws 17.
> In the 143 games with the line 3........Be7.........White wins 51 Black wins
> 48 and the rest are draws.
>
> It appears to be one of the least complicated setups for Black that gives
> him an above avg score...........That is, when both players are rated at
> least 2000.
>
> Ken
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Dmitri wrote:
> > > Hi All.
> > >
> > > What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> > > I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
> >
> > 3...Be7 is an old book line, known as the Cunningham Gambit, named
> > for the Scottish historian Alexander Cunningham (1654-1737), though the
> > line is known as far back as Greco in the early 1600s.
> > I know next to nothing about it, but I'm sure you can find something
> > in any decent openings encyclopedia. "Nunn's Chess Openings" gives the
> > main line as 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d5 7.Bb3 Ne3 8.Bxe3 fxe3 9.0-0 Be6
> > 10.Qd3 c6 11.Qxe3 with slight advantage to White.
> >
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 12:25:07
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Taylor,
My Chessbase is 2001, however, I have downloaded all the games since then
from theweekinchess.com.
What I didn't do, however, was put any games into the megadatabase, any
games where both of the players were not rated at least 2000.
So, either a lot of U2000 players play this line as Black, since you have
almost twice as many games, or I'm missing something.
Ken
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ken Lovering wrote:
> > I have a database of over 1,034,000 games, where both Black & White are
> > rated at least 2000.
> > There are only 143 games in which Black played 3....Be7
>
> ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005 has about 900 games with the Cunningham
> Gambit, dating from 1842 to 2004. Among the more famous names playing
> it as Black are Bird, Euwe, Alatortsev, Evans, Unzicker, Estrin,
> O'Kelly, Korchnoi, Olafsson, Ivkov, Bolbochan, Sliwa, Najdorf,
> Bisguier, Chiburdanidze, Sarapu, Piket, and I. Sokolov. Must not be
> half-bad.
>
> > In the line Dmitri gives, there are two games where Black played
5....Nh5
> > instead of Ng4
> >
> > Furhoff 2295 v. Fridh 2235; 1991 Black won in 44 moves.
> >
> > Asanov 2400 v. Malaniuk 2510; 1991 draw after 56 moves.
> >
> > In the line 5....Ng4, there are 46 games. Black wins 18, & draws 17.
> > In the 143 games with the line 3........Be7.........White wins 51 Black
wins
> > 48 and the rest are draws.
> >
> > It appears to be one of the least complicated setups for Black that
gives
> > him an above avg score...........That is, when both players are rated at
> > least 2000.
> >
> > Ken
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Dmitri wrote:
> > > > Hi All.
> > > >
> > > > What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> > > > I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
> > >
> > > 3...Be7 is an old book line, known as the Cunningham Gambit, named
> > > for the Scottish historian Alexander Cunningham (1654-1737), though
the
> > > line is known as far back as Greco in the early 1600s.
> > > I know next to nothing about it, but I'm sure you can find
something
> > > in any decent openings encyclopedia. "Nunn's Chess Openings" gives the
> > > main line as 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d5 7.Bb3 Ne3 8.Bxe3 fxe3 9.0-0
Be6
> > > 10.Qd3 c6 11.Qxe3 with slight advantage to White.
> > >
>
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 10:41:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering <[email protected] > wrote:
> My Chessbase is 2001, however, I have downloaded all the games since
> then from theweekinchess.com.
>
> What I didn't do, however, was put any games into the megadatabase,
> any games where both of the players were not rated at least 2000.
> So, either a lot of U2000 players play this line as Black, since you
> have almost twice as many games, or I'm missing something.
You seem to be assuming that every game played between two 2000+
players appears in TWIC. This seems unlikely, to me.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Cyber-Shack (TM): it's like a house
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ in the woods that exists only in
your computer!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 11:38:31
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Dave,
They do not appear in the magazine, however, all tournaments send in their
results and twic puts them into a weekly file. There weekly file avgs abut
2k games per week.
It appears almost all of the FIDE tournaments are in those files.
Ken
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:aOx*[email protected]...
> Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My Chessbase is 2001, however, I have downloaded all the games since
> > then from theweekinchess.com.
> >
> > What I didn't do, however, was put any games into the megadatabase,
> > any games where both of the players were not rated at least 2000.
> > So, either a lot of U2000 players play this line as Black, since you
> > have almost twice as many games, or I'm missing something.
>
> You seem to be assuming that every game played between two 2000+
> players appears in TWIC. This seems unlikely, to me.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Cyber-Shack (TM): it's like a
house
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ in the woods that exists only
in
> your computer!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 22:26:17
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
En/na Ken Lovering ha escrit:
> Dave,
>
> They do not appear in the magazine, however, all tournaments send in their
> results and twic puts them into a weekly file. There weekly file avgs abut
> 2k games per week.
> It appears almost all of the FIDE tournaments are in those files.
>
> Ken
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:aOx*[email protected]...
>
>>Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>(..)
>>You seem to be assuming that every game played between two 2000+
>>players appears in TWIC. This seems unlikely, to me.
>>
>>Dave.
Hello,
That's easy to know, ... let consider any player, then we can find how
many games were FIDE rated in past years and we can search how many
games are in TWIC database.
- I think almost all closed (round robin) tournaments with all players
rated +2500 are published in TWIC.
- For open tournaments usually only 10 or 20 first games are published
(there are someones where all games are published but there are too
someones with no games published)
- There are some local team events not published.
- In some special tournaments technical problems had produced situations
like last Spanish-team tournament B league: There were some 2600 players
playing and the most interesting 24 games of each round were lost (a
computer had them from live games but a technical problem ...) and were
only published the rest of games (the less interesting with lower rated
players), just curious!
..............
Some examples:
- Me: Torrecillas tinez, Antonio (FIDE 2374 in last list):
http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=2200392&moder=4
Games computed for FIDE in 2005 year: 10
Games published by TWIC: maybe 1 (I'm not sure because I have all my
games in my database, I think only a single game was published in TWIC)
Games computed by FIDE in 2004 year: 9
Games published by TWIC: maybe 0 (..)
- An IM friend Jerez Perez,Alfonso (FIDE around 2400)
http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=2204100&moder=4
Games computed by FIDE in 2005 year: 80
Games published in TWIC: around 20 (anyone can confirm that?)
Games computed by FIDE in 2004 year: 80
Games published in TWIC: around 30 (anyone can confirm that?)
And more, I suppose Spanish tournaments have more published games than
average. That can mean that only a little part of rated +2300 FIDE games
were in TWIC.
AT
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 10:02:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> En/na Ken Lovering ha escrit:
>> They do not appear in the magazine, however, all tournaments send
>> in their results and twic puts them into a weekly file. There
>> weekly file avgs abut 2k games per week.
>>
>> It appears almost all of the FIDE tournaments are in those files.
>
> That's easy to know, ... let consider any player, then we can find how
> many games were FIDE rated in past years and we can search how many
> games are in TWIC database. [...]
I think your examples show quite clearly that nothing like all games
played between 2000+ players end up in TWIC.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Happy Chainsaw (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ lethal weapon that makes your troubles
melt away!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 13:49:35
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:rum*[email protected]...
> I think your examples show quite clearly that nothing like all games
> played between 2000+ players end up in TWIC.
>
>
> Dave.
Dave,
I agree. They don't end up in TWIC, however, they are, however, SUPPOSE to
end up in a zip file every week that you can download. Your comments got me
to thinking, and I inspected the file I downloaded yesterday. So of them,
maybe 1/2 dozen, or more, have one move, such as 1.d4, and then results 1-0.
Others have 5 moves and then 1-0 with an even position on the board. Others
have 6-10 moves, with a draw as the result, yet no reason for same, unless
the players didn't want to play.
Before I read your comments, I had 1,035,365 games played since 1971, where
BOTH players are rated at least 2000. I am now having to purge that
database, using only the games that went at least 18 moves before a draw,
and any games with at least 5 moves, in which there was a decisive decision.
Why only 5 moves? Because I found this game, played between 2 players rated
over 2000:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. fxe5 Qh4+ 4. g3 Qxe4+ 5. Kf2 Bc5+ and White resigns.
I am willing to bet that White probably threw this game, in order to get his
rating U2000 for the World Open, so he could compete for the U2000 prize $$,
as I am only an average player and would not play this badly in this opening
with the White pieces. There are, however, numerous other games, with a
decisive decision within 15 moves, that have some good traps. This being one
of them, if you're playing blitz against a 1400 player, or, a 2000 player
trying to dump some points :)
Ken
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 11:09:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think your examples show quite clearly that nothing like all games
>> played between 2000+ players end up in TWIC.
>
> I agree. They don't end up in TWIC, however, they are, however,
> SUPPOSE to end up in a zip file every week that you can download.
Sorry, I was treating the TWIC newsletter and the weekly zip file as
the same thing. I don't think anything like all the games end up in
the zip file, let alone the newsletter.
> Why only 5 moves? Because I found this game, played between 2
> players rated over 2000:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. fxe5 Qh4+ 4. g3 Qxe4+ 5. Kf2 Bc5+ and White
> resigns.
>
> I am willing to bet that White probably threw this game, in order to
> get his rating U2000 for the World Open, so he could compete for the
> U2000 prize $$, as I am only an average player and would not play
> this badly in this opening with the White pieces.
It could also have been a moment of complete brain-fade on White's
third move. 5... Bc5+ is pretty classy, though: I've not seen the
Qh5+ g3 Qxe4+ trick since I was about ten years old and the automatic
followup then was Qxh1.
> There are, however, numerous other games, with a decisive decision
> within 15 moves, that have some good traps.
How many have indecisive decisions? :-P
Dave.
--
David Richerby Dangerous Cheese Whisky (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a single-malt whisky that's made
of cheese but it could explode at
any minute!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2006 15:07:10
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:Ez*[email protected]...
>
> How many have indecisive decisions? :-P
I deleted all of the games where a draw was obtained within 19 moves. It was
about 11% of my database, reducing the number of games where players were
both rated over 2000, from 1.035M to 922,000.
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 03:06:51
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores below
average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4 is White's best
chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does worse against
that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated line.
When using my complete database, which contains over 1.8 million games,
White scores averagely when Black accepts the gambit and Black scores
averagely when he plays 3....g5.
When Black plays 3....Be7, however, he scores above average.
There are 440 games where Black plays 3....Be7, and Black scores 49%,
compared to 48% playing 3....g5.
White's best response to 3....Be7 is 4.d4, where White scores 61%, however,
Black reduces that to 50% by playing either 4....d5 or 4...g5.
4....Bh4+ scores 46% for Black. 5.Ke2 d6 6.Bxf4 and it's 50/50.
"Dmitri" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi All.
>
> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
>
> --
> D.P.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 10:44:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering <[email protected] > wrote:
> When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores
> below average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4 is
> White's best chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
> This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
> When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does worse
> against that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated line.
Note that these statistics must be treated with a pinch of salt. It
might be that the line is now known to be unsound so, while Black did
well early on, White now knows how to win easily so Black doesn't
play the variation any more.
For example, consider the position after 1.f3 e5 2.g4. Imagine (if
you can!) that White used to do really well from here, winning nine
games out of nine in the database. But then, some Kasparov comes
along and plays 2... Qh5# refuting the whole variation. Obviously,
nobody ever plays 1.f3 e5 2.g4 again but the database says that White
scores 90%. Now, that's a silly example but the point still holds: it
might only take one win to refute a whole variation so it's important
to check that not only are the statistics favourable but also, the
opening is still in current use (or, at least, the last game wasn't a
spectacular loss).
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poetic Old-Fashioned Puzzle (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an intriguing conundrum but
it's perfect for your grandparents
and in verse!
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 10:08:15
From: James
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
You'll find here:
http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/c35.html
an opening analysis of the cunningham defense based on chesslib.no games
database.
Joseph Gallagher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gallagher
is a specialist of the king gambit, and got excellent results against
players using the Cunningham defense. He played it 19 times from 1985 to
2001 and scored 68%.
k Hebden (another british GM) played it 7 times as black from 1985 to
2001, with a record of +4=3-0
James
Ken Lovering wrote :
> When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores below
> average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4 is White's best
> chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
> This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
> When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does worse against
> that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated line.
>
> When using my complete database, which contains over 1.8 million games,
> White scores averagely when Black accepts the gambit and Black scores
> averagely when he plays 3....g5.
> When Black plays 3....Be7, however, he scores above average.
> There are 440 games where Black plays 3....Be7, and Black scores 49%,
> compared to 48% playing 3....g5.
>
> White's best response to 3....Be7 is 4.d4, where White scores 61%, however,
> Black reduces that to 50% by playing either 4....d5 or 4...g5.
> 4....Bh4+ scores 46% for Black. 5.Ke2 d6 6.Bxf4 and it's 50/50.
>
> "Dmitri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hi All.
>>
>> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
>> I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
>>
>> --
>> D.P.
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 11:35:57
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
I went to chesslib.no and nowhere could I find where you can do a search on
openings.
I also found that the articles were no more than a couple of paragraphs and
some the links were totally empty.
Of course, I only found this out, after trying to register.
After giving my e-mail address and info, it said I was to receive an e-mail
from them.
I never received it.
Then it says if you don't receive it, it is because I have a block on
anonymous e-mails.........I don't. I requested they send me another e-mail.
I didn't get it.
So I set up an e-mail address with Yahoo and registered again with
Chesslib.............no e-mail from them again.
I am, however, receiving junk e-mails now............just got one from
somebody concerning swiss watches.
That's an anonymous e-mail, coming thru without any problems........I had
not had a junk e-mail since setting up my e-mail account. Sign up with
Chesslib and .....................here they come.
"James" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You'll find here:
> http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/c35.html
> an opening analysis of the cunningham defense based on chesslib.no games
> database.
>
> Joseph Gallagher
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gallagher
> is a specialist of the king gambit, and got excellent results against
> players using the Cunningham defense. He played it 19 times from 1985 to
> 2001 and scored 68%.
> k Hebden (another british GM) played it 7 times as black from 1985 to
> 2001, with a record of +4=3-0
>
> James
>
>
> Ken Lovering wrote :
> > When pertaining to players who are rated at least 2000, White scores
below
> > average (49%) playing the King's Gambit, however, 4.Bc4 is White's best
> > chance against 3...Be7, but still below average.
> > This is referring to when the gambit is accepted.
> > When Black plays 3....g5, Black scores 51%, meaning White does worse
against
> > that than 3...Be7, however, Be7 is a less complicated line.
> >
> > When using my complete database, which contains over 1.8 million games,
> > White scores averagely when Black accepts the gambit and Black scores
> > averagely when he plays 3....g5.
> > When Black plays 3....Be7, however, he scores above average.
> > There are 440 games where Black plays 3....Be7, and Black scores 49%,
> > compared to 48% playing 3....g5.
> >
> > White's best response to 3....Be7 is 4.d4, where White scores 61%,
however,
> > Black reduces that to 50% by playing either 4....d5 or 4...g5.
> > 4....Bh4+ scores 46% for Black. 5.Ke2 d6 6.Bxf4 and it's 50/50.
> >
> > "Dmitri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Hi All.
> >>
> >> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> >> I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
> >>
> >> --
> >> D.P.
> >
> >
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 10:09:28
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Ken Lovering <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am, however, receiving junk e-mails now............just got one
> from somebody concerning swiss watches.
>
> That's an anonymous e-mail, coming thru without any problems...... I
> had not had a junk e-mail since setting up my e-mail account. Sign
> up with Chesslib and .....................here they come.
Do you mean you got junk mail to your new Yahoo! account? There are
so many dictionary attacks on Yahoo! (people sending mail to every
conceivable address in the hope that some will get through) that even
unpublished Yahoo! addresses receive spam. Hotmail is even worse.
If you mean that you got spam to [email protected] that could
just be a coincidence. I see from groups.google.com that you've been
using that address on USENET for some time now so, to be honest, it
would be surprising if you'd not received spam to that address before.
If you mean some other address, then that does start to look suspect,
though it could, again, be a coincidence. The only way to be sure is
to use addresses tailored to each site.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Enormous Pointy-Haired Umbrella
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like an umbrella that's
completely clueless but it's huge!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 13:50:42
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Dave,
Guess what I got in my e-mail box today! My activation code for chesslib.no
:)
Ken
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:iir*[email protected]...
> Ken Lovering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I am, however, receiving junk e-mails now............just got one
> > from somebody concerning swiss watches.
> >
> > That's an anonymous e-mail, coming thru without any problems...... I
> > had not had a junk e-mail since setting up my e-mail account. Sign
> > up with Chesslib and .....................here they come.
>
> Do you mean you got junk mail to your new Yahoo! account? There are
> so many dictionary attacks on Yahoo! (people sending mail to every
> conceivable address in the hope that some will get through) that even
> unpublished Yahoo! addresses receive spam. Hotmail is even worse.
>
> If you mean that you got spam to [email protected] that could
> just be a coincidence. I see from groups.google.com that you've been
> using that address on USENET for some time now so, to be honest, it
> would be surprising if you'd not received spam to that address before.
>
> If you mean some other address, then that does start to look suspect,
> though it could, again, be a coincidence. The only way to be sure is
> to use addresses tailored to each site.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Enormous Pointy-Haired
Umbrella
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like an umbrella
that's
> completely clueless but it's
huge!
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2006 00:40:58
From: James
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
I have strictly no special interest in chesslib.no, but my experience
with their site was quite good.
However, the only thing I did was to download their huge database. For
all opening analysis, I use this database and scid, a free program,
unfortunately not maintained any more, but extremely useful. It is a
kind of free chessbase (certainly not as powerful as chessbase, but it
won't cost you anything).
Regarding problems with email address, I had a bad experience when
buying Fruit 2.2.1 online. My email was greylisted and rejected, while
my email address is perfectly correct. I was definitely not happy with
that, because I had already paid, and it took me more than a week and a
lot of different tries from different addresses to get a mail to Fruit
distributor for receiving my activation key.
Greylisting might be a good thing to prevent spamming, but it is still
in an experimental stage...
Ken Lovering wrote :
> I went to chesslib.no and nowhere could I find where you can do a search on
> openings.
> I also found that the articles were no more than a couple of paragraphs and
> some the links were totally empty.
> Of course, I only found this out, after trying to register.
> After giving my e-mail address and info, it said I was to receive an e-mail
> from them.
> I never received it.
> Then it says if you don't receive it, it is because I have a block on
> anonymous e-mails.........I don't. I requested they send me another e-mail.
> I didn't get it.
> So I set up an e-mail address with Yahoo and registered again with
> Chesslib.............no e-mail from them again.
>
> I am, however, receiving junk e-mails now............just got one from
> somebody concerning swiss watches.
>
> That's an anonymous e-mail, coming thru without any problems........I had
> not had a junk e-mail since setting up my e-mail account. Sign up with
> Chesslib and .....................here they come.
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 10:08:31
From:
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Dmitri wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
3...Be7 is an old book line, known as the Cunningham Gambit, named
for the Scottish historian Alexander Cunningham (1654-1737), though the
line is known as far back as Greco in the early 1600s.
I know next to nothing about it, but I'm sure you can find something
in any decent openings encyclopedia. "Nunn's Chess Openings" gives the
main line as 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d5 7.Bb3 Ne3 8.Bxe3 fxe3 9.0-0 Be6
10.Qd3 c6 11.Qxe3 with slight advantage to White.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2006 02:30:46
From: Ken Lovering
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
I have a database of over 1,034,000 games, where both Black & White are
rated at least 2000.
There are only 143 games in which Black played 3....Be7
In the line Dmitri gives, there are two games where Black played 5....Nh5
instead of Ng4
Furhoff 2295 v. Fridh 2235; 1991 Black won in 44 moves.
Asanov 2400 v. Malaniuk 2510; 1991 draw after 56 moves.
In the line 5....Ng4, there are 46 games. Black wins 18, & draws 17.
In the 143 games with the line 3........Be7.........White wins 51 Black wins
48 and the rest are draws.
It appears to be one of the least complicated setups for Black that gives
him an above avg score...........That is, when both players are rated at
least 2000.
Ken
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dmitri wrote:
> > Hi All.
> >
> > What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> > I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
>
> 3...Be7 is an old book line, known as the Cunningham Gambit, named
> for the Scottish historian Alexander Cunningham (1654-1737), though the
> line is known as far back as Greco in the early 1600s.
> I know next to nothing about it, but I'm sure you can find something
> in any decent openings encyclopedia. "Nunn's Chess Openings" gives the
> main line as 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.d4 d5 7.Bb3 Ne3 8.Bxe3 fxe3 9.0-0 Be6
> 10.Qd3 c6 11.Qxe3 with slight advantage to White.
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 09:19:43
From:
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
According to Wiki, that is the Cuttingham defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_gambit
If you do a websearch, it looks like chesscafe has some text about
Cuttingham. Otherwise, you will have to find a book on the Kings
Gambit.
Gambits are fun. My favorite was the Evans Gambit. But I only played
them against people that were lower rated than I was.
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 12:29:41
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Dmitri wrote:
> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
What does Qe2 accomplish? The King's Gambit is all about attacking f7.
Bc4 is much more logical. Besides, the King's Gambit is a pretty
complicated theory heavy opening. If you want to play this you should
study some lines.
Claus-Juergen
|
| |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 11:14:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
Dmitri <[email protected] > wrote:
> What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
> I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
Qe2 looks dodgy but not disastrous: don't fall into the trap of
believing that this one poor move lost you the game or that Black's
3... Be7 won it.
I would guess that you're playing this opening (the king's gambit)
without knowing what it's supposed to achieve. The idea is that White
gives up his f-pawn in order to make an attack down the f-file at
Black's king. So, Qe2 looks poor for two reasons: it doesn't help
with the opening's plan and it blocks in your king's bishop. The
setup you should be aiming for is something like Bc4 (attacking f7),
O-O (making the king safer and putting the rook on the f-file) and
d3/d4 with a discovered attack on Black's pawn. shal your forces
and attack Black's king!
Now, bearing in mind the general ideas of this opening, play against
3... Be7 shouldn't be much different than play against any other
plausible move by Black. I think the point of Be7 is that it stops
you playing Ng5 later on.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Smokes (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pack of cigarettes but it's perfect
for your grandparents!
|
| | |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 08:50:35
From: Dmitri
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Dmitri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What would be a proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
>>I played Qe2 with disastrous consequences.
>
>
> Qe2 looks dodgy but not disastrous: don't fall into the trap of
> believing that this one poor move lost you the game or that Black's
> 3... Be7 won it.
That is true now that I look at it, but at that point during a game
I panicked and things went downhill after that.
> I would guess that you're playing this opening (the king's gambit)
> without knowing what it's supposed to achieve. The idea is that White
> gives up his f-pawn in order to make an attack down the f-file at
> Black's king. So, Qe2 looks poor for two reasons: it doesn't help
> with the opening's plan and it blocks in your king's bishop. The
> setup you should be aiming for is something like Bc4 (attacking f7),
> O-O (making the king safer and putting the rook on the f-file) and
> d3/d4 with a discovered attack on Black's pawn. shal your forces
> and attack Black's king!
I understand generic idea of attacking on the f-file. For which normally
I would need to do O-O. But I understood that Be7 move is with intent to
play Bh4+ ( which is what he played ), which would eventually lead to me
moving my king, which in turn would block other figures and prevent O-O.
So how do you counter Bh4+ threat hopefully without dismantling pawns on
the king side? One idea would be to play h4 although it does dismantle
pawns on king side and makes O-O somewhat questionable.
>
> Now, bearing in mind the general ideas of this opening, play against
> 3... Be7 shouldn't be much different than play against any other
> plausible move by Black. I think the point of Be7 is that it stops
> you playing Ng5 later on.
What about Bh4+?
--
Dmitri
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2006 16:37:18
From: Ron
Subject: Re: proper replay on 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7
|
In article <[email protected] >, Dmitri <[email protected]>
wrote:
> What about Bh4+?
If you look at a lot of King's Gambit games, you'll notice that these
checks are a lot less of a problem than you'd think. Don't panic.
-Ron
|
|
