Opening Range, 1936 and Today

Date: 29 Aug 2008 11:08:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

**The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current tournament
range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose this
could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the list
I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred - and
then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI

Date: 02 Sep 2008 10:23:43
From:
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

On Aug 29, 11:08=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current tournamen=
t
> range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
> 'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose t=
his
> could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the l=
ist
> I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred - an=
d
> then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI

Pages 285-287 of the tournament book give the index of openings for
Nottingham 1936. Phil is on record as preferring hearsay to books, but
he may find the following summary useful:

Queens Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6): 20 games
Queens Gambit Declined, Slav Defense (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6): 14 games
Queens Gambit Accepted (1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4): 5 games
Other double-QP (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3): 4 games
Queen's Indian Defense: 8 games
King's Indian Defense: 3 games
Gruenfeld Defense: 2 games
Nimzo-Indian Defense: 5 games
Other 1.d4 Nf6: 3 games
Dutch Defense: 5 games
English 1.c4 e5: 8 games
Sicilian: 6 games
French Defense: 5 games
R=E9ti System: 3 games
Ruy Lopez: 2 games
Alekhine's Defense: 2 games
Bird's Opening: 4 games
Four Knights Game: 2 games

One each of Caro-Kann D, Hungarian D, Tchigorin's D, Philidor's
D.

As for comparing this with a tournament today, I can't help. The
latest tournament book I have is for 's-Hertogenbosch 1999, a
relatively minor event, and it does not seem to have an openings
index, plus it's mostly in Dutch. I have a CD of "Greatest Tournaments
1851-1986," but it seems to index openings only for the whole disc,
not individual events.
So about the latest I can give is Santa Monica 1966, an event of
roughly comparable stature to Nottingham 1936, what with Spassky,
Petrosian, Fischer, Larsen, Portisch, Reshevsky et al playing. The
openings there:

Benoni D: 2 games
Caro-Kann: 1
Dutch: 1
English: 2
Four Knights: 2
Gruenfeld: 2
KIA: 2
KID: 19
Nimzo-Indian: 13
Pirc: 3
QGA: 5
QGD: 4
QGD Slav: 2
QGD Tarrasch: 1
QID: 6
R=E9ti: 1
Ruy Lopez: 12
Sicilian: 12
Vienna: 1

In terms of number of named variations, the two indexes are
virtually equal, 18 for 1936, 19 for 1966. So not much case for more
variety, in that sense. One can certainly see that fashions changed,
though. For example 1936 saw 43 double QP openings vs. only 12 for
1966, but only 3 KIDs vs. 19 for 1966.
I wish I had some comparable 21st century tournament to compare.
Perhaps another reader can help.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 10:01:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

Chess One wrote:

> > If you want to engage Rybka in an experiment, you might try Taimanov -
> > Fischer, Game 3: let it percolate from Qb3, and ask it about Qh3.

> I went to the Web site chessgames.com
> and eventually located the game you like
> to /obsess/ over-- but not before replaying
> some other games between these two,
> and I must say that it seems to me the
> young Mr. Taimanov was no "killer", like
> say, Gary Kasparov! His play was at
> times a bit daft, though no doubt he did
> manage to play better in /getting to/ the
> semi-finals, just against very different
> opponents.

> **Not a fireworks kinda guy. Of his own play he said, 'harmonious
> development'. I asked him what musical composer his own chess resembled in
> style, and the answer came: Chopin.
>
> **Then I asked about Fischer, and the answer was: Liszt!

I know not what music others may play, bot
as for me, give me... The Best of Bread, or
maybe The Eagles' Greatest Hits.

> I will enter the entire game for analysis,
> but if you cannot break away from the
> /obsession/ over a single position, we can
> discuss it in detail. Of course, computers
> are relative patzers, so we must take their
> evaluations with a pound of salt--
> especially Rybka's, as was pointed out in
> the most recent issue of Chess Lies by
> Mr. Shabalov.

> **If you want to do this, I can maybe engage Dr Alberts from Belgium to do
> the same. Maybe you can get into his new MAMS title? I don't want to say too
> much in advance, but I do anticipate that a "MAMS" intercession or two will
> occur! You know what that is? You force a move onto the computer
> disregarding its own evaluation. The interesting thing will be where to do
> that. I think super-computers have failed to resol;ve this particular
> position on their own.

What rot. Even my inferior brand of Rybka
had little trouble resolving this position, on
my hopelessly outdated machine (a 386/40
running DOS 3.0 at sub-mach speed, with a
state-of-the-art double-density, double-sided
floppy disk drive, two French hens and a
partridge in a pear tree).
To sum up: White's attack is vacuous--
though I must admit, it makes for a good
story.

> Convekta will also be interested in your result. ;)

Those guys? They refused to send me a
free version of Rybka 4.0 beta, claiming that
no such thing exists yet. Obviously, they're
hiding something.

> I have Taimanov's own analysis from the book [which is in Russian only]

Naturally. That way you can tell us it says
whatever you want it to say, and no one will
be the wiser.

> as well as the extended analysis of his Lessons Learned
> contribution for Chessville. But we can wait on those.

While I don't want to totally dismiss (yes
I do!) the chess analysis of a famous GM,
the fact remains that Rybka gives such
mere humans odds of Knight-and-move
(or some such odds) these days. So then,
who cares what they may have written as
to the correctness of moves or about their
evaluations of positions, except insofar as
it tells us about:

a) the state of openings theory at the time
the games were played;

and

b) what they were thinking, before, during
and even after the games.

Now, don't get me wrong: computers do
have serious weaknesses, but by and
large, human weaknesses utterly swamp
the weaknesses of the best programs of
today-- including *free* versions of the top
chess engines. On top of this superiority
in raw strength, there is also a huge
difference in objectivity, and this is key.

Taken together, the purely objective
analysis of the world's top chess engines
and anecdotal commentary by lowly
humans make up a fascinating story,
containing the various elements of reality.

-- help bot

Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:03:27
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

I note that the tournament book "Das Grosse Internationale
Schachmeisterturnier zu Kemeri in Lettland 1937" has a section called
"Theoretische Neuerungen."

This could perhaps be useful for Phil in his "research."

Date: 31 Aug 2008 06:42:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

On Aug 31, 8:44=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> If you want to engage Rybka in an experiment, you might try Taimanov -
> Fischer, Game 3: let it percolate from Qb3, and ask it about Qh3.
>
> Taimanov said no one solved it for 25 years, no super computer, and not
> Kasparov.
> If you don't have the game score I'll dig it up and post it.
>
> When we were going over that game I asked him if Fischer told him what wa=
s
> going on in his mind during that hour.

I sometimes like to /fixate/ on some such
position in which I stood better or had a
draw, but ended up eventually losing. The
key lies in recognizing the psychology; in
seeing that there was a whole game, not
just the one position where one was for
an instant "at maximum altitude". (In fact,
I believe there were many such games--
almost all of them won by Mr. Fischer!)

One example was a fairly recent game
in which I had some pretend-grandmaster
in a bit of a fix-- before ultimately tripping
and falling down six flights of slippery
steel stairs to my doom! The techno-
kids had this fellow's published games
on their computer, and I discovered soon
afterward that he was in the habit of
sleazing his way out of bad positions,
even against the world's top-10!
In any case, he "had me" on the clock
all the while I was "outplaying" him; I
knew this and was hardly disappointed
by the "swindle", except at how /easy/ I
made it for him. : >D

I went to the Web site chessgames.com
and eventually located the game you like
to /obsess/ over-- but not before replaying
some other games between these two,
and I must say that it seems to me the
young Mr. Taimanov was no "killer", like
say, Gary Kasparov! His play was at
times a bit daft, though no doubt he did
manage to play better in /getting to/ the
semi-finals, just against very different
opponents.

I will enter the entire game for analysis,
but if you cannot break away from the
/obsession/ over a single position, we can
discuss it in detail. Of course, computers
are relative patzers, so we must take their
evaluations with a pound of salt--
especially Rybka's, as was pointed out in
the most recent issue of Chess Lies by
Mr. Shabalov.

Computers are so weak in fact that I am
afraid I will have to allow Rybka
considerable thinking time; unlike me, she
cannot intuitively grasp the obvious (as
described above), the daftness if you will,
which struck me from replaying a game
where BF had White and just took pawn
after pawn away from MT, effortlessly, not
unlike many of my games with GetClub.

-- help bot

Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:16:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:70b1bcbe-5ebe-4771-8443-7f5f8e531b23@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 31, 8:44 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> If you want to engage Rybka in an experiment, you might try Taimanov -
> Fischer, Game 3: let it percolate from Qb3, and ask it about Qh3.

<history of the wild west snipped >

I went to the Web site chessgames.com
and eventually located the game you like
to /obsess/ over-- but not before replaying
some other games between these two,
and I must say that it seems to me the
young Mr. Taimanov was no "killer", like
say, Gary Kasparov! His play was at
times a bit daft, though no doubt he did
manage to play better in /getting to/ the
semi-finals, just against very different
opponents.

**Not a fireworks kinda guy. Of his own play he said, 'harmonious
development'. I asked him what musical composer his own chess resembled in
style, and the answer came: Chopin.

**Then I asked about Fischer, and the answer was: Liszt!

I will enter the entire game for analysis,
but if you cannot break away from the
/obsession/ over a single position, we can
discuss it in detail. Of course, computers
are relative patzers, so we must take their
evaluations with a pound of salt--
especially Rybka's, as was pointed out in
the most recent issue of Chess Lies by
Mr. Shabalov.

**If you want to do this, I can maybe engage Dr Alberts from Belgium to do
the same. Maybe you can get into his new MAMS title? I don't want to say too
much in advance, but I do anticipate that a "MAMS" intercession or two will
occur! You know what that is? You force a move onto the computer
disregarding its own evaluation. The interesting thing will be where to do
that. I think super-computers have failed to resol;ve this particular
position on their own. Convekta will also be interested in your result. ;)

I have Taimanov's own analysis from the book [which is in Russian only] - as
well as the extended analysis of his Lessons Learned
contribution for Chessville. But we can wait on those.

Phil Innes

Computers are so weak in fact that I am
afraid I will have to allow Rybka
considerable thinking time; unlike me, she
cannot intuitively grasp the obvious (as
described above), the daftness if you will,
which struck me from replaying a game
where BF had White and just took pawn
after pawn away from MT, effortlessly, not
unlike many of my games with GetClub.

-- help bot

Date: 29 Aug 2008 23:13:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

SBD wrote:

> The trouble is, Phil has proceeded like the grad student without a
> clue, just stabbing at the dark with questions before doing much
> research of his own. Maybe he could do a little work first? As you
> note, even his definitions are fuzzy, they need to be worked out first.

Dr. IMnes -- noted scholar of the five main
Andean languages, along with innumerable
other languages -- is hardly akin to a "grad
student". If his definitions seem fuzzy, it is
only because his level of understanding is
deeper-- so deep in fact that one may
require hip-boots to even wade near it!

Personally, I find the ongoing obsession
with openings theory to be symptomatic of
why humans are such terrible chess
players; they seem to need a crutch-- a
book, say, to tell them exactly what
moves to play. Oddly enough, there are
books which instruct on exactly how to
play simple endgames, but nobody is
much interested in these, relative to the
rote play of the chess openings.

The idea of trying to differentiate in the
variety, range, or other characteristics
from the years 1924 to 1936 seems odd;
why not first attempt to get a very broad
perspective on how things have changed
over the last two centuries? Then, in
that broader context, worry over such a
tiny range of years as this. Indeed, as
someone who has been out of active
play for a long time, it could be highly
illuminating to learn what exactly is the
state of things today (as opposed to
the era of Cold War propaganda, which
has so dominated many discussions
here involving the Evans ratpack).

After years of being away from chess,
I have yet to attend even one major
event, so I only know what I might see
in Chess Lies magazine-- a rag which is
notorious for being far, far removed from
reality.

-- help bot

Date: 01 Sep 2008 10:12:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> SBD wrote:
>
>> The trouble is, Phil has proceeded like the grad student without a
>> clue, just stabbing at the dark with questions before doing much
>> research of his own. Maybe he could do a little work first? As you
>> note, even his definitions are fuzzy, they need to be worked out first.
>
>
> Dr. IMnes -- noted scholar of the five main
> Andean languages, along with innumerable
> other languages --

Swabische! Please be specific. DR RD told we once that he lived in Germany
but I misspell Swabische [which is very funny] and he also doubted how
obscure it was. I was somewhat reassured recently when a 'grad' student from
Stuttgart told me he couldn't understand his Swabian friend, so they
resorted to speaking English.

> is hardly akin to a "grad
> student". If his definitions seem fuzzy, it is
> only because his level of understanding is
> deeper-- so deep in fact that one may
> require hip-boots to even wade near it!
>
> Personally, I find the ongoing obsession
> with openings theory to be symptomatic of
> why humans are such terrible chess

Please allow me to reinforce your argument - in fact, I added a bit to my
column this week to a retrospective appreciation of Dr. Elo. I suspect Dr E
would except the ex-IBM Don Schultz from his commentary, but indicates that
the science of adopting ratings was not exactly as he would have liked it to
be.

"I have always been rather na�ve politically in the mistaken belief that
meritorious work or service will receive the proper recognition and
acceptance. And I always thought that my work would speak for itself and
become apolitical. But this was not to be, either in the USCF in the 1960s
or in FIDE in the 1970s. It seems to be part of human nature to turn every
advance, whether in science or religion, into a political issue."

Now - you have already pointed out the need to clearly identify the level of
ratings under discussion [why eliminate 2700+ players?] and also fairly
assess the strength of those at Hastings in 1936. [I know, I know! ratings
do not equal strength, people say, but actually I would say they do much
more than any other term]

> players; they seem to need a crutch-- a
> book, say, to tell them exactly what
> moves to play. Oddly enough, there are
> books which instruct on exactly how to
> play simple endgames, but nobody is
> much interested in these, relative to the
> rote play of the chess openings.

Help Bog is obscuring matters here; low-rated players cram openings the same
way as poor students cram for exams. Strong players know openings but more
importantly, understand what they know. This is not an insignificant
difference. Indeed, this is why significant <dread word > innovations come
from strong players, rather than weak ones.

> The idea of trying to differentiate in the
> variety, range, or other characteristics
> from the years 1924 to 1936 seems odd;
> why not first attempt to get a very broad
> perspective on how things have changed
> over the last two centuries? Then, in
> that broader context, worry over such a
> tiny range of years as this. Indeed, as
> someone who has been out of active
> play for a long time, it could be highly
> illuminating to learn what exactly is the
> state of things today (as opposed to
> the era of Cold War propaganda, which
> has so dominated many discussions
> here involving the Evans ratpack).

You almost make a good point there, but couldn't resist concluding as you
did, quite possibly by not trusting your own best sense of things, and
needing to make a nervous joke instead?

> After years of being away from chess,
> I have yet to attend even one major
> event, so I only know what I might see
> in Chess Lies magazine-- a rag which is
> notorious for being far, far removed from
> reality.

Surely someone in the world has had a go at describing the repetoire of top
players in the 1930s? How much did you need to know to demonstrate your
prowess at that time?

Any such survey would form a base or starting point for a discussion -
instead of a mere dozen mentions of Alekhine's defences, including those
which turn into French defences at move 3.

Alternatively, we all, as DR RD says so well in his inimitable style, 'stab
at the dark.'

Phil Innes

>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>

Date: 29 Aug 2008 11:17:20
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

On Aug 29, 11:59=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:08=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > **The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current tournam=
ent
> > range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
> > 'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose=
this
> > could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the=
list
> > I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred - =
and
> > then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI
>
> =A0 Phil, you mean that what you meant all along is that there is more
> VARIETY today compared to 1936, not more INNOVATION? They are not at
> all the same thing, you know (or maybe you don't). One can play a wide
> variety of book openings without producing a single innovation, or one
> can produce many innovations within a single opening. Two unrelated
> things.

It is a lot of potential questions. Some of them probably worth at
least looking at.

The trouble is, Phil has proceeded like the grad student without a
clue, just stabbing at the dark with questions before doing much
research of his own. Maybe he could do a little work first? As you
note, even his definitions are fuzzy, they need to be worked out first.

Date: 01 Sep 2008 09:30:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ffd915cc-4e36-4da9-a6ce-740b4d8244f3@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 11:59 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > **The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current
> > tournament
> > range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
> > 'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose
> > this
> > could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the
> > list
> > I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred -
> > and
> > then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI
>
> Phil, you mean that what you meant all along is that there is more
> VARIETY today compared to 1936, not more INNOVATION? They are not at
> all the same thing, you know (or maybe you don't). One can play a wide
> variety of book openings without producing a single innovation, or one
> can produce many innovations within a single opening. Two unrelated
> things.

It is a lot of potential questions. Some of them probably worth at
least looking at.

**Some... though not which, and Probably but not why... rages Dr Rynd/Dowd
to Vaguer on range.

The trouble is, Phil has proceeded like the grad student without a
clue, just stabbing at the dark with questions before doing much
research of his own.

**This is intended to be a criticism of an invitation to discuss the issue
of repetoire range, 1936 and today. At least the grad student wouldn't write
'stabbing at the dark', which is a peculiar notion to those only familiar
with 'stabbing /in/ the dark'.

Maybe he could do a little work first? As you
note, even his definitions are fuzzy, they need to be worked out first.

**One of the certain joys of engaging Vaguer are his mixed metaphors, wanton
analogies and sudden introductions of not evidently pertinent material. I
welcome his new buddy to these enterprising ventures, DR RD, and thank him
especially for, 'even his definitions are fuzzy,' bit of fuzz - as well as
his own valuable contributions to the topic, fulmen brutum.

G�rdym protivitsya B�g! Phil Innes

Date: 29 Aug 2008 09:59:12
From:
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

Date: 01 Sep 2008 07:55:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:38ad8889-9f71-42e4-a29b-7a929cfa3a72@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 11:08 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current tournament
> range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
> 'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose
> this
> could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the
> list
> I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred - and
> then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI

Phil, you mean that what you meant all along is that there is more
VARIETY today compared to 1936, not more INNOVATION?

**Here I use the term 'range' both in the header and in the lead sentence,
but Taylor wants to tell me about 2 terms of his onw introduction, being
innovation and variety, and these are different things in his opinion.

They are not at
all the same thing, you know (or maybe you don't). One can play a wide
variety of book openings without producing a single innovation, or one

**You introduce additional terms with the mandatory insult in order to
explain what any writer did not address? In this instance the word 'range'
being insufficienctly clear to you. Secondly, you have now added another
sense not previously indicated, in order to discuss OTB innovation (I
suppose).

**If someone said 'repetoire', what would that mean to you? What is a
one-word synonym for repetoire, in your opinion?

**Whenever you feel you sufficiently understand the issue, will you then
contribute your opinion on it? Alas, other writers seem to have progressed
to the middle-game of the issue, but maybe there will be some who still
remember the subject around Christmas time, by virtue of the header?

Phil Innes

can produce many innovations within a single opening. Two unrelated
things.

Date: 30 Aug 2008 14:40:09
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

[email protected] wrote:
.
> Phil, you mean that what you meant all along is that there is more
> VARIETY today compared to 1936, not more INNOVATION? They are not at
> all the same thing, you know (or maybe you don't). One can play a wide
> variety of book openings without producing a single innovation, or one
> can produce many innovations within a single opening. Two unrelated
> things.

Bloody 'ell Taylor! - I'm even now seriously beginning to question your
powers of comprehension: viz. the *englisch*..

I know, & several others here know (bot, salerno, brennan, parr, jerkin,
arfur, etc.) you are consumate in your mastery of the English tongue..

So, why, pray; throw out ridiculous white-flags & red-kippers such as
"variety" & "innovation"?..

Are you perchance driven back upon your stake-encrusted, civil war,
entrenched redoubt in some disarray?..

Clearly, there is no meaningful relationship betwixt 'variety' &
'innovation' & the connexion of invention & innovation is seriously
murky..

Thus: Hey, chaps. I just invented these things - ie, a bow & arrow. And,
hey chaps. I just innovated on the old bow & arrow & I'm gonna call it a
cross-bow. See the difference?..

t.

Date: 29 Aug 2008 12:16:17
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:

> Phil, you mean that what you meant all along is that there is more
>VARIETY today compared to 1936, not more INNOVATION? ..One can
>play a wide
>variety of book openings without producing a single innovation, or one
>can produce many innovations within a single opening. Two unrelated
>things.

I thought of Watson's books when I read this. Fewer good (or
playable) moves will be overlooked when using calculation as a screen
than when using heuristics. Computers are the ultimate calculators,
and I suspect their use, recently, has supported a number of opening
innovations.

Date: 29 Aug 2008 09:01:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

Chess One wrote:

> **The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current tournament
> range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
> 'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose this
> could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the list
> I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred - and
> then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI

It depends on how you choose to look at it.

Suppose there are now a few more things
we call "openings", but that play within some
of these has narrowed to 15-move-deep
copies of prior games, only to vary with a TN
between moves 15 and 25? This is extreme
narrowness, yet it may involve a number of
different "openings", as such.

I notice when I play that sometimes one
line is now heavily favored over others which
may have been popular years ago. It could
be that some of these heavily-favored lines
involve memorized-by-rote strings of forcing
moves, with a well-studied new try at the
tail end; this is hardly the same as having
a wide variety or being a versatile player!

One thing we can do rather easily is to
look at the potboilers of old and note that
there was a good deal of dogmatic think-
ing (which is to say, not real /thinking/)
regarding the "proper" way to play the
openings. In that sense, they were too
narrow if they believed those dogmatic
pronouncements, but not everyone did,
as can be seen in some of the games.

Potboilers aside, the type of "thinking"
to which I refer is not merely sweeping
ideas regarding how to "properly" play
the chess openings, but it also reveals
itself in the approach to questions of
theory-- even in the endgame. One
glaring example was where it was
declared -- in no uncertain terms --
that certain endings could not be won,
period. A fortress might be construct-
ed, which could not be penetrated by
any direct assault, and the conclusion
was made that the position was drawn.

Today we know that some of these
fortresses are indeed perfect; so very
"perfect" that if only the move can be
transferred in the identical position,
they fall apart! Computers are very
good at finding odd ways with which to
accomplish this transfer of the move,
seeing all attempts to avoid reaching
the same position and systematically
refuting them. Thus, the perfection
itself is a weakness of sorts, for it
cannot forcibly be /maintained/.

Not long ago I was reading about a
minor dispute between two famous
grandmasters of old. One of them
claimed he won a game due to his
advantage, pointing out strategic
errors by his very famous opponent,
while the other claimed that he stood
better all along, offering to re-play for
money.

Carefully entering the exact position
on my computer, I fully expected
Black, who had the Bishop pair, to
be favored by the Rybka engine; to
my surprise, she rated the position
as *equal*, but even more to my
surprise was the fact that the further
play from that point by both players
was terrible! The fellow with the two
Bishops gave one away for no reason,
while the other fellow hung a valuable
pawn needlessly and lost. They both
seemed to me to be recapturing "the
wrong way" on every turn, favoring
tactical piece play (i.e. cheap shots)
to "correct positional play"; granted,
the winner was correct to go for the
cheap shot, as it turned out. : >D

-- help bot

Date: 31 Aug 2008 08:44:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening Range, 1936 and Today

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:43b73caa-1d9c-49fb-8a58-b3cda048573e@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> **The 1936 openings were very limited compared with any current
>> tournament
>> range - and I am unsure of the benefit of establishing something
>> 'quantitatively', except to say how much difference there is. I suppose
>> this
>> could be the topic of a new thread - if we actually identified from the
>> list
>> I posted here the range of openings and how frequently they occurred -
>> and
>> then picked on a similar current GM tourney? PI
>
>
> It depends on how you choose to look at it.
>
> Suppose there are now a few more things
> we call "openings", but that play within some
> of these has narrowed to 15-move-deep
> copies of prior games, only to vary with a TN
> between moves 15 and 25? This is extreme
> narrowness, yet it may involve a number of
> different "openings", as such.

well. yes - whatever range is chosen needs to be equal to the historic games
and those these days - though this is itself problematic. in the sense of
recommending this issue, I merely intended to indicate that modern players
are much more booked up across a wider spectrum of possibilities.

it could be argued that the quality of their play is the same as of historic
players, and therefore that is some sort of equality - but the actuality of
it is that unless a Lasker could be given Rybka plus 50 tournament level
books, would he survive the opening period of the game in order to achieve
parity with his opponent?

its further complicated by 'first shows' of oepnings in other eras which
nevertheless failed to become GM repetoire until peolple worked them out
more - the KID is an example - another is Nimzovitsch Defence. Of course
Nimzo played it, but it was still a 'shock' to the young Kasparov when
Syslov essayed it against him

in a recent title on the Zuke [Colle Zukertort] I see the author has
introduced several TNs - one against black's Slav set-up which if played at
high level will probably revitalise the entire line.

> I notice when I play that sometimes one
> line is now heavily favored over others which
> may have been popular years ago. It could
> be that some of these heavily-favored lines
> involve memorized-by-rote strings of forcing
> moves, with a well-studied new try at the
> tail end; this is hardly the same as having
> a wide variety or being a versatile player!

in the Adorjan correspondence he repeats Timman, who says something to the
effect that all those lines with 'unclear' appended to them often constitute
half the book! furthermore they are only unclear to author since they could
be worked out and tested - but that would be more substantial work than the
author intends ;)

kasparov was interested in this subject too - and for his current series of
titles sent around a survey - i saw adorjan's reply which was extensive, and
somewhat accusatory that black's options in a wide array of [opening]
positions are hardly worked out

> One thing we can do rather easily is to
> look at the potboilers of old and note that
> there was a good deal of dogmatic think-
> ing (which is to say, not real /thinking/)
> regarding the "proper" way to play the
> openings. In that sense, they were too
> narrow if they believed those dogmatic
> pronouncements, but not everyone did,
> as can be seen in some of the games.

That's very true. As a kid I beat the Cornish champion [220rated] with 1.b4
in a full length game. The shock/novelty of it forces everything original
very early in the game.

Rather more famously than my own efforts were those of Tony Miles, Tisdall
and Keene - Tony really liked to make you think from move 1. He too played
lots of Nimzo openings, and also that famous 1. ... b5 against Karpov [won,
too!] - he also sported the English Defence and early black queen outings.

> Potboilers aside, the type of "thinking"
> to which I refer is not merely sweeping
> ideas regarding how to "properly" play
> the chess openings, but it also reveals
> itself in the approach to questions of
> theory-- even in the endgame. One
> glaring example was where it was
> declared -- in no uncertain terms --
> that certain endings could not be won,
> period. A fortress might be construct-
> ed, which could not be penetrated by
> any direct assault, and the conclusion
> was made that the position was drawn.
>
> Today we know that some of these
> fortresses are indeed perfect; so very
> "perfect" that if only the move can be
> transferred in the identical position,
> they fall apart! Computers are very
> good at finding odd ways with which to
> accomplish this transfer of the move,
> seeing all attempts to avoid reaching
> the same position and systematically
> refuting them. Thus, the perfection
> itself is a weakness of sorts, for it
> cannot forcibly be /maintained/.

I just interupt here to say, not refute, another point which is undervalued,
imo. And that is aggression. Perhaps young people have no fear, and pour
huge amounts of fight into the game compared with energy expended on
theory - an example is the very pugilistic Nakamura - I wrote that about him
once and Sunil sent me a note saying 'yes, exactly so!' I also note the
significant commnet on Carlsen's play [from Polgar] was 'fearless'.

These guys seem to achieve very much by their willingness to keep fighting
through the whole game.

I am reluctant to talk much about computers since from the human side, I
don't sense the same sort of aggression against them, and besides, those
conversations seem always about what we think of the computer's play, rather
than what we think of the game proper. And this sort of conversation becomes
not technical about winning chess, but theoretical about chess computing.

> Not long ago I was reading about a
> minor dispute between two famous
> grandmasters of old. One of them
> claimed he won a game due to his
> advantage, pointing out strategic
> errors by his very famous opponent,
> while the other claimed that he stood
> better all along, offering to re-play for
> money.
>
> Carefully entering the exact position
> on my computer, I fully expected
> Black, who had the Bishop pair, to
> be favored by the Rybka engine; to
> my surprise, she rated the position
> as *equal*, but even more to my
> surprise was the fact that the further
> play from that point by both players
> was terrible! The fellow with the two
> Bishops gave one away for no reason,
> while the other fellow hung a valuable
> pawn needlessly and lost. They both
> seemed to me to be recapturing "the
> wrong way" on every turn, favoring
> tactical piece play (i.e. cheap shots)
> to "correct positional play"; granted,
> the winner was correct to go for the
> cheap shot, as it turned out. :>D

Yes - I think chess is a technical game in its practice, not a theoretical
one in practice. Role of theory as preparation seems less than technical
abilities to cope with what actually occurs over the board by players. And
what happens OTB seems to have as much to do with will than knowledge. [will
= willingness to fight]

If you want to engage Rybka in an experiment, you might try Taimanov -
Fischer, Game 3: let it percolate from Qb3, and ask it about Qh3.

Taimanov said no one solved it for 25 years, no super computer, and not
Kasparov.
If you don't have the game score I'll dig it up and post it.

When we were going over that game I asked him if Fischer told him what was
going on in his mind during that hour.

Phil Innes

>
> -- help bot