| |
Main
Date: 16 Sep 2005 18:04:48
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Hello
some days ago there was some discussion between Ray and the rest of the
world about the importance of openings in a game of chess.
Here Kramnik opinion (In Spanish):
http://www.ajedrez21.com/noticias/ver_noticia.asp?iCode=1877
The whole interview is interesting. Question 21 was about Ray ideas.
question 21 was:
------------------------
21) Euclide2004 Sr. Kramnik
�Piensa que la elecci�n de una determinada apertura tiene una
importancia decisiva en el transcurso de una partida?
�Cu�l es su apertura favorita?
Muchas gracias
GM Vladimir Kramnik: Creo que la apertura es importante pero en
absoluto decisiva. Mi apertura favorita cambia de vez en cuando: ahora
jugu� mucho la Petrov y la Sveshnikov. Pero puede cambiar pronto...
--------------------------
Web translators can help people but I will try to do it:
Translation (aprox):
Kramnik: I think openings are important but no decisive at all. (...)
AT
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 11:19:30
From: zenpawn
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Might I inquire about your training methods that produced master-level
results in 5.5 years? Are you referring to the intense study of
openings?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 23:33:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
> Might I inquire about your training methods that produced master-level
> results in 5.5 years? Are you referring to the intense study of
> openings?
Look up "Train Like A Chess Champion" on the web if you want to find my
training method.
I have an opening repertoire that I could play if I were 2700 without
changing a thing. Improvement comes more rapidly if the lines you play do
not hit the wall.
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2005 03:37:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>You reach 30 percent even endgames against top engines >and don't beat them?
Yes, top engines play passable endgames these days, and can certainly
hold even positions. In fact their tactical play still makes them very
dangerous in certain endgame positions.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 16:41:30
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na Nick ha escrit:
> > Antonio Torrecillas wrote (to Ray Gordon):
> >
> >> My supossition was correct, you have no database.
> >> 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Ne7 is no novelty at all.
> >
> > As written by Antonio Torrecillas, "1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Ne7"
> > is an illegal sequence of moves.
> >
> >> There are 135 games in my database and many others can traspose like:
> >> -1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Ne7 which trasposes to 3...Ne7 4.Nf3 Ne7
> >> (I supose you forgot to menction ...c5 before ...Ne7-c6)
> >
> > Even though Antonio Torrecillas has written "1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5" again,
> > I assume that he meant to write 1. e4 *e6* (not e5) 2. d4 d5 3. e5 ...
>
> Thanks Nick, I'm sorry, ... it's clear it was 1.e4 e6
It's clear enough to me that Antonio Torrecillas meant to write
"1. e4 e6 ...". But I suspect that it was not clear enough to
some readers, who may not have known that 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5
is the Advance Variation of the French Defence.
A sufficiently knowledgeable reader should have been able to infer
Antonio Torrecillas's intended move, but an insufficiently
knowledgable reader may have become confused and frustrated.
> (I copy and paste for the second case).
> I usually check the readability of my poor English but in
> this case I did not notice that annoying trascription mistake.
I can understand that.
> And for all you, ... I'm sorry too because those messages
> between Ray and me seem to be a waste of time.
Mr Torrecillas, it seems to me that you have given Ray Gordon
some well-intentioned advice, but he has many obstinate opinions
about chess and seems unwilling to heed criticism of them.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2005 00:35:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>> And for all you, ... I'm sorry too because those messages
>> between Ray and me seem to be a waste of time.
>
> Mr Torrecillas, it seems to me that you have given Ray Gordon
> some well-intentioned advice, but he has many obstinate opinions
> about chess and seems unwilling to heed criticism of them.
The same has been said of many champions and many patzers.
Shaq says you can get by in the NBA without shooting free throws.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 08:35:49
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>How often do you reach an equal endgame position against a top engine?
Often enough to correlate with my rating, about 30% of the time. Only
lost one of those. Lost tons due to superior tactical insight on the
part of the beast. But I do better than one of my friends, who is an
FM, in that category. Now he sometimes even wins, although draws are
the most I can accomplish.
Not playing in a decade hardly constitutes "rushing out," BTW.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2005 00:39:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
> >How often do you reach an equal endgame position against a top engine?
>
> Often enough to correlate with my rating, about 30% of the time. Only
> lost one of those. Lost tons due to superior tactical insight on the
> part of the beast. But I do better than one of my friends, who is an
> FM, in that category. Now he sometimes even wins, although draws are
> the most I can accomplish.
You reach 30 percent even endgames against top engines and don't beat them?
> Not playing in a decade hardly constitutes "rushing out," BTW.
Not playing RATED chess is not the same as not playing chess.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 08:22:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>What's your rating again?
Currently 2192 (although I see no reason to get in contest comparing
dick sizes, as you do), and based on performances not more than a
decade old, like yours. I can cite performance ratings of above 2500,
but citing performance ratings is for losers like you. What do you do,
Ray? Pick one day you did well at ICC and call that your "performance
rating," ignoring the other 364 days of the year when your
"performance" is 1700 or so?
>Anyone who wants to make stakes....
would be doing just that, making stakes. You would never show up for
the match. You already have stated as much in your little-heralded
withdrawal from rgcp, that you were afraid of showing up at a
tournament... Poor little Ray-Ray....
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2005 00:37:11
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
> >What's your rating again?
>
> Currently 2192 (although I see no reason to get in contest comparing
> dick sizes, as you do), and based on performances not more than a
> decade old, like yours. I can cite performance ratings of above 2500,
> but citing performance ratings is for losers like you. What do you do,
> Ray? Pick one day you did well at ICC and call that your "performance
> rating," ignoring the other 364 days of the year when your
> "performance" is 1700 or so?
Want to lay 10-1 money odds in a match against me?
>>Anyone who wants to make stakes....
>
> would be doing just that, making stakes. You would never show up for
> the match. You already have stated as much in your little-heralded
> withdrawal from rgcp, that you were afraid of showing up at a
> tournament...
I've taken some protective measures since that time.
You should win almost every match against me, especially a long match.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 00:57:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>My game has always been "front loaded."
Which leads you to positions you don't understand, as evidenced by your
1900 rating. To say nothing of your 1700 ICC rating where you claimed
to be "routinely defeating" masters - if so, their implementation of
the rating system is indeed odd. In my experience, folks who routinely
beat masters have higher ratings than those same masters.
Your entire post simply indicated, "I study the openings from dawn till
dusk, but still routinely lose games to bone-headed middle- and endgame
mistakes." But since you haven't even played a USCF rated game in a
decade... Oh forget it... ego puffery is just your style.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 14:37:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
> >My game has always been "front loaded."
>
> Which leads you to positions you don't understand,
"not in my book" and "don't understand the position" are a long way away.
>as evidenced by your
> 1900 rating. To say nothing of your 1700 ICC rating where you claimed
> to be "routinely defeating" masters - if so, their implementation of
> the rating system is indeed odd.
I didn't say I was doing that at the time I was rated 1700. I had just been
training again for six months at that time.
>In my experience, folks who routinely
> beat masters have higher ratings than those same masters.
In due time. Fortunately, since I'm "only" 1700 strength now, no one will
call me a sandbagger if I play in my class.
> Your entire post simply indicated, "I study the openings from dawn till
> dusk, but still routinely lose games to bone-headed middle- and endgame
> mistakes."
Most class players routinely lose games due to boneheaded opening mistakes.
>But since you haven't even played a USCF rated game in a
> decade... Oh forget it... ego puffery is just your style.
I'm not going to rush out and play a tournament just to satisfy some
internet cockroach.
How often do you reach an equal endgame position against a top engine?
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 00:49:06
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>It got me to 2200 strength in about 5.5 total years of serious training.
>Why wouldn't I have faith in it?
Because you never had a published rating of above 2000.
To cite your own estimate of your strength is ridiculous.
Paraphrasing what Lasker said - Checkmate contradicts the hypocrisy of
players like you who make claims as to their strength, but seem always
to be rated 200-300 points below their self-inflated estimates of
"strength."
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 14:39:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
> >It got me to 2200 strength in about 5.5 total years of serious training.
>>Why wouldn't I have faith in it?
>
> Because you never had a published rating of above 2000.
Check out the prize money for the various classes.
>
> To cite your own estimate of your strength is ridiculous.
I cite performance ratings, but hey I don't mind not being called a
sandbagger.
>
> Paraphrasing what Lasker said - Checkmate contradicts the hypocrisy of
> players like you who make claims as to their strength, but seem always
> to be rated 200-300 points below their self-inflated estimates of
> "strength."
What's your rating again?
Anyone who wants to make stakes on a chessmatch based on my current rating
of 1900 is more than welcome to.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2005 16:27:32
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote (to Ray Gordon):
> My supossition was correct, you have no database.
> 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Ne7 is no novelty at all.
As written by Antonio Torrecillas, "1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Ne7"
is an illegal sequence of moves.
> There are 135 games in my database and many others can traspose like:
> - 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Ne7 which trasposes to 3...Ne7 4.Nf3 Ne7
> (I supose you forgot to menction ...c5 before ...Ne7-c6)
Even though Antonio Torrecillas has written "1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5" again,
I assume that he meant to write 1. e4 *e6* (not e5) 2. d4 d5 3. e5 ...
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 08:59:03
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na Nick ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote (to Ray Gordon):
>
>>My supossition was correct, you have no database.
>>1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Ne7 is no novelty at all.
>
> As written by Antonio Torrecillas, "1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Ne7"
> is an illegal sequence of moves.
>
>>There are 135 games in my database and many others can traspose like:
>>- 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Ne7 which trasposes to 3...Ne7 4.Nf3 Ne7
>>(I supose you forgot to menction ...c5 before ...Ne7-c6)
>
> Even though Antonio Torrecillas has written "1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5" again,
> I assume that he meant to write 1. e4 *e6* (not e5) 2. d4 d5 3. e5 ...
>
> --Nick
Thanks Nick, I'm sorry, ... it's clear it was 1.e4 e6 (I copy and paste
for the second case). I usually check the readability of my poor English
but in this case I did not notice that annoying trascription mistake.
And for all you, ... I'm sorry too because those messages between Ray
and me seem to be a waste of time. Both we have no changed our opinions
about 1/x rule and opening preparation.
I hope to write more interesting things in future subjects!
...
Ray words about "Ray Gordon variation of Frech advance" were:
(Last message)
- The other "new move" is now an accepted line of the French Advance
variation, where I play 3...Ne7
(Previous message)
- Today's names are given out later in the game. Still, there is room
for innovation. I found one at move THREE in two major openings. I have
never seen the line I use played by anyone, and it certainly hasn't been
named after someone. I see computers innovating from move 5-15 in lines
once thought to be "solved," and winning with openings once thought to
be second-rate.
AT
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2005 19:36:23
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Kramnik plays the opening as if he considers it decisive.
> >> Karpov did not.
>
> Ron wrote:
> > This is almost hysterical, because it reveals an ignorance
> > of chess history so profound that you're ignoring people who
> > could actually help you make your case.
>
> What is your rating?
>
> > Karpov was arguably the best-prepared (openingswise) chess
> > player in history (you could also make an argument for Kasparov).
Kasparov's victory over Anand in game 10 of the 1995 PCA World
Championship match in New York City is a famous example of the
depth of opening preparation by Kasparov and his team.
> > He's one of the few players who can point to wins against other
> > world championship contenders at the peak of their games where
> > he had the final position on his analysis board before the match
> > (I'm speaking, as I'm sure every knowledgeable reader on this
> > board knows, of Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow, 1974, game 2).
>
> Karpov played solid but not cutting-edge lines.
> Be2 against the Dragon was certainly not pushing the envelope.
Ray Gordon shows his ignorance of that cited game.
Here's the opening of that 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi game:
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7
7 Qd2 Nc6 8 f3 O-O 9 Bc4 ...
Karpov played the Yugoslav Attack (9 Bc4) against the Dragon
Variation of the Sicilian Defence, *not* Be2 as Ray Gordon claimed.
Karpov was known to play Be2 against the Najdorf Variation of
the Sicilian Defence. But if Ray Gordon cannot remember any
significant distinction between the Dragon and the Najdorf
Variations, then he's hardly any 'grandmaster in the opening'.
--Nick
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2005 05:53:35
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Kramnik plays mostly super-sharp lines.
When he says "not decisive" he means "not decisive against Anand, Adams,
Kasparov, Leko, etc."
He also could be disinforming his opponents, a common practice among top
GMs, since the lines he plays conform to almost every rule I have. He
usually pushes the envelope in the opening as much as he can, and will
decimate anyone rated under 2600 more often than not.
"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello
>
> some days ago there was some discussion between Ray and the rest of the
> world about the importance of openings in a game of chess.
>
> Here Kramnik opinion (In Spanish):
> http://www.ajedrez21.com/noticias/ver_noticia.asp?iCode=1877
>
> The whole interview is interesting. Question 21 was about Ray ideas.
>
> question 21 was:
> ------------------------
> 21) Euclide2004 Sr. Kramnik
> �Piensa que la elecci�n de una determinada apertura tiene una importancia
> decisiva en el transcurso de una partida?
> �Cu�l es su apertura favorita?
> Muchas gracias
>
> GM Vladimir Kramnik: Creo que la apertura es importante pero en absoluto
> decisiva. Mi apertura favorita cambia de vez en cuando: ahora jugu� mucho
> la Petrov y la Sveshnikov. Pero puede cambiar pronto...
> --------------------------
>
> Web translators can help people but I will try to do it:
> Translation (aprox):
>
> Kramnik: I think openings are important but no decisive at all. (...)
>
> AT
>
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2005 21:36:04
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> Kramnik plays mostly super-sharp lines.
I had another idea about super-sharp lines mean:
Berlin defence and Rusian (Petrov) with black
... and QGA with dxc5, exchange grunfeld, KID bayonet with white (but
that has been changing lately playing 1.e4 and losing many games)
> When he says "not decisive" he means "not decisive against Anand, Adams,
> Kasparov, Leko, etc."
When He says "not decisive" He means "not decisive". ... or maybe you
have direct line with him?
> He also could be disinforming his opponents, a common practice among top
> GMs, since the lines he plays conform to almost every rule I have. He
> usually pushes the envelope in the opening as much as he can, and will
> decimate anyone rated under 2600 more often than not.
I am not able to understand that.
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2005 22:47:34
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:
> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>
>> When he says "not decisive" he means "not decisive against Anand,
>> Adams, Kasparov, Leko, etc."
>
>
> When He says "not decisive" He means "not decisive". ... or maybe you
> have direct line with him?
>
> AT
Well, maybe you mean Kramnik opening repertoire is not enough to beat
any of those top players and it is enough to beat any other player under
2700 rating.
If that is your opinion I disagree: In my opinion Kramnik knowledge of
middlegame and endings is the main key to understand why He beat many
people rated belov him.
And I think too that it is precisely when a player plays with inferior
people when that player tries to avoid his normal repertoire to avoid
forced sequences who lead to draw.
I mean that if, for example, any Pelikan player or Nardorf player (from
Black side) plays with a player rated 200 points belov him, He will try
to avoid playing lines where white can force the repetition of moves but
maybe He will allow them playing with stronger opposition. I suppose
there is no need to post here those draw lines.
AT
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2005 12:44:14
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>>> When he says "not decisive" he means "not decisive against Anand, Adams,
>>> Kasparov, Leko, etc."
>>
>>
>> When He says "not decisive" He means "not decisive". ... or maybe you
>> have direct line with him?
>>
>> AT
>
> Well, maybe you mean Kramnik opening repertoire is not enough to beat any
> of those top players and it is enough to beat any other player under 2700
> rating.
Kramnik plays the opening as if he considers it decisive. Karpov did not.
> If that is your opinion I disagree: In my opinion Kramnik knowledge of
> middlegame and endings is the main key to understand why He beat many
> people rated belov him.
He's going to be stronger in all three phases against weaker competition, so
those wins don't prove much. I haven't seen Kramnik settle for equality
with White the way most "weaker" players will. I don't see many players
2700 and over who do, but under 2700, there are many players who will in a
heartbeat (such as with 1. g3 or some equivalent b/s).
> And I think too that it is precisely when a player plays with inferior
> people when that player tries to avoid his normal repertoire to avoid
> forced sequences who lead to draw.
I think it's more a case of not giving the opponent a free ride through
opening theory.
If they get out of the books more early, they don't have to show their
preparation, and can rely on superior technique to win.
> I mean that if, for example, any Pelikan player or Nardorf player (from
> Black side) plays with a player rated 200 points belov him, He will try to
> avoid playing lines where white can force the repetition of moves but
> maybe He will allow them playing with stronger opposition. I suppose there
> is no need to post here those draw lines.
Kasparov found a "forced draw" line in the Pelikan for Black against 9. Nd5
(9...Qa5+). Yes, white can take the draw if he's inferior.
Today's top computers tend to play the sharpest main lines for about a dozen
moves, then find some solid move that isn't well-analyzed, and win with
tactics from there.
Fischer, on the other hand, played an extremely narrow repertoire that he
knew very well. The only time he changed up was when he thought he had
found a better move, or in the case of the 1972 World Championship match, to
throw Spassky off guard, or to simply taunt him.
I agree that one must be strong in all three phases of the game to reach
2700, but the opening comes first, as it sets the table for better
middlegame and endgame positions to study.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2005 22:21:12
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
In article <yuTXe.36476$%[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Well, maybe you mean Kramnik opening repertoire is not enough to beat any
> > of those top players and it is enough to beat any other player under 2700
> > rating.
>
> Kramnik plays the opening as if he considers it decisive. Karpov did not.
This is almost hysterical, because it reveals an ignorance of chess
history so profound that you're ignoring people who could actually help
you make your case.
Karpov was arguably the best-prepared (openingswise) chess player in
history (you could also make an argument for Kasparov). He's one of the
few players who can point to wins against other world championship
contenders at the peak of their games where he had the final position on
his analysis board before the match (I'm speaking, as I'm sure every
knowledgeable reader on this board knows, of Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow,
1974, game 2).
That being said, the majority of Karpov's games against top opposition
were not determined by opening preparation, but rather by his phenominal
tactical and positional understanding.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2005 01:30:36
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>> > Well, maybe you mean Kramnik opening repertoire is not enough to beat
>> > any
>> > of those top players and it is enough to beat any other player under
>> > 2700
>> > rating.
>>
>> Kramnik plays the opening as if he considers it decisive. Karpov did
>> not.
>
> This is almost hysterical, because it reveals an ignorance of chess
> history so profound that you're ignoring people who could actually help
> you make your case.
What is your rating?
> Karpov was arguably the best-prepared (openingswise) chess player in
> history (you could also make an argument for Kasparov). He's one of the
> few players who can point to wins against other world championship
> contenders at the peak of their games where he had the final position on
> his analysis board before the match (I'm speaking, as I'm sure every
> knowledgeable reader on this board knows, of Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow,
> 1974, game 2).
Karpov played solid but not cutting-edge lines. Be2 against the Dragon was
certainly not pushing the envelope.
> That being said, the majority of Karpov's games against top opposition
> were not determined by opening preparation, but rather by his phenominal
> tactical and positional understanding.
i.e., not in the opening.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2005 06:17:27
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
In article <0J2Ye.37215$%[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> What is your rating?
>
Can't make your point so you attack me, huh?
> > Karpov was arguably the best-prepared (openingswise) chess player in
> > history (you could also make an argument for Kasparov). He's one of the
> > few players who can point to wins against other world championship
> > contenders at the peak of their games where he had the final position on
> > his analysis board before the match (I'm speaking, as I'm sure every
> > knowledgeable reader on this board knows, of Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow,
> > 1974, game 2).
>
> Karpov played solid but not cutting-edge lines. Be2 against the Dragon was
> certainly not pushing the envelope.
Do you wanna look up that game score again, maybe, Roy?
>
> > That being said, the majority of Karpov's games against top opposition
> > were not determined by opening preparation, but rather by his phenominal
> > tactical and positional understanding.
>
> i.e., not in the opening.
Just like every other top players games against top opposition, or
almost every game between aproximately evenly-matched players.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2005 22:54:18
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Ray, ...
I'm sure you are honestly convinced about your training ideas no matter
sometimes it seems you are only joking.
It seems to me you defend them politely and I fear that sometimes I'm
not polite enough trying to showing you are completely wrong (well, ...
I admit I can be wrong).
About Karpov I agree Ron (as occurs in many other things) and I think
there are some logic about that:
Imagine Karpov in the TOP defending URSS flag after Fischer retirement.
It's predictable that soviet machine would help Karpov with the better
weapons (the best analists and many opening weapons included) to defend
the number one in the world versus a disident as Korchnoi. The own
Karpov has written about some novelties He played, to have been prepared
for that matches and explaining who was the player who suggested those
lines to him. An example is his win with black with Timmann in Montreal
1979. (11....dxc4!)
Another question is if Karpov style of play (very technical) works
better in certain lines sometimes out of critical deeply studied theory.
AT
En/na Ron ha escrit:
> In article <0J2Ye.37215$%[email protected]>,
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What is your rating?
>>
>
> Can't make your point so you attack me, huh?
>
>>>Karpov was arguably the best-prepared (openingswise) chess player in
>>>history (you could also make an argument for Kasparov). He's one of the
>>>few players who can point to wins against other world championship
>>>contenders at the peak of their games where he had the final position on
>>>his analysis board before the match (I'm speaking, as I'm sure every
>>>knowledgeable reader on this board knows, of Karpov-Korchnoi, Moscow,
>>>1974, game 2).
>>
>>Karpov played solid but not cutting-edge lines. Be2 against the Dragon was
>>certainly not pushing the envelope.
>
> Do you wanna look up that game score again, maybe, Roy?
>
>>>That being said, the majority of Karpov's games against top opposition
>>>were not determined by opening preparation, but rather by his phenominal
>>>tactical and positional understanding.
>>
>>i.e., not in the opening.
>
> Just like every other top players games against top opposition, or
> almost every game between aproximately evenly-matched players.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 07:02:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
> I'm sure you are honestly convinced about your training ideas no matter
> sometimes it seems you are only joking.
It got me to 2200 strength in about 5.5 total years of serious training.
Why wouldn't I have faith in it?
> It seems to me you defend them politely and I fear that sometimes I'm not
> polite enough trying to showing you are completely wrong (well, ... I
> admit I can be wrong).
"Wrong" in chess is subjective. A lot is a matter of style. I don't doubt
that many players win on finishing ability. It just takes a lot more
training to achieve the same rating with that approach.
> About Karpov I agree Ron (as occurs in many other things) and I think
> there are some logic about that:
> Imagine Karpov in the TOP defending URSS flag after Fischer retirement.
> It's predictable that soviet machine would help Karpov with the better
> weapons (the best analists and many opening weapons included) to defend
> the number one in the world versus a disident as Korchnoi. The own Karpov
> has written about some novelties He played, to have been prepared for that
> matches and explaining who was the player who suggested those lines to
> him. An example is his win with black with Timmann in Montreal 1979.
> (11....dxc4!)
Computers often beat GMs in 25 moves or less. How is this possible?
> Another question is if Karpov style of play (very technical) works better
> in certain lines sometimes out of critical deeply studied theory.
Karpov's style works best against inferior opposition, because his method
was to leave you with four apparently equal moves, three of which eventually
lose, move after move after move.
A true study of the relevance of openings in chess would involve every world
champion, most of whom have several main lines named after them.
Alekhine has an entire opening, plus a line of the Classical French and
several other lines which are main line.
Steinitz has "the" main line of the French (100 years later!), and at least
a half-dozen lines in other openings, such as the Lopez.
Lasker had a few lines in the QGA and QGD which are still popular.
Capablanca put several openings out of business and of course "refuted" ten
years of Frank shall's preparation in the shall Attack OVER THE BOARD.
Euwe won the title almost by default.
Botvinnik had several lines named after him, while Tal wasn't as much of an
innovator as a complicator.
Petrosian has a few lines with Black but nothing major, while Spassky has a
line in the King's Gambit.
Fischer has a line in the Sicilian as White (6. Bc4), and of course he put
the Poisoned Pawn into business. He also has a main line in the King's
Gambit named after him.
Karpov never really innovated like them, and Kasparov did. Their match
results speak for themselves.
Botvinnik
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 11:57:17
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> Computers often beat GMs in 25 moves or less. How is this possible?
>
>>Another question is if Karpov style of play (very technical) works better
>>in certain lines sometimes out of critical deeply studied theory.
>
> Karpov's style works best against inferior opposition, because his method
> was to leave you with four apparently equal moves, three of which eventually
> lose, move after move after move.
I hope that when you increase your chess knowledge and re-read your own
words you will smile. In that case, Karpov only had "inferior oposition"
because He was in the top with no interruptions until Kasparov appeared.
> A true study of the relevance of openings in chess would involve every world
> champion, most of whom have several main lines named after them.
The contribution or chess world champions in openings can not be
measured by the number of lines named after them.
There is a Capablanca variation in Nimzoindian you forgot in your list,
but in my opinion Kasparov contribution to it has been very important.
Alekhine contribution to "Alekhine defence" is much smaller than Bagirov
and Alburt discoveries in it (with great difference).
The problem is that today is very difficult to asociate a name for every
new idea because there are thousands of them each year.
AT
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2005 06:56:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>> Computers often beat GMs in 25 moves or less. How is this possible?
>>
>>>Another question is if Karpov style of play (very technical) works better
>>>in certain lines sometimes out of critical deeply studied theory.
>>
>> Karpov's style works best against inferior opposition, because his method
>> was to leave you with four apparently equal moves, three of which
>> eventually lose, move after move after move.
>
> I hope that when you increase your chess knowledge and re-read your own
> words you will smile. In that case, Karpov only had "inferior oposition"
> because He was in the top with no interruptions until Kasparov appeared.
Kasparov was superior in the opening.
>> A true study of the relevance of openings in chess would involve every
>> world champion, most of whom have several main lines named after them.
>
> The contribution or chess world champions in openings can not be measured
> by the number of lines named after them.
It's a good indicator. Look at the Alekhine-Chatard line of the French,
which may become the main line at some point, replacing the Steinitz line
from 100 years ago.
> There is a Capablanca variation in Nimzoindian you forgot in your list,
> but in my opinion Kasparov contribution to it has been very important.
> Alekhine contribution to "Alekhine defence" is much smaller than Bagirov
> and Alburt discoveries in it (with great difference).
Alburt just continued Alekhine's work.
> The problem is that today is very difficult to asociate a name for every
> new idea because there are thousands of them each year.
That just means we're in a lull.
I've seen several "new" lines that bring old "backwaters" of ECO to the
forefront.
My game has always been "front loaded." I coached a high school team of
beginners to a winning record and a clean-sweep of the previous #3 school in
the city at the end of the year by drilling them in openings for three hours
a day, for three straight months. They were winning miniatures by the end,
against kids who had far superior middlegame and endgame skills, but the
positions they got out of the opening were so fatal that they never got to
that point.
I view chess like a horse race: if you let a horse cruise to an early lead
in a race, you'll never catch it. Being "loose on the lead" is always
dangerous, and it's always good to instill respect in a GM from move one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2005 10:50:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> The contribution or chess world champions in openings can not be measured
>> by the number of lines named after them.
>
> It's a good indicator. Look at the Alekhine-Chatard line of the French,
> which may become the main line at some point, replacing the Steinitz
> line from 100 years ago.
>
>> Alekhine contribution to "Alekhine defence" is much smaller than Bagirov
>> and Alburt discoveries in it (with great difference).
>
> Alburt just continued Alekhine's work.
Alekhine just continued Chatard's work in the French... Or is it too much
to expect you to be in any way consistent?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Love Laser (TM): it's like an intense
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ beam of light that you can share with
someone special!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 11:42:31
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>
>>About Karpov I agree Ron (as occurs in many other things) and I think
>>there are some logic about that:
>>Imagine Karpov in the TOP defending URSS flag after Fischer retirement.
>>It's predictable that soviet machine would help Karpov with the better
>>weapons (the best analists and many opening weapons included) to defend
>>the number one in the world versus a disident as Korchnoi. The own Karpov
>>has written about some novelties He played, to have been prepared for that
>>matches and explaining who was the player who suggested those lines to
>>him. An example is his win with black with Timmann in Montreal 1979.
>>(11....dxc4!)
>
> Computers often beat GMs in 25 moves or less. How is this possible?
> (...)
> A true study of the relevance of openings in chess would involve every world
> champion, most of whom have several main lines named after them.
> (...)
>
> Karpov never really innovated like them, and Kasparov did. Their match
> results speak for themselves.
Ray, I'm sure you are convinced about that but please, try to be
objective, when a player has been playing in new ages it's harder to had
an opening named with his name. Ruy Lopez does not know Ruy Lopez or
Spanish better than Karpov or Kasparov or shall does not know better
shall gambit than Leko or Adams, ...
Trying to be objective I open my two first issues of Chess Informant I
have, and lets have a look at ten most important opening novelties in
half year corresponding to past issue.
CI-27: corresponding to 1978/2
Karpov-Korchnoi world match appear 4 times of 10 (games 10, 7, 22, 28).
In 9th position there is Geller-Kasparov.
Timman, Vitolins, Gulko, Browne, Miles appears once.
CI-30: corresponding to 1980/1
Karpov appear 2 times (2nd and 4th): Timman-Karpov and Karpov-TAL
No other player appear twice: Averbaj, Tal, Papp, Miles, Sax, Biyiasas
and Knaak.
That can indicate than Karpov was one of the best prepared players in
openings those years. That are facts not opinions.
AT
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2005 06:51:51
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>> Computers often beat GMs in 25 moves or less. How is this possible?
>> (...)
>> A true study of the relevance of openings in chess would involve every
>> world champion, most of whom have several main lines named after them.
>> (...)
>>
>> Karpov never really innovated like them, and Kasparov did. Their match
>> results speak for themselves.
>
> Ray, I'm sure you are convinced about that but please, try to be
> objective, when a player has been playing in new ages it's harder to had
> an opening named with his name. Ruy Lopez does not know Ruy Lopez or
> Spanish better than Karpov or Kasparov or shall does not know better
> shall gambit than Leko or Adams, ...
Today's names are given out later in the game. Still, there is room for
innovation. I found one at move THREE in two major openings. I have never
seen the line I use played by anyone, and it certainly hasn't been named
after someone. I see computers innovating from move 5-15 in lines once
thought to be "solved," and winning with openings once thought to be
second-rate.
> Trying to be objective I open my two first issues of Chess Informant I
> have, and lets have a look at ten most important opening novelties in half
> year corresponding to past issue.
>
> CI-27: corresponding to 1978/2
> Karpov-Korchnoi world match appear 4 times of 10 (games 10, 7, 22, 28).
> In 9th position there is Geller-Kasparov.
> Timman, Vitolins, Gulko, Browne, Miles appears once.
Those players play weaker openings to begin with. Usually there are moves
along the way that trump what they do.
> CI-30: corresponding to 1980/1
> Karpov appear 2 times (2nd and 4th): Timman-Karpov and Karpov-TAL
> No other player appear twice: Averbaj, Tal, Papp, Miles, Sax, Biyiasas and
> Knaak.
Nothing major there, but this was a "dark age" of chess post-Fischer and
pre-Kasparov.
> That can indicate than Karpov was one of the best prepared players in
> openings those years. That are facts not opinions.
It indicates that there was a vacuum created by Fischer's retirement that
only now is being filled by the natural evolution of a new generation of
talent that would have beaten him even if he hadn't retired.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2005 17:13:07
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>Ray, I'm sure you are convinced about that but please, try to be
>>objective, when a player has been playing in new ages it's harder to had
>>an opening named with his name. Ruy Lopez does not know Ruy Lopez or
>>Spanish better than Karpov or Kasparov or shall does not know better
>>shall gambit than Leko or Adams, ...
>
> Today's names are given out later in the game. Still, there is room for
> innovation. I found one at move THREE in two major openings. I have never
> seen the line I use played by anyone, and it certainly hasn't been named
> after someone. I see computers innovating from move 5-15 in lines once
> thought to be "solved," and winning with openings once thought to be
> second-rate.
I have read somewhere that "ignorance is dare", ... it's possible you
have not a good database and your "new move" in move 3 is not a novelty.
(only as a curiosity, how many games of mine have you in your database?)
Please, post here those novelties in move 3 (yours) or 5 (computers) and
I will check if that moves have been played or not.
And, ... if your answer is that you prefer not to show here your novelty
in move 3 in order to win Anand in your next tournament, ... I simply
could not trust you. But respect to computers novelties in move 5 (not
15 please) there is not problem, I suppose.
> (...)
>>That can indicate than Karpov was one of the best prepared players in
>>openings those years. That are facts not opinions.
>
> It indicates that there was a vacuum created by Fischer's retirement that
> only now is being filled by the natural evolution of a new generation of
> talent that would have beaten him even if he hadn't retired.
That are opinions not facts.
I can opine Karpov would have won Fischer, ... or not!
;-)
Most part of games have "novelties":
- Some of them are from ignorance and can be worse (or not) than known
theory.
- Most part of them at high level are from knowledge: in one cases to
improve previous theory and in other cases simply to put new problems to
our opponent with a deeply analized idea.
...
Curiously I have one of the first kind: I was surprised by a rook
sacrifice in move 15th in a Sicilian line which was played in last chess
informant 59/287 and I did not know it. In move 18 my oponent had used
only 3 minutes. But after my improvement, which was found over the
board, ... he started thinking more than half hour to discover He was lost.
I think you must have that game in your database but if not and you are
interested I can post it here.
AT
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2005 17:26:30
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
>>>Ray, I'm sure you are convinced about that but please, try to be
>>>objective, when a player has been playing in new ages it's harder to had
>>>an opening named with his name. Ruy Lopez does not know Ruy Lopez or
>>>Spanish better than Karpov or Kasparov or shall does not know better
>>>shall gambit than Leko or Adams, ...
>>
>> Today's names are given out later in the game. Still, there is room for
>> innovation. I found one at move THREE in two major openings. I have
>> never seen the line I use played by anyone, and it certainly hasn't been
>> named after someone. I see computers innovating from move 5-15 in lines
>> once thought to be "solved," and winning with openings once thought to be
>> second-rate.
>
> I have read somewhere that "ignorance is dare", ... it's possible you have
> not a good database and your "new move" in move 3 is not a novelty.
> (only as a curiosity, how many games of mine have you in your database?)
My "new move" has been played, I'm sure, but I can't find it anywhere. I
see some mentions of it in the opening books without citations and an
"unclear" analysis.
The other "new move" is now an accepted line of the French Advance
variation, where I play 3...Ne7 with the idea of Nc6 and Nd7 for a
"Classical" setup that the Advance is designed to avoid. The new "novelty"
is something people will have to wait to see me play in a tournament.
> Please, post here those novelties in move 3 (yours) or 5 (computers) and I
> will check if that moves have been played or not.
You want the secret formula for Coca-Cola while you're at it?
> And, ... if your answer is that you prefer not to show here your novelty
> in move 3 in order to win Anand in your next tournament, ... I simply
> could not trust you.
I don't need to be sharing my research.
>But respect to computers novelties in move 5 (not 15 please) there is not
>problem, I suppose.
Look at Hydra vs. Adams. Hydra routinely deviated around move 10 and
smashed Adams almost every time.
>>>That can indicate than Karpov was one of the best prepared players in
>>>openings those years. That are facts not opinions.
>>
>> It indicates that there was a vacuum created by Fischer's retirement that
>> only now is being filled by the natural evolution of a new generation of
>> talent that would have beaten him even if he hadn't retired.
>
> That are opinions not facts.
> I can opine Karpov would have won Fischer, ... or not!
> ;-)
Most GMs through 1981 believed Fischer to be easily the world's strongest
player. He just played for $5,000 a pop against adoring fans, including
some GMs who never managed to reach an ending against him.
I suspect that even today, Fischer could contend for the world title if he
could muster the inspiration to train for four straight years. I'd imagine
he's still able to outbook the best like he did in his prime. He once put a
line for White against the King's Indian out of business with a simple
developing move on Black's 19th that every published analysis had
overlooked.
> Most part of games have "novelties":
> - Some of them are from ignorance and can be worse (or not) than known
> theory.
> - Most part of them at high level are from knowledge: in one cases to
> improve previous theory and in other cases simply to put new problems to
> our opponent with a deeply analized idea.
>
> Curiously I have one of the first kind: I was surprised by a rook
> sacrifice in move 15th in a Sicilian line which was played in last chess
> informant 59/287 and I did not know it. In move 18 my oponent had used
> only 3 minutes. But after my improvement, which was found over the board,
> ... he started thinking more than half hour to discover He was lost.
>
> I think you must have that game in your database but if not and you are
> interested I can post it here.
I don't track names in my database, and lately I've been logging the games
of "supercomputers" that win 200 or 300 games in a bullet session on a
server with maybe two or three losses, usually to other computers.
I've never said the other parts of a chessgame were not important, only that
they are "tiebreakers" for deciding games not won or lost in the opening,
but that the opening battle is first, it occurs every game, and is therefore
most important.
It's my "1/x rule." Each move from any point in the game is worth 1/x with
x = the move #. From the starting position, the first move is worth 1, the
second 0.5, the third 0.333, the fourth 0.25 and so on. Once you have your
first move in your repertoire, the formula moves to the second move, with
that move being worth 1, move 3 worth 0.5, etc.
The most important move for a player is therefore the first move at which he
is out of his book, and if you can stay in your book while your opponent is
not in his, that is almost like having a power play in hockey because he is
likely to mess up while you are still playing from memory. That is the
"zone" in which most champions like Fischer would win their games.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2005 23:57:18
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Hello Ray,
My supossition was correct, you have no database. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5
Ne7 is no novelty at all.
There are 135 games in my database and many others can traspose like:
- 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Ne7 which trasposes to 3...Ne7 4.Nf3 Ne7
(I supose you forgot to menction ...c5 before ...Ne7-c6)
And more, your some of your words shows you have no much idea of chess
theory (with all the respect, I hope you agree! ... I have no idea of
Opera and no idea of many other things)
About your hidden second novelty in move three, compared by you with the
formula of Coca-Cola, shows all. There is no need to insist!
...
The second point was to post here some example of "I see computers
innovating from move 5-15 in lines once thought to be "solved". I asked
for one at move 5 and you answered "Look at Hydra vs. Adams. Hydra
routinely deviated around move 10 and smashed Adams almost every time."
I was sure you had no example of that 5th new move from a machine (it
may exists but you words were simply fantasies)
Let's see HYDRA-ADAMS games:
game 1: Adams novelty in move 16 black.
game 2: Hydra novelty in move 10 (10...e5) was an inacuracy.
game 3: Adams novelty in move 17 black.
game 4: Adams novelty in move 11 white
game 5: Hydra novelty in move 11 white
game 6: Hydra novelty in move 12 black
It seems 3-3 (Adams deviated as many times as HYDRA). And there is no
any kind of "solved" position. Your words were empties.
There is published many articles by specialists in computer chess like
Jhon Nunn, David Levy, ... in those articles they were not impressed by
HYDRA novelties but for its middle-game play: "if you have enough
computing power, you can play very well not only in wide-open positions
but also in quiet, semi-closed positions."
Essentially openings books of those programs are designed by strong GMs
(GM Lutz in HYDRA case) and "computer innovations over the board" are
simply fantasies.
...
As usual, you did not ansvered direct questions and your "bla bla bla"
about the 1/x rule is a joke. The sad situation you are not conscient is
that any player with information enough can only smile with your words.
Antonio Torrecillas
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>>Ray, I'm sure you are convinced about that but please, try to be
>>>>objective, when a player has been playing in new ages it's harder to had
>>>>an opening named with his name. Ruy Lopez does not know Ruy Lopez or
>>>>Spanish better than Karpov or Kasparov or shall does not know better
>>>>shall gambit than Leko or Adams, ...
>>>
>>>Today's names are given out later in the game. Still, there is room for
>>>innovation. I found one at move THREE in two major openings. I have
>>>never seen the line I use played by anyone, and it certainly hasn't been
>>>named after someone. I see computers innovating from move 5-15 in lines
>>>once thought to be "solved," and winning with openings once thought to be
>>>second-rate.
>>
>>I have read somewhere that "ignorance is dare", ... it's possible you have
>>not a good database and your "new move" in move 3 is not a novelty.
>>(only as a curiosity, how many games of mine have you in your database?)
>
> My "new move" has been played, I'm sure, but I can't find it anywhere. I
> see some mentions of it in the opening books without citations and an
> "unclear" analysis.
>
> The other "new move" is now an accepted line of the French Advance
> variation, where I play 3...Ne7 with the idea of Nc6 and Nd7 for a
> "Classical" setup that the Advance is designed to avoid. The new "novelty"
> is something people will have to wait to see me play in a tournament.
>
>>Please, post here those novelties in move 3 (yours) or 5 (computers) and I
>>will check if that moves have been played or not.
>
> You want the secret formula for Coca-Cola while you're at it?
>
>>And, ... if your answer is that you prefer not to show here your novelty
>>in move 3 in order to win Anand in your next tournament, ... I simply
>>could not trust you.
>
> I don't need to be sharing my research.
>
>>But respect to computers novelties in move 5 (not 15 please) there is not
>>problem, I suppose.
>
> Look at Hydra vs. Adams. Hydra routinely deviated around move 10 and
> smashed Adams almost every time.
>
>
>>>>That can indicate than Karpov was one of the best prepared players in
>>>>openings those years. That are facts not opinions.
>>>
>>>It indicates that there was a vacuum created by Fischer's retirement that
>>>only now is being filled by the natural evolution of a new generation of
>>>talent that would have beaten him even if he hadn't retired.
>>
>>That are opinions not facts.
>>I can opine Karpov would have won Fischer, ... or not!
>>;-)
>
>
> Most GMs through 1981 believed Fischer to be easily the world's strongest
> player. He just played for $5,000 a pop against adoring fans, including
> some GMs who never managed to reach an ending against him.
>
> I suspect that even today, Fischer could contend for the world title if he
> could muster the inspiration to train for four straight years. I'd imagine
> he's still able to outbook the best like he did in his prime. He once put a
> line for White against the King's Indian out of business with a simple
> developing move on Black's 19th that every published analysis had
> overlooked.
>
>
>
>>Most part of games have "novelties":
>>- Some of them are from ignorance and can be worse (or not) than known
>>theory.
>>- Most part of them at high level are from knowledge: in one cases to
>>improve previous theory and in other cases simply to put new problems to
>>our opponent with a deeply analized idea.
>>
>>Curiously I have one of the first kind: I was surprised by a rook
>>sacrifice in move 15th in a Sicilian line which was played in last chess
>>informant 59/287 and I did not know it. In move 18 my oponent had used
>>only 3 minutes. But after my improvement, which was found over the board,
>>... he started thinking more than half hour to discover He was lost.
>>
>>I think you must have that game in your database but if not and you are
>>interested I can post it here.
>
> I don't track names in my database, and lately I've been logging the games
> of "supercomputers" that win 200 or 300 games in a bullet session on a
> server with maybe two or three losses, usually to other computers.
>
> I've never said the other parts of a chessgame were not important, only that
> they are "tiebreakers" for deciding games not won or lost in the opening,
> but that the opening battle is first, it occurs every game, and is therefore
> most important.
>
> It's my "1/x rule." Each move from any point in the game is worth 1/x with
> x = the move #. From the starting position, the first move is worth 1, the
> second 0.5, the third 0.333, the fourth 0.25 and so on. Once you have your
> first move in your repertoire, the formula moves to the second move, with
> that move being worth 1, move 3 worth 0.5, etc.
>
> The most important move for a player is therefore the first move at which he
> is out of his book, and if you can stay in your book while your opponent is
> not in his, that is almost like having a power play in hockey because he is
> likely to mess up while you are still playing from memory. That is the
> "zone" in which most champions like Fischer would win their games.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2005 22:10:38
From:
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
> My supossition was correct, you have no database. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5 3.e5
2.d4 exd4
centre game
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 09:27:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Karpov never really innovated like them, and Kasparov did. Their match
> results speak for themselves.
But the only line I'm aware of that's named after Kasparov is a pawn sac
in the Sicilian. And is Karpov's match record all that much worse than
Kasparov's? Karpov won an awful lot of candidates matches...
Dave.
--
David Richerby Electronic Whisky (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky but it uses
electricity!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2005 22:36:13
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> Another question is if Karpov style of play (very technical) works
> better in certain lines sometimes out of critical deeply studied theory.
Karpov's style - especially in the years before Kasparov emerged as his
prime contender - really wasn't as technical as his current reputation
would lead you to believe.
The man had no fear of sharp positions. A quick perusal of his early
games will show a fearless willingness to engage in very sharp lines
from both sides of the board. The Keres attack in the sicilian as
white, the yugoslav attack (as in the already-mentioned game against
Korchnoi) and even offering the sicilian as black.
I think he earned his reputation as a technician largely on account of
his first couple of Kasparov matches, which featured a lot of games
where it seems like Karpov's technique was matched against Kasparov's
tactics.
But that was a strategic decision on Karpov's part. He assessed that
technique was the weakest part of Kasparov's game. Games like #9 of the
84/85 Moscow match suggest that such an assessment was accurate. But
other games show him perfectly willing to sacrifice material and duel in
razor-sharp positions if that was the area where he expected to have an
advantage.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 09:15:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think [Karpov] earned his reputation as a technician largely on
> account of his first couple of Kasparov matches, which featured a lot
> of games where it seems like Karpov's technique was matched against
> Kasparov's tactics.
Quite possibly. He wasn't afraid to play some pretty sharp lines in the
1987 match, such as 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3
Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 O-O 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ in games 5,
7, 9 and 11 (+1=2-1 in that order, though the loss came after Karpov
blundered the away the exchange on move 35 in a reasonable position).
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Beefy Book (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel that's made from a
cow but you never have to clean it!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2005 12:06:50
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I think [Karpov] earned his reputation as a technician largely on
>>account of his first couple of Kasparov matches, which featured a lot
>>of games where it seems like Karpov's technique was matched against
>>Kasparov's tactics.
>
>
> Quite possibly. He wasn't afraid to play some pretty sharp lines in the
> 1987 match, such as 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3
> Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 O-O 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ in games 5,
> 7, 9 and 11 (+1=2-1 in that order, though the loss came after Karpov
> blundered the away the exchange on move 35 in a reasonable position).
>
That's debatable. In past 1970 and 1980 decades Karpov most known games
are the most spectacular but my opinion is that He was one of the best
players in endings and in quiet positions and when He had TWO options:
one technical and one sharp he usually prefered the technical one.
I remember many games in that times when He prefered a better ending in
a position where a winning attack can be made.
The line dave suggest is not specially sharp, is a line rejected by
previous theory because it was thought white could not use his pawn plus
and Karpov showed some technical ideas to reinforce white position.
My idea about sharp and critical lines is more 12.Bd3 combined with the
quality sacrifice with a later d5.
yours,
Antonio T.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2005 14:47:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Kramnik opinion about openings (To Ray)
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> [Kramnik] usually pushes the envelope in the opening as much as he can,
> and will decimate anyone rated under 2600 more often than not.
A 150-point rating gap does tend to lead to the higher rated player
winning a lot of the games, yes. Look at the current Young Masters
Knockout in Lausanne:
Voloitkin 2-0 Paehtz (rating difference 250)
Nakamura 2-0 Dzagnidze (222)
Mamedyarov 2-0 Vachier-Legrave (119)
Harikrishna 1.5-0.5 Carlsen (117)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Happy Wine (TM): it's like a vintage
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Beaujolais that makes your troubles
melt away!
|
|
