Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Date: 27 Oct 2005 03:32:43
From:
Subject: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Hi

As per the title I'm seeking recommendations for repetoire book(s) for
both the white and black pieces. By nature I prefer an open/attackin
game (with both white and black) as opposed to a postional game. As it
is not always possible to play an open attacking game the ideal
candidate book should strike a balance.

What I specifically do not want are books that contain reams and reams
of example games, variations and continuations with little explanation
of the why. I have seen too many books that seem to assume that their
audience are all GM's. What I would like in an ideal candidate book is
one that spends a lot of time explaining the principles and ideas
behind their chosen openings and why a particular move is good/bad/OK

As an aside, I'm playing a lot of online chess at the moment so I was
wondering if it is worth considering having two repetoires, one for
playing on-line where my opponent has several days to consider his
reponse and one for playing over the board where you are more likely to
get away with openings that might be considered suspect/less than sound
(and fun to play) but are unlikely to be successful when playing
online?

Regards
Roger

Date: 14 Nov 2005 02:48:36
From:
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Do you know, I wish I hadn't asked now! :-)

Regards
Roger

Date: 14 Nov 2005 14:17:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

<[email protected] > wrote:
> Do you know, I wish I hadn't asked now! :-)

Heh. I hope there was some useful information before the flamefest
started.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Old-Fashioned Hi-Fi (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a music system but it's
perfect for your grandparents and
completely natural!

Date: 12 Nov 2005 17:20:38
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>I do know that when I played Nakamura after having been back barely a month,
>I held him even for 22 moves before crumbling. The computer said I had an
>advantage of slightly more than half a pawn. As black.

sounds like you should stop studying openings and work on your endgame

JLohner
ICC 'Inconnux'

Date: 11 Nov 2005 13:34:34
From: David Ames
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
>
> This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months.
>
>

Can your gain be documented? Can you stipulate that your rating was a
correct estimation of your playing strength, both before and after the
gain took place?

David Ames

Date: 11 Nov 2005 08:11:14
From:
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Mr. Gordon is talking about USCF ratings, not FIDE ratings. Mr.
Gordon's USCF rating peaked at around 2000, which at that time (before
USCF rating deflation in the mid-1990's) would have been equivalent to
around 1900-1950 FIDE strength. So, if Sr. Torrecillas's FIDE rating
peaked at around 2400 FIDE, and Mr. Gordon's rating peaked at around
1950 FIDE (giving him the benefit of the doubt on the rating
conversion), Sr. Torrecillas' peak rating was approximately 450 ELO
points higher than Mr. Gordon's. The conclusion I draw from this
admittedly limited evidence is that it strongly suggests that Sr.
Torrecillas knows more than Mr. Gordon about what it takes to become a
master-level player, because Sr. Torrecillas has been there and Mr.
Gordon has not.

I have serious doubts about Mr. Gordon's premise that someone can
become much stronger by only studying (or studying and playing casual
blitz games) and not playing serious OTB games. I don't know (or even
know of) anybody who has ever done that. Maybe the chess historians
can give some historical example(s), but then we would probably be
talking about someone with a first-rate chess talent. And with all due
respect to Mr. Gordon, nothing in his relatively short OTB playing
career suggests that he is a first-rate talent, or that he will prove
an exception to the general rule that to seriously improve, you must
play serious OTB games, and a lot of them.

I also seriously doubt that a 2000 player can become a 2800 player
merely by studying openings. What Mr. Gordon fails to note in his
"Hydra" analogy is Hydra is tactically very strong, probably 2850+ FIDE
tactically. Very few humans, if any, will ever be even remotely close
to that strong tactically, no matter how much they study. So using
Hydra (with its large opening book and 2800+ tactics) as a training
example for a human seems very misguided.

Of course there are many possible approaches to chess training. But
common sense suggests if you want to learn an effective way to become a
very strong player, you are more likely to succeed by asking a very
strong player (such as Sr. Torrecillas) who knows from personal
experience what qualities make up a strong player, than by asking a
relatively weak player (and I do mean "relatively weak" only...a player
like Mr. Gordon who has been rated 2000 USCF is quite a good player in
the overall scheme of things) who clearly does not.

Just my two bits.

- Geof Strayer

Date: 14 Nov 2005 10:02:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

<[email protected] > wrote:
> What Mr. Gordon fails to note in his "Hydra" analogy is Hydra is
> tactically very strong, probably 2850+ FIDE tactically. Very few
> humans, if any, will ever be even remotely close to that strong
> tactically, no matter how much they study. So using Hydra (with its
> large opening book and 2800+ tactics) as a training example for a human
> seems very misguided.

It's further misguided because Hydra doesn't have a large opening book.
I can't find the cite now, but I remember reading at the time of the
Adams-Hydra match that the opening book they were using typically only
went ten moves deep, after which the machine was on its own. Their
opening preparation mainly involved choosing lines that would lead to
positions where Hydra plays well, rather than coming up with new moves.

Dave.
--
David Richerby Hungry Lotion (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ soothing hand lotion but it'll
eat you!

Date: 11 Nov 2005 22:17:19
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
(...)
> Of course there are many possible approaches to chess training. But
> common sense suggests if you want to learn an effective way to become a
> very strong player, you are more likely to succeed by asking a very
> strong player (such as Sr. Torrecillas) who knows from personal
> experience what qualities make up a strong player, than by asking a
> relatively weak player (and I do mean "relatively weak" only...a player
> like Mr. Gordon who has been rated 2000 USCF is quite a good player in
> the overall scheme of things) who clearly does not.
>
> Just my two bits.
>
> - Geof Strayer

Thanks for your kind words Geof,

I would like to observe that our rating is not the only objective
difference between us. I think I try to convince people here with
examples and with logical reasons. And I think too I have more
experience both in training people and in knowing true masters.

There are many players (maybe rated 2000) who work hardly with chess
students and know very well how to train with them to achieve the best
improvement. Those players have a wide experience teaching chess and
their thoughs are very important too.

Another detail is that contact with many people at master level can help
us in thoughts about improvement. I obvioulsy have that contact but
other players with less rating can have a similar or greater contact.

But Ray case is very obscure: He says He do not play OTB chess, He do
not post games here, He do not uses logic in his comments/opinions, He
do not analize games posted here trying to help people with constuctive
advice or arguments, ... And he defend a "revolutionary" method
(opposite to known experience) only repeating empty arguments.

My experience tells me that his advice is clearly negative and it
difficult the improvement. I ask him to post some own game, to comment
one of the games posted here, ... but with no positive answer.

An if He do not do that (not giving us the possibility to show He is
absolutely wrong), I ask him to stop recommending negative advice.

AT

Pd: About mine being a "very strong player", ... all we think people
rated 200 points higher than us, are strong players no matter how easy
we win people rated 200 points down us.
In my case it's the same, I have lost too much games with GM to think
I'm an strong player (specially for the low dificulty they have had).
To have won many games in simultaneus exibitions with people rated
higher than Ray do not convince me of the opposite.

Date: 31 Oct 2005 08:20:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Just out of curiousity, what level of player are you? I'm only a 1400
(USCF) player, but something I've found from my own experience, and
most recommendations I've seen seem to agree, is that reading opening
books is a waste of time for anyone below expert or master level.

I bought a repertoire book by Purdy (I think it's called "Action
Chess"), which I thought was a pretty good book, but my games really
didn't stick to the repertoire provided often enough for it to be that
useful. And even if I do get to play out "book" lines for 8-10 moves,
my games are still almost always determined by tactics or endgame
knowledge. So that's where I'm focusing my energy now.

Besides, I find that it's more fun to experiment with lots of different
openings, instead of sticking to the same few over and over. I see
stuff recommended here and on various web sites, and I'll try it out
for a few games on the internet to see how it goes. If I like the feel
of the games that I get from a particular opening, I'll stick with it.
Otherwise, I won't play it again. I think I learn more that way,
anyway, since I need to understand a wide variety of positions, rather
than just memorizing lines in a particular position.

So my recommendation is to get MCO or NCO. Use one of those to get some
ideas for stuff to try, and to review your games to see where you left
book and what you could have done better. Other than that, avoid the
opening books, unless you're near master level and really know what
you're doing.

Just my 2 pawns worth...

--Richard

Date: 04 Nov 2005 09:46:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

[email protected] <[email protected] > wrote:
> So my recommendation is to get MCO or NCO. Use one of those to get some
> ideas for stuff to try, and to review your games to see where you left
> book and what you could have done better. Other than that, avoid the
> opening books, unless you're near master level and really know what
> you're doing.

The OP was asking for a book that *explains* the opening. [MN]CO is just
a list of moves, with hardly any explanation and is therefore exactly
what the OP doesn't want.

A book that explains the opening without going into enormous detail is
very useful to a player below master strength. Now, you don't want to
spend a large proportion of your time studying the opening but some
well-directed study, based on understanding rather than memorization, is
useful.

The OP is looking for a repertoire book and I don't have any recommen-
dations for those. I would suggest Saddler's books on the queen's gambit
for either colour, as they contain excellent explanations of what the
openings are about but the OP says he prefers the more tactical stuff
so probably isn't going to play 1.d4 or want to play the QGD. Some lines
of the semi-Slav can get very tactical but most tournament players of my
strength (~105BCF) seem to play 2.Nf3 after 1.d4.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Happy Lotion (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ soothing hand lotion that makes your
troubles melt away!

Date: 01 Nov 2005 13:55:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

> Just out of curiousity, what level of player are you? I'm only a 1400
> (USCF) player, but something I've found from my own experience, and
> most recommendations I've seen seem to agree, is that reading opening
> books is a waste of time for anyone below expert or master level.

Here we go again: those who are under expert and master level don't stay
that way when they read opening books!!!

> I bought a repertoire book by Purdy (I think it's called "Action
> Chess"), which I thought was a pretty good book, but my games really
> didn't stick to the repertoire provided often enough for it to be that
> useful. And even if I do get to play out "book" lines for 8-10 moves,
> my games are still almost always determined by tactics or endgame
> knowledge. So that's where I'm focusing my energy now.

The idea behind building a repertoire is to grow with it over time.

> Besides, I find that it's more fun to experiment with lots of different
> openings, instead of sticking to the same few over and over.

Fischer never knew what he was missing, did he?

>I see
> stuff recommended here and on various web sites, and I'll try it out
> for a few games on the internet to see how it goes. If I like the feel
> of the games that I get from a particular opening, I'll stick with it.
> Otherwise, I won't play it again. I think I learn more that way,
> anyway, since I need to understand a wide variety of positions, rather
> than just memorizing lines in a particular position.

Musicians don't do that with songs, do they? No, they practice them
thousands of times to master every nuance.

> So my recommendation is to get MCO or NCO.

Those are repertoire books. Just bigger ones.

>Use one of those to get some
> ideas for stuff to try, and to review your games to see where you left
> book and what you could have done better.
Other than that, avoid the
> opening books, unless you're near master level and really know what
> you're doing.

Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.

FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.

Date: 04 Nov 2005 09:31:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> I see stuff recommended here and on various web sites, and I'll try it
>> out for a few games on the internet to see how it goes. If I like the
>> feel of the games that I get from a particular opening, I'll stick with
>> it. Otherwise, I won't play it again. I think I learn more that way,
>> anyway, since I need to understand a wide variety of positions, rather
>> than just memorizing lines in a particular position.
>
> Musicians don't do that with songs, do they? No, they practice them
> thousands of times to master every nuance.

Huh? Musicians don't try all kinds of things to see what they like and
then practice those ones? Which planet are you on?

> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.
>
> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.

So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Homicidal Cheese (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a lump of cheese but it wants to
kill you and it's frozen in a block
of ice!

Date: 04 Nov 2005 21:31:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.
>>
>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.
>
> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'.

I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way.

Date: 05 Nov 2005 04:34:30
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

On 2005-11-04, Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.
>>
>> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'.
>
> I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way.

But did you get there?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

Date: 06 Nov 2005 16:08:30
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.
>>>
>>> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'.
>>
>> I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way.
>
> But did you get there?

In strength? Yes. In rating? No. How many people make expert in two
years however?

Class prizes are not set up to reward people for going over 2000 unless they
want a title.

Date: 07 Nov 2005 08:35:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>>> Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.
>>>>
>>>> So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'.
>>>
>>> I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way.
>>
>> But did you get there?
>
> In strength? Yes. In rating? No.

You must have been very unfortunate to be playing 2200+ chess and only get
a rating of 2000. Did your opponents keep kicking you under the table at
critical moments causing you to drop your queen on unprotected squares?

Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
like an awful lot of lag.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but you
can eat it!

Date: 07 Nov 2005 10:53:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>> But did you get there?
>>
>> In strength? Yes. In rating? No.
>
> You must have been very unfortunate to be playing 2200+ chess and only get
> a rating of 2000. Did your opponents keep kicking you under the table at
> critical moments causing you to drop your queen on unprotected squares?

I concerned myself with long-term development rather than pushing up my
rating.

Of course, the prizes for u-2200 are usually much greater than for u-2000,
so I guess I'm missing out.

> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
> like an awful lot of lag.

Not when one studies full-time.

Date: 07 Nov 2005 22:24:06
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> I concerned myself with long-term development rather than pushing up my
> rating.
>

The funny thing is that everybody does this sort of justification - you
just rarely see someone be so baldfaced about it.

You have a good result, that result becomes your new "talking point." "I
just got a 2200 performance rating!"

Nevermind that if your strength really was 2000, you'd expect some
2200-performance ratings, and some 1800 ones, too. Everybody likes to
look at their best couple of performance ratings and hypothesize that
those represent their true strength.

Hey, I had some performance ratings 300 points above my published, too,
and I quit when I thought like I was improving rapidly. But there's a
world on difference between "being on pace for ..." a given rating and
actually earning it.

-Ron

Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:24:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> I concerned myself with long-term development rather than pushing up my
>> rating.
>>
>
> The funny thing is that everybody does this sort of justification - you
> just rarely see someone be so baldfaced about it.
>
> You have a good result, that result becomes your new "talking point." "I
> just got a 2200 performance rating!"
>
> Nevermind that if your strength really was 2000, you'd expect some
> 2200-performance ratings, and some 1800 ones, too. Everybody likes to
> look at their best couple of performance ratings and hypothesize that
> those represent their true strength.
>
> Hey, I had some performance ratings 300 points above my published, too,
> and I quit when I thought like I was improving rapidly. But there's a
> world on difference between "being on pace for ..." a given rating and
> actually earning it.

I had no incentive to leave the A-sections, for which I am still eligible.

The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger if
I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure.

Date: 08 Nov 2005 09:52:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger
> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure.

That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter lower
sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Chocolate Umbrella (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ umbrella that's made of chocolate!

Date: 08 Nov 2005 22:06:22
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger
>> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure.
>
> That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter lower
> sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging.

So is being much stronger than one's rating.

If this discussion were being held in Washington Square Park, you'd have the
audience in stitches.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 08:56:29
From: Jerry Creed
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

So, Mrs. Lincoln, aside from that, how was the play?

Are the surprise books by Bosch any good?

Do you two geniuses have any real suggestions?

I will look at the dvantage White/Black mention way, way way above; any
others?

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a sandbagger
>>> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure.
>>
>> That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter lower
>> sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging.
>
> So is being much stronger than one's rating.
>
> If this discussion were being held in Washington Square Park, you'd have
> the audience in stitches.
>
>
>

Date: 10 Nov 2005 17:48:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

> So, Mrs. Lincoln, aside from that, how was the play?
>
> Are the surprise books by Bosch any good?
>
> Do you two geniuses have any real suggestions?
>
> I will look at the dvantage White/Black mention way, way way above; any
> others?

I have a free chess book on my site that explains my approach to the
opening.

>
>
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> The same people who doubt my claims now would be calling me a
>>>> sandbagger
>>>> if I sent my rating to its floor and entered u-1800, that's for sure.
>>>
>>> That's because deliberately lowering one's rating in order to enter
>>> lower
>>> sections of tournaments is precisely the definition of sandbagging.
>>
>> So is being much stronger than one's rating.
>>
>> If this discussion were being held in Washington Square Park, you'd have
>> the audience in stitches.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 07 Nov 2005 11:37:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
>> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
>> like an awful lot of lag.
>
> Not when one studies full-time.

You said you peaked at 2000 in the late 1980s but were already at 2200+
strength in those days. Now, since you were playing in tournaments at
that point (how else would you have a rating?), it seems that you weren't
studying full-time. So, would you care to explain again how there was a
200-point gap between your `true strength' and your rating?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Radioactive Priest (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man of the cloth but it'll
make you glow in the dark and it wants
to kill you!

Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:22:29
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
>>> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
>>> like an awful lot of lag.
>>
>> Not when one studies full-time.
>
> You said you peaked at 2000 in the late 1980s but were already at 2200+
> strength in those days. Now, since you were playing in tournaments at
> that point (how else would you have a rating?), it seems that you weren't
> studying full-time.

Yes, I was studying full-time AND playing in tournaments. I would study
about 75 hours a week and play tournaments. I used to carry a half-dozen
chess books with me to study while in transit as well.

>So, would you care to explain again how there was a
> 200-point gap between your `true strength' and your rating?

I had a performance rating of over 2260 for 20 straight games, which would
have been my rating had they been my first games.

Any performance rating you can sustain for 20 games or more consecutively is
your "strength" for at least that period.

Ratings do not move up that fast, unfortunately, and by the time the next
list came out, I had quit chess and performed horribly in my last dozen
games, since I was no longer into it.

Date: 08 Nov 2005 15:15:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
>>>> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
>>>> like an awful lot of lag.
>>>
>>> Not when one studies full-time.
>>
>> You said you peaked at 2000 in the late 1980s but were already at 2200+
>> strength in those days. Now, since you were playing in tournaments at
>> that point (how else would you have a rating?), it seems that you weren't
>> studying full-time.
>
> Yes, I was studying full-time AND playing in tournaments. I would study
> about 75 hours a week and play tournaments. I used to carry a half-
> dozen chess books with me to study while in transit as well.

Oh, I see. I misunderstood ``study full-time'' as meaning that study was
your only chess-related activity. My apologies.

>> So, would you care to explain again how there was a 200-point gap
>> between your `true strength' and your rating?
>
> I had a performance rating of over 2260 for 20 straight games, which
> would have been my rating had they been my first games.

Impressive. It seems that your rating would have caught up pretty
quickly, then.

> Ratings do not move up that fast, unfortunately, and by the time the
> next list came out, I had quit chess and performed horribly in my last
> dozen games, since I was no longer into it.

And herein lies the problem. I played four successive tournaments (twenty
games) over which my performance rating was 116BCF, compared to my end-of-
season grade of 107. But I don't claim that 116 is my true strength
because I had a poor tournament before that run and a complete shocker[1]
after and I realise that, whatever my strength on a good day, I blunder
enough pieces to reduce my strength. On the other hand, I find it
comforting that, if I can be more careful, I can push my grade up a little
without needing any more chess understanding.

Dave.

[1] 2/5 and the two wins were against a guy in his second tournament and a
little girl whose BCF grade was then under 20.

--
David Richerby Transparent Sadistic Radio (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a radio but it wants to hurt you
and you can see right through it!

Date: 08 Nov 2005 22:05:30
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> Ratings do not move up that fast, unfortunately, and by the time the
>> next list came out, I had quit chess and performed horribly in my last
>> dozen games, since I was no longer into it.
>
> And herein lies the problem. I played four successive tournaments (twenty
> games) over which my performance rating was 116BCF, compared to my end-of-
> season grade of 107. But I don't claim that 116 is my true strength
> because I had a poor tournament before that run and a complete shocker[1]
> after and I realise that, whatever my strength on a good day, I blunder
> enough pieces to reduce my strength.

My dip was caused by my loss of interest in chess, not a dip in my strength.

I had already given up eligibility in three classes because I didn't want to
be a sandbagger. I felt no need to rush the rating improvement since the
class prizes were the only way I could get paid before becoming a GM back in
the day. Instead, I got paid by finding office work.

> On the other hand, I find it
> comforting that, if I can be more careful, I can push my grade up a little
> without needing any more chess understanding.

If you can sustain a 116 for 20 games then that is your true strength.

Date: 07 Nov 2005 10:20:36
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na David Richerby ha escrit:

> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>Openings are what get people to master strength and beyond.
>>>>>>FWIW, I peaked at 2000 in 1989.
>>>>>So, er, how d'ya know what it takes to get to 2200+? Just askin'.
>>>>I played in my first tournament in 1987 and was well on the way.
>>>But did you get there?
>>In strength? Yes. In rating? No.
>
> You must have been very unfortunate to be playing 2200+ chess and only get
> a rating of 2000. Did your opponents keep kicking you under the table at
> critical moments causing you to drop your queen on unprotected squares?
>
> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
> like an awful lot of lag.
>
> Dave.

Good rek Dave, :-)

I can imagine his answer: I only play 1 minute games or computers games,
those games do not count for rating systems. I will return playing human
people when I reach +2800 strengh.

AT

Date: 07 Nov 2005 10:54:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
>> performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
>> like an awful lot of lag.
>>
>> Dave.
>
> Good rek Dave, :-)

What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again?

Oh yeah: zilch.

Date: 07 Nov 2005 21:44:23
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>Sure, any improving player has their rating lag a little behind their
>>>performance rating for their last few tournaments but 200 points sounds
>>>like an awful lot of lag.
>>>
>>>Dave.
>>
>>Good rek Dave, :-)
>
> What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again?
>
> Oh yeah: zilch.

Gordon, ...

no idea, I'm interested in another objectives when playing chess
tournaments.

My advice for you is forget prize money and concentrate in enjoying
chess (improving youe level and understanding it better each day)

AT

Pd: Respect to your "full dedication" to chess, ... can you post here
some example of Gordon-Gordon game or Gordon-Machine game with a minimal
of interest? Maybe your games are as interesting as the ones we can read
at: http://www.unorthodoxchess.com/losergames.zip

Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:19:57
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again?
>>
>> Oh yeah: zilch.
>
> Gordon, ...
>
> no idea, I'm interested in another objectives when playing chess
> tournaments.
>
> My advice for you is forget prize money and concentrate in enjoying chess
> (improving youe level and understanding it better each day)

The day those who send me bills for life's expenses forget that money, I'll
forget prize money.

>
> AT
>
> Pd: Respect to your "full dedication" to chess, ... can you post here some
> example of Gordon-Gordon game or Gordon-Machine game with a minimal of
> interest? Maybe your games are as interesting as the ones we can read

I've posted a few games here so far. I generally don't like doing so.

Date: 07 Nov 2005 11:33:53
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again?
>
> Oh yeah: zilch.

Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 because
there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? Was
available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those
days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could
make any difference...

Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Voodoo Soap (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a personal hygiene product that has
mystical powers but you can take
it anywhere!

Date: 08 Nov 2005 07:17:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> What's the difference in prize money for u-2200 and u-2000 again?
>>
>> Oh yeah: zilch.
>
> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000 because
> there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections? Was
> available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those
> days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could
> make any difference...

The difference is that rather than "perfect my mediocrity" as Jeremy Silman
calls it, which would have yielded a higher rating, I developed my game for
the long haul, which *naturally* results in a lower rating, without any
lower prizes to compete for.

Date: 08 Nov 2005 15:03:19
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000
>> because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections?
>> Was available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those
>> days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could
>> make any difference...
>
> The difference is that rather than "perfect my mediocrity" as Jeremy
> Silman calls it, which would have yielded a higher rating, I developed
> my game for the long haul, which *naturally* results in a lower rating,
> without any lower prizes to compete for.

By `perfecting your mediocrity', Silman means getting really good at
beating players rated a little below your current level but not learning
the techniques required to beat stronger players. It's good that you
didn't do that and therefore became a stronger player. Nonetheless, this
doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength. By
arming yourself with the skills to beat stronger and stronger players, you
should have started beating these players and gaining the rating points...

To argue that your increased strength naturally lowers your rating just
doesn't make sense. You might experience a brief dip while you throw out
the old techniques that only worked against 2000 players and practiced the
new techniques for beating stronger players than that but your peak
rating, by construction, can't be the result of a dip. For a dip, your
rating has to go down; for a peak, it has to go up, see.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Cheese Wine (TM): it's like a vintage
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Beaujolais that's made of cheese!

Date: 08 Nov 2005 22:03:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000
>>> because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections?
>>> Was available prize money included in the USCF rating formula in those
>>> days? Otherwise, I'm finding it kind of hard to work out how it could
>>> make any difference...
>>
>> The difference is that rather than "perfect my mediocrity" as Jeremy
>> Silman calls it, which would have yielded a higher rating, I developed
>> my game for the long haul, which *naturally* results in a lower rating,
>> without any lower prizes to compete for.
>
> By `perfecting your mediocrity', Silman means getting really good at
> beating players rated a little below your current level but not learning
> the techniques required to beat stronger players.

Exactly. This is why people don't study sharp openings: they don't want to
get killed for the first year they play them.

>It's good that you
> didn't do that and therefore became a stronger player.

One becomes higher-rated, but not stronger, if they don't push their
boundaries.

> Nonetheless, this
> doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength.

I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I been
unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official rating.

>By
> arming yourself with the skills to beat stronger and stronger players, you
> should have started beating these players and gaining the rating points...

Had I not quit the game, I may very well have done that.

After a 13-year layoff, I had to catch up to all the new theory, a lot of
which was computer-enhanced. Think of a doctor or lawyer who has been out
of practice that long if you want an example.

> To argue that your increased strength naturally lowers your rating just
> doesn't make sense.

The process of increasing one's strength will lower one's rating. For
example, if one plays the closed Sicilian and gets to 2000, then decides to
switch to the open sicilian, he's going to lose a lot of rating points while
he learns the new opening, but his long-term improvement will be quicker.

> You might experience a brief dip while you throw out
> the old techniques that only worked against 2000 players and practiced the
> new techniques for beating stronger players than that but your peak
> rating, by construction, can't be the result of a dip.

The dips are not brief unless the improvement is mild.

> For a dip, your
> rating has to go down; for a peak, it has to go up, see.

My rating dipped because I got a regular job and quit the game. Now with
internet chess there's really no way to "quit" so that's no longer an issue.

I am on pace to be a GM in about six years. The only question is whether or
not my body will hold up before my brain gets there. Chess is extremely
easy to learn now, thanks to machines correcting my errors, although the
process is ridiculously tedious.

On the other hand, there may be others like me who don't bother with rated
chess until they have a good reason to. The only reason I would enter a
tournament now is to grab a GM norm or win a class prize, and both require
roughly the same level of ability. I am not yet ready, but that will
change.

I am currently one of the hardest-working chessplayers in America, not that
anyone gives a shit or wants to help me fund my training (that won't be
forgotten, I assure you).

Date: 09 Nov 2005 00:56:36
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>>Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000
>>>>because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections?
>
>>Nonetheless, this
>>doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength.
>
> I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I been
> unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official rating.

Hello,

Ray, .. if a 2000 player plays a 2260 performance in 20 games He will
have a NEW rating of 2095, ...
(tht's easy to do, there are free ELO calculators on the net))

A player can have performances 200 points up his rating but also
performances 200 points down his rating. If you allways obtain 2260
performances you will soon become a 2260 player but it's not the case.

Myself is an example of that. I play very few tournaments:
- This year (july 2005 list) I obtained 7,5 of 9 with an average
opposition rated 2308. That is a 2550 performance. I was lucky and I
gaigned 28 points.
- But in the precedent tournament (luly 2004 list) I obtained 4,5 of 9
with a 2250. This is easy I obtained a 2250 performance and I lost 26
points.
It will be nonsense for my part to claim to be a 2550 player.

All that can be checked a FIDE website:
http://www.fide.com
http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=2200392
http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=2200392&moder=4

Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance
in 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you.

AT

Date: 25 Nov 2005 11:01:58
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>
>>>>> Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000
>>>>> because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections?
>>
>>
>>> Nonetheless, this
>>> doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength.
>>
>>
>> I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I
>> been unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my
>> official rating.

> Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance
> in 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you.

In any case, I have to wonder about the "veracity" of the chess ratings
system as a whole.

This is mostly due to how modern tournaments and other rated things in
chess (such as Internet chess) are set up. Back in the day, I would
consider ratings much more reliable, as almost all the old classic
tournaments were round-robins, to my knowledge they didn't normally have
sections (for non-invitational tournaments, there was Open and there was
... well, Open), and thus there was a rather wider range of strength in
the tournament, a wider range of people who had to play all the other
people.

In these days of Swiss and sections, on the other hand, it becomes much
rarer for there to be significant strength spreads within a tournament,
and the ratings tend to get based mainly on how players do against
same-strength players. This has a number of main effects -

1) Significant inflation at the top - Top players end up mainly playing
in sections that consist mostly/completely of top players. This is known
to lead to ratings inflation (it's also why some top players - though
this seems to be less common now - on sites like ICC set their formulas
up to refuse to play anyone who's significantly below their rating, I
think. This 'protects' the rating by avoiding the chance of a
significant upset. The fact that zero-increment blitz and the holding
strategy* are endemic on ICC also conspires to encourage this among
people whose ratings are important to them ...).

2) The *presence* of lower rating sections, while on the one hand
encouraging lesser lights to play chess by the fact that they have a
chance at the prizes too, also tends to have a 'back of the bus'
impression about it; lower rated players, if even just by the prize
enticements and better chances to win, are encouraged to stick to their
sections, rather than play in the Open section. Or worse, the top
players will be kept in an Invitational section preventing even Open
players from playing them even if they could possibly hold their own.
This stunts rating growth, by lowering the average rating of such
players' opponents - the average rating of opponents is vital as it is
the main moderating factor that affects how high one can go.

The 'backwater player' factor is another example of such Elo inaccuracy
- a player may be capable of consistent GM chess but if they live in an
area with few or no other strong players and do not travel regularly so
as to be able to play in more urban tournaments, they may not break 2200
or even 2000 or possibly even 1800. There's only so high above your
opponents you can be before rating increases slow to a crawl, and as no
one is beating you sufficiently often and you're the top player among
your Elo-pool, no one becomes strong enough to become your next
'stepping stone' ... I have to think this problem is probably actually
quite frequent, given that chess, to my knowledge (except in the old
Soviet days) hasn't really had a such thing as a 'talent search'. You
may play like a Capablanca but unlike, say, a great high school or
college football or basketball player, who's really going to notice?

3) The fact that the tournament standard these days has shifted from the
classic RR to the Swiss format, also tends to maintain
compartmentalization of ratings; Swiss seeding is in the first place
based upon ratings, and secondly keeps players with the same or similar
scores together, which except in the case of short events will tend to
cause the top rated players to percolate back to the top. If I
understand the Swiss format correctly you will mostly see top/bottom
rating pairings in the 2nd or 3rd rounds or so at the most. Occasionally
a lower rated player may get to play several top flights if they keep
winning upset games but this is unlikely (the sectionalization often
prevents this, anyway, as I said).

Basically, for the ratings system to really have better veracity, I
think we need two things to return to chess. Unfortunately one is quite
unlikely and the other, I think, is almost surely an "ain't gonna
happen" ...

a) Sectionalization needs to be abolished, or greatly limited. No
U-sections with their prize-based magnetic effects. No Invitational
section to sequester the top players. Any player should have an
opportunity to play any other player. This causes the ratings to reflect
how well a player does against the chess world as a whole, rather than
against a mostly handpicked selection of other similar players. (Isn't
this what Elo ratings are meant to reflect, anyway?)

b) There needs to be a focus shift back to the RR. Unfortunately,
especially with abolished sectionalization I'm not sure how possible
this is ... sadly, the singularity of focus required to make it in the
professional world these days (to have enough money to be globetrotting
to tournaments and taking the 2-3 week vacations needed for the time a
large RR takes) is, I think, mainly incompatible with the singularity of
focus needed to make it in the chess world. With the result that you'd
end up with mostly the top professional players (who CAN make it as
professional chessplayers), and some rich people who don't need to
actually hold down a job without being fired for taking so much time off
... it seems that something vital has shifted badly since 1850-1930 or
so ...

Footnote:

* - Holding strategy: A despicable time strategy. Basically one player
gets maybe a 10-second advantage in a position which has no *real*
winning chances for either player (or if there are any, there isn't the
time for either player to consider a plan), and in which a piece can be
simply moved around in a quick and simple manner without being a
blunder, e.g., a Rook that is protected by its King and can be moved
back and forth maintaining this protection. That player will then simply
move the piece back and forth until the time runs down to that extra 10
seconds for them while the other player flags because the human brain
and body simply don't allow fast enough reaction time to physically make
the moves fast enough to overcome it.

A most unsportsmanlike strategy, I think; fortunately, it is viable only
in certain circumstances - there must be no clock increment or delay,
either of which will basically invalidate the whole thing; it also
mainly only works in blitz, because longer TCs allow enough moves to be
physically made to call the 3-repetition or 50-move rule, and it also,
sadly, works mainly against humans (against whom being sporting is
rather more important - nobody cares if you are rude to silicon chips),
not modern computers (I have had it work against computers in certain
cases, but for the most part comps are able to make moves fast enough
now that I've mostly only seen other comps be able to do this) ...

Honestly, I consider using the clocks to eke out a win in this manner
when there is no viable OTB win available (especially if the other
player actually is moving the pieces as fast as they possibly can in
tempo with you), to be QUITE out of the spirit of the game. Even
Sitzfleisch, I think, was more sporting ...

It's especially bad when the game actually IS drawn (such as inevitable
threefold repetition or perpetual check) and you refuse the draw and do
the holding strategy, just because you know that, say, the opponent will
not be able to check you the necessary 50 times within their last 10
seconds even if OTB it is indeed unavoidable.

And this does tie into ratings and their accuracy; 1) when there is no
prize money available (this is mostly seen on ICC) the only motivation
to treat your opponent in this manner is to get the win and its
associated ratings bonus, and 2) how accurately can a rating really
reflect your chess strength when you win games on flag without being
able to win them OTB (mind you, the aforementioned STRICTLY relates to
games that are won SOLELY because of the flag. A time pressure blunder
that leads to a loss OTB is still an OTB blunder/loss)? It seems that
this does stunt the correctness of ratings ...

Date: 19 Dec 2005 13:48:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

[Sorry for the late response. I was going to explain why I disagree with
your analysis of the `inaccuracy' of the rating system but I haven't had
time and probably won't for the forseeable future.]

Aande <[email protected] > wrote:
> * - Holding strategy: A despicable time strategy. Basically one player
> gets maybe a 10-second advantage in a position which has no *real*
> winning chances for either player (or if there are any, there isn't the
> time for either player to consider a plan), and in which a piece can be
> simply moved around in a quick and simple manner without being a
> blunder, e.g., a Rook that is protected by its King and can be moved
> back and forth maintaining this protection. That player will then simply
> move the piece back and forth until the time runs down to that extra 10
> seconds for them while the other player flags because the human brain
> and body simply don't allow fast enough reaction time to physically make
> the moves fast enough to overcome it.

I draw your attention to FIDE Law 10.2:

``10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on
his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop
the clocks and summon the arbiter.

a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win
the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by
normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he
shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.''

(Sections b, c and d explain what happens if the arbiter postpones his
decision.)

> A time pressure blunder that leads to a loss OTB is still an OTB
> blunder/loss)? It seems that this does stunt the correctness of ratings
> ...

You are under the mistaken impression that a rating is a measure of the
quality of moves that a player will produce with enough time to analyze.
This is not the case. A rating is a measure of how successful a player
has been over a period of time. Getting into time trouble decreases
success so decreases rating.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Salted Clock (TM): it's like a clock
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's covered in salt!

Date: 26 Nov 2005 00:38:20
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
Aande <[email protected] > wrote:

> 1) Significant inflation at the top - Top players end up mainly playing
> in sections that consist mostly/completely of top players. This is known
> to lead to ratings inflation

Is this really /known/ to cause inflation? I've yet to here somebody
make a compelling mathematical argument that this is the case. In any
event, if stratification leads to inflation, then you'd expect to see
inflation at every level, wouldn't you? Not just at the top.

If the rating system is mathematically accurate - if the # of points you
win is inversely proportional to the percentage chance of victory - then
I don't see why you would expect to see inflation just because you have
players of similar strength playing ecah other.

> (it's also why some top players - though
> this seems to be less common now - on sites like ICC set their formulas
> up to refuse to play anyone who's significantly below their rating, I
> think. This 'protects' the rating by avoiding the chance of a
> significant upset. The fact that zero-increment blitz and the holding
> strategy* are endemic on ICC also conspires to encourage this among
> people whose ratings are important to them ...).

I think the rationale for this has less to do with rating and more with
wanting a good game. You're less likely to get a good game against
someone rated 200 points below you than with someone aproximately your
rating.

> 2) The *presence* of lower ratingsections, while on the one hand
> encouraging lesser lights to play chess by the fact that they have a
> chance at the prizes too, also tends to have a 'back of the bus'
> impression about it; lower rated players, if even just by the prize
> enticements and better chances to win, are encouraged to stick to their
> sections, rather than play in the Open section.

Of course, open sections quickly stratify, anyway. As the stronger
players win and the weaker players lose, the weaker players will quickly
find themselves paired with similarly-strengthed players.

> It's especially bad when the game actually IS drawn (such as inevitable
> threefold repetition or perpetual check) and you refuse the draw and do
> the holding strategy, just because you know that, say, the opponent will
> not be able to check you the necessary 50 times within their last 10
> seconds even if OTB it is indeed unavoidable.
>
> And this does tie into ratings and their accuracy; 1) when there is no
> prize money available (this is mostly seen on ICC) the only motivation
> to treat your opponent in this manner is to get the win and its
> associated ratings bonus, and 2) how accurately can a rating really
> reflect your chess strength when you win games on flag without being
> able to win them OTB (mind you, the aforementioned STRICTLY relates to
> games that are won SOLELY because of the flag. A time pressure blunder
> that leads to a loss OTB is still an OTB blunder/loss)? It seems that
> this does stunt the correctness of ratings ...

Since a small increment makes this problem go away, I fail to see why
more drastic measures are required. Simply play with a small increment
and forget about it.

In any event, there are much large problems with the rating system
online (having to do with time control and playing conditions) than the
small problems created by a few unsportsmanlike players.

Date: 09 Nov 2005 08:43:53
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>>Nonetheless, this
>>>doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength.
>>
>> I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I
>> been unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official
>> rating.
>
> Hello,
>
> Ray, .. if a 2000 player plays a 2260 performance in 20 games He will have
> a NEW rating of 2095, ...

If a NEW PLAYER has a 2260 performance rating, he will have a 2260 OFFICIAL
rating (at least in 1990 he would have).

> (tht's easy to do, there are free ELO calculators on the net))
>
> A player can have performances 200 points up his rating but also
> performances 200 points down his rating. If you allways obtain 2260
> performances you will soon become a 2260 player but it's not the case.

Playing to improve and playing to win are not the same thing. For 20 games,
I stopped playing to improve and started playing to win, just to see where I
stood. My performance rating for those 20 games was 2260.

Further, back in the day, the rating supplements came out every three
months.

> Myself is an example of that. I play very few tournaments:
> - This year (july 2005 list) I obtained 7,5 of 9 with an average
> opposition rated 2308. That is a 2550 performance. I was lucky and I
> gaigned 28 points.
> - But in the precedent tournament (luly 2004 list) I obtained 4,5 of 9
> with a 2250. This is easy I obtained a 2250 performance and I lost 26
> points.
> It will be nonsense for my part to claim to be a 2550 player.

If you sustain a 2550 performance rating for 25 games, that would be your
official rating.

> Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance in
> 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you.

I couldn't care less who believes or trusts me. Even if my strength *was*
2260 in 1991, theory has advanced by leaps and bounds now.

I know where I'm headed and at what rate I'm improving now. I expect to be
able to secure a GM norm within four years, and achieve the title within
six, IF I keep training, which is a very big IF.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 01:07:26
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> If a NEW PLAYER has a 2260 performance rating, he will have a 2260 OFFICIAL
> rating (at least in 1990 he would have).

Right. But you weren't a new player, were you?

The "new player" rating system is provides what's called a "provisional"
rating - eg, one that's not expected to be accurate.

With an established player - like, say, YOU at the time - we have more
information. We have your established rating.

You can't just ignore that information because you think you were
improving.

This isn't complicated.

-Ron

Date: 10 Nov 2005 03:02:05
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> If a NEW PLAYER has a 2260 performance rating, he will have a 2260
>> OFFICIAL
>> rating (at least in 1990 he would have).
>
> Right. But you weren't a new player, were you?

Not the point.

> The "new player" rating system is provides what's called a "provisional"
> rating - eg, one that's not expected to be accurate.

20 games establishes the rating.

On the internet, you can change your handle and be "reborn." In USCF, you
cannot.

> With an established player - like, say, YOU at the time - we have more
> information. We have your established rating.

Which is tilted towards recent performance anyway. In fact, this issue
often comes up with junior players, who improve rapidly and are recognized
as being ahead of the rating curve because they improve too fast.

My rating was also artificially low because I played to fix my weaknesses
rather than exploit my strengths. I stopped doing that to see what my true
strength was, for 20 specific games, the only time I did it, and my rating
for those 20 games was 2260.

I wanted to see if I could win an u-2000 section as well. Unfortunately,
you have to be 2450 to do that.

> You can't just ignore that information because you think you were
> improving.

I know I was improving. Any player who trains 60+ hours a week knows this.

> This isn't complicated.

No, it's not.

I did not quit chess because I was failing at it, but because I had 11 years
to get to my peak, it cost a lot of money to play, women aren't really into
chess or chessplayers, and to study full time meant that I couldn't work a
full-time job.

Now I work at home, making enough doing several things not to have to punch
a time clock or work more than a day or two each week, and I can play
world-class opponents anytime of the day or night, for nothing. Not only
that, I can run every one of my games through a computer to find the errors
and fix them.

I have improved 287 points in the last 18 months (this takes into account
the fluctuations). That works out to about 175 points a year, or 1,000
points in six years. About the same pace as one masters a musical
instrument.

I would not be playing this game at all if I did not *know* I could become a
GM. I am 38 years old and surely would have better things to do with my
time. I did this before as a youth and knew what it would take to get me
where I was going. I was on track (had improved at about 100 points a
year), but that meant another 7-8 years to get to GM, and I simply didn't
want to invest the time.

If I knew I would be properly compensated for it, I would reveal all I know
about the game, but there is no financial interest in it. This is why my
free chess book only deals with generalities in both my repertoire and
concepts. Most of the opening lines you will find there, I no longer play
in their entirety.

Date: 08 Nov 2005 19:36:36
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> >>>>Huh? You were playing 2200+ chess and had a rating of only 2000
> >>>>because there wasn't enough extra prize money in the U2200 sections?
> >
> >>Nonetheless, this
> >>doesn't explain why your rating is so far below your alleged strength.
> >
> > I had a 20-game performance rating of 2260 or so back in 1991. Had I been
> > unrated at the start of that streak, it would have been my official rating.
>
> Hello,
>
> Ray, .. if a 2000 player plays a 2260 performance in 20 games He will
> have a NEW rating of 2095, ...
> (tht's easy to do, there are free ELO calculators on the net))
>
> A player can have performances 200 points up his rating but also
> performances 200 points down his rating. If you allways obtain 2260
> performances you will soon become a 2260 player but it's not the case.
>
> Myself is an example of that. I play very few tournaments:
> - This year (july 2005 list) I obtained 7,5 of 9 with an average
> opposition rated 2308. That is a 2550 performance. I was lucky and I
> gaigned 28 points.
> - But in the precedent tournament (luly 2004 list) I obtained 4,5 of 9
> with a 2250. This is easy I obtained a 2250 performance and I lost 26
> points.
> It will be nonsense for my part to claim to be a 2550 player.
>
> All that can be checked a FIDE website:
> http://www.fide.com
> http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=2200392
> http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=2200392&moder=4
>
> Is possible to check the "veracity" of your "supposed" 2260 performance
> in 20 games? (tournament, dates, games ...). I hardly trust you.

Mr. Torrecillas,

I believe that Mr. Ray Gordon and yourself argue from
different premises. Your thinking is eminently empirical.
That is, anyone on his way to becoming a GM is bound to
leave an _extended_ trail of ELO ratings "on his way
there". By all means, this is what one might _expect_
as a reasonable observer of the "real" world.

However, an empirical premise does not necessarily
exclude the potential validity of a theoretical premise,
no matter how probabilistically unlikely the reality
behind that premise may be.

In essence, Mr. Ray Gordon hopes to "secretly" perfect
a powerful "chessic" weapon, that is, himself. So be
it...! 8 >) The "chessic" battlefield shares some
similarities with actual ones. Among other things,
"secret" weapons can prove to be unexpectedly effective
or just...duds. Hence, the difference and inherent
tension between military science and military history!

Mr. Ray Gordon seems to be confusing the issue by
making frequent references to ELO ratings computed
half a generation ago. In my humble opinion, he need
not do so. If and when he enters the fray of GM
competition, empirical reality will render all
theoretical speculation irrelevant. The "secret"
weapon will have to prove itself empirically...

>
> AT

Major Cat

Date: 09 Nov 2005 15:56:13
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Major Cat ha escrit:
> Mr. Torrecillas,
>
> I believe that Mr. Ray Gordon and yourself argue from
> different premises. Your thinking is eminently empirical.
> That is, anyone on his way to becoming a GM is bound to
> leave an _extended_ trail of ELO ratings "on his way
> there". By all means, this is what one might _expect_
> as a reasonable observer of the "real" world.
> (...)
> In essence, Mr. Ray Gordon hopes to "secretly" perfect
> a powerful "chessic" weapon, that is, himself.
> (...) If and when he enters the fray of GM
> competition, empirical reality will render all
> theoretical speculation irrelevant. The "secret"
> weapon will have to prove itself empirically...
>
> Major Cat

Mr Majorcat,

I admit some player can obtain GM strengh playing secret games in his
home. I admit some player can have an strengh of 2800 only training with
computers. All that is possible!! (with a very little probability but
possible)

But I think Mr Gordon has not +2000 strengh. I deduce that from his
comments here in RGCA. He seems convinced He will be GM in 4 years but
I'm convinced He will never in his life be an +2300 player.

Some of the chess comments He has wrote here are completely nonsense. I
have not seen ANY instructive comment from him here in RGCA. It's very
different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to
comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!!
You can compare his aportations with much others ...

Here you have some examples of today:

- (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess
strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their
Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect."

I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were
very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest".

- (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."

Ray knows nothing about openings. Opening repertoire of top players is
constantly being renoved and more: they know how to handle any kind of
position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ...

- (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to
the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"

Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing.

AT

Date: 09 Nov 2005 16:34:31
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Mr. Torrecillas,

Thank you for your comprehensive response.

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
>
> Mr Majorcat,
>
> I admit some player can obtain GM strengh playing secret games in his
> home. I admit some player can have an strengh of 2800 only training with
> computers. All that is possible!! (with a very little probability but
> possible)
>
> But I think Mr Gordon has not +2000 strengh. I deduce that from his
> comments here in RGCA. He seems convinced He will be GM in 4 years but
> I'm convinced He will never in his life be an +2300 player.

I am afraid that my rather limited chess
expertise does not allow me to make such
a prediction! 8 >)

>
> Some of the chess comments He has wrote here are completely nonsense. I
> have not seen ANY instructive comment from him here in RGCA.

Again, I am not that well versed in chess
theory to have an opinion on this.

> It's very
> different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to
> comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!!

In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening
theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present.
Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a
comment, it would not be about middlegames or
endings. That brings us to comments about open-
ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems
to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to
his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness.

That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
tell us.

> You can compare his aportations with much others ...
>
> Here you have some examples of today:
>
> - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess
> strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their
> Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect."
>
> I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were
> very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest".

I am not aware of the contents of this book.

>
> - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
> repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
> 10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."

This seems like a convoluted tautology to me.
Logically, a chess player would tend to stick
with opening lines that work for him. To this
effect, extending opening lines to take into
account new theory or opinions would make a lot
of sense. However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment
does not appear to allow for the possibility
that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious
or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed
countermeasure or novelty that shakes it closer
to its previously assumed secure roots...

>
> Ray knows nothing about openings.

With all these books around? 8 >)

> Opening repertoire of top players is
> constantly being renoved

Just like in military tactics and strategy...

> and more: they know how to handle any kind of
> position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ...

By his own admission, Mr. Ray Gordon has not
tackled these aspects of chess at the _GM_
level yet.

>
> - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to
> the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
> leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"

It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes
that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_
by focusing almost exclusively on the opening
phase. Moreover, the opening phase can be
arbitrarily long!

>
> Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing.
>
> AT

Since Mr. Ray Gordon seems to focus exclusively
on aspects of _training_ specifically applicable
to _GM aspirants_, may I ask the following question:
namely, in the opinion of the experienced participants
that may stumble across this thread, are there
any _critical_ issues underlying the training of
_GM aspirants_ that call for a radically different
approach to "playing" chess on the way to...FIDE glory
from the one that most of us ordinary chess players
can imagine or identify with?

Major Cat

Date: 10 Nov 2005 01:13:12
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Major Cat ha escrit:
> Mr. Torrecillas,
>
> Thank you for your comprehensive response.
>
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
>>It's very
>>different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to
>>comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!!
>
> In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening
> theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present.
> Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a
> comment, it would not be about middlegames or
> endings. That brings us to comments about open-
> ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems
> to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to
> his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness.

That's not entirely correct.

He posted as a "brillancy" a Sicilian Dragon game where He played a bad
line and his opponent made a big mistake losing in near 16 moves.
After some criticaL COMMENTS from people here He stopped sending games
to RGCA (stop broken posting his lost to Nakamura, a 1 minute game)

> That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
> Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
> at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
> tell us.

He is wasting his time here because He has not more interesting things
to do (like would be to improve and become GM)

>>- (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
>>repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
>>10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."
>
> This seems like a convoluted tautology to me.
> Logically, a chess player would tend to stick
> with opening lines that work for him. To this
> effect, extending opening lines to take into
> account new theory or opinions would make a lot
> of sense. However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment
> does not appear to allow for the possibility
> that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious
> or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed
> countermeasure or novelty that shakes it closer
> to its previously assumed secure roots...

It's a simple mathematical question. Some strong players have reached
move 20 or 30 in his analysis of SOME critical lines but to memorize a
completely 20 move book (only considering best move for white and all
possible moves for black) is beyond human possibilities. We are speaking
of a number of position who not only is impossible to memorize, it is
needed more than 1 zillion lifes to reproduce at least once each one.

It's about memorizing between 20^20 and 30^20 lines. Considering the
lower case and considering in one life we can study chess for
50*365*10*60= 10950000 minutes (50 years, 365 days, 10 hours a day) and
using 1 minute to memorize each line that mean (it's a simple quotient),
you need 10^25 lifes to memorize all 20ply repertoire.

Grandmasters do not memorize all lines to 20th ply. He only memorize the
critical lines He have worked in home and in the rest of lines they
trust in his skills (strategical, endgame, tactical, ...) from a certain
point.

Do you need any example or it is clear enough?

>>- (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to
>>the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
>>leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"
>
> It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes
> that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_
> by focusing almost exclusively on the opening
> phase. Moreover, the opening phase can be
> arbitrarily long!

That's like thinking that a "true patzer like my daughter 5 years old"
can be correspondence world chess champion using only opening books.

... completely nonsense!!!

AT

Date: 10 Nov 2005 03:12:11
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Antonio Torrecillas wrote:

> > In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening
> > theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present.
> > Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a
> > comment, it would not be about middlegames or
> > endings. That brings us to comments about open-
> > ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems
> > to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to
> > his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness.
>
> That's not entirely correct.
>
> He posted as a "brillancy" a Sicilian Dragon game where He played a bad
> line and his opponent made a big mistake losing in near 16 moves.
> After some criticaL COMMENTS from people here He stopped sending games
> to RGCA (stop broken posting his lost to Nakamura, a 1 minute game)
>
> > That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
> > Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
> > at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
> > tell us.
>
> He is wasting his time here because He has not more interesting things
> to do (like would be to improve and become GM)

That may be so, but what if the rest of us
were to focus on the issues raised by these
postings as opposed to the particulars of
Mr. Ray Gordon's abilities and aspirations?
I mean, would this not be a more productive
use of our time on USENET?

>
> >>- (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
> >>repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
> >>10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."
> >
> > This seems like a convoluted tautology to me.
> > Logically, a chess player would tend to stick
> > with opening lines that work for him. To this
> > effect, extending opening lines to take into
> > account new theory or opinions would make a lot
> > of sense. However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment
> > does not appear to allow for the possibility
> > that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious
> > or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed
> > countermeasure or novelty that shakes it closer
> > to its previously assumed secure roots...
>
> It's a simple mathematical question. Some strong players have reached
> move 20 or 30 in his analysis of SOME critical lines but to memorize a
> completely 20 move book (only considering best move for white and all
> possible moves for black) is beyond human possibilities. We are speaking
> of a number of position who not only is impossible to memorize, it is
> needed more than 1 zillion lifes to reproduce at least once each one.
>
> It's about memorizing between 20^20 and 30^20 lines. Considering the
> lower case and considering in one life we can study chess for
> 50*365*10*60= 10950000 minutes (50 years, 365 days, 10 hours a day) and
> using 1 minute to memorize each line that mean (it's a simple quotient),
> you need 10^25 lifes to memorize all 20ply repertoire.
>
> Grandmasters do not memorize all lines to 20th ply. He only memorize the
> critical lines He have worked in home and in the rest of lines they
> trust in his skills (strategical, endgame, tactical, ...) from a certain
> point.
>
> Do you need any example or it is clear enough?

No examples are necessary, I think. I always
wondered what the human limits re: "booking up"
in FIDE chess might be... 8 >)

>
> >>- (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening
book to
> >>the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
> >>leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"
> >
> > It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes
> > that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_
> > by focusing almost exclusively on the opening
> > phase. Moreover, the opening phase can be
> > arbitrarily long!
>
> That's like thinking that a "true patzer like my daughter 5 years old"
> can be correspondence world chess champion using only opening books.
>
> ... completely nonsense!!!

This may be a bit of an unfair comparison! 8 >)
It is my impression that Mr. Ray Gordon does
acknowledge the fact that a _GM_ must be well
versed in "technically exploiting a sufficient
advantage". Moreover, he seems to define the
opening phase as that first part of the game
that ends with one side having acquired that
elusive "sufficient advantage".

>
> AT

Major Cat

Date: 10 Nov 2005 19:25:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> Grandmasters do not memorize all lines to 20th ply. He only memorize the
>> critical lines He have worked in home and in the rest of lines they
>> trust in his skills (strategical, endgame, tactical, ...) from a certain
>> point.
>>
>> Do you need any example or it is clear enough?
>
> No examples are necessary, I think. I always
> wondered what the human limits re: "booking up"
> in FIDE chess might be... 8>)

Even if I "fail" in my quest, I have a damn strong repertoire that other
players will benefit from once they see it.

I "study" the middlegame and endgame simply by not analyzing my games, and
therefore not correcting my repertoire. Then, when I correct my repertoire
based on my games, I eliminate some of the mistakes that were keeping my
rating down.

This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months.

> This may be a bit of an unfair comparison! 8>)
> It is my impression that Mr. Ray Gordon does
> acknowledge the fact that a _GM_ must be well
> versed in "technically exploiting a sufficient
> advantage". Moreover, he seems to define the
> opening phase as that first part of the game
> that ends with one side having acquired that
> elusive "sufficient advantage".

The opening ends when both players are out of their book. It is the window
where one player is in book and the other is out of book that the advantage
of this method of training is greatest, especially at shorter time controls.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 21:21:36
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

> Even if I "fail" in my quest, I have a damn strong repertoire that other
> players will benefit from once they see it.
>
> I "study" the middlegame and endgame simply by not analyzing my games, and
> therefore not correcting my repertoire. Then, when I correct my repertoire
> based on my games, I eliminate some of the mistakes that were keeping my
> rating down.
>
> This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months.

You are not aware that any experienced player will discover you have no
idea about chess. You only wrote stupid nonsense statements. Do you have
any sense of ridicule?

And respect to your ELO, .... it that ELO a FIDE or national ELO or
simply a nomatterwahtserver ELO??

I have reached +2700 (gaining from 1400 what was starting elo) in some
internet chess server but I was not very happy because right there I
have seen people rated 3300 (And He was not Kasparov).
I have seen people trying to gaign 1000 elo points in a day from a new
nick playing 1 minute games. Do you think that gaigns shown any
chesstraining method of those people or maybe it's better to refer to a
serious rating???

or maybe you are writing about "RayHome ELO".

AT

Date: 11 Nov 2005 04:16:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> This approach has gained me 287 elo points in 18 months.
>
> You are not aware that any experienced player will discover you have no
> idea about chess. You only wrote stupid nonsense statements. Do you have
> any sense of ridicule?

I teach chess for money. You're getting on dangerous legal territory with
this repeated disparagement of my methods that are not supported by
anything.

It's one thing to say you don't agree with me, quite another to attack my
trade out of malice.

> And respect to your ELO, .... it that ELO a FIDE or national ELO or simply
> a nomatterwahtserver ELO??
>
> I have reached +2700 (gaining from 1400 what was starting elo) in some
> internet chess server but I was not very happy because right there I have
> seen people rated 3300 (And He was not Kasparov).
> I have seen people trying to gaign 1000 elo points in a day from a new
> nick playing 1 minute games. Do you think that gaigns shown any
> chesstraining method of those people or maybe it's better to refer to a
> serious rating???

My "serious" rating gained 620 points in two years from 1987-1989.

> or maybe you are writing about "RayHome ELO".

Keep insinuating like that and you're going to need an attorney.

Date: 11 Nov 2005 08:43:24
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> I teach chess for money. You're getting on dangerous legal territory with
> this repeated disparagement of my methods that are not supported by
> anything.

Nonsense.

Your methods are absurd. They are the absolute antithesis of what every
respected teaching master advocates.

And there's nothing legally questionable about saying so.

Save your empty threats.

Date: 11 Nov 2005 09:38:08
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>You are not aware that any experienced player will discover you have no
>>idea about chess. You only wrote stupid nonsense statements. Do you have
>>any sense of ridicule?
>
> I teach chess for money. You're getting on dangerous legal territory with
> this repeated disparagement of my methods that are not supported by
> anything.
>
> It's one thing to say you don't agree with me, quite another to attack my
> trade out of malice.

I have also teached chess and trained. I can give examples of people who
has enjoyed my training sessions and with ratings in that time were much
stronger than yours.

I have been trainer for my federation. And I have been too trainer for
the trainers of my federation.

I regret you have students. Poor them!
I hope they could read those posts.

> My "serious" rating gained 620 points in two years from 1987-1989.
>
>>or maybe you are writing about "RayHome ELO".
>
> Keep insinuating like that and you're going to need an attorney.

It's very easy, post here your rating explaning if it is FIDE rating or
USA rating, ... but please do not refer to it as "serious" without more.

AT

Date: 10 Nov 2005 11:49:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Major Cat <[email protected] > wrote:
> I mean, would this not be a more productive use of our time on USENET?

``Productive use of time on USENET'' is a contradiction in terms.

IPMFI. HTH. HAND.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Hungry Gnome (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ smiling garden ornament but it'll eat
you and it's frozen in a block of ice!

Date: 10 Nov 2005 14:59:10
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

David Richerby wrote:
>
> Major Cat <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I mean, would this not be a more productive use of our time on USENET?
>
> ``Productive use of time on USENET'' is a contradiction in terms.
>
> IPMFI. HTH. HAND.

Thank you. Sometimes I forget my own advice
to...others! 8 >)

>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Frozen Hungry Gnome (TM): it's like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ smiling garden ornament but it'll eat
> you and it's frozen in a block of ice!

Date: 10 Nov 2005 10:09:33
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Major Cat ha escrit:

> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>>
>>>That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
>>>Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
>>>at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
>>>tell us.
>>
>>He is wasting his time here because He has not more interesting things
>>to do (like would be to improve and become GM)
>
> That may be so, but what if the rest of us
> were to focus on the issues raised by these
> postings as opposed to the particulars of
> Mr. Ray Gordon's abilities and aspirations?
> I mean, would this not be a more productive
> use of our time on USENET?

About other people reasons I do not know, in my case I read all post
here trying to find something interesting (unfortunately each time it
seems less interesting).

If I have time I try to help people in some subjects. In some cases I
read acurate answers but in others I read counterproductive bad advice
(like Ray does). In that last situations I think that I must publish my
opinion.

For exmaple, ... last intertesting subject was "isolated d pawn". Many
people has sent very interesting advice but Ray aportation is bad. I
will try to post in that subject just now.

AT

Date: 10 Nov 2005 02:53:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> It's very
>> different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to
>> comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!!
>
> In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening
> theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present.

Move 50 is still an opening, just one played badly and out of the books of
the players. The 1/x rule.

> Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a
> comment, it would not be about middlegames or
> endings. That brings us to comments about open-
> ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems
> to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to
> his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness.

Why tip my hand? I would think that being able to research opponents who
could not research me would be an advantage.

> That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
> Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
> at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
> tell us.

I reveal that which is not material to my secrecy.

>
>> You can compare his aportations with much others ...
>>
>> Here you have some examples of today:
>>
>> - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess
>> strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their
>> Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect."
>>
>> I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were
>> very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest".
>
> I am not aware of the contents of this book.

The book advises players to play deliberately weak moves just enough to bait
the opponent into thinking he has an easy win, then creaming him with
GM-level play.

>> - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
>> repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
>> 10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."
>
> This seems like a convoluted tautology to me.
> Logically, a chess player would tend to stick
> with opening lines that work for him.

I prefer openings that worked for Fischer, Leko, Alekhine, Kasparov, Morphy,
Capablanca, Steinitz, and so forth.

If computers turned chess upside-down, why are you still standing
right-side-up?

Back when I played, computers were about 2300 at best, but we knew what was
coming and had plenty of time to contemplate the impact because we actually
had to travel to tournaments to play top-level opponents.

>To this
> effect, extending opening lines to take into
> account new theory or opinions would make a lot
> of sense.

That has been done through move 10-20 in most lines already. There's barely
a player in this world who can get an edge on me prior to that, unless he's
really good, unless I'm learning a new line, or unless he's playing really
weird stuff AND he's a GM.

>However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment
> does not appear to allow for the possibility
> that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious
> or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed
> countermeasure or novelty that shakes it closer
> to its previously assumed secure roots...

That's not a "novelty," that's correction of a BLUNDER.

>> Ray knows nothing about openings.
>
> With all these books around? 8>)

I never use chess books anymore. They are useless.

>> Opening repertoire of top players is
>> constantly being renoved
>
> Just like in military tactics and strategy...

Top players don't play the opening well. They finish well, which is easier
to gain rating points with.

Doesn't mean it's the best strategy.

>> and more: they know how to handle any kind of
>> position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ...
>
> By his own admission, Mr. Ray Gordon has not
> tackled these aspects of chess at the _GM_
> level yet.

I have, but until I play the opening even with them every time, it won't
matter.

How many endgames did Adams reach against Hydra?

>> - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to
>> the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
>> leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"
>
> It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes
> that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_
> by focusing almost exclusively on the opening
> phase.

Yes. Book out to move 50 or so and see who beats you. I have opening lines
that run over 20 moves, and some that take the opponent out of book before
move five or six, but which will one day be the "main line."

Let's not even get started on the lines where the computers will say one
side is up by three pawns even as they are losing.

>Moreover, the opening phase can be
> arbitrarily long!

The entire game is an opening if you play it right.

When I say "opening" I mean "perfection from the start." That incorporates
a lot of what you call "middlegame" and "endgame."

>> Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing.
>>
>> AT
>
> Since Mr. Ray Gordon seems to focus exclusively
> on aspects of _training_ specifically applicable
> to _GM aspirants_, may I ask the following question:
> namely, in the opinion of the experienced participants
> that may stumble across this thread, are there
> any _critical_ issues underlying the training of
> _GM aspirants_ that call for a radically different
> approach to "playing" chess on the way to...FIDE glory
> from the one that most of us ordinary chess players
> can imagine or identify with?

Most world champions redefine the theory of the game. Steinitz was the one
who said you needed a positional advantage for an attack to succeed, for
example. He spoke of the "gradual accumulation of small advantages." On
the other hand, Alekhine, and now Hydra, practice(d) the "rapid accumulation
of large advantages."

Say you are rated 1200. Now you're playing an 800. You can play your "B"
game and beat them. If you are 2900, you can do the same to a 2700. This
is why Hydra can crush Kasparov with 1. g3.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 04:55:52
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> >> It's very
> >> different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to
> >> comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!!
> >
> > In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening
> > theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present.
>
> Move 50 is still an opening, just one played badly and out of the books of
> the players. The 1/x rule.

>From a logical/mathematical standpoint, you
are right. FIDE Chess has not been "solved"
yet! 8 >) However, we do live in a "chessic"
world where _empirical_ knowledge, however
incomplete, is our only handmaiden...

>
> > Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a
> > comment, it would not be about middlegames or
> > endings. That brings us to comments about open-
> > ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems
> > to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to
> > his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness.
>
> Why tip my hand? I would think that being able to research opponents who
> could not research me would be an advantage.

Given your stated objectives, this seems
logical enough to me.

>
> > That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
> > Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
> > at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
> > tell us.
>
> I reveal that which is not material to my secrecy.

Are you at all interested in participating
in discussions the purpose of which is _not_
to assist GM aspirants in realizing their
dreams?

>
> >
> >> You can compare his aportations with much others ...
> >>
> >> Here you have some examples of today:
> >>
> >> - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess
> >> strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their
> >> Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect."
> >>
> >> I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were
> >> very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest".
> >
> > I am not aware of the contents of this book.
>
> The book advises players to play deliberately weak moves just enough to bait
> the opponent into thinking he has an easy win, then creaming him with
> GM-level play.
>
> >> - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
> >> repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
> >> 10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."
> >
> > This seems like a convoluted tautology to me.
> > Logically, a chess player would tend to stick
> > with opening lines that work for him.
>
> I prefer openings that worked for Fischer, Leko, Alekhine, Kasparov, Morphy,
> Capablanca, Steinitz, and so forth.
>
> If computers turned chess upside-down, why are you still standing
> right-side-up?
>
> Back when I played, computers were about 2300 at best, but we knew what was
> coming and had plenty of time to contemplate the impact because we actually
> had to travel to tournaments to play top-level opponents.

Are you talking about the impact of computers
on GM aspirant _training_ or on _competition
itself_ where humans are pitted against
machines OTB?

>
> >To this
> > effect, extending opening lines to take into
> > account new theory or opinions would make a lot
> > of sense.
>
> That has been done through move 10-20 in most lines already. There's barely
> a player in this world who can get an edge on me prior to that, unless he's
> really good, unless I'm learning a new line, or unless he's playing really
> weird stuff AND he's a GM.

Would you care to expand on your thoughts
a bit here? I mean, what exactly is it in
your training approach regarding the opening
phase of the game that is novel, superior
or both? Is it more extensive/intensive
memorization of lines? An unusual ability
to identify subtle novelties that work...
miracles OTB?

>
> >However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment
> > does not appear to allow for the possibility
> > that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious
> > or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed
> > countermeasure or novelty that shakes it closer
> > to its previously assumed secure roots...
>
> That's not a "novelty," that's correction of a BLUNDER.

Are there novelties that do not aim at
correcting or improving something? What
is a blunder in GM level play anyway?

>
> >> Ray knows nothing about openings.
> >
> > With all these books around? 8>)
>
> I never use chess books anymore. They are useless.

Are you saying that you are preparing your
opening repertoire (including the research
that you need to do) without consulting
any published information that may be
available?

>
> >> Opening repertoire of top players is
> >> constantly being renoved
> >
> > Just like in military tactics and strategy...
>
> Top players don't play the opening well.

Why? Because they cannot remember things?

> They finish well, which is easier
> to gain rating points with.
>
> Doesn't mean it's the best strategy.

I am afraid I do not follow you here...

>
> >> and more: they know how to handle any kind of
> >> position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ...
> >
> > By his own admission, Mr. Ray Gordon has not
> > tackled these aspects of chess at the _GM_
> > level yet.
>
> I have, but until I play the opening even with them every time, it won't
> matter.

Presumably, because all the other GMs can
match you there, right? So, your superiority
will be manifested and decisive in the opening
phase of the game, right?

>
> How many endgames did Adams reach against Hydra?

Are you saying that what you intend to do
with the opening phase of the game will be
akin to playing like Hydra?

>
> >> - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to
> >> the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
> >> leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"
> >
> > It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes
> > that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_
> > by focusing almost exclusively on the opening
> > phase.
>
> Yes. Book out to move 50 or so and see who beats you. I have opening lines
> that run over 20 moves, and some that take the opponent out of book before
> move five or six, but which will one day be the "main line."
>
> Let's not even get started on the lines where the computers will say one
> side is up by three pawns even as they are losing.

Are there no limitations to a human memorizing
all that stuff?

>
> >Moreover, the opening phase can be
> > arbitrarily long!
>
> The entire game is an opening if you play it right.

Yes, but only from a logical/mathematical
viewpoint.

>
> When I say "opening" I mean "perfection from the start." That incorporates
> a lot of what you call "middlegame" and "endgame."
>
> >> Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing.
> >>
> >> AT
> >
> > Since Mr. Ray Gordon seems to focus exclusively
> > on aspects of _training_ specifically applicable
> > to _GM aspirants_, may I ask the following question:
> > namely, in the opinion of the experienced participants
> > that may stumble across this thread, are there
> > any _critical_ issues underlying the training of
> > _GM aspirants_ that call for a radically different
> > approach to "playing" chess on the way to...FIDE glory
> > from the one that most of us ordinary chess players
> > can imagine or identify with?
>
> Most world champions redefine the theory of the game. Steinitz was the one
> who said you needed a positional advantage for an attack to succeed, for
> example. He spoke of the "gradual accumulation of small advantages." On
> the other hand, Alekhine, and now Hydra, practice(d) the "rapid accumulation
> of large advantages."

But does an ever increasing memorization of
opening lines constitute a redefinition of
FIDE Chess theory?

>
> Say you are rated 1200. Now you're playing an 800. You can play your "B"
> game and beat them. If you are 2900, you can do the same to a 2700. This
> is why Hydra can crush Kasparov with 1. g3.

Hydra did not achieve all this through
"machine memorization". It did so by being
able to "evaluate" positions successfully
on the fly! 8 >)

Date: 10 Nov 2005 17:47:47
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> > In Mr. Ray Gordon's chess universe, opening
>> > theory seems to be the main inhabitant at present.
>>
>> Move 50 is still an opening, just one played badly and out of the books
>> of
>> the players. The 1/x rule.
>
>>From a logical/mathematical standpoint, you
> are right. FIDE Chess has not been "solved"
> yet! 8>) However, we do live in a "chessic"
> world where _empirical_ knowledge, however
> incomplete, is our only handmaiden...

I look at it this way with regard to booking up: two guys are being chased
by a hungry bear. One asks the other "Why are we running? It's going to
catch us anyway." He responds with "I don't have to outrun the bear; I have
to outrun YOU." First player out of book should always be eaten by the
bear.

You say "opening, middle, endgame." I say "In book, out of book, back in
book." One can "book out" from the final position through the endgame just
as they can do so in the opening. That is like racehorses who close in the
stretch rather than getting a lead out of the gate.

>> > Therefore, if Mr. Ray Gordon were to make a
>> > comment, it would not be about middlegames or
>> > endings. That brings us to comments about open-
>> > ing theory proper. Well, Mr. Ray Gordon seems
>> > to have adopted a strategy of "secrecy" due to
>> > his concerns about his future _GM_ effectiveness.
>>
>> Why tip my hand? I would think that being able to research opponents who
>> could not research me would be an advantage.
>
> Given your stated objectives, this seems
> logical enough to me.

I'm 38 years old. Need every weapon I can get.

>> > That begs the obvious question then. Why is Mr.
>> > Ray Gordon posting on issues of chess _analysis_
>> > at all? Mr. Ray Gordon is the only one who can
>> > tell us.
>>
>> I reveal that which is not material to my secrecy.
>
> Are you at all interested in participating
> in discussions the purpose of which is _not_
> to assist GM aspirants in realizing their
> dreams?

I could comment on the ability to gain practical results at the lower levels
with a specific style of play, but often that will require playing in a way
that would harm one who is trying to be a GM eventually.

If a guy who wants to win an u-1800 section next week asks if he should dump
his Center Counter for the Sicilian, I'd say no. If he wants to be a GM in
10 years, I'd say yes.

To me, with weaker players, they've already accepted defeat at chess, so
these discussions inevitably turn into style questions about the most
attractive way to lose.

>> >> You can compare his aportations with much others ...
>> >>
>> >> Here you have some examples of today:
>> >>
>> >> - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess
>> >> strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their
>> >> Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might
>> >> expect."
>> >>
>> >> I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments
>> >> were
>> >> very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest".
>> >
>> > I am not aware of the contents of this book.
>>
>> The book advises players to play deliberately weak moves just enough to
>> bait
>> the opponent into thinking he has an easy win, then creaming him with
>> GM-level play.
>>
>> >> - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my
>> >> opening
>> >> repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the
>> >> 10-20 moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."
>> >
>> > This seems like a convoluted tautology to me.
>> > Logically, a chess player would tend to stick
>> > with opening lines that work for him.
>>
>> I prefer openings that worked for Fischer, Leko, Alekhine, Kasparov,
>> Morphy,
>> Capablanca, Steinitz, and so forth.
>>
>> If computers turned chess upside-down, why are you still standing
>> right-side-up?
>>
>> Back when I played, computers were about 2300 at best, but we knew what
>> was
>> coming and had plenty of time to contemplate the impact because we
>> actually
>> had to travel to tournaments to play top-level opponents.
>
> Are you talking about the impact of computers
> on GM aspirant _training_ or on _competition
> itself_ where humans are pitted against
> machines OTB?

GM training. Competition with computers is more like a video-game
competition.

In the past, GMs could never be sure if their moves overlooked something.
Computers have removed that "mystery" from the game, yet many train as if
they had not.

I remember in 1989 looking forward to the day when I could run lines like
the shall Attack or Poisoned Pawn through a supercomputer. I wondered
how many of these lines would be ruined, and figured it would be all of
them. To my surprise, the opposite seems to be true.

Computers have also proven that openings once thought unplayable at the
highest level -- such as the Latvian gambit -- are *extremely* playable. I
expect to see a Latvian in a future world title match not too far into the
future.

The authors who assigned plus-over-minus to these obscure openings 20 years
ago were so far off base as to be tragic. So many openings are so playable,
and it's fascinating to watch them. To be able to book up in these new
lines to complement my main-line repertoire is very fulfilling, kind of like
when a bookworm is locked in a library.

>> >To this
>> > effect, extending opening lines to take into
>> > account new theory or opinions would make a lot
>> > of sense.
>>
>> That has been done through move 10-20 in most lines already. There's
>> barely
>> a player in this world who can get an edge on me prior to that, unless
>> he's
>> really good, unless I'm learning a new line, or unless he's playing
>> really
>> weird stuff AND he's a GM.
>
> Would you care to expand on your thoughts
> a bit here? I mean, what exactly is it in
> your training approach regarding the opening
> phase of the game that is novel, superior
> or both?

The 1/x rule.

>Is it more extensive/intensive
> memorization of lines? An unusual ability
> to identify subtle novelties that work...
> miracles OTB?

The "novelties" one finds is a result of having exhausted existing theory
and mastered the general principles of how to play the opening.

I used to be a fan of the cartoonist Rigby from the New York Post. In an
interview, he once said that he wished more young cartoonists would learn
how to draw correctly before drawing caricatures. Rigby's drawings had this
characteristic. Applied to chess, I think most players lie to themselves
about their "creativity" when they are just avoiding their weaknesses. The
novelties I have found all resulted from my inability to find answers in the
literature or databases.

For example, the one "novelty" I posted about (which has been played, of
course, but not much, before I used it) in this group was 3...Ne7 in
response to the Advanced French. The purpose is to get the setup that the
variation is designed to prevent Black from getting (Knights at d7 and c6).
I also find that by keeping Black's knight at b8 with Ng8-e7-c6 first also
offers Black even more potential because he may not have to go to d7. I did
not set out to deviate from theory; theory had just let me down in other
lines.

I also see few players who incorporate transposition into their study. My
repertoire is based on steering the game towards as few formations as
possible, so as to maximize the study time for each line. Even when I'm
"out of book" I am never "out of formation book." The exception to this
rule is when the other side plays forcing moves that define a specific
middlegame. Most "deviant" players, however, do the opposite of forcing my
hand.

As White, I could start a game a dozen different ways and wind up with the
same formation in some lines. Computers are excellent tools for finding
holes in my formations, and once they are established, lines which allow for
the holes are then eliminated from the repertoire.

>> >However, Mr. Ray Gordon's comment
>> > does not appear to allow for the possibility
>> > that a pet opening line may be rendered dubious
>> > or obsolete because of some unveiled revealed
>> > countermeasure or novelty that shakes it closer
>> > to its previously assumed secure roots...
>>
>> That's not a "novelty," that's correction of a BLUNDER.
>
> Are there novelties that do not aim at
> correcting or improving something?

There shouldn't be. The only ones which would qualify as such are those
which extend theory past its previous limits.

For example, in the main line of the shall, we can be reasonably sure
that the first 15 moves are played perfectly by both sides. Once you get to
move 16 or move 17, however, Black has four main lines to choose from. One
of those lines is likely far superior to the other three. That we don't
know which shows our ignorance, and the point at which a GM begins to lose
the thread.

Of course, one might decide that the entire notion of forcing an advantage
from the Ruy Lopez is outdated. If that theory is correct, it is then
likely that another double-kp opening, like the Scotch or Bishop's opening,
will offer White the same initiative as the Lopez once did. The Lopez has
all but been proven to lead to equality for Black.

Or, to spoof Michael Jackson: "When you're playing the Ruy Lopez it don't
matter if you're black or white."

Computers seem to "know" this already, which is why they will often avoid
playing the white side of the Lopez altogether. Doing so gives their
opponent too much of a free ride. A computer is more likely to throw a
Scotch at you, with some "novelty" at move six that throws you out of your
book, and from there it's a matter of who can calcuate tactics better, a
battle the computer will almost always win.

I've actually beaten some 3000-rated computers that almost never lose, and
each time I do it, it's when I find an opening line that even the computer
can't properly deal with. I have had only one "comeback" win against a
2500+ rated machine.

I have a special PGN file for those games: I call it "wins-computer." More
often, I've busted some machines badly in the opening and blown the middle
or endgame because I am far away from GM in those phases.

>What
> is a blunder in GM level play anyway?

GMs blunder once they leave their book. Other GMs don't always exploit it.

>> >> Ray knows nothing about openings.
>> >
>> > With all these books around? 8>)
>>
>> I never use chess books anymore. They are useless.
>
> Are you saying that you are preparing your
> opening repertoire (including the research
> that you need to do) without consulting
> any published information that may be
> available?

Correct. I use computers to build it and operate on the assumption that
what is in the books is created by flawed humans and therefore just plain
wrong.

If I see a move I like in the "published literature" I may try it out, but
the computer-assisted analysis is the final arbiter.

>> >> Opening repertoire of top players is
>> >> constantly being renoved
>> >
>> > Just like in military tactics and strategy...
>>
>> Top players don't play the opening well.
>
> Why? Because they cannot remember things?

More like because they prefer to just stay equal to an opponent until both
are out of book and beat them with superior technique.

This is more or less what Karpov did throughout his career, and he got away
with it until he played Kasparov, a player he couldn't recover the lost
ground from in the middlegame.

>> They finish well, which is easier
>> to gain rating points with.
>>
>> Doesn't mean it's the best strategy.
>
> I am afraid I do not follow you here...

A GM gets his rating by being strong once out of book. His goal is to get
you out of book and then crush you with superior technique. If he stays in
your books, it's him against your books. If he gets you out of book without
much damage to his position, it's him against you.

Such an approach requires a strong middlegame and endgame, but these GMs get
clobbered by players like Leko and Anand who are as strong at finishing the
game, plus they have the perfect repertoire through move 15.

Ever see Leko's Pelikans?

>> >> and more: they know how to handle any kind of
>> >> position knowing very much of strategy, endings, tactics, ...
>> >
>> > By his own admission, Mr. Ray Gordon has not
>> > tackled these aspects of chess at the _GM_
>> > level yet.
>>
>> I have, but until I play the opening even with them every time, it won't
>> matter.
>
> Presumably, because all the other GMs can
> match you there, right? So, your superiority
> will be manifested and decisive in the opening
> phase of the game, right?

The other GMs can crush me *from an equal position* once I'm out of my book,
but the point at which they get me out of my book is getting later and
later, and their positions when they get there are getting weaker and
weaker.

To me, the key to being a strong endgame player is to learn how to win a won
ending that one got from the opening. If I have an equal ending against
someone, it means I've already failed at the opening.

The first mistake is the most harmful.

>> How many endgames did Adams reach against Hydra?
>
> Are you saying that what you intend to do
> with the opening phase of the game will be
> akin to playing like Hydra?

Is there a reason I shouldn't aspire to play like Hydra?

I grew up on video games. In video games, you make a mistake, the machine
kills you. Now in chess, you make a mistake, the machine kills you. The
key to mastering a video game is to learn all of the tricks that the machine
is using to kill you, and to neutralize them. This was not possible in
chess until the computers got strong enough to punish even a slight mistake.

Chess computers function as sort of an "answer key" to everything now. In
the past, players had to GUESS if they had found the answer; now the
machines give them that answer almost instantaneously.

I have seen players on the chess servers who use this strategy more
effectively than me, and who I believe will be taking over the rankings if
they keep training that way (they seem to be training to do just that, given
what I've seen of them online).

In 10 years, I expect the top 10 rankings to be cleared of most of the names
we see now. I suspect Topalov is training this way, given his performance
rating.

Look at how much "history" Topalov threw on its ear: he won almost every
game when he needed to, he won as Black, and he won with crushing victories
that were thought to be from an era gone by, before the "draw death" of
chess.

>> >> - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book
>> >> to
>> >> the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players
>> >> without
>> >> leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"
>> >
>> > It seems to me that Mr. Ray Gordon believes
>> > that FIDE chess can be "solved" _empirically_
>> > by focusing almost exclusively on the opening
>> > phase.
>>
>> Yes. Book out to move 50 or so and see who beats you. I have opening
>> lines
>> that run over 20 moves, and some that take the opponent out of book
>> before
>> move five or six, but which will one day be the "main line."
>>
>> Let's not even get started on the lines where the computers will say one
>> side is up by three pawns even as they are losing.
>
> Are there no limitations to a human memorizing
> all that stuff?

Are there? There's only one way to find out.

>> >Moreover, the opening phase can be
>> > arbitrarily long!
>>
>> The entire game is an opening if you play it right.
>
> Yes, but only from a logical/mathematical
> viewpoint.

And whoever can emulate that viewpoint in practice will win.

>> When I say "opening" I mean "perfection from the start." That
>> incorporates
>> a lot of what you call "middlegame" and "endgame."
>>
>> >> Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing.
>> >>
>> >> AT
>> >
>> > Since Mr. Ray Gordon seems to focus exclusively
>> > on aspects of _training_ specifically applicable
>> > to _GM aspirants_, may I ask the following question:
>> > namely, in the opinion of the experienced participants
>> > that may stumble across this thread, are there
>> > any _critical_ issues underlying the training of
>> > _GM aspirants_ that call for a radically different
>> > approach to "playing" chess on the way to...FIDE glory
>> > from the one that most of us ordinary chess players
>> > can imagine or identify with?
>>
>> Most world champions redefine the theory of the game. Steinitz was the
>> one
>> who said you needed a positional advantage for an attack to succeed, for
>> example. He spoke of the "gradual accumulation of small advantages." On
>> the other hand, Alekhine, and now Hydra, practice(d) the "rapid
>> accumulation
>> of large advantages."
>
> But does an ever increasing memorization of
> opening lines constitute a redefinition of
> FIDE Chess theory?

The idea of "brute force from move one" has been around forever, but never
really used to win the world title, except maybe by Morphy and Steinitz.

>> Say you are rated 1200. Now you're playing an 800. You can play your
>> "B"
>> game and beat them. If you are 2900, you can do the same to a 2700.
>> This
>> is why Hydra can crush Kasparov with 1. g3.
>
> Hydra did not achieve all this through
> "machine memorization". It did so by being
> able to "evaluate" positions successfully
> on the fly! 8>)

After it played the first 10 moves from memory. Computers are notoriously
bad at analyzing the opening and are extremely vulnerable in that phase even
to this day.

Date: 09 Nov 2005 19:06:37
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

> But I think Mr Gordon has not +2000 strengh. I deduce that from his
> comments here in RGCA. He seems convinced He will be GM in 4 years but I'm
> convinced He will never in his life be an +2300 player.

Not a bad prediction, as my age is such that I could quit at any time!

> Some of the chess comments He has wrote here are completely nonsense.

Or genius beyond your comprehension. Time will tell.

>I have not seen ANY instructive comment from him here in RGCA. It's very
>different from another people who post here comments of games. And, to
>comment a game it's not needed to keep under secret any secret weapon!!

I've posted a few of my games and comments here.

> You can compare his aportations with much others ...
>
> Here you have some examples of today:
>
> - (about Someloser book): "It's not a prank: it's the future of chess
> strategy. I've seen many players who play as if that book were their
> Bible, and they are far more difficult opponents than one might expect."

I stand by that statement.

> I posted here the example games offered in that book. Ron comments were
> very acurate. That book seems simply "0-interest".

So popularity determines truth now?

> - (this threat): "I do know that I will never have to change my opening
> repertoire again unless I want to, except for extending it past the 10-20
> moves I already play to perfection out of the gate."
>
> Ray knows nothing about openings.

<snicker >

>Opening repertoire of top players is constantly being renoved and more:
>they know how to handle any kind of position knowing very much of strategy,
>endings, tactics, ...

I need not reveal my cards. In 1989, I held KAMSKY even in the opening for
18 moves as well.

I played the Pelikan against him, which at the time was just beginning to
gain acceptance.

> - (this threat): "Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to
> the point where I can routinely defeat the world's best players without
> leaving my book. That is how Fischer did it"
>
> Ray has not studied Fischer carefully, or He has understand nothing.

Or I've studied Fischer correctly and others have not.

Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 10:36:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Or I've studied Fischer correctly and others have not.

I've already demonstrated in article <Irw*[email protected] >
that your study of Fischer isn't quite as comprehensive as you think it is.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.analysis/msg/88c85b7ec971b929

> Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.

No, horses running around a track with guys on their backs is what makes a
horse race.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Miniature Addictive Tool (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hammer but you can never put it
down and you can hold in it your hand!

Date: 09 Nov 2005 08:49:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

> Mr. Ray Gordon seems to be confusing the issue by
> making frequent references to ELO ratings computed
> half a generation ago. In my humble opinion, he need
> not do so. If and when he enters the fray of GM
> competition, empirical reality will render all
> theoretical speculation irrelevant. The "secret"
> weapon will have to prove itself empirically...

I see no reason to play rated chess until I am GM strength. I can more than
fulfill my training requirements online,.at much less cost and much greater
convenience.

I do know that I will never have to change my opening repertoire again
unless I want to, except for extending it past the 10-20 moves I already
play to perfection out of the gate.

I do know that when I played Nakamura after having been back barely a month,
I held him even for 22 moves before crumbling. The computer said I had an
advantage of slightly more than half a pawn. As black.

Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I can
routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book. That is
how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he almost never
deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to do it.

The best example of how Fischer operated was his use of the Poisoned Pawn
variation of the Sicilian as black. He didn't like the opening per se,
except he loved that every idiot claiming to be his peer would play 10. e5
against it, which he had busted. Players kept thinking that their mistakes
were made down the road, and tried to fix the line. It was only when Yefim
Geller played the Poisoned Pawn against Fischer that the correct line -- 10.
f5 -- was revealed.

I remember back in the 1980s when my instincts told me to play 6. Be3
against the Najdorf. I was scolded by several titled types that this move
was horrid, yet now it's the damn main line.

This is not to say that endgames or middlegames are not important, but
before we can get to that point, it pays to be able to get "out of the gate"
with a lead on your opponent every time you play.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 04:12:31
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> > Mr. Ray Gordon seems to be confusing the issue by
> > making frequent references to ELO ratings computed
> > half a generation ago. In my humble opinion, he need
> > not do so. If and when he enters the fray of GM
> > competition, empirical reality will render all
> > theoretical speculation irrelevant. The "secret"
> > weapon will have to prove itself empirically...
>
> I see no reason to play rated chess until I am GM strength. I can more than
> fulfill my training requirements online,.at much less cost and much greater
> convenience.

Are you proposing that your training approach
be adopted by other GM aspirants or is this
approach specifically suited to your situation?

By the way, if I can ask for a clarification:
are you aiming at achieving GM status in FIDE
classical time control competition or in some
other competition? Moreover, are you specifical-
ly shooting for the World Title in that com-
petition?

>
> I do know that I will never have to change my opening repertoire again
> unless I want to, except for extending it past the 10-20 moves I already
> play to perfection out of the gate.

I have dealt with this issue elsewhere in
the thread! 8 >)

>
> I do know that when I played Nakamura after having been back barely a month,
> I held him even for 22 moves before crumbling. The computer said I had an
> advantage of slightly more than half a pawn. As black.
>
> Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I can
> routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book. That is
> how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he almost never
> deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to do it.

Are you saying that, other things being equal,
"outbooking" your GM opponents is the only way
to win FIDE chess? If so, are there not any
human limitations re: "outbooking"? Is there
much more room for OTB improvement in this area?
Moreover, what if "other things are _not_ equal"
due to other factors such as the ability to
positionally evaluate unfamiliar positions or
to tactically calculate accurately and in depth?

>
> The best example of how Fischer operated was his use of the Poisoned Pawn
> variation of the Sicilian as black. He didn't like the opening per se,
> except he loved that every idiot claiming to be his peer would play 10. e5
> against it, which he had busted. Players kept thinking that their mistakes
> were made down the road, and tried to fix the line. It was only when Yefim
> Geller played the Poisoned Pawn against Fischer that the correct line -- 10.
> f5 -- was revealed.

Is it possible that by "booking up" you
really mean that one plays opening lines
that are in vogue but contain some subtle
flaw that only the best GMs are able to
detect and take advantage of _repeatedly_?

>
> I remember back in the 1980s when my instincts told me to play 6. Be3
> against the Najdorf. I was scolded by several titled types that this move
> was horrid, yet now it's the damn main line.
>
> This is not to say that endgames or middlegames are not important, but
> before we can get to that point, it pays to be able to get "out of the gate"
> with a lead on your opponent every time you play.

How decisive should this lead be? Are we
talking about a "sufficient advantage" beg-
ging for its "technical exploitation"?

Major Cat

Date: 10 Nov 2005 17:07:59
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> I see no reason to play rated chess until I am GM strength. I can more
>> than
>> fulfill my training requirements online,.at much less cost and much
>> greater
>> convenience.
>
> Are you proposing that your training approach
> be adopted by other GM aspirants or is this
> approach specifically suited to your situation?

I believe it is the correct way to train at chess. I can't speak for what
others might do.

>
> By the way, if I can ask for a clarification:
> are you aiming at achieving GM status in FIDE
> classical time control competition or in some
> other competition?

Part of my training is that I train at blitz and bullet chess, figuring that
whatever the time control is for "slow" chess in the future, I'll be ready
for it.

>Moreover, are you specifical-
> ly shooting for the World Title in that com-
> petition?

Me? I'm not shooting for anything. I just play a lot of chess on my PC.
It's there whether I "aspire" to anything or not, unlike the 1980s, when one
had to actively commit to the game. Now all I need is a few minutes to kill
and a connection to a chess server.

I'm just trained to study and improve at the game, and have continued to
improve over the past 18 months (287 elo points). I attribute the
improvement at my late age to a solid opening foundation. At the rate I'm
improving now, I'd expect to make GM within six years, if my body doesn't
fall apart (no longer a given that it will hold up).

>> I do know that I will never have to change my opening repertoire again
>> unless I want to, except for extending it past the 10-20 moves I already
>> play to perfection out of the gate.
>
> I have dealt with this issue elsewhere in
> the thread! 8>)

If Kamsky and Nakamura didn't beat me out of the opening, few others will.

Anand tried 11. Qd3 against the Pelikan recently, a move I toyed with (and
rejected) in 1989. I believe he got slaughtered with it.

>> I do know that when I played Nakamura after having been back barely a
>> month,
>> I held him even for 22 moves before crumbling. The computer said I had
>> an
>> advantage of slightly more than half a pawn. As black.
>>
>> Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I
>> can
>> routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book. That
>> is
>> how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he almost
>> never
>> deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to do it.
>
> Are you saying that, other things being equal,
> "outbooking" your GM opponents is the only way
> to win FIDE chess?

Heck no. Hydra doesn'it do that. It's just the most efficient way to win
at chess. Watch me play against a 1400 sometime if you ever want to see how
it works.

>If so, are there not any
> human limitations re: "outbooking"?

Only the forced draw that the initial position suggests.

>Is there
> much more room for OTB improvement in this area?

Tons. See: Hydra-Adams.

> Moreover, what if "other things are _not_ equal"
> due to other factors such as the ability to
> positionally evaluate unfamiliar positions or
> to tactically calculate accurately and in depth?

Now you're getting into "lesser of two weak players." You might as well
explain to me why a player rated 800 "crushes" a player rated 500. Even
with "2" before each rating, that is roughly the same thing.

I see "super GMs" give away entire games by move 25. We have a long, LONG
way to go before we can perfect the game.

>> The best example of how Fischer operated was his use of the Poisoned Pawn
>> variation of the Sicilian as black. He didn't like the opening per se,
>> except he loved that every idiot claiming to be his peer would play 10.
>> e5
>> against it, which he had busted. Players kept thinking that their
>> mistakes
>> were made down the road, and tried to fix the line. It was only when
>> Yefim
>> Geller played the Poisoned Pawn against Fischer that the correct line --
>> 10.
>> f5 -- was revealed.
>
> Is it possible that by "booking up" you
> really mean that one plays opening lines
> that are in vogue but contain some subtle
> flaw that only the best GMs are able to
> detect and take advantage of _repeatedly_?

Close. More like "Lines that are in vogue but which contain FATAL flaws
that even the best GMs cannot see."

When I say "lines" of course I could be talking about move 27.

>> I remember back in the 1980s when my instincts told me to play 6. Be3
>> against the Najdorf. I was scolded by several titled types that this
>> move
>> was horrid, yet now it's the damn main line.
>>
>> This is not to say that endgames or middlegames are not important, but
>> before we can get to that point, it pays to be able to get "out of the
>> gate"
>> with a lead on your opponent every time you play.
>
> How decisive should this lead be?

I believe in the rapid accumulation of large advantages, a variation of the
Steinitz theory. My goal in every chessgame is to win in a miniature the
way I see Hydra and Fritz doing it.

>Are we
> talking about a "sufficient advantage" beg-
> ging for its "technical exploitation"?

As much as one can get.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 21:10:40
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

> I believe it is the correct way to train at chess. I can't speak for what
> others might do.

You must check it before continue sugesting your "supossedly" nonsense
"method" to people who want to improve his chess skills.

Please, achieve GM strengh first and then you will be able to recommend
your revolutionary training methods to everybody you wish. But please do
not confuss people!!

AT

Date: 11 Nov 2005 04:12:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> I believe it is the correct way to train at chess. I can't speak for
>> what others might do.
>
> You must check it before continue sugesting your "supossedly" nonsense
> "method" to people who want to improve his chess skills.

When he calls other methods "nonsense" he is making the argument that he is
the one who is sensical and should be listened to.

> Please, achieve GM strengh first and then you will be able to recommend
> your revolutionary training methods to everybody you wish. But please do
> not confuss people!!

In other words, he wants to pick his winners after they cross the wire.

Date: 11 Nov 2005 13:42:17
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Please, achieve GM strengh first and then you will be able to recommend
>> your revolutionary training methods to everybody you wish. But please do
>> not confuss people!!
>
> In other words, he wants to pick his winners after they cross the wire.

No, he wants you to prove that your training method makes you a winner.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Permanent Postman (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ man who delivers the mail but it'll
be there for ever!

Date: 09 Nov 2005 16:04:24
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> I remember back in the 1980s when my instincts told me to play 6. Be3
> against the Najdorf. I was scolded by several titled types that this move
> was horrid, yet now it's the damn main line.

I know I'm wasting my time but I will try to obtain from you more than
empty words.

Here an example played by me in 1986, ... can you post your games?
(notice 11.Bd3 is perfectly playable and modern theory gives 11.h4 as
more played recently)

[Event "Sitges open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1986.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Torrecillas tinez, A (ESP)"]
[Black "Higuera (USA)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B80"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 b5
8. f3 Bb7 9. g4 h6 10. O-O-O Nbd7 {Time wasted (0:43-0:13)} 11. Bd3 d5
$2 12. g5 {Here I wasted 33 minutes} 12... hxg5 13. Bxg5 Qb6 14. exd5 $1
Nxd5 15. Nxe6 $1 Bb4 $1 {(1:46-1:02)} 16. Nxg7+ Kf8 17. Nf5 $2 (17. Be4
$1 {is stronger.}) 17... f6 $4 (17... Nxc3 $8 {is only move but better
for white.}) 18. Bh6+ Kf7 19. Be4 Bxc3 20. Bxd5+ Bxd5 21. Qxd5+ Qe6
22.Qxe6+ Kxe6 23. Ng7+ Ke7 24. bxc3 {total time wasted (2:12-1:21)} 1-0

> This is not to say that endgames or middlegames are not important, but
> before we can get to that point, it pays to be able to get "out of the gate"
> with a lead on your opponent every time you play.

Endgames and middlge games are much more important than you wrote.
When you will have GM strengh you will know that.

AT

Date: 09 Nov 2005 19:03:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> This is not to say that endgames or middlegames are not important, but
>> before we can get to that point, it pays to be able to get "out of the
>> gate" with a lead on your opponent every time you play.
>
> Endgames and middlge games are much more important than you wrote.

Only if you first perfect the opening. Overtime in football is important
but you have to get through regulation first. The 12th round of a boxing
match is important, but not if you get knocked out early.

Most computers never need to win an endgame against even GMs these days.
Hydra sure didn't need a strong endgame to crush Adams.

> When you will have GM strengh you will know >that.

I believe that the correct way to play chess is to aim for a miniature every
time. You won't get that except with the absolute sharpest lines, including
novelties.

Right now I have found several "future main lines" in popular openings, just
like 6. Be3 against the Najdorf would have been had I not abandoned it due
to it being "dubious."

Hydra is programmed to play that way too: play main line for a while, then
deviate slightly from it, with a move that is solid, but overlooked.

Imagine the advantage that gives a player if he's already GM strength and
the rest of the world has never seen his repertoire.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 10:30:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hydra is programmed to play that way too: play main line for a while,
> then deviate slightly from it, with a move that is solid, but
> overlooked.

No, Hydra is programmed to play the main line for a while (or, at least,
to use its opening book for a while) and then think for itself. In some
cases, it independently recreates the main line; in others, it plays
alternative strong moves.

> Imagine the advantage that gives a player if he's already GM strength
> and the rest of the world has never seen his repertoire.

Slight.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Beefy Tool (TM): it's like a hammer
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made from a cow!

Date: 10 Nov 2005 01:11:20
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >
> > Endgames and middlge games are much more important than you wrote.
>
> Only if you first perfect the opening.

This is absolute nonesense, as anybody who's actually played through a
large number of Master games would know.

Only in Ray's fantasyland does one player consistently achieve an
advantage in the opening and drive it home all the way through the game
without a slip.

Far more often - even in games against masters - (and I posted examples
of this recently) there are missed opportunities for one or both players
in the middle- and end-games.

One would think, based on Ray's comments, that he hadn't studied very
many GM games. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he only studies openings.

It would explain how he could be so wildly misinformed.

-Ron

Date: 10 Nov 2005 02:39:45
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> > Endgames and middlge games are much more important than you wrote.
>>
>> Only if you first perfect the opening.
>
> This is absolute nonesense, as anybody who's actually played through a
> large number of Master games would know.

You can win a tennis point with a 65 mph serve; does that mean one shouldn't
develop a 140 mph serve.

>> Only in Ray's fantasyland does one player consistently achieve an
> advantage in the opening and drive it home all the way through the game
> without a slip.

Works for Hydra. Any kid who grew up on video games would have no problem
reverse-engineering what a supercomputer does at chess.

> Far more often - even in games against masters -

Masters don't play for the world title.

>(and I posted examples
> of this recently) there are missed opportunities for one or both players
> in the middle- and end-games.

Which has nothing to do with the opening.

The stronger the opening, the easier the middlegame.

> One would think, based on Ray's comments, that he hadn't studied very
> many GM games.

Only about 75,000 or so, if I had to guess.

>Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he only studies openings.

One could theoretically book up to move 100. Right now, booking up to move
20 makes one a world title contender.

Peter Leko uses this approach, as did Patrick Wolff. Don't believe me? Ask
them. Not only did I play the opening almost exactly like Wolff, I even had
some of the same chess groupies as him.

Note to Wolff: I know about Columbus.

> It would explain how he could be so wildly misinformed.

Or more informed. Depends on one's point of view.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 14:36:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> > Endgames and middlge games are much more important than you wrote.
>>>
>>> Only if you first perfect the opening.
>>
>> This is absolute nonesense, as anybody who's actually played through a
>> large number of Master games would know.
>
> You can win a tennis point with a 65 mph serve; does that mean one
> shouldn't develop a 140 mph serve.

Your analogy doesn't help to make your point. You're trying to say that
the opening is crucial in chess but your analogy only claims that it can't
hurt to be good at the opening, which is a much weaker statement.

> Works for Hydra. Any kid who grew up on video games would have no
> problem reverse-engineering what a supercomputer does at chess.

I don't understand that rek and I grew up playing video games.

>> Far more often - even in games against masters -
>
> Masters don't play for the world title.

When referring to players of the past, `masters' is commonly used as an
abbreviation for `those sorts of playes who were of GM standard relative
to their time.' So, yes, masters did formerly play for the world title

>> One would think, based on Ray's comments, that he hadn't studied very
>> many GM games.
>
> Only about 75,000 or so, if I had to guess.

Wow. How long did you spend on each. I find I need a few hours to go
through a GM game in detail.

> One could theoretically book up to move 100. Right now, booking up to
> move 20 makes one a world title contender.
>
> Peter Leko uses this approach, as did Patrick Wolff.

When did I miss Patrick Wolff being a world title contender? As for Leko,
I'll just suggest that his rote learning of opening variations is backed
up by a great understanding of the positions that come up from those
variations so that, when he leaves book, he has a very strong idea of what
to do.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Carnivorous Clock
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like a clock but it's
full of teeth and perfect for your
grandparents!

Date: 10 Nov 2005 09:56:32
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>>Endgames and middlge games are much more important than you wrote.
>>>
>>>Only if you first perfect the opening.
>>
>>This is absolute nonesense, as anybody who's actually played through a
>>large number of Master games would know.
>
> You can win a tennis point with a 65 mph serve; does that mean one shouldn't
> develop a 140 mph serve.

Ray, ... are you able to distinguish tennis and chess?

For example, .. how many games have you won in ONE move thanks to a
150mph first move?

Ron, ... thanks to try to help Ray but it seems He is not interested. :-(

AT

Date: 10 Nov 2005 09:07:00
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:

> Ron, ... thanks to try to help Ray but it seems He is not interested.

I would killfile him except for the fact that he spreads his
misinformation to those who don't know better.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 16:57:16
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> Ron, ... thanks to try to help Ray but it seems He is not interested.
>
> I would killfile him except for the fact that he spreads his
> misinformation to those who don't know better.

Ron of course being the ultimate arbiter of truth in chess (otherwise he
couldn't determine what was misinformation).

Date: 10 Nov 2005 21:50:55
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>>Ron, ... thanks to try to help Ray but it seems He is not interested.
>>
>>I would killfile him except for the fact that he spreads his
>>misinformation to those who don't know better.
>
> Ron of course being the ultimate arbiter of truth in chess (otherwise he
> couldn't determine what was misinformation).

"Misinformation" is the 1/x rule, is your studio plan focussed in
"memorizing" more lines than all people in your country can see adding
all their lifes, is your advice about IQP, and many others...

Ray, .. you know Ron is not the only people thinking seriously that your
"advice" is highly negative. I agree completely him in that aspect (and
in many others)

And Ron and me are not alone as you know after reading another posters
here, ...
There is here any people thinking your advice is neutral or positive? or
you are alone?

AT

Date: 11 Nov 2005 04:11:34
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>>I would killfile him except for the fact that he spreads his
>>>misinformation to those who don't know better.
>>
>> Ron of course being the ultimate arbiter of truth in chess (otherwise he
>> couldn't determine what was misinformation).
>
> "Misinformation" is the 1/x rule, is your studio plan focussed in
> "memorizing" more lines than all people in your country can see adding all
> their lifes, is your advice about IQP, and many others...

When you call something else "misinformation" you are basing it on the
premise that YOUR information is correct.

Nice brag.

> Ray, .. you know Ron is not the only people thinking seriously that your
> "advice" is highly negative. I agree completely him in that aspect (and in
> many others)

Argument ad populum, to a "populum" often with ratings several hundred
points below mine.

> And Ron and me are not alone as you know after reading another posters
> here, ...
> There is here any people thinking your advice is neutral or positive? or
> you are alone?

Argument ad populum.

Date: 11 Nov 2005 08:42:04
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > "Misinformation" is the 1/x rule, is your studio plan focussed in
> > "memorizing" more lines than all people in your country can see adding all
> > their lifes, is your advice about IQP, and many others...
>
> When you call something else "misinformation" you are basing it on the
> premise that YOUR information is correct.

Well, Lasker, Tarrasch, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Kasparov
all agreed with what he's saying.

Who've you got in your corner?

Date: 13 Nov 2005 02:45:19
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> > "Misinformation" is the 1/x rule, is your studio plan focussed in
>> > "memorizing" more lines than all people in your country can see adding
>> > all
>> > their lifes, is your advice about IQP, and many others...
>>
>> When you call something else "misinformation" you are basing it on the
>> premise that YOUR information is correct.
>
> Well, Lasker, Tarrasch, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Kasparov
> all agreed with what he's saying.
>
> Who've you got in your corner?

Hydra, Fritz, Shredder....

Date: 13 Nov 2005 18:40:29
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Who've you got in your corner?
>
> Hydra, Fritz, Shredder....

Hydra, Fritz, and Shredder largely win because of their TACTICAL skill,
not because of their opening preparation.

Try again.

Date: 14 Nov 2005 13:31:47
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> > Who've you got in your corner?
>>
>> Hydra, Fritz, Shredder....
>
> Hydra, Fritz, and Shredder largely win because of their TACTICAL skill,
> not because of their opening preparation.

I have TACTICAL skill myself. However, if I don't carve out a better
opening, that skill is less likely to result in a victory.

It's very useful to play against engines that have super-sharp opening
books. Without fail, they find very efficient lines and leave the books
just when the books are losing touch with the theory.

The first mistake of the game should be postponed for as long as possible.

Date: 13 Nov 2005 13:31:31
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>>"Misinformation" is the 1/x rule, is your studio plan focussed in
>>>>"memorizing" more lines than all people in your country can see adding
>>>>all
>>>>their lifes, is your advice about IQP, and many others...
>>>
>>>When you call something else "misinformation" you are basing it on the
>>>premise that YOUR information is correct.
>>
>>Well, Lasker, Tarrasch, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Kasparov
>>all agreed with what he's saying.
>>
>>Who've you got in your corner?
>
> Hydra, Fritz, Shredder....

Ray, be serious!

Do you suggest that those engines can have opinions about study plans??
Do you have interviewed them?
Have you ever ask those questions to HYDRA?

Those computers maybe agree that a good studio plan FOT THEM is
memorizing billions lines, ... but curiously none of those engines has
never studied chess!!!

Maybe in next message you will write that GOD or BUDA in in your corner?

AT

Date: 09 Nov 2005 10:32:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I
> can routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book.
> That is how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he
> almost never deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to
> do it.

Almost never deviating from repertoire is not the same thing as winning
all your games (or even most of them) without leaving book.

> The best example of how Fischer operated was his use of the Poisoned
> Pawn variation of the Sicilian as black. He didn't like the opening per
> se, except he loved that every idiot claiming to be his peer would play
> 10. e5 against it, which he had busted.

That doesn't appear to be the case. The database with Fritz 8 gives
eleven games in which Fischer plays the black side of the poisoned pawn
(ECO B97). Chessgames.com only has ten of these games and no others.

Of these, the only two against world-class opposition are against Spassky
in the 1972 World Championship match, where Fischer managed a loss
(10.Bd3) and a draw (10.Bxf6).

The other games are:

vs Parma Bled 1961 1/2 (38) 13.f5 (no e5)
vs Bilek Stockholm IZ 1962 0-1 (27) 10.e5
vs Tringov Havana 1965 0-1 (22) 10.e5
vs Parma Havana 1965 1/2 (34) 12.f5 (no e5)
vs Mazzioni Monte Carlo 1967 0-1 (45) 10.e5
vs Kavalek Sousse IZ 1967 1/2 (28) 10.f5
vs Matov Vinkovci 1968 0-1 (20) 12.f5 (no e5)
vs Matulovic Herzeg Novi blitz 1970 0-1 (44) neither e5 nor f5
vs Parma Rovinj/Zagreb 1970 0-1 (57) neither e5 nor f5

So, only three games with 10.e5, admittedly all won convincingly, but
hardly against Fischer's peers.

> Players kept thinking that their mistakes were made down the road, and
> tried to fix the line. It was only when Yefim Geller played the
> Poisoned Pawn against Fischer that the correct line -- 10. f5 -- was
> revealed.

You're talking about Fischer-Geller, Monte Carlo 1967, yes? The game that
Fischer's wonderful demonstration of the correct line saw him resign after
25 moves? And anyway, by that time, Parma had already obtained two draws
against Fischer with (a delayed) f5, as you can see above.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Psychotic Puzzle (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum but it
wants to kill you and you can eat it!

Date: 09 Nov 2005 18:58:45
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>> Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I
>> can routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book.
>> That is how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he
>> almost never deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to
>> do it.
>
> Almost never deviating from repertoire is not the same thing as winning
> all your games (or even most of them) without leaving book.

Having a 150 mph serve in tennis won't make one a winner, but that doesn't
mean it's a bad way to start building a game.

>> The best example of how Fischer operated was his use of the Poisoned
>> Pawn variation of the Sicilian as black. He didn't like the opening per
>> se, except he loved that every idiot claiming to be his peer would play
>> 10. e5 against it, which he had busted.
>
> That doesn't appear to be the case. The database with Fritz 8 gives
> eleven games in which Fischer plays the black side of the poisoned pawn
> (ECO B97). Chessgames.com only has ten of these games and no others.

Was the first one against Geller?

My books 15 years ago were not as comprehensive as today's databases, keep
in mind. Still, he exploited 10. e5 for all it was worth.

> Of these, the only two against world-class opposition are against Spassky
> in the 1972 World Championship match, where Fischer managed a loss
> (10.Bd3) and a draw (10.Bxf6).
>
> The other games are:
>
> vs Parma Bled 1961 1/2 (38) 13.f5 (no e5)
> vs Bilek Stockholm IZ 1962 0-1 (27) 10.e5
> vs Tringov Havana 1965 0-1 (22) 10.e5
> vs Parma Havana 1965 1/2 (34) 12.f5 (no e5)
> vs Mazzioni Monte Carlo 1967 0-1 (45) 10.e5
> vs Kavalek Sousse IZ 1967 1/2 (28) 10.f5
> vs Matov Vinkovci 1968 0-1 (20) 12.f5 (no e5)
> vs Matulovic Herzeg Novi blitz 1970 0-1 (44) neither e5 nor f5
> vs Parma Rovinj/Zagreb 1970 0-1 (57) neither e5 nor f5
>
> So, only three games with 10.e5, admittedly all won convincingly, but
> hardly against Fischer's peers.

I found more with 10. e5 in other books. I also found 10. f5 in Geller's
"application of chess theory."

>> Players kept thinking that their mistakes were made down the road, and
>> tried to fix the line. It was only when Yefim Geller played the
>> Poisoned Pawn against Fischer that the correct line -- 10. f5 -- was
>> revealed.
>
> You're talking about Fischer-Geller, Monte Carlo 1967, yes?

Yes, that one.

>The game that
> Fischer's wonderful demonstration of the correct line saw him resign after
> 25 moves?

Doesn't matter: the point is that Fischer showed that he played against his
"pet line" differently than most of the world.

Geller was also like kryptonite to Fischer. I don't know why he never
became world champion, because he certainly had the talent.

I still consider Geller to be the strongest opening player, ever, and a lot
of my theories are derived from my study of his work.

>And anyway, by that time, Parma had already obtained two draws
> against Fischer with (a delayed) f5, as you can see above.

Delayed isn't the same.

Date: 10 Nov 2005 14:28:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where I
>>> can routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book.
>>> That is how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he
>>> almost never deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to
>>> do it.
>>
>> Almost never deviating from repertoire is not the same thing as winning
>> all your games (or even most of them) without leaving book.
>
> Having a 150 mph serve in tennis won't make one a winner, but that
> doesn't mean it's a bad way to start building a game.

You claimed that Fischer routinely defeated the world's best players
without leaving his book, citing his narrow opening repertoire as
evidence. I pointed out that the evidence does not prove the conclusion
and you try to distract everyone by saying ``X does not imply Y in
tennis.'' Your point is? I mean, we can all see that, just because the
sky is blue doesn't mean that Beethoven was any good at writing music but
that doesn't help us establish anything about chess openings.

>>> The best example of how Fischer operated was his use of the Poisoned
>>> Pawn variation of the Sicilian as black. He didn't like the opening per
>>> se, except he loved that every idiot claiming to be his peer would play
>>> 10. e5 against it, which he had busted.
>>
>> That doesn't appear to be the case. The database with Fritz 8 gives
>> eleven games in which Fischer plays the black side of the poisoned pawn
>> (ECO B97). Chessgames.com only has ten of these games and no others.
>
> Was the first one against Geller?

I answered that question by posting a complete table of the games I could
find in databases. No, none of the games I know about have him playing
the black side of the poisoned pawn against Geller.

> My books 15 years ago were not as comprehensive as today's databases,
> keep in mind. Still, he exploited 10. e5 for all it was worth.

Yep. To be precise, it was worth two quick wins and an endgame win over
five years against players he would have been expected to routinely defeat
in pretty much any reasonable opening.

>> You're talking about Fischer-Geller, Monte Carlo 1967, yes? The game
>> that Fischer's wonderful demonstration of the correct line saw him
>> resign after 25 moves?
>
> Doesn't matter: the point is that Fischer showed that he played against
> his "pet line" differently than most of the world.

Differently but hardly any better.

> Geller was also like kryptonite to Fischer.

Indeed. Not many with a positive record against Fischer.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Atlas (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a map of the world but it's perfect
for your grandparents!

Date: 10 Nov 2005 16:54:17
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

>>>> Now it's just a matter of extending my opening book to the point where
>>>> I
>>>> can routinely defeat the world's best players without leaving my book.
>>>> That is how Fischer did it (if you check his games you'll find that he
>>>> almost never deviated from his repertoire), and that is how I intend to
>>>> do it.
>>>
>>> Almost never deviating from repertoire is not the same thing as winning
>>> all your games (or even most of them) without leaving book.
>>
>> Having a 150 mph serve in tennis won't make one a winner, but that
>> doesn't mean it's a bad way to start building a game.
>
> You claimed that Fischer routinely defeated the world's best players
> without leaving his book, citing his narrow opening repertoire as
> evidence. I pointed out that the evidence does not prove the conclusion
> and you try to distract everyone by saying ``X does not imply Y in
> tennis.'' Your point is? I mean, we can all see that, just because the
> sky is blue doesn't mean that Beethoven was any good at writing music but
> that doesn't help us establish anything about chess openings.

Look up Botvinnik-Fischer from the 1960s when Botvinnik got stung by a
simple developing move at move 19 in a QP line (I forget the specifics).
There were lots of games like that, where Fischer's opponents made the first
key mistake while Fischer was still in book.

Notice how few ever tried the shall against him.

>> My books 15 years ago were not as comprehensive as today's databases,
>> keep in mind. Still, he exploited 10. e5 for all it was worth.
>
> Yep. To be precise, it was worth two quick wins and an endgame win over
> five years against players he would have been expected to routinely defeat
> in pretty much any reasonable opening.

Fischer was expected to defeat everyone, and did more or less, in that day.

>>> You're talking about Fischer-Geller, Monte Carlo 1967, yes? The game
>>> that Fischer's wonderful demonstration of the correct line saw him
>>> resign after 25 moves?
>>
>> Doesn't matter: the point is that Fischer showed that he played against
>> his "pet line" differently than most of the world.
>
> Differently but hardly any better.

You think 10. e5 and 10. f5 are equal moves?

>> Geller was also like kryptonite to Fischer.
>
> Indeed. Not many with a positive record against Fischer.

Geller's "Application of Chess Theory" is probably the best chess book most
people have never heard of.

Date: 02 Nov 2005 19:37:36
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Besides, I find that it's more fun to experiment with lots of different
> > openings, instead of sticking to the same few over and over.
>
> Fischer never knew what he was missing, did he?

For my take on that, visit www.bookup.com and click on Bobby Fischer's
Opening Secret

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"

Date: 28 Oct 2005 06:42:45
From: Klaus Bayreuther
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> Hi
>
> As per the title I'm seeking recommendations for repetoire book(s) for
> both the white and black pieces. By nature I prefer an open/attackin
> game (with both white and black) as opposed to a postional game. As it
> is not always possible to play an open attacking game the ideal
> candidate book should strike a balance.
>

There is a sound repertoire book -
for Black AND White:

Larry Kaufman,
"The Chess Advantage in Black and White"
(McKay Chess Library, 2004).

Klaus B

Date: 27 Oct 2005 16:58:36
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Recommendation for repetoire book(s)

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

> As an aside, I'm playing a lot of online chess at the moment so I was
> wondering if it is worth considering having two repetoires, one for
> playing on-line where my opponent has several days to consider his
> reponse and one for playing over the board where you are more likely to
> get away with openings that might be considered suspect/less than sound
> (and fun to play) but are unlikely to be successful when playing
> online?

You know, it's one of those weird things but ... "ginally sound"
gambits actually seem to have a much more substantial life in high-level
correspondence chess than they do in OTB games.