View Full Version : CHESS: Porphy vs ?
Hi
As quite a few showed interest for a game of chess, here is your chance. Without further ado I make the first move. We can do a second game with reversed colours later. First come, first served!
My move 1. e2-e4
cheers Porphy
D7-D5
Don't suppose you know the old English annotations? (Q2-Q4).
Skybird
03-08-09, 12:01 PM
Don't suppose you know the old English annotations? (Q2-Q4).
Oh, there he goes with that again...! :D
Good luck, Gentlemen.
Can you provide your own diagrams from time to time, or should I take care of it?
Letum, thanks for joining the game. I really would prefer to not use the old notation. Otherwise it will most certainly mess things up somewhere along the line :yep:
I think we can do our own diagrams Skybird, but if we can't figure it out I will call for help!
2. e4xd5
Testing...
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/Untitled.jpg
So far, Scandinavian opening: 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3
(White heading out into the unknown as fast as possible :) )
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/Untitled-1.jpg
Skybird
03-09-09, 07:06 AM
Scandinavian Defence indeed. An opening that once was assumed almost dead because it seemed to violate some basic principles of opening theory (not to move the queen so early, for example), but as a matter of fact it can be found in the repertoire of grandmasters until today, and is a regular opening in tournaments on high niveau. Tactically it shares some structure with the French Defence and Caro-Kann, with the advantage that Black'S Queen bishop does not get locked so easily, as it is often the case in French systems. White usually has space advantage in the early phase and tries to fight for making benefit from that.
It's not an easy opening to play for Black, if White plays correctly. Also, White has modern answers to many of the once feared variations Black could choose. If correctly played, the opening gives neither black nor white significant advantages. But you can surprise your opponent psychologically with it - many White players do not expect to be confronted with it, and may not be prepared.
Hehe
I swear I will never know or want to know the names of any opening move.
For me such analysis takes the fun out of the game.
F6xD5
(KB3-Q4)
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5
My move: 4. c2-c4
Skybird
03-09-09, 04:59 PM
Hehe
I swear I will never know or want to know the names of any opening move.
For me such analysis takes the fun out of the game...
And it takes the victory out of the game, too! ;) In chess, knowledge is power. You never can know too much about chess theory. the more you know, the more powerful you can wield your greater arsenal of weapons - that simple!
I think some opening theory is mandatory for a chess player trying to get stronger. Of course you can learn by experience only, but that really is the same as opening theory without labels to order things and structure your thinking.
I agree that playing opening moves learned from a book mindlessly is no fun, but understanding the dynamics and strategies of a opening is really the point of opening theory, and that is fun to me. I have a encyclopaedia of chess openings, but it doesn't really spell out why some things are considered good or bad. As a consequence it is extremely dull and hard to actually use in a good way for a player at low level chess.
The best chess book I have is "Mastering the French" by Neil McDonald and Andrew Harley. (you can read some reviews on Amazon here (http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-French-Neil-McDonald/dp/0713457163)) It breaks down all the French opening lines by looking at the resulting pawn structure and organize the chapters according to this. It also graphicly shows all the important "power squares" and potential ways for the pieces to move, both for black and white. Then you have a few illustrating games with every chapter to play through. Works amazingly well, and as you say Letum, no need to learn a lot of names and lines, as the book shows you the most important things to consider for both players, depending on the pawn structure. :yep:
cheers Porphy
I'm much like you Letum, I have no patience to sit and memorize the openings. What I like doing though, and a forum like this adapts itself well to it, is to look at databases as we go and say "Oh, look, I'm playing out Skybirds's Scandinavian gambit, porphy variant" and then judge it for strength and weaknesses.
Skybird
03-10-09, 10:07 AM
I'm much like you Letum, I have no patience to sit and memorize the openings. What I like doing though, and a forum like this adapts itself well to it, is to look at databases as we go and say "Oh, look, I'm playing out Skybirds's Scandinavian gambit, porphy variant" and then judge it for strength and weaknesses.
In fact that is why correspondence chess is so often recommended if you want (or need) to learn theory. It is a great way to work yourself into theoretical stuff - and deeply assimilate that which you are using in your running matches. You learn much more by it, imo, than if you visit a chess club, play there, and occasionally listen to tips or "courses" by other players. Correspondence chess masters and world champions of the past for that reason time and again showed to be hilariously competent theorists, and very, very strong players. The niveau of matches on master's level often is extremely high. And sometimes it surpasses the niveau of table tournament championships.
Also, there is so much diversity and possibility in the way a match can unfold that saying that learning theory would decrease the chance for surprise and predetermine the match and thus make it boring - simply is not aegument at all. That'S like saying that buying a map of oyur home town would make all the world beyond a boring place that from then on you already know.
you can play an opening, and copy an early match by that for ten moves, 15 moves - and then just one single move by the opponent all of a sudden turns it into a completely different thing, different to anything you have ever seen before. And this is the rule. I have never heared of any buddy and it happened enver to me that I copied an earlier match of mine, with a different player. chances for that are astronomically thin. You could have a psoition, and 24 pieces on the board, and all match a former psoition you know, all except that single pawn that before was on h4 and now is on h3 - and by that small difference it can be a completely different thing alltogether. and in most cases - it is indeed.
And finally, a lot of playing strength beyond a certain level - is pattern recognition. Chess masters think different when calculating a move than you and I are doing. This skill is both a result of theoretical knoweldge, and automatted routine, and without either theoretic knowledge or routine you will not form it. and without that - you simply will never move beyond a certain strength level.
D5-F6
(Q5-KB3)
For me, too much theory, set moves etc. is like calculation the optimal angle to hit a
cricket ball depending on how it is bowled. I enjoy just whacking the the thing as hard
as I can far more having a detailed knowledge.
Analysis alienates me from the experience, the puzzle, of the game
My move 5. d2-d4
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/chess.jpg
Skybird
03-10-09, 04:33 PM
For me, too much theory, set moves etc. is like calculation the optimal angle to hit a
cricket ball depending on how it is bowled. I enjoy just whacking the the thing as hard
as I can far more having a detailed knowledge.
Analysis alienates me from the experience, the puzzle, of the game
Feel free. But you do not do the puzzle - if you evade analysis. Analysis is at the very heart of the game. What you say is like playing Tennis without little balls. Before you can enjoy the advanced stages of the game, you must master the basics. Like a cricket player just will not become any good if not training proper technique and thinks the right feeling for the game just comes all by itself. I'm sure it doesn't in Cricket or any other sports, and i know it does not in chess.
Too bad. Not even on chess we can agree. :D
Skybird
03-10-09, 04:47 PM
See it this way. A master player has knowledge about for example typical pawn structures that form up in mid game and that have this and that advantages and disadvantages, tactical benefits and risks in the endgame. Consider you play against him, and you reach a position in the 20th move. He sees these structures and knows what they mean, and he can by that make an educated assessement on which structure to avoid and which one he wants to realise. He knows that the pattern in structure A gives him a superior advantage once material is reduced and end game is entered, but structure B is hard to turn out as a victory. He knows that - although he can not calculate from the 20th move right down to the 55th move. You, on the other hand, avoid to raise your theoretical knowledge, and you can calculate only 2, at best 3 moves in advance. You only see that nice sqaure for the queen two moves from now on, and choose to go with the according variation - the same variation that he is happy with for the reason named before. By that you give him the pawn structure that seals his victory, because you do not know what you are doing by focussing on the nice field for the queen only. And although you consider to have made a good move, you are already doomed, and in the end you even do not know why you have lost - it is like magic to you.
Why do you think has the revolution (and that is what it has been, imo) in chess software programming focused not on just increasing calculation speed and leading the brute force strategy (Shannon A) to deeper calculation depth? Why have they tried so hard to "teach" computer tactical knowledge so massively in the past 15 years? Why does none of today's top programs base on brute force alone anymore, but are all more or less "knowledge-oriented" - even former traditional brute force-extremists? And how could you ever hope to correctly assess a given position, if you have no knowledge about strategy and tactics that serve as a standard by which you compare the given position? Even a stupid, non-intelligent computer needs to have such standards for comparison and reference.
;) ;) ;)
E7-E6
(King2-King3)
I don't think it makes me a better player!
Obviously not. Learning all that bunff is part of becoming better at chess.
But, more importantly, is is not (for me at least) part of enjoying chess.
Skybird
03-10-09, 05:24 PM
Well, you think it does not make you a better player. But you think that only.you could as well think that you do not become a better athlete by regular training and learning proper jumping/running/swimming/else technique.
Enjoying chess, you said. Well, you most liekly get spanked time and again, and can hold your ground only against very weak players - is that what "enjoying it" is about? A piano-player cannot enjoy playing the piano, if he cannot reliably find the rights notes on the keyboard. Telling from my own example (I'm a terrible swimmer), swimming is no joy but a pain if you do not have proper swimming technique. And - sorry to sound a bit rude - without a certain ammount of knowledge about what you are doing in chess, you neither play nor can truly enjoy chess - you just move pieces on a board and kill some time (no personal offence meant.) I mean, you necessarily miss all the hidden beauty in it, becasue you lack the skill to discover it. 30+ years ago, I played chess like you do, and did not know much about "theory" - why do you think am I beyond that now, although I had ten years of interruption?
Theory does not make you a better player, you say. You are on a wrong path there, Letum - every chess player knowing the game and every member of a chess club will tell you that. You could as well claim that learning to read does not raise your competence to read a book. ;)
Come on guys, I'm trying to think in here... :DL
Skybird
03-10-09, 05:36 PM
[ Skybird sneaks out, silently closes the door, hushes into the basement and angrily starts hitting the sandbag down there ]
F2-F4
(QueenBishiop2-QueenBishiop3)
I don't think it makes me a better player! Well, you think it does not make you a better player. But you think that only.
No, no, you misunderstand.
I don't think that the way I do things makes me a better player.
Enjoyment has nothing to do with winning or even being somewhat competent.
To use the old cliche; "its the taking part that counts".
I have lost, many chess games, but never have I been left with the feeling that I lost
something other than the game as a result of taking part.
Skybird
03-11-09, 07:39 AM
Damn, I just broke that sandbag! :D
F2-F4
(QueenBishiop2-QueenBishiop3)
Sorry, that is unclear to me... do you mean c7-c5, or c7-c6? I presume you want to move the pawn on C.
Even if you refuse opening theory, you could benefit from using the modern notation. And I'm sure all the opening books will make much more sense then. :D
cheers Porphy
Gaahh! QB2-QB3 is so much easier than having to turn the board around and....nevermind...
C7-C5
you could benefit from using the modern notation. And I'm sure all the opening books will make much more sense then.
The few books I do own all use my notation system, not this new European system. My library is old, however, and I have few books from after the 1950's.
Skybird
03-11-09, 10:43 AM
Algebraic, short algebraic or figurine notation (that replaces capital letters for figures with symbols) now is mandatory in all official chess tournaments. The old English notation additionally is banned/forbidden from tournaments hosted by FIDE. Only some of the Anglosaxon chess publishers used the old English notation until the early 80s of the last century, then almost completely switched over to the modern system. The very influential Russian chess school never used English notation anyway. The algebraic notation today is the globally accepted standard.
Don't let him confuse you, Porphy, he tried the same with me last year! :O: :DL
Gaahh! QB2-QB3 is so much easier than having to turn the board around and....nevermind...
C7-C5
you could benefit from using the modern notation. And I'm sure all the opening books will make much more sense then.
The few books I do own all use my notation system, not this new European system. My library is old, however, and I have few books from after the 1950's.
Turn the board around... what are you doing over there? And you actually own chess books. Even if they are old I would guess they contain some kind of chess theory... Hmm. :hmmm: Never mind, just teasing.
I also enjoy games without all the burden of analysis, but that would be blitz games for me. Longer games will be more involved by the very nature of chess. I can't really see why analysis of openings is alienating from the game. It's not much different from analysing the game one actually play. It's basically the same thing, except with opening knowledge you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. Also you would still take part of the game just the way you say you like, but on another level, which just might be even more pleasant and interesting.
But I certainly won't try to stop anyone enjoying chess the way they want! Myself, I have enjoyed a beer or two while thinking about my next move. Certainly not recommended if winning is the most important thing. :DL
And Skybird, that sandbag needs another good working by now... :cool:
My move: 7. 0-0
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. d4 e6 6. Be2 c5 7. O-O
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/Untitled-4.jpg
B8-C6
Knight to Queen Bishop's 3rd
??
You don't have anything in C4.
Edit: Ops, confusion. Will take a look at that.
True, I was repeating my earlier move somehow... Sorry about that. 1-1 in confused notation :)
My move: 10. Be2-Bc4
This is what it should be like :)
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. d4 e6 6. Be2 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8.
d5 exd5 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Bc4
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/PvsL.jpg
my white bishop to 'E' column.
Swapping between crazy notation, brushing off chess theory... I think it's all a sham.
Letum is really a chess hustler.
Edit: omg I moved the wrong horse for you Letum, but I stand by my own move
12. Ng5xe6
This is the correct position
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/porphyrLetum.jpg
D8 x D1
If your next move is F1 x D1 them my next move is
F7 x E6
Well, my knight won't be on e6... it will be on
Ne6-c7+
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Nf6
3. Nf3 Nxd5
4. c4 Nf6
5. d4 e6
6. Be2 c5
7. O-O Nc6
8. d5 exd5
9. cxd5 Nxd5
10. Bc4 Be6
11. Ng5 Ndb4
12. Nxe6 Qxd1
13. Nc7+
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/check.jpg
No piece on g8 ?? do you mean pawn g7-g6?
x a1
ed: can you post a board please? I stopped following it on a chess board a few pages back and I don't fully trust my mental map thingie.
My move is still XA1 anyway
Didn't know if you wanted to commit "blindly" to xa1, so this is the position before your move.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/req.jpg
Ok,
... Nc2xa1
17. Nc3-d5+
f6
"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters."
Oh YEAH?! Well $£&! you automated forum admin.
It's small victories like this that make life worth while.
:DL
"The square you want to move your checked king to, is not allowed, please try again" - Sincerely, Forum automaton
:salute:
Ok Letum, I need some sleep now. :doh:
Will continue tomorrow when your king has found himself a proper square.
Cheers Porphy
e6 any better?
One day i will sit down and learn the rules for chess.
Oh, yes much better.
... Ke6
18. Rd1-e1+
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/rooke1.jpg
No Knight can go to d6...
Just look at the posted board to get the proper notation. You have the numbers on one side and the letters at the bottom row. Do you mean Knight to e5? Or maybe King to d6?
Knight to E5.
Damm I hate this system.
Knight to E5.
Damm I hate this system.
"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
My move: 19. Bc1-f4
Skybird
03-13-09, 07:09 AM
Knight to E5.
Damm I hate this system.
You have handled two-dimensional coordinate systems with x- and y-axis in math lessons at school. This is exactly the same. ;) Or did you earn E's and F's only in math? :DL
Get over it. There is a reason why the English system could not survive, but the Algebraic system took over. ;)
Damm Europeans.
/isolates
My move:
G7
Skybird
03-13-09, 07:39 AM
Damm Europeans.
/isolates
My move:
G7
Yes, damn european colonialism! :haha: Brought the world the more precise metric systems for weights and distances. Brought them right-sided traffic. Brought them social market economy. Brought them the modern layout for keys on a keyboard. And the climax of it all: brought them algebraic notation! :woot: :-j
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/Porphyr/Nc7.jpg
Skybird
03-13-09, 09:39 AM
Oh-oh.
:timeout:
Resignation
Good game. I enjoyed that.
Up for another?
Well played :yep:
-Handshake-
Sure. You play White this time. You could start another thread for that one though, and keep this one for a bit of analysis and discussions. If some of the chess inclined feel to join in with their thoughts of the game. I have a few questions about the opening myself, especially the soundness of my own move 8. d5 :06:
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Nf6
3. Nf3 Nxd5
4. c4 Nf6
5. d4 e6
6. Be2 c5
7. O-O Nc6
8.d5 exd5
9. cxd5 Nxd5
10. Bc4 Be6
11. Ng5 Ndb4
12. Nxe6 Qxd1
13. Nc7+ Ke7
14. Rxd1 Nc2
15. Nxa8 g6
16. Nc3 Nxa1
17. Nd5+ Ke6
18. Re1+ Ne5
19. Bf4 Bg7
20. Nac7+ Black resigns
Skybird
03-13-09, 11:24 AM
I have a few questions about the opening myself, especially the soundness of my own move 8. d5 :06:
Fritz 11 analysis rated White's position as +0.5 - +1.0 pawns, but the following examples of possible sequences see that 8.d5 made that score dropping, while there were moves that would have kept it up.
Porphy - Letum
Analysis by Fritz 11:
1. +/= (0.67): 8.Bc1-e3 Bf8-e7 9.d4xc5 Qd8xd1 10.Rf1xd1 Nf6-g4 11.Be3-f4 Be7xc5 12.Bf4-g3 f7-f5 13.Nb1-c3 0-0 14.Nc3-a4 Bc5-e7 15.c4-c5 f5-f4 16.Bg3-h4 Be7xh4 17.Nf3xh4 Ng4-e5
2. +/= (0.41): 8.d4xc5 Qd8xd1 9.Rf1xd1 e6-e5 10.Nb1-c3 Bf8xc5 11.Bc1-e3 Bc5xe3 12.f2xe3 Bc8-f5 13.c4-c5 Ke8-e7 14.Be2-c4 Ra8-d8 15.Nf3-g5 Rd8xd1+ 16.Ra1xd1 Rh8-f8 17.a2-a3 h7-h6 18.e3-e4
3. = (0.00): 8.d4-d5 e6xd5 9.c4xd5 Qd8xd5 10.Qd1-a4 Bc8-d7 11.Nb1-c3 Qd5-f5 12.h2-h3 0-0-0 13.Rf1-d1 Nc6-d4 14.Qa4xa7 Nf6-e4 15.Qa7-a8+ Kc8-c7 16.Qa8-a5+ Kc7-c8 17.Qa5-a8+
4. =/+ (-0.40): 8.a2-a3 c5xd4 9.b2-b4 Bf8-d6 10.c4-c5 Bd6-c7 11.b4-b5 Nc6-e7 12.Nf3xd4 Nf6-e4 13.c5-c6 e6-e5 14.Be2-f3 Qd8xd4 15.Qd1xd4 e5xd4
5. =/+ (-0.67): 8.Bc1-f4 c5xd4 9.Nf3-e5 Bf8-c5 10.Qd1-d3 Nf6-d7 11.Ne5xc6 b7xc6 12.Be2-f3 Bc8-b7 13.Nb1-d2 0-0 14.Qd3-b3 Qd8-b6 15.Nd2-e4 Bc5-b4 16.Qb3-d3 f7-f5 17.Ne4-d6
Preparing a full computer analysis to adress your suggested needs. ;)
Thanks Skybird, will look it through, and it will be interesting to see what Fritz says of the whole thing.
I decided to play something a bit unusual in the Scandinavian, hence 3. Nf3, as I thought Letum might be well versed in the main lines, which I'm not.
Also, it seemed to me that black grabbing the pawn with 3 ... Nxf6 rather than with the queen is a bit passive, and then retreating back to Nf6 again gave white a slight tempo and development advantage. But that might be of minor importance.
cheers Porphy
Skybird
03-13-09, 02:08 PM
short version, Hiarcs 10:
Porphy - Letum
[Analysis: Hiarcs 10 (30s)]
B01: Scandinavian Defence
1.e2-e4 d7-d5
2.e4xd5 Ng8-f6
3.Ng1–f3 Nf6xd5
4.c2-c4 Nd5-f6
5.d2-d4 e7-e6 last book move
6.Bf1–e2 c7-c5
7.0–0 Nb8-c6
8.d4-d5 [8.Bc1–e3±]
8...e6xd5
9.c4xd5 Nf6xd5 [9...Qd8xd5 10.Qd1–a4 Bf8-e7 11.Nb1–c3]
10.Be2-c4 [10.Qd1–b3 Nd5-b6 11.Rf1–d1 Bc8-d7]
10...Bc8-e6
11.Nf3-g5 Nd5-b4 Black king safety dropped [11...Qd8-d7!?= is an interesting idea]
12.Ng5xe6 Qd8xd1 [12...f7xe6!? is interesting 13.Nb1–d2 Bf8-e7]
13.Ne6-c7++- [13.Rf1xd1?! f7xe6 14.Nb1–c3 Nb4-c2=]
13...Ke8-e7?? the position was bad, and this mistake simply hastens the end [13...Ke8-d7 14.Rf1xd1+ Kd7xc7 15.Bc1–f4+ Kc7-b6+-]
14.Rf1xd1 Nb4-c2 [14...Ra8-d8 is still a small chance 15.Nc7-d5+ Nb4xd5 16.Rd1xd5 Rd8xd5 17.Bc4xd5 Nc6-b4+-]
15.Nc7xa8 g7-g6 [15...Nc2xa1 there is nothing else anyway 16.Bc1–g5+ f7-f6+-]
16.Nb1–c3 Nc2xa1 [16...Nc6-e5 hardly improves anything 17.Nc3-d5+ Ke7-d6 18.Bc1–f4+-]
17.Nc3-d5+ [17.Bc1–g5+ secures the point 17...f7-f6 18.Nc3-d5+ Ke7-d8 19.Nd5-b4+ Nc6-d4 20.Bg5xf6+ Bf8-e7 21.Bf6xh8 a7-a5 22.Bh8xd4 c5xd4 23.Rd1xd4+ Kd8-c8 24.Na8-b6+ Kc8-c7 25.Nb4-d5+ Kc7-d6 26.Nd5xe7+ Kd6xe7 27.Nb6-d5+ Ke7-d7 28.Nd5-e3+ Kd7-c6+-]
17...Ke7-e6 [17...Ke7-d8 a fruitless try to alter the course of the game 18.Bc1–g5+ Kd8-c8 19.Bg5-f4+-]
18.Rd1–e1+ [18.Nd5-c7+ and White has reached his goal 18...Ke6-e7 19.Bc1–g5+ f7-f6 20.Nc7-d5+ Ke7-d8 21.Nd5-b4+ Nc6-d4 22.Bg5xf6+ Kd8-d7 23.Bf6xh8 a7-a5 24.Bh8xd4 c5xd4 25.Rd1xd4+ Bf8-d6+-]
18...Nc6-e5 [18...Ke6-d7 does not help much 19.Nd5-f6+ Kd7-c8 20.Re1–e8+ Nc6-d8 21.Nf6-d5+-]
19.Bc1–f4 Bf8-g7
20.Na8-c7+
Thanks Skybird
Yes, it seems black could have avoided a lot of nasty things at move 11 and move 12. Going for the white rook, instead of keeping the king safe, proved dangerous.
I guess Letum was very sure that the answer to 12. ... Qd8xd1 would be 13. Rf1xd1, which would give black equal play. The "Zwischenzug" with the Knight and check was deciding for the game, so black would have to come up with something better before this happened.
According to the computer analysis white could improve on move 8, as I suspected. Instead of pushing the pawn forward and possibly overextending the position, continuing development with Bc1–e3 gives white some advantage and is safer. I guess I was a bit too eager as usual to try to disrupt the kings position... :)
cheers Porphy
Skybird
03-14-09, 05:48 PM
You are hereby promoted to the rank of "disruptor". :salute:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.