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).

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/a1...r/Untitled.jpg

G8F6

my move: 3. Ng1 - Nf3

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/a1...Untitled-1.jpg

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

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 ) 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.

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/a1...phyr/chess.jpg

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

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.