CHESS: Porphy vs ? - Page 2

Letum · 03-10-09, 12:11 PM

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

porphy · 03-10-09, 02:59 PM

My move 5. d2-d4

Skybird · 03-10-09, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

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.

Letum · 03-10-09, 05:10 PM

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.

porphy · 03-10-09, 05:28 PM

My move: Bf1-Be2

porphy · 03-10-09, 05:31 PM

Come on guys, I'm trying to think in here...

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 ]

Letum · 03-11-09, 07:31 AM

F2-F4
(QueenBishiop2-QueenBishiop3)

Quote:

I don't think it makes me a better player!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!

porphy · 03-11-09, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

cheers Porphy

Letum · 03-11-09, 09:24 AM

Gaahh! QB2-QB3 is so much easier than having to turn the board around and....nevermind...

C7-C5

Quote:

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!

porphy · 03-11-09, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Gaahh! QB2-QB3 is so much easier than having to turn the board around and....nevermind...

C7-C5

Quote:

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.

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.

And Skybird, that sandbag needs another good working by now...

My move: 7. 0-0

03-10-09, 12:11 PM	#16
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	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 __________________

03-10-09, 02:59 PM	#17
porphy Commodore Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 603 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	My move 5. d2-d4 __________________ "The only remedy for madness is the innocence of facts." O. Mirbeu "A paranoid is simply someone in possession of all the facts." W. B.

03-10-09, 04:47 PM	#19
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,791 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-10-09, 05:10 PM	#20
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

03-10-09, 05:24 PM	#21
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,791 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-10-09, 05:28 PM	#22
porphy Commodore Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 603 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	My move: Bf1-Be2 __________________ "The only remedy for madness is the innocence of facts." O. Mirbeu "A paranoid is simply someone in possession of all the facts." W. B.

03-10-09, 05:31 PM	#23
porphy Commodore Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 603 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Come on guys, I'm trying to think in here... __________________ "The only remedy for madness is the innocence of facts." O. Mirbeu "A paranoid is simply someone in possession of all the facts." W. B.

03-10-09, 05:36 PM	#24
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,791 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	[ Skybird sneaks out, silently closes the door, hushes into the basement and angrily starts hitting the sandbag down there ] __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-11-09, 07:39 AM	#26
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,791 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Damn, I just broke that sandbag! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

03-11-09, 10:43 AM	#29
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,791 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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! __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode