Todd, your points about middlegames, in the context of the openings that
led to them, are well taken.

On comment that I heard somewhere, and I think is very insightful, is...

"When someone says 'I don't understand that opening', usually what the
really mean is 'I don't understand the middlegames that result from this
opening' ".

So Hydra is the only player who understands openings?

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
news
Todd, your points about middlegames, in the context of the openings that
led to them, are well taken.

On comment that I heard somewhere, and I think is very insightful, is...

"When someone says 'I don't understand that opening', usually what the
really mean is 'I don't understand the middlegames that result from this
opening' ".

So Hydra is the only player who understands openings?



Huh? Where does that come from? I was just responding to Todd, I don't think
he mentioned Hydra, but if there is a logical progression from my comments
to yours, then I will have to reconsider my post. please feel free to point
out that progression.

Note my use of the word usually. There are exceptions to everything. Let me
guess, Adams was busted in the opening in one of his games against Hydra?

On comment that I heard somewhere, and I think is very insightful, is...

"When someone says 'I don't understand that opening', usually what the
really mean is 'I don't understand the middlegames that result from this
opening' ".

So Hydra is the only player who understands openings?



Huh? Where does that come from? I was just responding to Todd, I don't
think he mentioned Hydra, but if there is a logical progression from my
comments to yours, then I will have to reconsider my post. please feel
free to point out that progression.

Note my use of the word usually. There are exceptions to everything. Let
me guess, Adams was busted in the opening in one of his games against
Hydra?

No, he was busted relatively early in ALL of his games against Hydra, save
one. The match wasn't even close. Hydra made him look like Vinny Livermore
on a bad day.

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...
it. Maybe it's junk to Anand, who plays the first 23 moves from memory,
but it's not junk to me.

Perhaps the first thing a chessplayer should learn is how to play the
first 23 moves from memory?

Seems to have done well for Anand.




It certainly didn't do him any harm but it's surprising to me anyway that
such a talented individual never became world champion. My own theory about
why he never became world champion is that sometimes he overlooks fairly
obvious positional themes in favor of tactics. For example, his game with
Topalov. Now look at that game and then go back over the masterpiece
Steintz-Chigorin 1892 and tell me that Anand Bxc6 wasn't a strategic error.
I've checked it out with Fritz and other masters. So far, I haven't seen
any GM commentary though. The point is that Steintz played some terrible
openings and I'm sure if he lived today he would have greatly benefited from
computers and chess opening theory. On the other hand, Steintz understood
strategy very well. It seems that's been forgotten somewhat in current
chess. Most modern GMs play more like Lasker, tactically, then
strategically so people buy opening books and study tactics and try to
imitate this style, which in my opinion may just prove to be a fad, rather
than a necessity for being a great player. Yet, when people debate about
what books are the most valuable to them, it's seldom that anyone ever
mentions an opening book. And as someone else said, some people idea of
improving is to memorize and opening and try to trick you before they have
to think. I believe it's hard to seriously improve that way.

Todd wrote:
It certainly didn't do him any harm but it's surprising to me anyway that
such a talented individual never became world champion.

Eh? Anand *did* become world champion, at least the way FIDE defines
it, in 2000. He defeated Shirov 3½-½ in the final round.

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...
On comment that I heard somewhere, and I think is very insightful,
is...

"When someone says 'I don't understand that opening', usually what the
really mean is 'I don't understand the middlegames that result from
this opening' ".

So Hydra is the only player who understands openings?



Huh? Where does that come from? I was just responding to Todd, I don't
think he mentioned Hydra, but if there is a logical progression from my
comments to yours, then I will have to reconsider my post. please feel
free to point out that progression.

Note my use of the word usually. There are exceptions to everything. Let
me guess, Adams was busted in the opening in one of his games against
Hydra?

No, he was busted relatively early in ALL of his games against Hydra, save
one. The match wasn't even close. Hydra made him look like Vinny
Livermore on a bad day.


Ok, I see your point. But I still say that for the average player, the
comment about the connection between opening understanding and middle game
understanding is valid, although perhaps it could be worded differently.
Agreed?

Todd wrote:

(,,)

mentions an opening book. And as someone else said, some people idea of
improving is to memorize and opening and try to trick you before they have
to think. I believe it's hard to seriously improve that way.

*,

Todd, allow me to gather my thoughts..

You contend that Steinitz & Lasker (both) are @ a massive disadvantage
(vis a vis) the status quo - no? Nothing.. & I mean '0' (zilch, zero,
nadda etc) is more wrong, but we'll leave that for future debatimms..

**,

"Chess is life." - Whitnay Copocablanca _bon mot_ recorded live @ the
London Palladium [circa. 1927]..

So Hydra is the only player who understands openings?



Huh? Where does that come from? I was just responding to Todd, I don't
think he mentioned Hydra, but if there is a logical progression from my
comments to yours, then I will have to reconsider my post. please feel
free to point out that progression.

Note my use of the word usually. There are exceptions to everything. Let
me guess, Adams was busted in the opening in one of his games against
Hydra?

No, he was busted relatively early in ALL of his games against Hydra,
save one. The match wasn't even close. Hydra made him look like Vinny
Livermore on a bad day.


Ok, I see your point. But I still say that for the average player, the
comment about the connection between opening understanding and middle game
understanding is valid, although perhaps it could be worded differently.
Agreed?

No. How strong we are is a function of how we play, not the other way
around. The 1400s who become 1600s and beyond do so because they play
sounder chess and leave the ranks.

Chess has three phases: in book, out of book, and back in book. What we
call the "middlegame" is the "out of book" phase plus some of what we call
"openings" and "endgames."

Most games are one when one player is in book and the other is not, either
at the beginning or the end of the game.

it. Maybe it's junk to Anand, who plays the first 23 moves from memory,
but it's not junk to me.

Perhaps the first thing a chessplayer should learn is how to play the
first 23 moves from memory?

Seems to have done well for Anand.




It certainly didn't do him any harm but it's surprising to me anyway that
such a talented individual never became world champion. My own theory
about why he never became world champion is that sometimes he overlooks
fairly obvious positional themes in favor of tactics. For example, his
game with Topalov. Now look at that game and then go back over the
masterpiece Steintz-Chigorin 1892 and tell me that Anand Bxc6 wasn't a
strategic error. I've checked it out with Fritz and other masters. So
far, I haven't seen any GM commentary though. The point is that Steintz
played some terrible openings and I'm sure if he lived today he would have
greatly benefited from computers and chess opening theory. On the other
hand, Steintz understood strategy very well. It seems that's been
forgotten somewhat in current chess. Most modern GMs play more like
Lasker, tactically, then strategically so people buy opening books and
study tactics and try to imitate this style, which in my opinion may just
prove to be a fad, rather than a necessity for being a great player. Yet,
when people debate about what books are the most valuable to them, it's
seldom that anyone ever mentions an opening book. And as someone else
said, some people idea of improving is to memorize and opening and try to
trick you before they have to think. I believe it's hard to seriously
improve that way.

Steinitz INVENTED Modern chess with his "gradual accumulation of small
advantages." I'm more from the Alekhine school of the "rapid accumulation
of large advantages," recently resurrected by Hydra.

Fact is, our best players in the world routinely get busted by move 25
against these machines, which means we have a LONG way to go before this
game is "played out."