On Jul 5, 11:22 am, "Mats Winther" wrote:
Den 2007-07-05 09:24:44 skrev Ralf Callenberg :

Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.

Nonsense. There are serious openings used up to GM level, where g2-g4 is
played, especially in several variations of the Sicilian.

Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Grünfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
g2-g4 is bad.


Poor Mats Winther! He is such a horrible patzer
that he does not even know that it was in just such
a game that GM Alekhine sprang one of these p-g4
surprises on an unsuspecting victim. I'm sure any-
one with one of those big databases could find this
game easily, by searching for Alekhine playing as
White, playing p-g4, and of course, winning. My
guess would be some sort of Queen's Gambit, or
as the patzer called it, a "Ninzoindian" Defense,
where the famous GM castled on the opposite wing.

In any case, there is also some line of, what, the
Sicilian Defense, where White plays p-g4 and they
named it after Paul Keres on account of his great
success in correspondence play. But all this is a
Red Heron, because the real flaw in the patzer's
thinking is that pawns meeting one another in the
middle of the board (i.e. 1.e4 e5) brings about a sort
of deadlock, leading inevitably to draws. IMO, it is
the lack of skill which likely is causing some patzers
to complain about not being able to win games, and
only draw. What is really needed here is not to
devise a less-drawish game, but merely to remedy
this glaring lack of understanding of chess, via basic
chess lessons.


-- Blue Herring

05.07.2007 17:22, Mats Winther:

Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Grünfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
g2-g4 is bad.


So? Sicilian is the most popular opening in tournament chess. And in a
lot of variations g2-g4 is thematic. GMs, not necessarily the top 10,
play around with early g2-g4 in openings like King's Indian, Semi-Slav
and English. There are a lot of systems, where g2-g4 is definitely not
healthy, but your statement that "g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99%
of all opening positions" simply does not reflect reality.

Greetings,
Ralf

Den 2007-07-05 21:13:52 skrev help bot :

On Jul 5, 11:22 am, "M Winther" wrote:
Den 2007-07-05 09:24:44 skrev Ralf Callenberg :

Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.

Nonsense. There are serious openings used up to GM level, where g2-g4 is
played, especially in several variations of the Sicilian.

Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Grünfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
g2-g4 is bad.


Poor M Winther! He is such a horrible patzer
that he does not even know that it was in just such
a game that GM Alekhine sprang one of these p-g4
surprises on an unsuspecting victim. I'm sure any-
one with one of those big databases could find this
game easily, by searching for Alekhine playing as
White, playing p-g4, and of course, winning. My
guess would be some sort of Queen's Gambit, or
as the patzer called it, a "Ninzoindian" Defense,
where the famous GM castled on the opposite wing.

In any case, there is also some line of, what, the
Sicilian Defense, where White plays p-g4 and they
named it after Paul Keres on account of his great
success in correspondence play. But all this is a
Red Heron, because the real flaw in the patzer's
thinking is that pawns meeting one another in the
middle of the board (i.e. 1.e4 e5) brings about a sort
of deadlock, leading inevitably to draws. IMO, it is
the lack of skill which likely is causing some patzers
to complain about not being able to win games, and
only draw. What is really needed here is not to
devise a less-drawish game, but merely to remedy
this glaring lack of understanding of chess, via basic
chess lessons.


-- Blue Herring




Your only weapon in an argument is insult. This proves that your
position is weak. Although I don't play anymore I have studied the
game for 32 years, and I own the major chess databases. There
is not a chance that you can play g2-g4 in each other opening
position. G2-g4 is an uncommon opening move. You only need
to search a database and compare the number of games with the
overall number.

Mats

Den 2007-07-06 03:09:01 skrev Ralf Callenberg :

05.07.2007 17:22, M Winther:

Ralf, why don't you try g2-g4 in Grünfeld, Queen's Gambit, Ninzoindian,
Benoni, Ruy Lopez, etc. In the overwhelming number of opening positions
g2-g4 is bad.


So? Sicilian is the most popular opening in tournament chess. And in a
lot of variations g2-g4 is thematic. GMs, not necessarily the top 10,
play around with early g2-g4 in openings like King's Indian, Semi-Slav
and English. There are a lot of systems, where g2-g4 is definitely not
healthy, but your statement that "g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99%
of all opening positions" simply does not reflect reality.

Greetings,
Ralf



Just because g2-g4 is important in certain opening variants it doesn't mean that
it appears everywhere. Statistically, white seldom has the opportunity of playing
g2-g4 because it would lead to a strategically lost game.

Mats

On Jul 6, 1:02 am, "Mats Winther" wrote:

Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.

Your only weapon in an argument is insult.


My unfortunate friend, no one is "arguing" with you
here. We are trying to HELP you get beyond your
very limited understanding of chess by pointing out
a few of the more obvious flaws in your thinking.

One such flaw is the idea that pawns meeting one
another in mid-board automatically leads to drawish
positions; they don't.


This proves that your position is weak.


It is readily apparent just what -- and who -- is weak
here. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these
ignorant comments regarding "g4" and drawishness.


Although I don't play anymore I have studied the
game for 32 years


Yeah...right. That's why you didn't know that p-g4
is, and for a long time has been, a common attacking
move for White. Uh-huh. (chuckle)


and I own the major chess databases.


Maybe you should consider doing a tad bit of research
before making these silly claims, then.



There is not a chance that you can play g2-g4 in each other opening
position.


You are the one who claimed that locked pawns are
a major problem. Sacrificing the g-pawn is just one
of many ways to open things up a bit, along with the
risky castling on opposite wings. Me, I almost always
castle on the same side (the Kingside) and then win
whether or not any pawns in the center were ram-duos.
It simply is not a problem because I am not stupid
enough to lock up the pawns across the entire board;
that would seem to lead to the sort of trouble you are
complaining about with draws. But I have seen it done,
many times, and nearly always the problem is two weak
players and their horrible play.



G2-g4 is an uncommon opening move. You only need
to search a database and compare the number of games with the
overall number.


That's true. But the issue we were discussing was
the problem of locked pawns and their alleged draw-
ishness. The move p-g4 by White is a common theme
where he has castled on the opposite wing and is
playing to win via an attack on the enemy King. In
many lines, this move is not a sacrifice, as it is
preceded by p-f3 or p-h3. Once the pawn gets to g5,
a key defender -- the Knight on f6 -- is driven away
from his post and Black must depend on some other
defender to assist his King, unless he has anticipated
this and vacated the f8 square for his Knight (which
requires yet another hop to get there).


The key idea is that two pawns meeting in the middle
of the chess board, despite becoming blocked, do not
lead automatically to a draw or even to drawish play.
What leads to drawishness is two players intent on
trading at every opportunity, or simple incompetence
on the part of either or both players. I could hardly
count the number of times I have seen some position
pronounced a dead draw which was in fact, winnable.
I've even read published articles where such faulty
analysis was widely disseminated, the "expert"
analyst having himself completely mis-evaluated.

Heck, I have even seen someone agree to a draw
simply because their opponent essayed a certain
defense, which they -- quite mistakenly -- regarded
as unbeatable!

In sum, the real issue with draws is that many weak
players don't understand their true nature, and thus
regard them as unavoidable symptoms of an imagined
flaw in the game's design, or else they wish to transfer
the blame for their own lack of skill or technique to
something else. Truth be told, even GM Fischer did
not complain about this imagined flaw until he needed
an excuse for quiting prematurely; before that, he
"argued" for the other side, by winning with both White
and Black.

-- help bot

On 6 Jul., 07:05, "Mats Winther" wrote:

Just because g2-g4 is important in certain opening variants it doesn't mean that
it appears everywhere.

Did I say something like this? The opposite of "does nearly not
appear" is not "does appear everywhere". And that it is such a rarity,
that you give it a 0.01% chance is simply nonsense. That doesn't mean
on the othere hand it can be played in 90% of the positions.

Statistically, white seldom has the opportunity of playing g2-g4 because it would lead to a strategically lost game.

And? Indeed g4 is played not so often, as you have to secure your King
an other way. The move g4 might start a strong attack, but it has its
tradeoffs. But that's not a drawback, indeed it makes it more
interesting. You can not just push your pawns without a second thought
- you have to calculate your own risks first.

As I have written - several GMs play around with g4 in positions where
you would hardly expect it to be possible at all. There might be more
possibilities on the flanks, than is usually agreed on. Instead of
increasing the board, those people increased their horizon.

Greeings,
Ralf

help bot wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:25 am, "Mats Winther" wrote:
Enlarging the board has already been tried in Modern Chesshttp://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/modern.html
and in Grand Chesshttp://www.mindsports.net/Arena/GrandChess/Rules.html
and in Gothic Chesshttp://www.gothicchess.com/

Interesting. Were any of these variants devised specifically
to avoid what many patzers consider to be a drawishness
problem with chess, I wonder?

Well, Gothic chess is just Capablanca chess with a slightly different
initial position. Capablanca chess was invented by some patzer ex-
World-Champion as a response to the perceived drawishness of chess in
the 1920s/1930s. ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Zen Cat (TM): it's like a cat that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ puts you in touch with the universe!

Den 2007-07-06 08:09:34 skrev help bot :

On Jul 6, 1:02 am, "M Winther" wrote:

Playing g2-g4 leads to a lost game in 99.99% of all opening positions.

Your only weapon in an argument is insult.


My unfortunate friend, no one is "arguing" with you
here. We are trying to HELP you get beyond your
very limited understanding of chess by pointing out
a few of the more obvious flaws in your thinking.

One such flaw is the idea that pawns meeting one
another in mid-board automatically leads to drawish
positions; they don't.


This proves that your position is weak.


It is readily apparent just what -- and who -- is weak
here. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these
ignorant comments regarding "g4" and drawishness.


Although I don't play anymore I have studied the
game for 32 years


Yeah...right. That's why you didn't know that p-g4
is, and for a long time has been, a common attacking
move for White. Uh-huh. (chuckle)


and I own the major chess databases.


Maybe you should consider doing a tad bit of research
before making these silly claims, then.



There is not a chance that you can play g2-g4 in each other opening
position.


You are the one who claimed that locked pawns are
a major problem. Sacrificing the g-pawn is just one
of many ways to open things up a bit, along with the
risky castling on opposite wings. Me, I almost always
castle on the same side (the Kingside) and then win
whether or not any pawns in the center were ram-duos.
It simply is not a problem because I am not stupid
enough to lock up the pawns across the entire board;
that would seem to lead to the sort of trouble you are
complaining about with draws. But I have seen it done,
many times, and nearly always the problem is two weak
players and their horrible play.



G2-g4 is an uncommon opening move. You only need
to search a database and compare the number of games with the
overall number.


That's true. But the issue we were discussing was
the problem of locked pawns and their alleged draw-
ishness. The move p-g4 by White is a common theme
where he has castled on the opposite wing and is
playing to win via an attack on the enemy King. In
many lines, this move is not a sacrifice, as it is
preceded by p-f3 or p-h3. Once the pawn gets to g5,
a key defender -- the Knight on f6 -- is driven away
from his post and Black must depend on some other
defender to assist his King, unless he has anticipated
this and vacated the f8 square for his Knight (which
requires yet another hop to get there).


The key idea is that two pawns meeting in the middle
of the chess board, despite becoming blocked, do not
lead automatically to a draw or even to drawish play.
What leads to drawishness is two players intent on
trading at every opportunity, or simple incompetence
on the part of either or both players. I could hardly
count the number of times I have seen some position
pronounced a dead draw which was in fact, winnable.
I've even read published articles where such faulty
analysis was widely disseminated, the "expert"
analyst having himself completely mis-evaluated.

Heck, I have even seen someone agree to a draw
simply because their opponent essayed a certain
defense, which they -- quite mistakenly -- regarded
as unbeatable!

In sum, the real issue with draws is that many weak
players don't understand their true nature, and thus
regard them as unavoidable symptoms of an imagined
flaw in the game's design, or else they wish to transfer
the blame for their own lack of skill or technique to
something else. Truth be told, even GM Fischer did
not complain about this imagined flaw until he needed
an excuse for quiting prematurely; before that, he
"argued" for the other side, by winning with both White
and Black.

-- help bot



I have never argued that locked pawns, as such, lead to a
drawish game. I only suggested a game variant where pawn
are more mobile. My notion is that today's chess is rapidly
approaching a crisis, much because of the computers (not
because pawns are locked against each other). A "patzer"
named Korchnoi has argued this, too. My game suggestion,
one of several creations of mine, suggests a more mobile
pawn, that's all. It's not that I think that this is going to supersede
orthochess. I suggest it foremostly for people who want to have
fun at the chessboard, instead of harping the old variants
decade after decade.

Mats

Mats Winther wrote:
My notion is that today's chess is rapidly approaching a crisis,
much because of the computers (not because pawns are locked against
each other).

I really don't see how you feel that computers are causing a crisis.

And your variant makes open, tactical positions more likely so makes
the computers even stronger!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Strange Laptop Tree (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tree that you can put on your lap
but it's totally weird!

In article ,
"Mats Winther" wrote:

My notion is that today's chess is rapidly
approaching a crisis, much because of the computers (not
because pawns are locked against each other). A "patzer"
named Korchnoi has argued this, too. My game suggestion,
one of several creations of mine, suggests a more mobile
pawn, that's all. It's not that I think that this is going to supersede
orthochess. I suggest it foremostly for people who want to have
fun at the chessboard, instead of harping the old variants
decade after decade.

Seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways here.

You say the new game serves a purpose because chess is approaching a
computer-driven crisis, but the truth is that crisis is essentially
irrelevant for the casual chessplayer. If what you want is to "have fun"
there's plenty of scope for that within the traditional game, whether or
not it's approaching "draw death" or being solved by computers.

For anyone who's under internationally-titled strength (and then some,
probably) the effects of computers at the high end of the game don't
make a lick of difference.

-Ron