"Numbers refer to games".

On Feb 16, 7:59*am, Offramp wrote:
"Numbers refer to games".

No, they come after the title, and they say "by Eric Schiller."

Offramp wrote:
"Numbers refer to games".

What's fearsome about that? In the index, it just means that `22'
means `game 22' rather than `page 22'.

I'll offer `clearly better is' and `the rest is a matter of technique'.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Mouldy Sword (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade but it's starting
to grow mushrooms and preserved
in vinegar!

I'LL OFFER ETC.

"I recently started studying master games, and I seem to find myself
up against certain annotators who have an irritating compulsion to
draw the curtain by using etc. just when things seem to be getting
interesting."

CHESS CATECHISM by Larry Evans (chapter 24 -- Etc., or Annotations,
Sacred and Profane).



David Richerby wrote:
Offramp wrote:
"Numbers refer to games".

What's fearsome about that? In the index, it just means that `22'
means `game 22' rather than `page 22'.

I'll offer `clearly better is' and `the rest is a matter of technique'.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Mouldy Sword (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade but it's starting
to grow mushrooms and preserved
in vinegar!

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:29:32 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I'LL OFFER ETC.

"I recently started studying master games, and I seem to find myself
up against certain annotators who have an irritating compulsion to
draw the curtain by using etc. just when things seem to be getting
interesting."

CHESS CATECHISM by Larry Evans (chapter 24 -- Etc., or Annotations,
Sacred and Profane).

Nowadays, I usually playing over games not with a board and men, but
on the computer using Fritz/Rybka. At any give point, things are
rarely as settled as the annotator indicates, and the bad side nearly
always has various resources, which the ever tenacious computer would
exploit.

On Feb 16, 7:58 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

Nowadays, I usually playing over games not with a board and men, but
on the computer using Fritz/Rybka. At any give point, things are
rarely as settled as the annotator indicates, and the bad side nearly
always has various resources, which the ever tenacious computer would
exploit.

Indeed, every time I "win a pawn" in one of my
games, the program refuses to give me full credit,
citing the now half-open file my opponent got in
return, etc.

Stranger still, is the giant leap in the position
score which occurs when the program "sees"
that I have a forced win-- regardless of the fact
that I cannot see the same line. So I am 32
points ahead, am I? That's nice... but where
is the win?


-- help bot

Mike Murray wrote:
Nowadays, I usually playing over games not with a board and men, but
on the computer using Fritz/Rybka. At any give point, things are
rarely as settled as the annotator indicates, and the bad side
nearly always has various resources, which the ever tenacious
computer would exploit.

It's fascinating to see the computer say, ``Well, actually, things
aren't as bad as you thing,'' isn't it? Usually, the annotator picks
the right winner, at least, but there's often an awful lot of fight
left in a position and a lot of ways to give up the win.

Isn't it great that such an old game still has so much complexity?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Clock (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ clock but you can never put it down!

wrote in message
...
I'LL OFFER ETC.

"I recently started studying master games, and I seem to find myself
up against certain annotators who have an irritating compulsion to
draw the curtain by using etc. just when things seem to be getting
interesting."

CHESS CATECHISM by Larry Evans (chapter 24 -- Etc., or Annotations,
Sacred and Profane).

Adorjan is readily ascerbic on this topic, and Timman more so. "What", they
ask, "does 'unclear' actually mean in chess terms?"

And they suggest it means "too complicated", or "I dunno." And since there
are so many annotated lines ending with ?! or !?, even very early in the
game before, say, move 12, whose resolution is not evident until the crisis
in the position is resolved at move 24, then they conclude with some justice
that the game is hardly explored, rather than all worked out. I think Timman
said somewhere that 90% of chess books are junk, thereby.

How amazing that Topalov generated a complete suprise at move 12 in that Kan
/Moscow var [some call it a Slav.] and somewhat tellingly, there were no et
ceteras for him - he said he had worked out some lines to move 40.

One innovation to better decribe those "Etc" notations, is instead of ending
so diffidently with ?!?! to adopt Adorjan's notational forms - except there
are so many of them and they are not generally familiar to players.

Phil Innes





David Richerby wrote:
Offramp wrote:
"Numbers refer to games".

What's fearsome about that? In the index, it just means that `22'
means `game 22' rather than `page 22'.

I'll offer `clearly better is' and `the rest is a matter of technique'.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Mouldy Sword (TM): it's
like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade but it's
starting
to grow mushrooms and preserved
in vinegar!