Hi!

My new column on Finding the Best Move has been posted at
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm. If you have any comments
or questions, please e-mail me directly; I often don't follow up and
check these threads.

Best wishes,
NM Dan Heisman
www.chess.fm Q&A show Monday nights from 7-9 PM Eastern

"Dan Heisman" wrote in message
...
Hi!

My new column on Finding the Best Move has been posted at
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm. If you have any comments
or questions, please e-mail me directly; I often don't follow up and
check these threads.

Best wishes,
NM Dan Heisman
www.chess.fm Q&A show Monday nights from 7-9 PM Eastern


Dan,
I have not read your column, but there is no such a thing as "the best
move", unless it's mate in one. Then, we know what the best move is.
Otherwise, we do not know what the best move is.
The concept: "play the best moves and you will win" is something that even
GM Palatnik makes fun of !
--
Yours Truly
Nick Beqo
www.nickbeqo.com

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:08:30 -0800, "Nick" wrote:


Dan,
I have not read your column, but there is no such a thing as "the best
move", unless it's mate in one. Then, we know what the best move is.
Otherwise, we do not know what the best move is.
The concept: "play the best moves and you will win" is something that even
GM Palatnik makes fun of !

So, after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qg5?????? "Nick" doesn't think there is a
best move for white, eh? Interesting concept. Unbelievably silly,
but interesting.

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:08:30 -0800, "Nick" wrote:


Dan,
I have not read your column, but there is no such a thing as "the best
move", unless it's mate in one. Then, we know what the best move is.
Otherwise, we do not know what the best move is.
The concept: "play the best moves and you will win" is something that
even
GM Palatnik makes fun of !

So, after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qg5?????? "Nick" doesn't think there is a
best move for white, eh? Interesting concept. Unbelievably silly,
but interesting.



Dear Ed,
Unbelievably silly example, but interesting.
You put question marks after Qg5. That's because Qg5 is a blunder, right?
Yes, this is the same case as in mate on one. After your opponent blunders
(material), you know what the best move is. Talking about "normal " chess,
we cannot talk about the best move. Otherwise we would not be able to talk
about chess styles and personalities.
To understand such a concept I recommend taking some chess lessons from GM
Palatnik.
You can contact him at
--
Yours Truly
Nick Beqo
www.nickbeqo.com

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:17:13 -0800, "Nick" wrote:

I have not read your column, but there is no such a thing as "the best
move", unless it's mate in one.

So, after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qg5?????? "Nick" doesn't think there is a
best move for white, eh? Interesting concept. Unbelievably silly,
but interesting.

You put question marks after Qg5. That's because Qg5 is a blunder, right?
Yes, this is the same case as in mate on one. After your opponent blunders
(material), you know what the best move is.

Ah, silly me, I thought that when "Nick" said "mate in one" that's
what he actually meant!!! Obviously an elementary mistake about how
"Nick" talks. But then, how am I to ever know what "Nick" actually
means when he says something?

Perhaps the simplest thing is to just put "Nick" into the old ignore
file that Agent handily provides me. Yep, sounds like a good idea to
me....

In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:17:13 -0800, "Nick" wrote:

I have not read your column, but there is no such a thing as "the best
move", unless it's mate in one.

So, after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Qg5?????? "Nick" doesn't think there is a
best move for white, eh? Interesting concept. Unbelievably silly,
but interesting.

You put question marks after Qg5. That's because Qg5 is a blunder, right?
Yes, this is the same case as in mate on one. After your opponent blunders
(material), you know what the best move is.

Ah, silly me, I thought that when "Nick" said "mate in one" that's
what he actually meant!!! Obviously an elementary mistake about how
"Nick" talks. But then, how am I to ever know what "Nick" actually
means when he says something?

Perhaps the simplest thing is to just put "Nick" into the old ignore
file that Agent handily provides me. Yep, sounds like a good idea to
me....


Somebody's getting killfiled (again), but it ain't Nick.

plonk

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Dan Heisman wrote in message ...
Hi!

My new column on Finding the Best Move has been posted at
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm. If you have any comments
or questions, please e-mail me directly; I often don't follow up and
check these threads.

Best wishes,
NM Dan Heisman
www.chess.fm Q&A show Monday nights from 7-9 PM Eastern

The column Finding the Best Move claims that if a player wins 5% of
games played, there is [statistically] a 500-point rating difference
against him. I claim that if a player wins 5% and draws 95%, this is
not so.

I also claim that the "best" move is not always the most useful move.
The best move may lead to a position that the player knows is won, but
also knows he hasn't the skill to pursue that win. The most useful
move may be the move that gives him the practical winning choices that
he needs.

Dan Heisman's point of view is a useful one, if one pursues an
objective analysis of positions. But the player who asserts that his
move was best may not mean objectively best, but practically best
given his own ability.

David Ames

"David Ames" wrote in message
om...
Dan Heisman wrote in message
...
Hi!

My new column on Finding the Best Move has been posted at
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm. If you have any comments
or questions, please e-mail me directly; I often don't follow up and
check these threads.

Best wishes,
NM Dan Heisman
www.chess.fm Q&A show Monday nights from 7-9 PM Eastern

The column Finding the Best Move claims that if a player wins 5% of
games played, there is [statistically] a 500-point rating difference
against him. I claim that if a player wins 5% and draws 95%, this is
not so.

I also claim that the "best" move is not always the most useful move.
The best move may lead to a position that the player knows is won, but
also knows he hasn't the skill to pursue that win. The most useful
move may be the move that gives him the practical winning choices that
he needs.

Sorry to quote another e-zine, but GM Bezgodov addresses just this point in
an article at www.chessville.com in an article "Lessons Learned". Cordially,
Phil Innes

Dan Heisman's point of view is a useful one, if one pursues an
objective analysis of positions. But the player who asserts that his
move was best may not mean objectively best, but practically best
given his own ability.

David Ames

"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Dan Heisman" wrote in message
...
Hi!

My new column on Finding the Best Move has been posted at
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm. If you have any comments
or questions, please e-mail me directly; I often don't follow up and
check these threads.

Best wishes,
NM Dan Heisman
www.chess.fm Q&A show Monday nights from 7-9 PM Eastern


Dan,
I have not read your column, but there is no such a thing as "the best
move", unless it's mate in one. Then, we know what the best move is.
Otherwise, we do not know what the best move is.


Absolute nonsense!! That sort of generalizing is the halmark of a
weak player.....and a weak mind for that matter. There are many positions
that are not "mate in one" that clearly have a "best move". For example,
what about a position that contains a mate in 5 (all forcing of course) and
there is only one move that can be played to execute the mate in 5. This
clearly would be the "best move". There are numerous other positions in
which there is a "best move" as well.


The concept: "play the best moves and you will win" is something that even
GM Palatnik makes fun of !
--
Yours Truly
Nick Beqo
www.nickbeqo.com