It's not long algebraic. The pieces are named in long algebraic, not just
the squares.
--

I see that now. It isn't long algebraic. I agree.

I think some early telegraph games were played that way with the starting and
ending square for each move. I don't recal the name of the system. The
squares were numbered one through sixty- four. Each move consisted of two
numbers. 1-2 would have probably been Rb1. Apparently it was thought that
numbers would be less confusing than a combination of letters and numbers. With
a number for each square some language difficulties were side stepped.

Thanks very much to all who took the time to analyze!! I will endeavor
to put it all to good use.

As to this specific post...I've analyzed both wins and losses. To
claim one is more useful than the other is nonsense on the face of it.
It's fundamental that you are always analyzing your own moves and not
your opponents, therefore it doesn't matter. I chose to post a win in
order to solicit the maximum amount of feedback. When experts analyze
other's losses, they tend to stop at the first mistake that creates a
losing position; however, as you can see, at this level of play both
sides usually relinquish the wining initiative a couple of times each
game.

The rest of your post is merely a personal attack and probably not
worthy of comment. A quick check of your facts, however, will reveal
that a relatively limited number of USCF elementary school players
(let alone elementary school children in general) achieve 900 level.
So your assertion is, like most of the rest of your post, questionable
to those with facility.

My own personal commentary: It's interesting how certain chess players
are obviously using their rating as a Viagra substitute.

An alternative might be to view one's rating only as a personal
measure of improvement and not as an indication of their superiority
over those with lesser ratings. The fact, for example, that I-- as a
relatively weak club player-- can probably open a phone book and
select 100 people at random and beat maybe 95 or so of them and draw
another 3 isn't really the issue (granted, 50 wouldn't even know how
to play, but I'm just making a point). If you're one of the elite
people left who would most likely beat me, then, well, good for you
(I've beaten OTB 1500s and even an OTB 1800 once-- I caught him
napping with an Evans' Gambit variation that he hadn't seen in a
while). And if you're an expert who could beat me fifty times in a
row, then that's really great. I have tremendous respect for those
more skilled than myself at Chess. After all, I have been an advocate
for the art and beauty of Chess my entire life.

But I don't see why (if you feel compelled to comment at all) you
don't just demonstrate your superior chess skill by offering an
analysis instead of demonstrating your remarkable lack of personality
with meaningless insults.

This particular game was a blitz game (8 2), which accounts for some
of the flaky tactical reasoning. But I make no excuses...I am an
intermediate player at best who has never really had a decent chess
coach, although I enjoy chess books a great deal. (I'm a little amused
at how the Yahoo notation that I cut-and-pasted caused such a stir, we
all are creatures of habit aren't we?)

Again-- Many Thanks To All (even the Cialis crowd)!

:-{)]

-MM





(buh bye) wrote in message . com...
(Mark A. Morenz) wrote in message . com...
Hi All:


A few things. Analyze your losses instead of your wins, posting your
win for analysis is arrogant, and everyone learns more from their
losses than from their wins. You do not have a 1600 positional
understanding, your play could easily be mistaken for that of an
elementary school student. You attack your 2000 rated coach for
attacking your moves, the 2000 coach had plenty to teach you, instead
of seeking praise anonymously on rgcm you should get a thicker skin,
go back to the 2000, and listen closely to what that person was trying
to tell you. Oh, and the original responder was correct, the notation
you posted is annoying and typical of an uncultured fish.

If you think about it, there is a lot of good advice for you in my
post.

Don't sweat the hataz Mark. Players like this, no matter how skilled, are
the reason chess clubs don't grow. People who complain about your notation
are pretty snobbish, considering that any decent chess software understands
it (after all, it is "computer algebraic"). And unlike standard algebraic,
it is easy to back up a few moves when going over the game on a board. But
I guess I'm another "uncultured fish" Long algebraic is arguably more
"cultured", but I don't suggest using it in here. The piranhas will eat
you.


"buh bye" wrote in message
om...
(Mark A. Morenz) wrote in message
. com...
Hi All:


A few things. Analyze your losses instead of your wins, posting your
win for analysis is arrogant, and everyone learns more from their
losses than from their wins. You do not have a 1600 positional
understanding, your play could easily be mistaken for that of an
elementary school student. You attack your 2000 rated coach for
attacking your moves, the 2000 coach had plenty to teach you, instead
of seeking praise anonymously on rgcm you should get a thicker skin,
go back to the 2000, and listen closely to what that person was trying
to tell you. Oh, and the original responder was correct, the notation
you posted is annoying and typical of an uncultured fish.

If you think about it, there is a lot of good advice for you in my
post.

In article ,
(Mark A. Morenz) wrote:


But I don't see why (if you feel compelled to comment at all) you
don't just demonstrate your superior chess skill by offering an
analysis instead of demonstrating your remarkable lack of personality
with meaningless insults.

I understand your larger point, but one of those things you constantly
see is players saying, "I have the positional understanding of a
blank" player, and they're fooling themselves.

While the post you quoted was particularly hostile -- unneccesarily so,
in my opinion -- the sentiment (that you're being very charitable about
your positional understanding) is almost certainly correct.

-Ron

Mark A. Morenz wrote:
(I'm a little amused at how the Yahoo notation that I cut-and-pasted
caused such a stir, we all are creatures of habit aren't we?)

The problem with the notation you posted is that people aren't used to it.
If I see `1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6' I know exactly
what that position is, almost by textual recognition of the variation;
`1.e4-e5 c7-c5 2.g1-f3 d7-d6 3.d2-d4 c5xd4 4.f3xd4 g8-f6 5.b1-c3 a7-a6',
as well as being much longer, is less recognizable.

Winboard should be able to read the notation yahoo uses; you can then get
it to save the game in PGN which will be much better received here. I'd
also suggest that you play somewhere like FICS as I find the quality of
opposition there is much higher. (Last time I wandered into a room on
yahoo, I found that about half the games in progress had started 1.e4
2.Bc4 3.Qh5/Qf3.)

Glad you're still reading after all the unnecessarily hostile replies to
your post!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Happy Atlas (TM): it's like a map of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ the world that makes your troubles
melt away!

In article ,
Mark A. Morenz wrote:
Thanks very much to all who took the time to analyze!! I will endeavor
to put it all to good use.

As to this specific post...I've analyzed both wins and losses. To
claim one is more useful than the other is nonsense on the face of it.

Ah, no. If your objective is to become a better player, then you need
to find out where you are _weak_ (what kind of errors you make); and
for that purpose, analyzing your losses is more productive. There are
two reasons for this: one is that one tends to have played more weakly
in losses than in wins; the other is that in a loss, your opponent has
already identified some of your mistakes. It's fine to analyze both,
but if you have limited time, you want to be sure to analyze the
losses first.

It's fundamental that you are always analyzing your own moves and not
your opponents, therefore it doesn't matter.

This is incorrect for the same reason. It is fundamental that you
must analyze the moves of both sides. If you do not examine your
opponent's moves, how will you know where he could have played more
strongly, where he could have exposed your weakness?

I chose to post a win in
order to solicit the maximum amount of feedback. When experts analyze
other's losses, they tend to stop at the first mistake that creates a
losing position;

I have not actually noticed this.

however, as you can see, at this level of play both
sides usually relinquish the wining initiative a couple of times each
game.

Right--so you need to identify the places where your opponent let you
off easy!

I find that it works best to start with the end of the game, and work
backwards, trying to identify each point at which either player could
have improved. That way, I also avoid spending too much time on the
opening.

-ed g.

Well, Marky Mark and the unfunky bunch, a few additional comments. So
now you tell us it was a blitz game? OK, I'll try and go more gently
this time, analyzing blitz games is a waste of time, blitz is useful
to practice opening variations and to try and sharpen tactical vision,
but that's about it. To post a *blitz* game and request serious
analysis, well, must go gentle. Second, you'll probably be happy to
learn that your blustering reply is quite proof enough that you are
freakish enough to claim full membership in the worldwide venerable
club of "chess players."

Play longer games, hire a coach, lose the glass jaw, and both your
chess competency and enjoyment of the game will grow.

Well, Marky Mark and the unfunky bunch, a few additional comments. So
now you tell us it was a blitz game? OK, I'll try and go more gently
this time, analyzing blitz games is a waste of time, blitz is useful
to practice opening variations and to try and sharpen tactical vision,
but that's about it. To post a *blitz* game and request serious
analysis, well, must go gentle. Second, you'll probably be happy to
learn that your blustering reply is quite proof enough that you are
freakish enough to claim full membership in the worldwide venerable
club of "chess players."

Play longer games, hire a coach, lose the glass jaw, and both your
chess competency and enjoyment of the game will grow.

(Ed Gaillard) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Mark A. Morenz wrote:
Thanks very much to all who took the time to analyze!! I will endeavor
to put it all to good use.

As to this specific post...I've analyzed both wins and losses. To
claim one is more useful than the other is nonsense on the face of it.

Ah, no. If your objective is to become a better player, then you need
to find out where you are _weak_ (what kind of errors you make); and
for that purpose, analyzing your losses is more productive. There are
two reasons for this: one is that one tends to have played more weakly
in losses than in wins; the other is that in a loss, your opponent has
already identified some of your mistakes. It's fine to analyze both,
but if you have limited time, you want to be sure to analyze the
losses first.


It's an interesting point. As an experienced educator/trainer, I
question your assumptions (at least when it comes to intermediate
players). I think at expert+ levels opponents tend to exploit
weaknesses, sure; but at my level the reality is that, if we could
exploit our opponent's weaknesses, we wouldn't be playing at that
level.

It's fundamental that you are always analyzing your own moves and not
your opponents, therefore it doesn't matter.

This is incorrect for the same reason. It is fundamental that you
must analyze the moves of both sides. If you do not examine your
opponent's moves, how will you know where he could have played more
strongly, where he could have exposed your weakness?


Again, you are saying that you analyze your own moves to look for weak
moves and that a key way to identify those weak moves is by analyzing
how your opponent exploited them in your losses. I maintain that that
approach is only effective when you are playing a certain level of
competition. The sad fact is that I don't generally play 1500+
competition enough to see many examples of that kind of exploitation.
Most of my opponents are also bumbling along, making several *Errors*
each game. It's this comedy of errors that so frustrates experts when
they analyze that level of games, but it's the reality of it.

I chose to post a win in
order to solicit the maximum amount of feedback. When experts analyze
other's losses, they tend to stop at the first mistake that creates a
losing position;

I have not actually noticed this.


Nonetheless.

however, as you can see, at this level of play both
sides usually relinquish the wining initiative a couple of times each
game.

Right--so you need to identify the places where your opponent let you
off easy!


What? They let me off easy more often in my losses than my wins? I
thought you said that it was the other way around?

I find that it works best to start with the end of the game, and work
backwards, trying to identify each point at which either player could
have improved. That way, I also avoid spending too much time on the
opening.


Now *that* resonates with me. I've spent way too much time looking at
Openings. I've found that, when I use computer analysis of my games, I
seldom really lose it until the midgame exchanges start. Out of my 16
tourney games, in only 1 or 2 was I worse off after the opening. Yet
I've lost 13 of them.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just exploring ideas. I
appreciate the feedback. Be well!

:-{)]

-ed g.

Thanks for the positive post, M'man. Be well!

:-{)]

"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message ...
Don't sweat the hataz Mark. Players like this, no matter how skilled, are
the reason chess clubs don't grow. People who complain about your notation
are pretty snobbish, considering that any decent chess software understands
it (after all, it is "computer algebraic"). And unlike standard algebraic,
it is easy to back up a few moves when going over the game on a board. But
I guess I'm another "uncultured fish" Long algebraic is arguably more
"cultured", but I don't suggest using it in here. The piranhas will eat
you.


"buh bye" wrote in message
om...
(Mark A. Morenz) wrote in message
. com...
Hi All:


A few things. Analyze your losses instead of your wins, posting your
win for analysis is arrogant, and everyone learns more from their
losses than from their wins. You do not have a 1600 positional
understanding, your play could easily be mistaken for that of an
elementary school student. You attack your 2000 rated coach for
attacking your moves, the 2000 coach had plenty to teach you, instead
of seeking praise anonymously on rgcm you should get a thicker skin,
go back to the 2000, and listen closely to what that person was trying
to tell you. Oh, and the original responder was correct, the notation
you posted is annoying and typical of an uncultured fish.

If you think about it, there is a lot of good advice for you in my
post.