Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 16th 15, 10:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

Mostly NGs die because people don't talk from their own experience and are content to put down that of others. This NG has struggled with this, and Sloan-type diversions, for years. Even so, Sloan has the balls to put up his own games, wins and losses.

That's what it takes to make a NG actually interesting. How many geniuses have I encountered here who never volunteered even a single game of their own? 95%? 99%?

It's not that you win or lose, but its that you can't talk about honestly about what's going on with you when playing. Is it really that we play moderately and then opponent messes up? I think so. I think this is so at every level.

For instance, I currently have 2 tough crores games, one against a 2520 player the other against a 1500 from India. I spend one minute average per game, and play 30 games at a time, one move per day. Both opponents are using computers, IMO, especially the lesser ranked. This is sad stuff, even so, I am level in 2 games against some 'Fritz' at moves 25 and 30.

There have been commentators here who have lost the sense of playing the game, and they resort to Fritz as their claim to say anything. Others just doubt and deprecate activities of others, while they are obviously unable to talk chess, their own chess.

If newsgroup are to survive they will do so not by putting down the obvious ******s, but by talking about the content from their own perspective, and these are wonderful things to encounter, and for which this medium was made [save it don't do diagrams]

Pointless for people to say that the NG is sad when they don't now, nor have ever, made substantive contribution themselves.

So speak up if you want a NG that is interesting, and self-policed by some sense of what genuinely interests other chess players like yourself.

Phil Innes
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 17th 15, 06:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 476
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

Hard to have a chess newsgroup without discussing chess. Great lineup in Norway Chess Tournament where Carlsen lost on time vs Topalov. Evidently he was not aware of the time control. Round 2 in progress as I write this. Nakamura has a tough endgame to hold vs Topalov. I think Carauna has a slight plus vs Carlsen .
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 18th 15, 11:08 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

On 16/06/15 22:53, Phil Innes wrote:
It's not that you win or lose, but its that you can't talk about
honestly about what's going on with you when playing. Is it really
that we play moderately and then opponent messes up? I think so. I
think this is so at every level.


Well, that's certainly how I mostly win! And conversely,
when I lose, it's usually because we both play moderately and then
I mess up. Or, quite often, we both play moderately, neither of us
notices if or when the opponent messes up, and it's a draw.

For instance, I currently have 2 tough crores games, one against a
2520 player the other against a 1500 from India. I spend one minute
average per game, and play 30 games at a time, one move per day.


??? Do you mean you have 30 games of which 28 are a doddle
and only 2 are tough? Presumably the "one minute" is per move rather
than per game? But in any case, that's surely *much* too fast for a
correspondence game? That's fast even by OTB standards. For me, the
whole point of a correspondence game was to get into a whole new level
of awareness of the game. With virtually no time constraints, you can
explore all the silly ideas, and perhaps some of them even work. You
can learn a new opening. You can learn a particular ending as it
arises, rather like having an adjournment after each move. But all
of that takes at least half an hour on average -- of course some
moves are immediate, but others take hours or even days or work. If
that's not for you, then perhaps you shouldn't play correspondence?

[I say the point "was" to do that because the correspondence
events that I used to play in have collapsed. Too few strong players
in the UK want to play at county level. OTB county chess limps on,
but the correspondence matches have gone. I don't want to play lots
of correspondence, but one or two games per year suited me.]

Both opponents are using computers, IMO, especially the lesser
ranked. This is sad stuff, even so, I am level in 2 games against
some 'Fritz' at moves 25 and 30.


Of course they're using computers. The UK authorities long
ago gave up any attempt to prevent the undetectable, and explicitly
allowed computer use. I don't see any alternative. Relying on
"honour" simply penalises the law-abiding. But it's not all doom
and gloom, though too many [IMHO] strong players see it that way.
I quite see that there is no interesting point in a weak player
simply acting as postman for Fritz. But you don't need to be all
that good to be able to do much better. There is a new skill,
which is to "drive" the computer into checking out your ideas. I
don't know what's happened, if anything, to "active chess" [daft
name], but from the results a few years ago it was clear that many
very strong players did not have that skill, and some quite weak
players did.

[...]
Pointless for people to say that the NG is sad when they don't now,
nor have ever, made substantive contribution themselves.
So speak up if you want a NG that is interesting, and self-policed by
some sense of what genuinely interests other chess players like
yourself.


OK, you're right. Whether I can find the humility to expose
a moderate game to public gaze is another matter!

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 20th 15, 11:33 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 6:09:02 AM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
On 16/06/15 22:53, Phil Innes wrote:
It's not that you win or lose, but its that you can't talk about
honestly about what's going on with you when playing. Is it really
that we play moderately and then opponent messes up? I think so. I
think this is so at every level.


Well, that's certainly how I mostly win! And conversely,
when I lose, it's usually because we both play moderately and then
I mess up. Or, quite often, we both play moderately, neither of us
notices if or when the opponent messes up, and it's a draw.


I am going through Best Games of Arnold Denker at the moment. He certainly thinks so. And to link a comment with Carlsen, Denker is playing in an important game -- both players are in time trouble, and the TD falsely gives a win to Denker's opponent, then refuses to change his decision. On this Denker laments that national level chess should have sufficient and suitably trained arbiters.

For instance, I currently have 2 tough crores games, one against a
2520 player the other against a 1500 from India. I spend one minute
average per game, and play 30 games at a time, one move per day.


??? Do you mean you have 30 games of which 28 are a doddle
and only 2 are tough?


Not a doddle. You still have to win the games!

Presumably the "one minute" is per move rather
than per game?


Yes, per move.

But in any case, that's surely *much* too fast for a
correspondence game? That's fast even by OTB standards.


I look at the game and if I see nothing I pass and play a move the next day.. This means I spend about 30 minutes a day playing chess.

For me, the
whole point of a correspondence game was to get into a whole new level
of awareness of the game. With virtually no time constraints, you can
explore all the silly ideas, and perhaps some of them even work. You
can learn a new opening. You can learn a particular ending as it
arises, rather like having an adjournment after each move. But all
of that takes at least half an hour on average -- of course some
moves are immediate, but others take hours or even days or work. If
that's not for you, then perhaps you shouldn't play correspondence?


I would surely do much better to take half hour per move [laugh] but I still have some games already 6 months old, and you find yourself in a position where you have forgotten your plan and analysis. I think it's a matter of taste whether one should play fast at correspondence.

Best excuse against a 2100 player who I should have only drawn with was that he made a mistake 'while in the car' [laugh] So I think there are many ways to play cc suiting one's needs and predilections.


[I say the point "was" to do that because the correspondence
events that I used to play in have collapsed. Too few strong players
in the UK want to play at county level. OTB county chess limps on,
but the correspondence matches have gone. I don't want to play lots
of correspondence, but one or two games per year suited me.]


Back in the say I played county chess and wouldn't have had time for corres too. With a rated club match per week, plus a county championship, a club championship and county games it was easy to play 100 rated games a year.

Several years ago I analyzed games played by USCF members, and 50% play no rated chess in any year. Of the other half, most of those only play 4 or 5 rated games a year [as if in a tournament] and only about 10% play 10 rated games year. In other words 90% of US chess ratings were provisional ratings.

Both opponents are using computers, IMO, especially the lesser
ranked. This is sad stuff, even so, I am level in 2 games against
some 'Fritz' at moves 25 and 30.


Of course they're using computers. The UK authorities long
ago gave up any attempt to prevent the undetectable, and explicitly
allowed computer use. I don't see any alternative. Relying on
"honour" simply penalises the law-abiding. But it's not all doom
and gloom, though too many [IMHO] strong players see it that way.


Of the 20 games currently playing, I only suspect 2 computers being used.


I quite see that there is no interesting point in a weak player
simply acting as postman for Fritz. But you don't need to be all
that good to be able to do much better. There is a new skill,
which is to "drive" the computer into checking out your ideas. I
don't know what's happened, if anything, to "active chess" [daft
name], but from the results a few years ago it was clear that many
very strong players did not have that skill, and some quite weak
players did.


I have all sorts of computer software including Rybka, but it doesn't run on my current operating system -- and I find computer use boring! When watching a match it's interesting to see what the computers are thinking in terms of score from move to move, but I don't have any more interest in them than that.

[...]
Pointless for people to say that the NG is sad when they don't now,
nor have ever, made substantive contribution themselves.
So speak up if you want a NG that is interesting, and self-policed by
some sense of what genuinely interests other chess players like
yourself.


OK, you're right. Whether I can find the humility to expose
a moderate game to public gaze is another matter!


What I find personally interesting Andy, is what one was thinking while making a series of moves, and in my case this often involves considerable self-deception. A great book on this subject is Journal of a Chess Master by Gerzadowicz about his cc play where he says regularly through the game what he thinks the score is, and how often he is right.

Cordially, Phil



--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 20th 15, 03:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 6:33:16 PM UTC+8, Phil Innes wrote:

Hey Ray, a good book on correspondence chess is Grigory Sanakoev, "World Champion at the Third Attempt" (Gambit), which is on my bookshelf, unread.

As for posting your own games here, I tried that years ago, got ridiculed though at the time I was a solid 1800 player (I'm now 100 points higher after expert instruction), and quit doing it. Your loss reader.

It's much better to flame people like Andy Walker (who retired when pensions were good, wise move considering this so-called mathematician never answered as to what a Dedekind Cut is--does he even know?) than try and discuss chess themes in this ng. Lurking is also good.

Cordially,

PI


  #6   Report Post  
Old June 21st 15, 04:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live


As for posting your own games here, I tried that years ago, got ridiculed though at the time I was a solid 1800 player (I'm now 100 points higher after expert instruction), and quit doing it. Your loss reader.


1800 is 200-300 points above average club. What's interesting to me is not so much 'my greatest games' but what I thought was going on during the game -- which defangs brilliant 1500+ Fritz commentary. Anyone can do that, being honest is more difficult. Denver is really quite funny about this even at his level.

I am just finishing a game against a 1800 player who has resisted and resisted, but I just sac'ed a rook and hope to hell that I've worked it out right yikes

It's much better to flame people like Andy Walker (who retired when pensions were good, wise move considering this so-called mathematician never answered as to what a Dedekind Cut is--does he even know?) than try and discuss chess themes in this ng. Lurking is also good.


Unless you are kind to Andy he and I will start talking about Penrose Tiling as a chess variant, not so much that the pieces are different, but the board is non-tessellating [!] and a lot of pawns wind up in treatment after only a few games.

Riva! Phil


Cordially,

PI

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 15, 08:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

On 20/06/15 11:33, Phil Innes wrote:
I have all sorts of computer software including Rybka, but it doesn't
run on my current operating system


Um. It certainly runs under Linux and Windows, and it is alleged
to run under Mac OS X. You must be unusual!

I find Houdini stronger, also available under Linux, and free of
any controversy [AFAIK] about its origins.

-- and I find computer use boring!


Yes, but that was somewhat my point. It's certainly boring just
to watch an engine churn away for half an hour. But if you're a moderate
club player or better, then you can be much more creative. You can find
out why it thinks move X is better than move Y. Often, this is because
move Y drops material in a way you hadn't realised, or because there is
a subtle defence to what you thought was a decisive position. If you
can trust your positional judgement, then you can over-rule the computer
in non-tactical positions. And so on -- it's like doing post-mortem
analysis with a strong player.

[...]
What I find personally interesting Andy, is what one was thinking
while making a series of moves, [...].


I often wonder what on earth I was thinking of while making a
series of moves. Usually when I get home after the game, but quite
often immediately after the move ....

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
  #8   Report Post  
Old August 2nd 15, 01:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 149
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live



Andy Walker wrote:

On 02/08/15 14:03, Phil Innes wrote:
-- and I find computer use boring!
Yes, but that was somewhat my point. It's certainly boring just
to watch an engine churn away for half an hour. But if you're a moderate
club player or better, then you can be much more creative.

But this is not creativity, it is passivity.


It is if you just sit watching. But you can steer your engine,
you can ask it questions, you can explore a position, you can learn not
only what the best move is [in the engine's opinion] but also how the
engine proposes to meet all sorts of ideas.

The point is, how does
this knowledge help you play chess?


In the same way that any other deep analysis helps your chess.
Did you never play through an annotated master game? When doing so,
did you never wonder why move X, which the master failed to mention,
didn't work? Well, now you can find out. Sometimes, move X is simply
a blunder -- which the engine will point out to you. Sometimes it is
a better move than the master considered -- and the engine will help
demonstrate that. Sometimes it's just a so-so move, and the printed
page was simply too small for the master to explain everything; but
at least you now know that your judgement was not totally astray.

Do you not play through, and perhaps annotate, your own games?
Again, the computer can help. Again, if you merely watch the engine
churning away, it's of little value. But if you pursue the lines that
you thought of but avoided, or that you thought your opponent might
have played, you can emerge with some deep analysis.

Or, of course, you can just sit watching the screen.

[...] And so on -- it's like doing post-mortem
analysis with a strong player.

I suppose if you are using a computer to play correspondence chess
then this is valuable, OTOH, I don't do that since it is pointless
and sort of cheating.


In the UK at least, it is now many years since the rules were
changed to permit it; so it is certainly not cheating. But for weak
players you are right that it makes the game pointless ["my computer
is better than yours"]. The correspondence competitions I used to
play in have now collapsed, possibly largely for this reasons, and I
haven't felt much of an urge to seek other outlets. But I used to
use correspondence chess to learn new openings, and to have reason to
explore positions *very* deeply; and both of those are helped rather
than hindered by computer assistance.

No one has proved to me that computer use improves their chess
playing over the board, with the exception of using it as a sparring
partner from time to time. But the problem remains, if you chose Y
then how can you ever find X in real time OTB?


I don't know whether the computer has helped my OTB chess. I
think I am much more aware than I used to be of my tactical fallibility,
and of the potential existence of deep defences to what look like
unstoppable attacks. I think I've learned things about knights in
endings -- both ways, cases where an iron knight has worked wonders
in using the geometry of the board to stop an advanced pawn, and cases
where a powder-puff knight has been incapable of doing anything.

This incidentally is also Adorjan's opinion.


Adorjan is not of the strength -- from decent club player up to
border-line IM -- to benefit. It is also possible that he is not a very
good driver of chess engines. You will recall that when they ran
"active" tournaments, it wasn't the top GMs who won, but the good club
players who knew how to use their computers.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.


Anand did say that using computers can be a detriment. He says he doesn't use
computers much because when studying it is easy to push the analysis engine when
you can't solve a problem over the board. You have to not get into the habit of
letting the computer analyze rather than being creative yourself. Timman in his
great book the art of chess analysis says analyzing and studying your own games
and why you lose is the best way to study. Many GM's say the benefit of a
computer is storage of games and speed of research.

EZoto

  #9   Report Post  
Old August 2nd 15, 02:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 3:28:32 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
On 20/06/15 11:33, Phil Innes wrote:



-- and I find computer use boring!


Yes, but that was somewhat my point. It's certainly boring just
to watch an engine churn away for half an hour. But if you're a moderate
club player or better, then you can be much more creative.


But this is not creativity, it is passivity. The point is, how does this knowledge help you play chess?

You can find
out why it thinks move X is better than move Y. Often, this is because
move Y drops material in a way you hadn't realised, or because there is
a subtle defence to what you thought was a decisive position. If you
can trust your positional judgement, then you can over-rule the computer
in non-tactical positions. And so on -- it's like doing post-mortem
analysis with a strong player.


I suppose if you are using a computer to play correspondence chess then this is valuable, OTOH, I don't do that since it is pointless and sort of cheating.

No one has proved to me that computer use improves their chess playing over the board, with the exception of using it as a sparring partner from time to time. But the problem remains, if you chose Y then how can you ever find X in real time OTB?

This incidentally is also Adorjan's opinion.

Phil

[...]
What I find personally interesting Andy, is what one was thinking
while making a series of moves, [...].


I often wonder what on earth I was thinking of while making a
series of moves. Usually when I get home after the game, but quite
often immediately after the move ....

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

  #10   Report Post  
Old August 2nd 15, 05:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Why newsgroups die or why they live

On 02/08/15 14:03, Phil Innes wrote:
-- and I find computer use boring!

Yes, but that was somewhat my point. It's certainly boring just
to watch an engine churn away for half an hour. But if you're a moderate
club player or better, then you can be much more creative.

But this is not creativity, it is passivity.


It is if you just sit watching. But you can steer your engine,
you can ask it questions, you can explore a position, you can learn not
only what the best move is [in the engine's opinion] but also how the
engine proposes to meet all sorts of ideas.

The point is, how does
this knowledge help you play chess?


In the same way that any other deep analysis helps your chess.
Did you never play through an annotated master game? When doing so,
did you never wonder why move X, which the master failed to mention,
didn't work? Well, now you can find out. Sometimes, move X is simply
a blunder -- which the engine will point out to you. Sometimes it is
a better move than the master considered -- and the engine will help
demonstrate that. Sometimes it's just a so-so move, and the printed
page was simply too small for the master to explain everything; but
at least you now know that your judgement was not totally astray.

Do you not play through, and perhaps annotate, your own games?
Again, the computer can help. Again, if you merely watch the engine
churning away, it's of little value. But if you pursue the lines that
you thought of but avoided, or that you thought your opponent might
have played, you can emerge with some deep analysis.

Or, of course, you can just sit watching the screen.

[...] And so on -- it's like doing post-mortem
analysis with a strong player.

I suppose if you are using a computer to play correspondence chess
then this is valuable, OTOH, I don't do that since it is pointless
and sort of cheating.


In the UK at least, it is now many years since the rules were
changed to permit it; so it is certainly not cheating. But for weak
players you are right that it makes the game pointless ["my computer
is better than yours"]. The correspondence competitions I used to
play in have now collapsed, possibly largely for this reasons, and I
haven't felt much of an urge to seek other outlets. But I used to
use correspondence chess to learn new openings, and to have reason to
explore positions *very* deeply; and both of those are helped rather
than hindered by computer assistance.

No one has proved to me that computer use improves their chess
playing over the board, with the exception of using it as a sparring
partner from time to time. But the problem remains, if you chose Y
then how can you ever find X in real time OTB?


I don't know whether the computer has helped my OTB chess. I
think I am much more aware than I used to be of my tactical fallibility,
and of the potential existence of deep defences to what look like
unstoppable attacks. I think I've learned things about knights in
endings -- both ways, cases where an iron knight has worked wonders
in using the geometry of the board to stop an advanced pawn, and cases
where a powder-puff knight has been incapable of doing anything.

This incidentally is also Adorjan's opinion.


Adorjan is not of the strength -- from decent club player up to
border-line IM -- to benefit. It is also possible that he is not a very
good driver of chess engines. You will recall that when they ran
"active" tournaments, it wasn't the top GMs who won, but the good club
players who knew how to use their computers.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Live by each otherís happiness, not by each otherís misery CaptainJack rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 9th 11 05:43 PM
ICC vs World Chess Live Paul rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 12th 07 03:45 PM
Chess Now - live broadcast, air date + info. Chess Now rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 12th 07 02:49 AM
The Canadian Open live on WCN! Madawaska rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 July 14th 06 03:55 PM
Chess Live out business! Madawaska rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 March 17th 06 01:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017