Hello folks.
Thanks to those of you who have written about my contribution earlier today.
The point about talking to your pieces is interesting. I attribute this to
3-times British Champion Jonathan Rowson rather than Anatoly Karpov, but
possibly more than one player has written about it. Like Chris I found Patrick's
attachment of this mental motif to tactical play a little surprising, but the
simple way of putting it is "get all your pieces in play before attacking the
enemy King." I'd like to point out however that attacking the enemy King is not
necessarily the correct thing to do depending on positional circumstances.
Obviously circumstances vary and, more importantly, change. I recall a 4NCL game
where upon playing his 23rd move, ...Bb7-a8 which was supposed to be just a
'pass' move, my opponent remarked "Well, I've lasted longer than last time!"
which indeed he had. Unfortunately for him just for a moment he had lost control
of the a6 square which then proved important in the next few moves. The minor
inattention to tactical detail had the strategical consequence of ceding to me a
space advantage on the Queenside.I already had a space advantage in the centre
and a structural advantage on the Kingside so only one result was likely after
that passage of play. It took me another 30 moves to win but my opponent's
pieces never got to talk to each other because he was far too cramped, unless it
was "Mind my toes!" Incidentally and somewhat amusingly, my final move with my
opponent virtually in zugzwang was a2-a3, a Pawn to Rook Three! By doing this
I'd changed a particular circumstance - it prevented back rank mates amongst
other things - my opponent took the hint and resigned.
This game, already annotated, has a lot of instructional value and I'm willing
to post it here if asked. However, as I said it's over 50 moves and it is
intense middle-game play from an early point. It is not lightweight and also has
several references and complete games to other games by me in the same opening.
Of course I still encourage you to submit your own games and I like Patrick's
idea of not revealing which side you were playing until later.
Regards,
Tyson
On 17 July 2016 at 19:46 Chris Ross <c.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I would like to add, that I fully endorse everything that Tyson has
offered here. He has set out perfectly and has in fact, saved me a fair bit of
time! Since, I was wanting to comment on a lot of this, but wanted to do it
justice, rather than a strong-players criticism of a poorly-played game by
black.
From a “positional” player’s point of view, I found the launch of the
G-pawn a bit unnecessary, but that is a stylistic approach more than anything.
Which is why, I find it rather curious, the way in which Patrick speaks
about the strategic value of “talking to your pieces” and yet, promotes the
excellence of tactical counteraction and the opportunities for sacrificial
play.
I believe his description of the communication of pieces over-elaborate,
but the fundamental point is there for all to see. Again, being a positional
player, I will always sell the need for future strategic positioning and I
think should be doing this from the outset, once your opening structure and
objectives have been accomplished. Doing this at any specific and highlighted
moment, will often result in the communication with the individual piece and
the collaboration with the other pieces, to ultimately fail.
For Patrick’s info. Tyson and I do post annotated games on here when we
can. I’m sure that everybody can appreciate how much time it takes to write up
a game and an encounter should not really be written up, unless it has a
transparent and intrinsic point of focus. A game should not be necessarily
annotated, just for the sakes of annotating. Of course, a player should
self-learn from his own games, but not necessarily published, unless
constructive and subjective comments are sought on that play.
Can I encourage readers to once again read through Tyson’s comments and
take away the targeted analysis and consider carefully the high-level advice
he has clearly outlined?
As a conclusion, and I do not know how many times I have pushed for this
on here, that relying on computer-analysis is being over-emphasised. Too much
focus is being contributed to and the importance of engine-analysis
over-stated and overly spent, in regards to time and effort. Computer-engine
analysis should be utilised as a “tool” for furthering one’s development. For
checking blunders, awkward tactical positions. Using it as an absolute for
reviewing a game in its entirety is both a fruitless and counter-productive
task. Having such things as Tyson’s comments to a game is one of the best ways
a player can improve. So, go out and seek annotated games, from strong
players, play through, and play through again, and repeatedly do so, until you
fully comprehend the reasoning behind the play and the sheer attempted
endeavours of both players. To coin a corny phrase, learn from the Masters!
Take it easy
Chris
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 3:50 PM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
Hello folks
A further note on the game. I sent this, went to lunch, came back and sat
down with the board in front of me, and immediately realised that after
18...Rxf5 19 g6+ Kh8 (If 19...Kg8 20 Rxf5 can't be recaptured because of the
pin on the e6 Pawn) 20 Rxf5 wins because 20...exf5 drops the Queen to 21 Nf7+.
This means that although 20 Qg4 is a good move it is still an error because
there is something much more effective. If you found this before I did then
well done.
Tyson
> >
On 17 July 2016 at 14:31 mordue andrew
<tyson.mordue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:tyson.mordue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;> wrote:
Hello folks.
I feel a need to comment here on a couple of aspects, not just the
game. I haven't contributed to this thread previously because it has been
purely technical but we've finally got to quality of analysis and I think I
need to say a few words. In fact, a lot of words!
I frequently get people asking me opinions on positions in their
games when there is no board or pieces to hand and they don't have the
scoresheet of the game. They then describe to me a small portion of the
position and say that they could have done this, that, or the other and
expect me to respond constructively. Of course without knowing the specific
position I can't, so I always say get the whole position/game and I'll be
happy to look at in detail another time. I'm not going to waste my time
speculating what the position is. Out of these requests about one quarter do
have constructive follow-ups at some later time.
My point here is that handing out a small chunk of a position such
as "But there was only one place where Black could have improved his
position, and he would have had to abandon the pawn on e6, and try to start
an counter attack with BB7, Nd7-f6, a5-a4. But even here White could still
maintain his iron grip on the center and forced the King side to collapse. "
either leaves the reader wanting more or, more frequently, is just a signal
to switch off because there's nothing to relate to.
First well done to Mark Hague for asking for the whole game and
secondly thank you to Patrick for providing it. I'll just emphasis these
points. If you don't ask you don't necessarily get. What's more players are
very wary of contributing whole games of their own at the risk of someone
like me tearing it apart. Please don't be wary. Any criticism will be done
in as constructive fashion as possible.
Now to the game itself. First a general point. Asking a computer
program for lines related to just one player's moves is a very lopsided and
incomplete approach. To understand a game well it is necessary to look at
both sides moves objectively. Yes, there are games where a gulf in class may
mean attaching question marks to all the moves of one player, but if the
refutation of certain moves is not forthcoming in either the game or the
notes then where is the value?
Black's opening play here is very passive. With either 6 or 7...c5
he would transpose to a well-known line of the Queen's Gambit Declined,
Semi-Tarrasch variation. Black needs the c6 square for his Knight, ...c7-c6
denies the steed this square and indeed Black never gets his Queenside
developed. White takes early advantage with Ne5, occupying an important
central outpost with impunity. Black's big problem in the Queen's gambit is
how to develop his Queen's Bishop. In this game he never does.
Now some constructive criticism move-by-move which is what you're
not getting from the computer.
White's 8 Bc4 is okay but the Bishop is pointed at a solid
Pawn-chain f7-e6. So White's game strategy should revolve around the d4-d5
break or f2-f4-f5 to liquidate the e6 Pawn and focus on f7. Alternatives are
8 Be2 or 8 Bd3 and personally I would choose the latter because there is no
Black Knight on f6 guarding h7 so playing e4-e5 may introduce the
possibility of Bxh7+ followed by Ng5+ and Qh5. I'm aware that the Black
Bishop on e7 controls g5 but one of White's ideas is to play a2-a4 and
Bc1-a3 to swap it off. This actually happens in the game.
9...h6 is a waste of time and a weakening move. See note
specifically to both Black's 13th and 18th moves. I've said before and I
know I'll say it again but Pawn to Rook Three (a2-a3, h2-h3, ...a7-a6 and
...h7-h6) is the most common poor move in chess. Unless it's part of a clear
plan or a forced move try moving a piece instead. And yes, I do play the
Sicilian Najdorf with 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6.
The simplest way of dealing with the White Knight at e5 is to offer
an exchange of Knights with 10...Nd7. Moving a piece twice in the opening is
not usually recommended and 10...Bf6 is not great. Bearing in mind that
White's next is 11 Ba3 does that not indicate that maybe Black should
consider 10...Bishop to d6 instead?
After 11 Ba3 Be7 Black has lost two tempi and had his good Bishop
swapped off with no loss of time for White. Clearly things are going badly
for Black. Now instead of the retreat in the game 11...Re8 is possible.
However, such are Black's problems I seriously considered sacrificing an
Exchange for a Pawn with 11...Bxe5 12 Bxf8 Bxh2+ 13 Kxh2 K or Qxf8. Maybe
Black can throw in 13...Qh4+ first. I'm not saying this cures all Black's
ills but it would certainly make White think about different ways of
continuing and maybe cause him concern about his slightly exposed King. Some
strong players may criticise my suggestion but it may be worth a go in the
right circumstances.
13...f5?? is the move that got me writing this. Nowhere does Crafty
point out that 14 Ng6 is a simple fork winning the Exchange for nothing.
Again 9...h7-h6 is the move that allowed this so what useful purpose did
that achieve? Once again Black should play 13...Nd7. There is a clear moral
that if you King is under attack then you should not move the Pawns in front
of it unless you absolutely have to.
16...b5? is a desperate move. This drives the White Bishop to a spot
where it is solidly defended by a Pawn. It also weakens the Queenside when
Black already has problems in the centre and Kingside. Specifically it ties
down the Knight on b8 to defending the newly-weakened c6 Pawn. As for
supporting counterplay with ...a7-a5-a4 - I'd be happy to see ...a7-a5 and
I'd just reply with a2-a4 and now my a1 Rook is in play. I'm prodding the
sensitive point on b5 and I can even swing my Rook across to the Kingside
via a2. After 16...b5 17 Bb3 Deep Rybka evaluates this as +2.60 for White.
Whenever an annotator criticises a move they should always provide a
sensible alternative if possible. Here, once again, I suggest 16...Nd7. I'd
like to point out that in some lines this may threaten ...Nxe5, dxe5 Qc5+
picking up the loose Bishop on c4, yes the same one that Black has just
pushed back to safety with 16...b5. I'm aware the f6 Rook may be en prise
after dxe5 in this line but I want to reinforce how 16...b5 has reduced
Black's options, not enhanced them.
After 16... Nd7 White has two options.
A) 17 fxe6? Rxf1+ 18 Qxf1 Nxe5 19 dxe5 Bxe6 and Black is better due
to White's exposed King and ragged Pawn structure.
b) 17 Bxe6+ is obviously better. Black should try 17...Rxe6!? 18
fxe6 Nxe5 19 dxe5 Bxe6. Deep Rybka evaluates this as +1.02 for White.
Now the big question is why the difference in the +2.60 after
16...b5 17 Bb3 and only +1.02 in Line B even though Black has given up an
Exchange? Part of the answer is that Black has resolved his development
difficulties. Another is that White's Pawn structure, as in Line A, is
rather ragged and finally White's King is exposed whereas Black's is
relatively safe. Put the g4 Pawn back on g2 and I would confidently expect
the evaluation to up to about +1.50 in White's favour.
Now this hasn't happened by magic. Black has had to give up a Rook
for Bishop to avoid getting slaughtered but this is the penalty for playing
a poor opening. On the other hand I recall a game I played in 1987 where I
was positionally worse then overlooked a simple Knight fork with which my
opponent won an Exchange. My first reaction is unprintable but my second
immediately afterwards was "That's all my positional problems solved!" The
White Knight that had so restricted my pieces was gone and I was able to
play freely. Indeed I drew the game a dozen or so moves later.
The point is that giving up material (a Pawn, an Exchange) to
relieve an under pressure position is acceptable under certain
circumstances. It means the game will probably take on a fresh phase where
the player with the extra material has to think about bringing the game down
to a purely technical level whereby he can exploit his plus, but that's when
the player with the material deficit has to make the most of whatever
practical chances they have. It's no good crying and saying I'm the Exchange
down. This very game is a clear example of having level material and being
squashed because Black's forces are sitting still and usued on the
Queenside!
Back to the game.
After White's excellent 18 g5! there is no analysis of the obvious
reply 18...hxg5. After the obvious 19 Qh5+ Rh6 Deep Rybka suggests 20 Qf7
Qxf7 21 Nxf7 exf5! 22 Nxh6 Kxh6!? at +1.31 to White. Actually 23 Rae1 looks
quite strong but the attack on the King is gone. We're getting near the
technical phrase described in the earlier paragraph. Instead after 18 g5!
hxg5 19 Ng6! (that weak square again - see note to Blacks 9th) is crushing.
The only defence to 20 Qh5+ is to take twice on g6 but then after 20...Rxg6
21 fxg6+ Kxg6 22 Bc2+ leaves White attacking the defenceless light squares
with Queen, Rook and Bishop and the computer evaluations are in excess of
+10.
After 19...Kh8 the obvious line is 20 Nf7+ Kg8 21 Nxh6+! gxh6 22
Rxf5 exploiting the pin on the e6 Pawn. Naturally this comes out as a big
plus for White, nearly +6 by Deep Rybka. The game line with 20 Qg4
anticpates answering the pin 20...Rg5 with 21 Nf7+ Qxf7 22 Qxg5 (a desperado
or intermediate move answered by the same with...) 22...Qxf1+ 23 Rxf1 hxg5
24 Rf8 mate. Again note that Black's undeveloped Queenside pieces do nothing
for the defence.
At move 21 Black finally plays ...Nd7. This cuts off the defence of
the e6 Pawn but there was little else to do.
White finishes clinically with 22 Nf7+ Kg8
23 Nxh6+! - eliminating the h6 Pawn or, as Black plays, opening up
the 7th rank.
23...gxh6
24 Bxe6+ - exploiting the cutting off of the c8 Bishop's defence
24...Kh8 - If 24...Kg7 25 Rf7+ is a massacre.
25 Rf7 and the motif is a mating net with Pawn g6 supporting a
checking Rook on h7 while the Bishop controls the g8 square. Black rightly
resigned.
Summary: A nice attacking game by White justifying the development
of his Bishop to c4. However, Black's play was poor. He had a cramped
opening, failed to develop his Queenside pieces, made various weakening
moves and failed to take the chances inherent in his position to give him
any chance of staying afloat in the middle-game. There is a style of play
which invites players to come and attack you, but you must be ready to
counterattack at the right moment. For Black this moment doesn't even appear
in the notes, let alone over the board.
Further observation. The evaluations that I've put here are the ones
given by Deep Rybka. My personal opinion on most of these is that White is
better that arithmetically stated because either of Black's lack of
development in certain positions or White's ability to dominate open lines.
This comes from the experience of knowing how to play that pre-technique
phase that I referred to. Naturally other chess programs may give different
evaluations, maybe even different evaluations. However, it is by comparing
the different evaluations given by both computers and humans that is part of
the learning experience. Finally, if you'll pardon a pun, not everything in
chess is always Black and White.
Regards,
Tyson
> > >
On 17 July 2016 at 03:23 Karma Könchog Jungné <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx
> >
mailto:venkkj@xxxxxxxxx ;> wrote:
> > >
>
Sure. No problem. It does suggest in a couple of places ideas
for small
improvements, but at my level, this small of an improvement is
perhaps not
significant. My CC rating is 1630. My ICCF rating is 1627. And
my OTB
rating is 1588.
[Event "Walter Nuir CC"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2009"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Patrick Walsh"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[Black "Dennis Kohler"]
[BlackElo ""]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Crafty v20.14"]
{annotating only white moves.}
{using a scoring margin of +0.30 pawns.}
{search time limit is 3:28}
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. e4 Nxc3
6. bxc3 Be7
7. Nf3 c6
8. Bc4 O-O
9. O-O h6
10. Ne5 Bf6
11. Ba3
({16:+0.46} 11. Ba3 Be7 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Rb1 b5 14. Bb3
Bb7 15. Qg4 Rd8 16. f4 c5 17. d5 c4 18. dxe6 Qxe6 19. Qxe6
fxe6 $14)
({16:+0.79} 11. Qg4 Kh8 12. Qh5 Bxe5 13. Qxe5 Nd7 14. Qf4
Qf6 15. Rb1 Qxf4 16. Bxf4 b5 17. Bd3 Bb7 18. a4 Nf6 $16)
11. ... Be7
12. Bxe7 Qxe7
13. f4 f5
14. exf5 Rxf5
15. g4
({17:+2.35} 15. g4 Rf6 16. f5 b5 17. Bb3 Qe8 18. Qd3 a5 19.
fxe6 Bxe6 20. Rxf6 gxf6 21. Bxe6+ Qxe6 22. Qg6+ Kf8 23. Rf1
Nd7 24. Qxh6+
Ke7 $18)
({17:+3.09} 15. Qg4 Qf6 16. Bd3 Nd7 17. Rf2 Nxe5 18. fxe5
Qg5 19. Bxf5 exf5 20. Qxg5 hxg5 21. Re1 Be6 22. Rfe2 Rd8 23.
Kf2 $18)
15. ... Rf6
16. f5 b5
17. Bb3 Kh7
18. g5
({16:+5.79} 18. g5 exf5 19. gxf6 Qxf6 20. Qf3 a5 21. Bf7
Ra7 22. Bg6+ Kg8 23. Qd3 Re7 24. Bxf5 Qg5+ 25. Kh1 Bxf5 26.
Rxf5 Qh4 $18)
({16:+6.46} 18. fxe6 Rxf1+ 19. Qxf1 Bxe6 20. Qd3+ Kg8 21.
Bc2 Qg5 22. Rf1 g6 23. h4 Bc4 24. Qxc4+ bxc4 25. hxg5 hxg5 26.
Bxg6 c5 27.
Bf7+ Kg7 28. Bxc4 $18)
18. ... Rxf5
19. g6+ Kh8
20. Qg4
({17:+3.95} 20. Qg4 Rg5 21. Nf7+ Qxf7 22. Qxg5 Qe8 23. Qh5
Nd7 24. Rf7 Kg8 25. Re1 Nf6 26. Qf5 Bd7 27. Bxe6 Kh8 28. Re5
Bxe6 29. Rxe6
$18)
({17:+8.51} 20. Rxf5 exf5 21. Qe2 Be6 22. Bxe6 Na6 23. Nf7+
Kg8 24. Nxh6+ Kf8 25. Nxf5 Qg5+ 26. Ng3 $18)
20. ... Rxf1+
21. Rxf1 Nd7
22. Nf7+ Kg8
23. Nxh6+
1-0
-----Original Message-----
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark R
Hague
(Redacted sender "Mark.hague.list" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:55 PM
To: usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto:usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
Hi,
plese could you post the annotated game as I would like to
have a look at
Crafty's annotations.
Many thanks for shareing your experiences with the list.
Regards,
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karma Könchog Jungné" <venkkj@xxxxxxxxx
mailto:venkkj@xxxxxxxxx ;>
To: <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 1:33 AM
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
This is so cool! I just ran it on the game I posted here last
night.
Basically, I avoided mistakes and won the game with sound
play, but there
were a couple of places where I could have substantially
improved my
position even more. One of which involved forcing Black to
sacrifice the
exchange in order to save his King which I missed. But there
was only one
place where Black could have improved his position, and he
would have had to
abandon the pawn on e6, and try to start an counter attack
with BB7, Nd7-f6,
a5-a4. But even here White could still maintain his iron grip
on the center
and forced the King side to collapse. This is very
interesting. I will use
this tool frequently.
Thanks so much!
Konchog
> >
