Hi Chris,
It is indeed a book by Rowson that I acquired this idea. But he claims to get
it from Karpov, and the game in which Karpov moved his Knight eleven times was
annotated by Rowson. Rowson has a lot of interesting things to say about the
mental aspect of the game. For example, he says he has a problem of jumping
the gun when making move. He will make a move, and then instantly realize that
he has just blundered badly, and if he had just held on to the idea and let his
mind properly absorb what would happen if he made that move he would see
immediately the blunder before and not after he makes it. He says it is only a
matter a fractions of a second sometimes.
I experience this problem from many of the younger players at the Rochester
Chess Center—and there are lot of them! For example, I had blundered, and left
myself open to a 7th rank invasion by my rook, but my opponent missed it. So I
carefully closed up the problem, and my opponent—having realized that he had
just missed winning the game outright—moved his rook to the seventh rank
immediately. And as he moved his hand off the piece to hit the clock, he
groaned, “Oh, no!” and resigned. He is one of the stronger young players at
the center, and we have played about ten games. And I am 10-0 against him.
And someone came over, who was rated about three hundred points higher than I
am, and asked pplaintively, “How do you keep beating him. I have never been
able to beat him.” On the other hand, he has never beaten me either. There
are just some styles of play I do well against, I guess.
In the former player’s case, I think it is a mental problem on his part. The
one that is discussed in “How to Beat Your Dad in Chess.” He is not a
relation of mine, but his father is a friend of mine, and we are both deaf so
he has an strong identity with myself.
Konchog
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 4:59 PM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [usbca_chess] Re: Chess engine for WinBoard
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
<mailto: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>
[mailto:usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mordue andrew
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 3:50 PM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
