Tyson et al,
Reading "Ross, Christopher" always makes me cringe, as that is what my
work email has to stipulate and when folk email me back, they address
me as Ross and not by first name!
I wonder if the search "Ross, Chris N" will produce more games?
I'm mindful though that a lot of you are wasting - or miss-using is
perhaps better - your time and energy on unnecessary pursuits.
Game analysis is best done self-reflectively and with a companion and
stronger player. They can offer guidance and thoughts. Computer
analysis should only be used to check for blunders, interesting
variations etc. Computer analysis is a tool and little importance or
value put upon it.
I use Fritz 9 platform and Hiarcs 11 engine and that is absolutely
fine. I don't need super-computers to analyse 200 moves into the
future.
Opening theory disappears and is renewed after 6 months. I know a load
of authors of chess opening books and they say that their books run
out of worth within the year. Opening theory books lose sale within 18
months and then are history.
So, you need a tool that keeps things up-to-date. I don't interact
with Tyson's 365, as I find
www.chesspublishing.com
extremely accessible and up-to-date within the month.
Thanks,
Chris
From: usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <usbca_chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of mordue andrew ("tyson.mordue")
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 10:03 AM
To: usbca_chess <usbca_chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [usbca_chess] 365chess.com/opening
Hello folks.
This is a reply to Che's query regarding opening analysis. However, as that
thread is entitled computer analysis and is too vague a term for the item
under discussion I've put a different title in the subject for easy
reference later on.
I have plenty of books on opening theory but they are no means up-to-date. I
use a combination of those books and the Chess Opening Explorer section of
365chess.com.
The actual link is https://www.365chess.com/opening.php
One can toggle back and forth between moves using back and forward buttons.
There are win/draw/loss statistics and engine evaluations. I'll say right
now that there are over seven hundred and forty thousand games on the
Sicilian Defence alone, merely inputting 1 e4 c5. The database continues to
be updated. When I looked just now there were 152 games from my own praxis
and on the previous occasion, probably last year, there was only just over a
hundred. As my actual praxis including correspodence chess is probably well
over 2,700 games it's not much but it would be enough to interest some
people.
Incidentally searching for Ross, Christopher nets you 43 games. If anyone is
really interested I can can give more specific links.
However, I must also add that the most popular database move is not
necessarily the best move. It's down to your own judgement at the end of the
day. One of my recent USBCA Ladder games went down to move 18 or so on the
database and I then chose the most popular move instead of the one I would
usually play in that position. I then discovered that I'd made a tactical
oversight which meant that my intended follow-up probably wasn't sound and I
ended up in a worse position!
Of course this is just one database amongst numerous that are available on
the web. Whatever, if you have aspirations for improving your chess then I
strongly suggest that you look at one of these sites.
As remarked above I am playing in the USBCA ladder event. This is primarily
to get a feel of how the players here play their chess. One factor is very
obvious so far. The lower-rated players deviate from theory much earlier
than the higher-rated ones.
A quick pair of examples without naming names.
One player chose the Steinitz variation of the Ruy Lopez (Black's choice)
and got a standard but passive position after eight moves. His next three
moves should have been ...Ng8-f6, ...Bf8-e7 and ...0-0. Instead he chose a
move that wasn't even on the database! Even I was surprised that it wasn't
there, but the move he made was a clear positional weakening and it wasn't
difficult to find White's best line of play.
Another player chose the Centre-Counter (aka Scandanavian) with 3...Qd8. He
also chose a passive line but we were out of the book (database) by his 6th
move. By move 11 I had a clear advantage again by just having played natural
moves.
I should add that I have no knowledge of Winboard or other associated
software so I can't help in that realm. However, if anyone wants to to go
deeper on the subject of openings then I'm happy to help.
Regards,
Tyson
