Scandinavian Gambit

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Jon.

Yes it is the games from RHP. Enter your account name and you
will see your joys of creation on display.

"we (or most of us!) just aren’t in the same league as the masters."

Which is good. Look on the bright side.

A)
We don't know when we are beat.
These good guys can see it coming a long way away. How depressing.

B)
It's just a game to us.
Imagine having your Chess ability as your only source of income?

C)
We could be Masters if we really really wanted to.
But these guiys can never be like us again!

Postal chess?
Are you using envelopes and stamps to play against someone's computer?

Her Majesty's Prisoners and Trappist Monks (the silent ones) these are
the only people you can safely play postal chess against. The rest cheat.

[Alex Holowczak]

Her Majesty's Prisoners and Trappist Monks (the silent ones) these are
the only people you can safely play postal chess against. The rest cheat.

What about Quakers? Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay... and all that.

Besides, I play correspondence chess - via e-mail - and don't cheat. As far as I can tell, I am neither a prisoner nor a monk.

[Anthony Taglione]

I always found it instructive to play through GM games and I had some significant surges in playing strength after summers doing little but study the games of Fischer, Botvinnik, Petrosian and Tal. I still recall the joy of watching Fischer make long-winded knight manoeuvres to move a piece to where it would do the most good. Tal's games taught me never to fear looking at throwing all of my pieces at an attack, often only giving up on a line when I realised that I'd already sacrificed everything in play. I didn't gel as well with Botvinnik but he and Petrosian taught me patience and pawn structure.

While most of us will never play anyone with their talents, seeing some of the ways in which we are inferior players can help us to be less inferior. There are few things more galling than losing a game and never having had a clue as to where one started to lose. One of the greatest differences between good and weak players is in finding ways to wrest the initiative from a position, to create play or counter-play . Building up a memory of patterns in one's mind from the games of the very best of us can often be useful in getting a clue as to finding a way to unearth that initiative or to suppress the opponent's opportunities to create it.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex.

I said Stamps and Envelopes. Not email.

I was just just making merry with that chap on the telly.

(everyone knows email players don't use computers.)

Hi Anthony.

Of course there is a fair bit of tongue in cheek going on but do not dismiss
the value of looking at games played by 1400 players and their kin.
Esecially if you are a student to the game.

Master games do not have the basic attacks that these games have and
modern writers very very rarely stoop and soil their hands with elementry tactics.

As you yourself said it's all about pattern recognition.

But first you have to be shown them. You have to see them in action.

Modern writers noting up master games never show the unsound tricks and traps
that under 1600 will see in their games, most/all use Fritz and that will not go
near anything instructive so all the meaty stuff is never shown.

And if they do then it's in the notes. And chess players very rarely if at all
play out the analyse in notes.

So a batch of 1400-1600 games is worth a wee trip.
You will see things you never see or hear about in Master Games.
Trust me, you won't believe your eyes.

[Anthony Taglione]

Hi Goeff.

I wasn't really disagreeing with regards to looking at games from a level of play you're likely to encounter. I took a look at the site just before the weekend and it looks to be an excellent resource.

You're 100% accurate in suggesting that the types of mistakes made at club level, and the opportunities they open up, simply aren't found in top-flight games. The ideal for anyone is to play hundreds of games against players who are just a shade stronger or a shade weaker than themselves. Failing that opportunity, the luxury of being able to browse games of the same calibre as the play of likely opponents is invaluable.

Even so, we need the GM games to show us all how to "do it right" so that we might avoid club-player mistakes in our own games from time to time.

I'm reminded of a school game I had many years ago when my opponent had prepared against my typical Dragon and I walked into a line he'd studied from a recent IM game. As he played his move, he said, "The question is whether Taglione can play at the 228 level". I replied with, "I know that I can't but can you sustain an attack launched by a 228 player?". He went awry in the complications once I drifted away from his preparations.

[Jon Mahony]

Her Majesty's Prisoners and Trappist Monks (the silent ones) these are
the only people you can safely play postal chess against. The rest cheat.

What about Quakers? Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay... and all that.

Besides, I play correspondence chess - via e-mail - and don't cheat. As far as I can tell, I am neither a prisoner nor a monk.

Lol yes with stamps and envelopes, one move a week if people insist on playing by second class - I just like the old fashioned feel of it though - I myself use only a simple Chess set, books and occasionally a games database to play (the latter isn’t cheating, but I don’t like doing it unless I’m totally stumped).

There is always a risk people will use Fritz, though I’ve played postal CC on and off for a few years and I’ve only ever known it to happen one time (it was blatantly obvious, because the guy started off playing so badly) I voiced my concerns to the tourney controller, but never head anything more about it as the guy just suddenly stopped replying.

It tends to be quite old guys playing postal CC though (as opposed to email) which means most of them have a lack of computer knowledge and are unable to cheat (apologies to any Fritz-using 75 year olds out there!)

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Guys.

I did not sense any disagreement Tony, it's a chess discussion.

We discuss as we play and during a game we are disagreeing with each
other's moves all the time.

I have had a lot of beginners/inexperineced players going through my hands
and when I get them 2nd hand I find there is a lot of crap I have to undo.

An abosulute total fear of a double pawn, Bishops are better than Knights,
Etc..etc...

One lad was told to study Master Games in some throw away advice so
bought a book containing all the World Champion matches from Steinitz
to Kasparov in Informator notation. Totally and utterly useless to a beginner.

(totally and utterly useless to an experienced player as well)

I gave him Chernev Logical Chess.

In my teaching days Edinburgh City Council gave me a grant to buy chess books.
I bought 40 Logical Chess's. (got a deal on 40 so made a profit!)

It's perfect. There are possibly better books
but it worked for me and what else can you offer.
Something you have not read?

Covering both topics about a player getting taken so far by book and then
screwing it up and cheating at postal/net chess.

AT RHP the blatant cheats are easy to see.
They use a box to give them a move. They see +2.00 so play it.

They then discover that the only way to get the full benefit of this move
is to follow the computers 15 move fantastic analyse.

So you have these 1400 player playing perfect chess down a narrow line
where only the exact computer move will do for 15/16 moves.

The record of 100% top computer match up on the bounce I've seen is 21 moves.

The lad then realises this game will stand out like a sore thumb so
switches off the box and makes his own moves.

These moves of course do not fit in with the previous strategy
so the whole game becomes even more obvious. It's hilarious.

I use to play postal chess, infact had 20-30 games on the go in the 70's.

The only one I can recall was a game playing for Scotland against Austria.
He resigned in a won postion!! (his name was Partzer...true).

Do you use the brown window envelope turning the card around and using
the same stamp over and over again? My most was 8 before it got franked
but I have heard players say they have had as many as 20 free posts.

Of course I'm far too paranoid to play it these days, if my opponent
played a good move, or spotted one of my traps, I would suspect box use.

I only play established under 1600 players on the net as I know they are clean.
(also they fall for my tricks and traps).

[Anthony Taglione]

As they say, rules are for the obedience of the lowly and for the guidance of the wise. Chess, being a game where the finest of strategies can be brought low by the simplest of tactics, can only ever be replete with guidelines on how to play.

When looking at Master and GM games, one must, indeed, be careful as to how much one dares to try to absorb or emulate of those exceptional players. On the other hand, a careful student can find themselves greatly elevated by a study of well-played games which, I feel, can imbue an improved appreciation of all aspects of the game. They are no substitute, however, for getting one's own hands dirty. A little perfect study and a little imperfect play should give rise to a nicely rounded player.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Anthony.

Correct. You can give advise all day but in the end it comes down to
the individual and how much they want to put into the game.

To get the full benefit and indeed enjoyment of master games you have to
have an inkling of what is going on.