d6 or e6 Sicilian
Alex
What are their advantages:
A:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3
or
B.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 followed by either 4....Nc6 or
4...Nf6
Taylor Kingston
Neither line is especially better or worse than the other. Both are
considered fully sound. Which to play is more a matter of personal
taste and style than anything else. If you like ultra-sharp lines such
as the Najdorf or Dragon, you would have to avoid the early ...e6 in
favor of ...d6. If you like lines where you can play an early ...Bf8-
b4, or if you want to avoid lines where White can play an early Bf1-
b5, then 2...e6 is better. If you like the Scheveningen variation, it
doesn't much matter; you can transpose either way.
raylopez99
2..e6 is more sound. 2..d6 is essentially a pawn sacrifice, unless
you plan to fianchetto the bishop (ie. Dragon). But if you like a
more open game then play d6, as indeed sacrificing the exchange for
black is not unusual in the Sicilian.
RL
sd
>
> 2..e6 is more sound. 2..d6 is essentially a pawn sacrifice, unless
> you plan to fianchetto the bishop (ie. Dragon).
Explain how that in any way, even "essentially" sacrifices a pawn?
ttw...@att.net
playable, but these leave fewer choices. All these second moves may
transpose into each other but do not have to; each has unique line to
itself. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
None
Huh? I like e6 because it supports d5 and then (usually) black
equalizes. But d6 sacrifices a pawn, gee maybe you're thinking about
the Smith-Morra with the colors reversed ;>)
Offramp
Ze d6 ends up in ze anneeehheeeelation of ze bliks.
Ze e6 ents up in ze trioompf of ze blicks.
raylopez99
Sorry I meant 2.e6 essentially is a pawn sac. I think if you play
chess it's clear why...backward pawn that will eventually fall...but
black has counterplay on the Q-side.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 5, 1:07 pm, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 4:35 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 2..e6 is more sound. 2..d6 is essentially a pawn sacrifice, unless
> > > you plan to fianchetto the bishop (ie. Dragon).
>
> > Explain how that in any way, even "essentially" sacrifices a pawn?
>
> Sorry I meant 2.e6 essentially is a pawn sac.
Presumably you mean 2...e6. White cannot play 2.e6 in that position.
> I think if you play
> chess it's clear why...backward pawn that will eventually fall...
Many Sicilian lines involve a backward d-pawn for Black, including
ones arising from 2...d6 as well as 2...e6: the Scheveningen, the
Boleslavsky, the Sveshnikov, the Kalashnikov, the Richter-Rauzer, etc.
But these lines are not properly called pawn sacrifices, either
"essentially" or otherwise.
Furthermore in many 2...e6 lines the d-pawn quickly advances to d5,
becoming thereby no longer backward. An early example, still
considered mainstream theory, is Anderssen-Paulsen, match, Leipzig,
1876, which began 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6
6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ Ke7 8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5 d5 11.exd5 Qxd5. No
more backward d-pawn, no d-pawns at all, and no pawn sacrificed.
raylopez99
wrote:
> Furthermore in many 2...e6 lines the d-pawn quickly advances to d5,
> becoming thereby no longer backward. An early example, still
> considered mainstream theory, is Anderssen-Paulsen, match, Leipzig,
> 1876, which began 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6
> 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ Ke7 8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5 d5 11.exd5 Qxd5. No
> more backward d-pawn, no d-pawns at all, and no pawn sacrificed.
Don't be ridiculous Taylor. Black just lost the right to castle in
that line.
Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 6, 5:10 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Furthermore in many 2...e6 lines the d-pawn quickly advances to d5,
> > becoming thereby no longer backward. An early example, still
> > considered mainstream theory, is Anderssen-Paulsen, match, Leipzig,
> > 1876, which began 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6
> > 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.Nd6+ Ke7 8.Bf4 e5 9.Nf5+ Kf8 10.Bg5 d5 11.exd5 Qxd5. No
> > more backward d-pawn, no d-pawns at all, and no pawn sacrificed.
>
> Don't be ridiculous Taylor. Black just lost the right to castle in
> that line.
So? The fact remains that there was no pawn sacrifice, nor even any
backward pawn for very long.
> Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
> especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
Ray, the Smith-Morra Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 — or the
Wing Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 — are examples of a pawn sacrifice in
the Sicilian. The Paulsen line above is not.
chasmad
raylopez99
wrote:
> > Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
> > especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
>
> Ray, the Smith-Morra Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 — or the
> Wing Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 — are examples of a pawn sacrifice in
> the Sicilian. The Paulsen line above is not.
TK, you are a stronger player than me (a mere Class A player, 2000 Elo
on a very good day), so don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that
losing the right to castle is de facto the loss of a pawn.
RL
Taylor Kingston
Ray, either we use language with some degree of precision, or it
loses all meaning. This applies especially to chess. To call losing
the right to castle a pawn sacrifice is semantic mayhem, a complete
misuse of language, like saying a cow is the same species as a sheep.
Your original point was that playing 2..d6 in the Sicilian was a
pawn sacrifice by Black. Then you said you really meant 2...e6 was a
pawn sacrifice by Black. Then you said what you really meant was that
both the 2...d6 and 2...e6 lines are pawn sacrifices by Black. Now
you're saying even if there's no pawn sacrifice, we should still call
it a pawn sacrifice as long as you can come up with some bullshit that
you claim is equivalent to a pawn sacrifice.
You make Humpty Dumpty look like the OED.
sd
Sorry Ray but that sounds like Sannyspeak. You were talking out your
ass and now are trying to cover for it, and not doing a good job at
that.
SBD
MikeMurray
Ray, you don't actually have a real rating anywhere close to 2000, do
you ?
raylopez99
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 3:46 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 8:12 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
> > > > especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
>
> > > Ray, the Smith-Morra Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 — or the
> > > Wing Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 — are examples of a pawn sacrifice in
> > > the Sicilian. The Paulsen line above is not.
>
> > TK, you are a stronger player than me (a mere Class A player, 2000 Elo
> > on a very good day), so don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that
> > losing the right to castle is de facto the loss of a pawn.
>
> Ray, either we use language with some degree of precision, or it
> loses all meaning.
Quit fighting me Taylor. You can lern even from a troll. C'mon,
you're smarter than that.
> This applies especially to chess. To call losing
> the right to castle a pawn sacrifice is semantic mayhem, a complete
> misuse of language, like saying a cow is the same species as a sheep.
>
Nope. Reference Norm Chomsky's works. Also you cannot have two
morphetically different animals be the same species, by definition.
But if I say they are of the same genus, then your analogy actually
makes my point.
> Your original point was that playing 2..d6 in the Sicilian was a
> pawn sacrifice by Black. Then you said you really meant 2...e6 was a
> pawn sacrifice by Black. Then you said what you really meant was that
> both the 2...d6 and 2...e6 lines are pawn sacrifices by Black. Now
> you're saying even if there's no pawn sacrifice, we should still call
> it a pawn sacrifice as long as you can come up with some bullshit that
> you claim is equivalent to a pawn sacrifice.
Pejorative phrase "bullshit" noted. Biased noted. Reference Chomsky
again.
>
> You make Humpty Dumpty look like the OED.
Humpty Dumpty taken out of context noted. Below is Wikipedia's
reference. You be the judge. Dumpty is being quite precise. Chomsky
again--deep structures lead to context regardless of whatever surface
competencies we give it.
Truth be told, you lost this thread because of your narrow mind. It's
clear the topic of conversation is: "what opening essentially leads
to a pawn sacrifice (or loss of tempo, such as losing the right to 0-0
or O-O-O), in exchange for piece activity by black? Certain lines of
the French come to mind. And the Sicilian with 2..e6 or 2..d6, just
like I said.
Everything else TK is balderdash, and you, in your heart of hearts,
know it, troll.
RL
Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872),
where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I
tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice
objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor
less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master –
that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute
Humpty Dumpty began again.
"They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the
proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs –
however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I
say!"[11]
Taylor Kingston
He claimed he did, back on 28 December 2009:
I quote from his post there: "See my thread (posted today) on
Neishtadt's otherwise excellent book, which has a spectacular mistake
(one of five or six I've found for far, half way through--I play only
at the expert level)."
sd
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:01 pm, MikeMurray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:46:36 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
>
> > <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 6, 8:12 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> > Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
> > >> > especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
>
> > >> Ray, the Smith-Morra Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 — or the
> > >> Wing Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 — are examples of a pawn sacrifice in
> > >> the Sicilian. The Paulsen line above is not.
>
> > >TK, you are a stronger player than me (a mere Class A player, 2000 Elo
> > >on a very good day), so don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that
> > >losing the right to castle is de facto the loss of a pawn.
>
> > >RL
>
> > Ray, you don't actually have a real rating anywhere close to 2000, do
> > you ?
>
> He claimed he did, back on 28 December 2009:
>
>
> I quote from his post there: "See my thread (posted today) on
> Neishtadt's otherwise excellent book, which has a spectacular mistake
> (one of five or six I've found for far, half way through--I play only
> at the expert level)."
Well, we all know people who claim to play at some level - like
"expert level" - but have 1001 excuses for why they are really rated
1600 or so (some even claim to have almost IM strength when 1800 would
be more like it). Claiming that 2 ... d6 or 2. ...e6 is the
equivalent of a pawn sacrifice in the SIcilian is just plain bone-
headed. That's a Sanny comment.
SBD
MikeMurray
wrote:
>Well, we all know people who claim to play at some level - like
>"expert level" - but have 1001 excuses for why they are really rated
>1600 or so (some even claim to have almost IM strength when 1800 would
>be more like it). Claiming that 2 ... d6 or 2. ...e6 is the
>equivalent of a pawn sacrifice in the SIcilian is just plain bone-
>headed.
When one is posing, it's those off-hand comments that give the game
away.
Offramp
After 2...d6 you might call the square e6 a hole.
But it is not as big as the MARIANAS TRENCH you're digging for
yourself here!
LOROL! I can't WAIT to see what you try next.
Offramp
Ray, post some examples... Chess has a long history, it's a popular
opening.
Show us what you mean.
raylopez99
>
> > Don't be ridiculous Taylor. Black just lost the right to castle in
> > that line.
>
> > Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
> > especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
>
> Ray, post some examples... Chess has a long history, it's a popular
> opening.
> Show us what you mean.
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "23"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bg5 Nc6 7. Qd2
Be7 8.
O-O-O O-O 9. f4 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Qa5 11. e5 dxe5 12. Qxe5 *
Like I said, essentially a pawn sacrifice by Black (White is up a pawn
in material, in exchange for Black's Q-side attack, which in this
position is dubious but in other variants is stronger).
Numerous other such lines exist. If you're stronger than Class 1,
like myself, you can find them.
RL
sd
> (White is up a pawn in material
I count six pawns for white and six pawns for black after Qxe5.
Was 1st grade math a problem for you?
raylopez99
White is a pawn ahead says Fritz.
Chess is just not your game?
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 7, 3:42 pm, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 4:36 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > (White is up a pawn in material
>
> > I count six pawns for white and six pawns for black after Qxe5.
>
> > Was 1st grade math a problem for you?
>
> White is a pawn ahead says Fritz.
Let me make two points, Ray:
1) You are confusing a program evaluation score with a material
advantage. While they can be related, they are not the same thing, any
more than height = weight. Fritz is not saying "White is a pawn
ahead." Fritz is not saying "White is up a pawn in material." For
those statements to be true, White would have to have one more actual
pawn on the board than Black does. Fritz knows very well that both
sides have the same number of pawns, as does anyone else with eyes.
2) I wonder what version of Fritz you are running, and under what
conditions, to get the score you claim, which would have to be close
to +1.00. On my machine Fritz8 rates the position after 12.Qxe5 only
at about +0.29, i.e. not even one-third of a pawn's worth in White's
favor. Rybka 3 UCI comes up with a similar number. So neither program
sees White "up a pawn" either in actual material, or in any other
sense.
> Chess is just not your game?
I have to wonder why you continually pull this kind of trollish
stunt, Ray. The original poster in this thread asked a sincere
question, and some of us tried to provide him with valid answers. You,
in contrast, fill the thread with misleading nonsense. A disservice to
the game and to a fellow human being, like deliberately giving a lost
person false directions.
Offramp
> On Apr 7, 11:09 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "?"]
> [Black "?"]
> [Result "*"]
> [PlyCount "23"]
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bg5 Nc6 7. Qd2
> Be7 8.
> O-O-O O-O 9. f4 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Qa5 11. e5 dxe5 12. Qxe5 *
> Numerous other such lines exist. If you're stronger than Class 1,
> like myself, you can find them.
Sadly, I am not a strong player.
None
wrote:
> I have to wonder why you continually pull this kind of trollish
> stunt, Ray. The original poster in this thread asked a sincere
> question, and some of us tried to provide him with valid answers. You,
> in contrast, fill the thread with misleading nonsense. A disservice to
> the game and to a fellow human being, like deliberately giving a lost
> person false directions.
Our Taylor can argue the ears off of a brass monkey. If true, then the
brass monkey my staff gave me a couple of years ago would have no
ears...let me check...I checked and it does have ears but no
testicles....hmmnnnn...Taylor it is my firm intention to report you to
the SPCA if you don't cease and desist.
raylopez99
wrote:
> Let me make two points, Ray:
>
> 1) You are confusing a program evaluation score with a material
> advantage. While they can be related, they are not the same thing, any
> more than height = weight. Fritz is not saying "White is a pawn
> ahead." Fritz is not saying "White is up a pawn in material." For
> those statements to be true, White would have to have one more actual
> pawn on the board than Black does. Fritz knows very well that both
> sides have the same number of pawns, as does anyone else with eyes.
>
Trivial point, but noted. In chess we go by evaluation, not by
counting pieces. And your other point?
> 2) I wonder what version of Fritz you are running, and under what
> conditions, to get the score you claim, which would have to be close
> to +1.00. On my machine Fritz8 rates the position after 12.Qxe5 only
> at about +0.29, i.e. not even one-third of a pawn's worth in White's
> favor. Rybka 3 UCI comes up with a similar number. So neither program
> sees White "up a pawn" either in actual material, or in any other
> sense.
I was running Fritz 5.32, and at 10 seconds per move. Did you set it
to infinite analysis? I think you'll agree White is better, even if
only by half a pawn, or, by your unknown analysis, a third of a pawn.
>
> > Chess is just not your game?
>
> I have to wonder why you continually pull this kind of trollish
> stunt, Ray. The original poster in this thread asked a sincere
> question, and some of us tried to provide him with valid answers. You,
> in contrast, fill the thread with misleading nonsense. A disservice to
> the game and to a fellow human being, like deliberately giving a lost
> person false directions.
Giving false directions is common. It's called "indirection". That's
why you ask 10 people and if 9 out of 10 say the same thing, you know
you're on the right track.
RL
None
Giving false directions is common. It's called "indirection".
That's
why you ask 10 people and if 9 out of 10 say the same thing, you know
you're on the right track. --RL
That would be misdirection and Delphi .
Taylor Kingston
I think it's high time I heeded Proverbs 14:7: Go from the presence
of the foolish man, When thou perceivest not in him the lips of
knowledge.
Martin Brown
> On Apr 7, 4:41 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 4:26 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me make two points, Ray:
>>> 1) You are confusing a program evaluation score with a material
>>> advantage. While they can be related, they are not the same thing, any
>>> more than height = weight. Fritz is not saying "White is a pawn
>>> ahead." Fritz is not saying "White is up a pawn in material."
>>
>>> conditions, to get the score you claim, which would have to be close
>>> to +1.00. On my machine Fritz8 rates the position after 12.Qxe5 only
>>> at about +0.29, i.e. not even one-third of a pawn's worth in White's
>>> favor. Rybka 3 UCI comes up with a similar number. So neither program
>>> sees White "up a pawn" either in actual material, or in any other
>>> sense.
>> I was running Fritz 5.32, and at 10 seconds per move. Did you set it
That is way too fast to be even remotely meaningful even with a modern
engine. And Fritz 5.32 is nothing like a state of the art chess engine.
>> to infinite analysis? I think you'll agree White is better, even if
>> only by half a pawn, or, by your unknown analysis, a third of a pawn.
I cannot reproduce your claim even running it at fixed 10s annotation.
White is certainly slightly better by the equivalent of about 30cp.
[snip]
> I think it's high time I heeded Proverbs 14:7:
Don't give up on it just yet. There is something interesting about the
position after all, but not what RL was claiming.
My opening book has continuations in which interestingly do not include
one of the top moves that infinite analysis on the strongest engines
finds after between 1 and 10 minutes. The book entries are:
12. ... QxQ ~50%
12. ... b6 0%
12. ... Qb6 0%
Qb6 is such a lousy continuation move that I suspect it is a watermark
to prove copyright of the opening move database.
There is a novelty pawn sacrifice here of 12. ... b5 by black which
looks sound. But even after this actual pawn sacrifice the Fritz8
evaluation hovers around 22-32cp despite blacks obvious material
disadvantage. Shredder is a lot more conservative and prefers the
obvious queen swap (and so does the powerbook).
Shredder10 at ply 17 gets after 15 mins
0.50 12. ... QxQ 13. fxQ Nd5 14. BxB NxB 15. Bd3 b6
0.71 12. ... b5 13. Qxb5 Qb6 14. Bd3 Bb7 15. Rd2 Rfd8
0.78 12. ... b6 13. Qxa5 bxQ 14. Ne4 Rd8 15. RxR+ BxR
Then a cluster of Qc5, Qb4, Bd8 all around 100cp +/-6
And Qb6 which has apparently been played 6 times is already shown to be
a total disaster at ply 11 (under 10s) - refuted by the tactical line:
4.16 12. ... Qb6 13. Na4 Qc6 14. Bb5 Ng4 15. Qe2 Qc7 16. Bxe7 QxB 17. QxN
And white is a piece up already.
Fritz8 at ply 16 after 30 mins
0.22 12. ... b5 13. Qxb5 Qc7 14. Qe5 Qb6 15. Na4 Qc6 16. Bb5 Qb7
0.60 12. ... Qc5 13. Na4 QxQ 14. fxQ Nd5 15. BxB NxB 16. Bc4
0.63 12. ... Qb4 13. a3 Qc5 14. Ne4 QxQ 15. fxQ Nd5 16. BxB NxB
0.66 12. ... Bd8 13. Be2 Qb6 14. Rd6 Qf2 15. Rhd1 Be7 16. R6d2 h6
0.66 12. ... QxQ etc.
Its assessment of Qb6 is also different at tournament time controls.
Trading queen for rook until it reaches ply 15 after >30mins.
2.82 12. ... Qb6 13. Na4 Qf2? 14. Rd2 QxR+ 15. KxQ h6
Rybka232 at ply 17 after 30 mins
0.31 12. ... QxQ 13. fxQ Nd5 14. BxB NxB 15. Bd3 Nd5 16. NxN exN
0.43 12. ... b6 13. Be2 QxQ 14. fxQ Nd5 15. BxB NxB 16. Bf3 Rb8
0.47 12. ... b5 13. Bxb5 Bb7 14. Bd3 Qb6 15. Na4 Qc6 16. Bb5 Qc8
0.54 12. ... Qc5 13. Be2 h6 14. Bh4 a6 15. Rhf1 Qa7 16. Bf2 Qc8
0.54 12. ... Bd8 13. Be2 Bc7 14. Qxq BxQ 15. Rd3 Rd8 16. Rhd1 RxR 17.
RxR Kf8
0.61 12. ... Qb4 13. a3 Qc5 14. Be2 a5
Curiously Rybka prefers another pawn grabbing line for black in the
dodgy Qb6
2.16 12. ... Qb6 13. Na4 Qc6 14. Bb5 Qxg2 15. Rhg1 Qxh2 16. BxN BxB 17.
QxB g6
Bizarrely when I played into this line to check it. Rybka put a null
move into the actual game record which displayed as 17.\xf6 -2.28/5 and
when later undone it left two black bishops on the board!
Stockfish also fancies its chances with the novel pawn sacrifice scoring
it as 0.36 at ply 17 with QxQ slightly behind at 0.40. It scores the
losing Qb6 line as 4.28. And at ply 21 it still has b5 ahead at 0.32
with QxQ and b6 both at 0.44.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Taylor Kingston
wrote:
Thanks for your input, Martin. Taking a different approach, I did a
search of my 2005 ChessBase files for the position after 12.Qxe5, to
see how the line has fared in actual competition.
It turns up in 79 games, dating from Kramer-Kottnauer, Beverwijk
1954, to Roeschlau-Enders, 75th German Ch 2004. The overall score is
+30 -11 =50 in White's favor. Among the big names playing the black
side are Spassky, Geller, Boleslavsky, Suetin, and Kramnik, so it
can't be all that bad.
By far the most common 12th move for Black is 12...Qxe5, played in
63 games. Next is 12...Qb6, 13 games, and 12...b6 in just two games.
In one game a draw was agreed before Black played his 12th move.
As your analysis would lead one to expect, 12...Qb6 has a bad track
record, scoring a dreadful +1 -11 =1 for Black. With 12...Qxe5 it's
close to even, Black scoring +10 -18 =35, or 44%.
I don't have any really up-to-date openings encyclopedias, the two
most recent being MCO-13 (1990) and Nunn's Chess Openings (1999).
MCO-13 does not even mention this line, preferring 11.Bc4 to 11.e5.
NCO mentions the line in a footnote, citing Short-Kramnik, Riga 1995,
which continued 12.Qxe5 Qxe5 13.fxe5 Nd5 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Bd3 b6 16.Be4
Rb8 17.Rhe1 Ng6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Nb5 Bb7 20.g3 a6 21.Nd6 Bd5, at which
point NCO says the position is equal. It mentions no other black 12th
moves besides 12...Qxe5.
Martin Brown
> search of my 2005 ChessBase files for the position after 12.Qxe5, to
> see how the line has fared in actual competition.
> It turns up in 79 games, dating from Kramer-Kottnauer, Beverwijk
> 1954, to Roeschlau-Enders, 75th German Ch 2004. The overall score is
> +30 -11 =50 in White's favor. Among the big names playing the black
> side are Spassky, Geller, Boleslavsky, Suetin, and Kramnik, so it
> can't be all that bad.
I am still a beginner with Chessbase database searches.
How do you get it to count the number of matches it has found?
And for that matter to show the next move after the search position?
> By far the most common 12th move for Black is 12...Qxe5, played in
> 63 games.
Indeed this is the obvious continuation.
> Next is 12...Qb6, 13 games, and 12...b6 in just two games.
Most of the Qb6 games are very short. Only Silov-Kiselev seems to have
missed Na4 and gone on to lose after this line was entered. In 2001 U18
Stefan-Vioreanu the weaker player accepted a draw after playing Na4.
The earliest Qb6 game I can see was Kramer-Kottnauer 1954 of 14 moves.
And played twice more in the same year with the QxQ continuation and
white winning and then sporadically after that.
> In one game a draw was agreed before Black played his 12th move.
> As your analysis would lead one to expect, 12...Qb6 has a bad track
> record, scoring a dreadful +1 -11 =1 for Black. With 12...Qxe5 it's
> close to even, Black scoring +10 -18 =35, or 44%.
> I don't have any really up-to-date openings encyclopedias, the two
> most recent being MCO-13 (1990) and Nunn's Chess Openings (1999).
> MCO-13 does not even mention this line, preferring 11.Bc4 to 11.e5.
> NCO mentions the line in a footnote, citing Short-Kramnik, Riga 1995,
> which continued 12.Qxe5 Qxe5 13.fxe5 Nd5 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Bd3 b6 16.Be4
> Rb8 17.Rhe1 Ng6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Nb5 Bb7 20.g3 a6 21.Nd6 Bd5, at which
> point NCO says the position is equal. It mentions no other black 12th
> moves besides 12...Qxe5.
Mine are even more out of date. I left Shredder running on a clean
system overnight. This showed two things - its analysis depends on
recent history in the cache. Set from the raw position the analysis
scores at 17 ply were different to what I posted before. namely:
0.44 12. ... b5 13. Bxb5 Bb7
0.55 12. ... QxQ
0.82 12. ... Qc5
0.83 12. ... Qb4
0.86 12. ... b6
1.01 12. ... Bd8
At 18 ply (23min) the top lines are
0.36 b5 Qxb5 Qc7 Qc4 ...
0.48 QxQ
And at 19 ply (1h) things get really interesting white refuses to take
the offered pawn sacrifice!
0.37 b5 Ne4 Qxa2 Nxf6+ gxN
0.55 QxQ
After an overnight run and now at ply 22 the top results are:
0.55 b5 Ne4 Rd8 Bd3 Rd5 Qc3 Qxa2 Bxf6
0.58 QxQ etc.
0.88 Qc5 Be2 QxQ etc
0.88 Qb4 a3 Qc5 QxQ BxQ
0.91 b6 QxQ bxQ
1.15 Bd8
12. ... b5 does look like it is a viable novelty.
And at least according to the strongest engines of the day looking very
deep is better for black than the most often played QxQ line.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Taylor Kingston
wrote:
> Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your input, Martin. Taking a different approach, I did a
> > search of my 2005 ChessBase files for the position after 12.Qxe5, to
> > see how the line has fared in actual competition.
> > It turns up in 79 games, dating from Kramer-Kottnauer, Beverwijk
> > 1954, to Roeschlau-Enders, 75th German Ch 2004. The overall score is
> > +30 -11 =50 in White's favor. Among the big names playing the black
> > side are Spassky, Geller, Boleslavsky, Suetin, and Kramnik, so it
> > can't be all that bad.
>
> I am still a beginner with Chessbase database searches.
> How do you get it to count the number of matches it has found?
Once you have done your search and it displays the list of games,
click on "Tools" on the main menu, then "Statistics." It will show the
total number of games in the list, how many were won by White, how
many by Black, how many drawn, and other data.
> And for that matter to show the next move after the search position?
I don't know if there's an automated way to do that. I just took a
quick look at each of the 79 games, one after the other, and noted the
different 12th moves Black played, counting them manually. Obviously
that method is practical only with a short list.
One possible way would be to change the search position, e.g.
putting the black queen on e5 or b6, and re-running the search.
However, when I tried that, there seemed to be a program bug: it
returned no hits with the Q on b6, even though the original search
returned 13 games with that move. Also, that method can sometimes turn
up games that transpose from a slightly different line, i.e. games
that don't match through White's nth move but do match after Black's
nth.
raylopez99
wrote:
>
> Shredder10 at ply 17 gets after 15 mins
>
> 0.50 12. ... QxQ 13. fxQ Nd5 14. BxB NxB 15. Bd3 b6
> 0.71 12. ... b5 13. Qxb5 Qb6 14. Bd3 Bb7 15. Rd2 Rfd8
> 0.78 12. ... b6 13. Qxa5 bxQ 14. Ne4 Rd8 15. RxR+ BxR
After the best move, 12...QxQ, White is ahead 50 centipawns.
Does that not support my claim then that Black is essentially giving a
pawn sacrifice (rounding off to the nearest pawn, 0.50 = 1.0) in this
line of the Sicilian? That's typical of the Sicilian.
Like I said.
So you support my claim. The rest of this thread, about some unsound
line in 12...Qb6, is off topic and between you and Taylor.
RL
sd
>
> Does that not support my claim then that Black is essentially giving a
> pawn sacrifice (rounding off to the nearest pawn, 0.50 = 1.0) in this
> line of the Sicilian? That's typical of the Sicilian.
No, All it proves is that you have allowed the computer to cripple
your own chess thinking instead of using it as an adjunct to your
thinking. And a single case study approach is hardly proof either.
SBD
micky
.
> I think it's high time I heeded Proverbs 14:7: Go from the presence
> of the foolish man, When thou perceivest not in him the lips of
> knowledge.
Staring @ schmo's upturned arse was never leading anywhere useful Taylor
..
m.
Taylor Kingston
LOL. True.
The Master
wrote:
> Ray, either we use language with some degree of precision, or it
> loses all meaning. This applies especially to chess.
Ahem. A pompous pedant seems to have once again put his foot in
his
huge mouth.
Taylor 'precise language' Kingston: 'Many Sicilian lines involve a
backward
d-pawn for Black, including ones arising from 2...d6 as well as
2...e6: the
Scheveningen....'
As most strong chessplayers know, the Scheviningen Sicilian does
NOT
involve a 'backward' pawn. Rather, Gary Kasparov for example would
place his c and e pawns _side by side_, forming a 'pawn duo.' A
pawn
duo is exceedingly efficient in controlling the four squares to their
immediate front, whereas a situation in which black creates an actual
'backward pawn' has a gaping hole in front of it, in this particular
opening
a hole on say, d6 after black plays ...e6 (but NOT also ...d6).
I believe what you people are talking about (in very careless terms)
is a
pawn which is not defended by one of his brethen. For example, in
the
Najdorf Sicilian black plays ...d6, placing that pawn where it is
defended
by the black pawn on e7, and so it becomes almost invincible to
frontal
assault by enemy rooks and queen. But in the Scheviningen Sicilian
all
that defends the d6 pawn after it advances to d6 is pieces. It *is*
then
vulnerable to frontal assault.
I would suggest getting a good primer on pawn structure and at
least
glancing over it before doing any further ignorant bloviating, Mr.
Kingston.
Believe it or not, there may be people here who take your careless
babble at face value, recklessly thinking you some sort of 'expert'
on
matters pertaing to chess (LOL).
The Master
> Ray, you don't actually have a real rating anywhere close to 2000, do
> you ?
I'm a bit disappointed in you Mike.
http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
Ray was actually being very honest, for a change.
Taylor Kingston
The link shows nothing. It merely takes one to a blank USCF member
search page. Since we don't know Ray Lopez's real name, that page is
not much use. Here are the Ray Lopezes USCF does list:
USCF ID St Exp Date Reg Quick Member Name
-------- -- ---------- ------ ------ -----------------------
12858176 (FL) 2004-02-29 Unr Unr LOPEZ, RAY
12917241 (TX) 2008-02-29 789 799P LOPEZ, RAY
13260172 (TX) 2009-12-31 372 374 LOPEZ, RAY
12766780 (NM) 2000-03-31 634P Unr LOPEZ, RAYMOND J
14280856 (TX) 2010-10-31 217P 218P LOPEZ, RAYMOND JAMES
Taylor Kingston
>
> Taylor 'precise language' Kingston: 'Many Sicilian lines involve a
> backward
> d-pawn for Black, including ones arising from 2...d6 as well as
> 2...e6: the
> Scheveningen....'
>
> As most strong chessplayers know, the Scheviningen Sicilian does
> NOT
> involve a 'backward' pawn.
For once I must concede help-bot's point. Checking the OC, I am
reminded that one part of the definition of "backward pawn" is that it
cannot "be advanced with the support of another pawn." Since the
Scheveningen Sicilian involves black pawns at d6 and e6, it does not
fit that proviso. The d-pawn is relatively weak, but not backward in
the precise sense of the term.
However, I stand by the major point of my April 6th post, that
contrary to Ray Lopez's assertion, none of the Sicilian lines with a
weak or backward d-pawn are "pawn sacrifices."
MikeMurray
I'm not quite seeing your point here.
RayLopez has been pretty coy about his online handles, his actual
rating, and we have no idea whether his handle here is is real name or
a play on "Ruy Lopez".
My point was just that one who confuses accepting some structural
weaknesses (a weak square, a backward pawn, etc. -- characteristic of
many Open Sicilian lines) with an actual pawn sac is not likely to be
on the margin of A/Expert strength. Yeah, there's added *risk* of
losing a pawn, but that's a far cry from a deliberate sac.
chasmad
> On Apr 6, 8:12 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Like I said, "essentially" the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black,
> > > especially if they play d6 or e6, as you acknowledge.
>
> > Wing Gambit — 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 — are examples of a pawn sacrifice in
> > the Sicilian. The Paulsen line above is not.
>
> TK, you are a stronger player than me (a mere Class A player, 2000 Elo
> on a very good day),
Bullshit. You aren't a 2000 Elo player on the best day of your life.
> so don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that
> losing the right to castle is de facto the loss of a pawn.
>
More bullshit. There are many cases where abandoning the right to
castle is not only strong, but leads to a big advantage. Are you
trolling or are you really this dumb?
Charles
> RL
The Master
wrote:
> The link shows nothing. It merely takes one to a blank USCF member
> search page.
You're right. I cut and pasted the address directly from the
navigation
bar but for some reason what was displayed on my screen does not come
up. Going two screens further, I notice that the very same link
appears in
the address bar, which is very strange indeed.
> Since we don't know Ray Lopez's real name
_You_ may not have a clue who Ray really is, but I should say it is
fairly
obvious to anyone who has trained himself to actually notice the
obvious,
Lestrade.
> that page is
> not much use. Here are the Ray Lopezes USCF does list:
>
> USCF ID St Exp Date Reg Quick Member Name
> -------- -- ---------- ------ ------ -----------------------
> 12858176 (FL) 2004-02-29 Unr Unr LOPEZ, RAY
> 12917241 (TX) 2008-02-29 789 799P LOPEZ, RAY
> 13260172 (TX) 2009-12-31 372 374 LOPEZ, RAY
> 12766780 (NM) 2000-03-31 634P Unr LOPEZ, RAYMOND J
> 14280856 (TX) 2010-10-31 217P 218P LOPEZ, RAYMOND JAMES
No match. That should give you a hint that you're barking up a
wrong
tree. Mr. Innes seems to have finally allowed himself to venture
near to
the realms of reality but I noticed that he tossed in a comment that
you,
Taylor Kingston were a much stronger player than he was while at the
same time asserting that he was rated somewhere around 2000. What
do you make of this? Has Innes now decided that LP's smear tactics
were baseless nonsense, or was he joshing about you being a much
stronger player?
Perhaps it is sheer folly to even attempt to unravel the mystery
that is
Phillip Innes.
The Master
wrote:
> Checking the OC, I am reminded that one part of the definition of
> "backward pawn" is that it cannot "be advanced with the support of
> another pawn." Since the Scheveningen Sicilian involves black pawns
> at d6 and e6, it does not fit that proviso. The d-pawn is relatively weak,
> but not backward in the precise sense of the term.
There really is no other sense of the term 'backward pawn' than the
precise one-- the one which strong chessplayers understand once
having learned it. You really do need to get a good primer on the
subject, TK. I would suggest either Andy Soltis' or the one by Hans
Kmoch, although just about any basic work that is thorough would do
the job. From personal experience I can tell you that it is not
really
necessary to fully master anything quite so subtle-- except tactics,
of course. Chess is (very roughly) 92.7392% tactics.
Perhaps your mistake was in confusing two different lines in the
same opening, the Sicilian Defense, which have somewhat similar
sounding names: the Scheviningen and the Sveshnikov. If I am not
mistaken there are lines in the latter which do in fact create a hole
at d6, and which may very well result in such nasties as black being
saddled with an 'isolani' or perhaps a 'backward pawn'. I'm no
expert
on the Sicilian, though. My _very rudimentary_ familiary with the
Scheviningen line comes from simply having seen some annotated
games in Chess Life magazine from one or more of the world
championships between Kasparov and Karpov (circa late 1980s), in
which Gary routinely played this line as black
Perhaps if you read more, this sort of thing would not happen quite
so frequently and you would not be placed in a position where you
feel compelled to wriggle and squirm. In any case, it is good that
we were (perhaps) able to clear up the matter of what a backward
pawn is and is not. If only we had here in rgc a true expert on the
Sicilian Defense-- there are so many different lines and so many
possibilities for transposition that it boggles the mind.
Taylor Kingston
So you think Lopez is Innes? Could be, I suppose, but I am
skeptical. What's your evidence and/or line of reasoning?
None
No match. That should give you a hint that you're barking up a
wrong tree. Mr. Innes seems to have finally allowed himself to
venture
near to the realms of reality but I noticed that he tossed in a
comment that
you, Taylor Kingston were a much stronger player than he was while at
the
same time asserting that he was rated somewhere around 2000. What
do you make of this? Has Innes now decided that LP's smear tactics
were baseless nonsense, or was he joshing about you being a much
stronger player?
--Are you saying Kingston is almost an IM?
The Master
wrote:
> So you think Lopez is Innes? Could be, I suppose, but I am
> skeptical. What's your evidence and/or line of reasoning?
In view of the fact that Innes was exceedingly active in posting
his nonsense to rgc for so long, I hardly suspected he might be
posting even more idiocy under some other handle. That is, I
hardly suspected this until one day I was reading along and it
struck me that a certain 'Ray Lopez' was following Innes from
thread to thread, offering his 'wholehearted support.' This was
about the time that Mr. Innes was going into remission (I think
it is reasonable to compare PI to a disease of sorts).
In addition to following ChessFart around from thread to thread
lending his 'support,' Ray Lopez seemed also to have exactly
the same interests as the nearly-an-IM, often expressed in
much the same terms (which is odd considering what a nutball
Innes is). This is not something I went about collecting data on,
but rather it is something that is either noticed or overlooked. In
my case, it was overlooked for quite some time and I had
imagined 'Ray Lopez' to be just another rgc nutball. That is,
until ChessFart became far less active here and the unusual
similarity of interests became so apparent. I think it may be
the case that severely reducing his activity under the handle
ChessFart somehow brought out the Phil Innes in Ray, freed
it from its slightly oppressed state of being.
Readers may also recall (or not) that the chess opening by the
name 'Ruy Lopez' was quite often tossed about by Mr. Innes as
somehow demonstrating the intellectual inferiority of computers.
To ChessFart, the move 3.Bb5 was worthy of triple exclamation
marks on account of the fact that white threatens to voluntarily
surrender the bishop pair (computers hate doing this) and he
often bandied this about as 'proof' of why we humans are the
superior breed, carbon over silicon and all that rot. This is just
the sort of handle Phil _would_ be likely to choose, an opening
he believes is central to his denial of the vast superiority of
computers--- or rather I mean to his maintaning that humans
are superior.
Granted, it may be that some random troll has deliberately
done all this chasing about of Phil Innes, 'defending' his zany
opinions and closely mimmicking his interests, but why posit
the existence of such a quirky nuT-roll when there is a much
simpler explanation? Lest we forget, it is nearly IMpossible
for a truly sane person to agree with Phil Innes' innumerable
opinions, but it goes without saying that there is one person
here who always is in agreement with the nearly-an-IM-- PI
himself. All he would need to do is give up integrity-- the rest
is a piece of cake.
The Master
> --Are you saying Kingston is almost an IM?
Not nearly. From what I gather, Mr. Kingston may not know
the difference between a backward pawn and an ordinary fence
post. I can only add that it is possible to be this ignorant and
yet still play chess at a relatively high level-- provided you are
very good at tactics.
The denizens of rgc have wantonly attacked Phil Innes for
claiming to be 'nearly an IM,' but when he switches handles
and admits the truth he is then attacked for not showing up at
the USCF website under his handle 'Ray Lopez'! In sum, you
are wild and crazy attacking style players-- much like Sam
Sloan.
Taylor Kingston
Some interesting arguments, but I remain unconvinced. Lopez has
occasionally expressed support for Innes, but as far as I recall only
when they were aiming at a common antagonist critical of both of them,
such as myself. Lopez has also been in many discussions that did not
have or refer to Innes. And I have not noticed any great "similarity
of interests" between them, at least not in what they say on rgc.
Perhaps this hypothesis could be tested by checking what other groups
they post to?
Also Innes has some very definite stylistic, vocabulary, and
personality quirks that are hard to disguise, which Lopez does not
display. While I can't rule out the possibility they are one and the
same, I think it's more likely they are just separate trolls.
Frankly, once I thought about it, it seemed to me that Lopez
resembles Master/Help-bot/Kennedy more than Innes.
raylopez99
wrote:
> Some interesting arguments, but I remain unconvinced. Lopez has
> occasionally expressed support for Innes, but as far as I recall only
> when they were aiming at a common antagonist critical of both of them,
> such as myself. Lopez has also been in many discussions that did not
> have or refer to Innes. And I have not noticed any great "similarity
> of interests" between them, at least not in what they say on rgc.
> Perhaps this hypothesis could be tested by checking what other groups
> they post to?
TK is a net nanny, noted.
> Also Innes has some very definite stylistic, vocabulary, and
> personality quirks that are hard to disguise, which Lopez does not
> display. While I can't rule out the possibility they are one and the
> same, I think it's more likely they are just separate trolls.
> Frankly, once I thought about it, it seemed to me that Lopez
> resembles Master/Help-bot/Kennedy more than Innes.
Yes, I am Help-bot. Help-bot is rated a master. Can whip your arse
any day.
And do learn the proper terminology for chess TK. Your failure to
understand what is a backward pawn is shocking. You, as a chess book
reviewer, should know of chess terms and rules. I am reminded of the
GM Yusopov ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Yusupov) who, after he
was GM, did not know the rule for long side castling, namely, that a
square can be attacked on the long side and yet the player can still
castle on that side (as long as the square attacked is not where the
king traverses). You *do* know this rule, TK, don't you? Don't you?
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 17, 9:16 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Also Innes has some very definite stylistic, vocabulary, and
> > personality quirks that are hard to disguise, which Lopez does not
> > display. While I can't rule out the possibility they are one and the
> > same, I think it's more likely they are just separate trolls.
> > Frankly, once I thought about it, it seemed to me that Lopez
> > resembles Master/Help-bot/Kennedy more than Innes.
>
> Yes, I am Help-bot.
OK. Glad to get that cleared up.
> And do learn the proper terminology for chess TK. Your failure to
> understand what is a backward pawn is shocking.
Coming from a guy who doesn't know what a pawn sac is, this is like
Billy Barty faulting Wilt Chamberlain's rebounding ability.
The Master
wrote:
> Some interesting arguments
I am not 'arguing' anything, really. What I've done here is
simply
observe the behavior of RL and then recognize the distinct
possibility
that his 'secret identity' is not Gary Kasparov, Mickey Mouse or
Larry
Parr, but rather Phil Innes.
> but I remain unconvinced. Lopez has
> occasionally expressed support for Innes, but as far as I recall only
> when they were aiming at a common antagonist critical of both of them,
> such as myself.
Involving your own very limited recall is a titanic strategic error
if the
facts are ever to be discovered. This is like Sanny trying to utilize
his
own tactical ability in order to 'solve chess' in his head.
> Lopez has also been in many discussions that did not
> have or refer to Innes. And I have not noticed any great "similarity
> of interests" between them, at least not in what they say on rgc.
This is in perfect harmony with my theory, as you would not be
expected to notice such things whether they existed or not. Your
very limited observational abilities are in fact irrelevant to the
question of RL's true identity, Lestrade.
> Perhaps this hypothesis could be tested by checking what other groups
> they post to?
Posted to-- past tense. We wouldn't want to consider how Ray
behaves _after_ being alerted to a KGB-like investigation of his true
identity. No, that would be most unwise, Inspector.
> Also Innes has some very definite stylistic, vocabulary, and
> personality quirks that are hard to disguise
I agree. It is very difficult to disguise genius, and perhaps even
more
difficult still to disguise idiocy. But I imagine even Phil Innes
would be
aware of some of his more obvious problems, having been alerted to
their existence repeatedly by critics in rgc.
> which Lopez does not display. While I can't rule out the possibility they are one and the
> same, I think it's more likely they are just separate trolls.
Mathematically speaking, it does seem more likely that Ray is not
Phil Innes than that he is. After all, there is but one Phil Innes
while
there are innumerable 'others.'
> Frankly, once I thought about it, it seemed to me that Lopez
> resembles Master/Help-bot/Kennedy more than Innes.
I imagine by this you mean Ray does not seem drunk in every post
while ChessFart does. Well, the acid test is what does Ray 'know'
(or rather, what does he _think_ he knows) about languages? Phil is
an expert on all sorts of languages-- even a few that don't even
exist.
This expertise, if you will, places him foremost in his field. (I
say his
field because it really is a field all his own). But it is too late
for any
such interrogations, for the suspect has been alerted and will from
now on be 'en guarde.'
I was especially amused by ChessFart's comment on how things
were going here 'while he was away.' Away where? Doing what?
I think you can easily imagine where, and what he was doing if you
simply connect a few dots.
None
wrote:
Coming from a guy who doesn't know what a pawn sac is,
-- Hard to believe. Could you please support your accusation. Spelling
does not count. Rhetoric do not count. Grammer donna count. Only
unspun, unvarnished facts count.
None
Phil is an expert on all sorts of languages-- even a few that don't
even
exist. This expertise, if you will, places him foremost in his
field. (I
say his field because it really is a field all his own).
--Nonsense, Taylor is fluent in several languages. Talyor lives in
Vermont whence cometh Citizen Innes. Tailor is a braggart even as is
Herr IMnes. Ergo! Our Phil is our Tale-or.
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 20, 5:17 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Coming from a guy who doesn't know what a pawn sac is,
>
> -- Hard to believe.
Only for someone badly or willfully uninformed or obtuse.
> Could you please support your accusation ... Only
> unspun, unvarnished facts count.
Sure. Stan, it is just amazing how, after demeaning others' reading
skills, you have so thoroughly demonstrated your own utter lack of
reading skills. Read this thread, and you will find Ray's ignorance of
the meaning of "pawn sacrifice" amply demonstrated in his own words.
See for example his post of 7 April 2010 in which he says White is
White is "up a pawn in material," in a position where there are six
pawns for White and six pawns for Black, and all other material is
even as well.
None
wrote:
See for example his post of 7 April 2010 in which he says White is
White is "up a pawn in material," in a position where there are six
pawns for White and six pawns for Black, and all other material is
even as well.
--Calm down, calm down, you're so angry you're stuttering. Next you'll
be spitting nickels which you'll no doubt contribute to the local
halls of higher education in the expectation that they'll name a wing
after you. If not a wing maybe an arm or a leg. Perhaps they'll call
it Kingston Hall. Hallelujah.
The Master
You seem to have overlooked the fact that while PI is an expert on
the Andean language, TK in sharp contrast does not even believe it
exists! Thus the two cannot be one and the same person unless he
has a (very) split personality with deep inner conflict (such as
which
of the two personalities will emerge as dominant, or having the
bigger
mouth).
Also note that ChessFart knows what a backward pawn is, being a
nearly-an-IM with a rating around 2450. In contrast (again), Taylor
Kingston has to look such things up in a book, relying blindly upon
what he happens to stumble upon in printed form. Of course, no
self-respecting nearly-an-IM would be caught dead not knowing what
a backward pawn is, so it naturally follows they cannot be one and
the same 'braggart,' even if they do both reside in the same state.
'Deductive' reasoning only works properly in the hands of a true
genius like myself, Watson. As for you and Inspector Lestrade (aka
Taylor Kingston), it might be better if you both just stick to
following
me around and taking part of the credit when I nab someone. As
the gecko said on TV: some guys have it, and some guys don't.
The Master
> > Also Innes has some very definite stylistic, vocabulary, and
> > personality quirks that are hard to disguise, which Lopez does not
> > display. While I can't rule out the possibility they are one and the
> > same, I think it's more likely they are just separate trolls.
Catch that, Phil? Kingston has just slammed two of your favorite
posting identities as mere trolls!
> > Frankly, once I thought about it, it seemed to me that Lopez
> > resembles Master/Help-bot/Kennedy more than Innes.
>
> Yes, I am Help-bot. Help-bot is rated a master. Can whip your arse
> any day.
What about the case of 'the problem opponent'?
I once knew a fellow from 'Undue Perversity' who drew an Indiana
master (Bereolos) as effortlessly as you can draw a stick figure.
But when that poor fellow played me I thumped him mercilessly!
How to explain such a vast disparity in results? Why, by noting
the existence of 'the problem opponent,' of course.
It could be that after carefully studying the games of Mr.
Bereolos,
this fellow I described basically figured him out, pinpointed some
small weakness in his game, and exploited it. But any attempt to
comprehend my games would have been utterly pointless as they
contained no ryhme or reason-- just a mishmash of cheap shots,
generally played very quickly and without regard for 'correctness'
or published openings or middlegame theory.
> And do learn the proper terminology for chess TK. Your failure to
> understand what is a backward pawn is shocking. You, as a chess book
> reviewer, should know of chess terms and rules. I am reminded of the
> GM Yusopov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Yusupov) who, after he
> was GM, did not know the rule for long side castling, namely, that a
> square can be attacked on the long side and yet the player can still
> castle on that side (as long as the square attacked is not where the
> king traverses). You *do* know this rule, TK, don't you? Don't you?
There may well be many chessplayers reading this who are not yet
familiar with even the most basic strategic terminology, just like
Mr.
Kingston. So I have decided to post a handy link to a brief article
in
which the backward pawn is properly described (just in case anyone
was confused after reading Kingston's, uh, efforts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_pawn
As I said before, such nuances are not really necessary in order to
succeed OTB. Tactics are the primary decider of who wins and who
loses in chess. I have countless games where a program like Fritz
would have punched my lights out with a single tactical blow, but as
Fritz was not there I managed to win by making somewhat less
serious mistakes than my opponent. In one of my most recent
games my opponent had castled queenside as white and I had lined
up on the c-file: my queen on c7 and my rook on c8, threatening
instant checkmate on c2 if my opponent should move his only
defender away. In the post mortem Fritz indicated the move ...Bh6
pinning the queen to his majesty, whereupon his best line was to
shift his king over to b1 and hang his queen! I missed this shot as
well as a couple of others, but I did spot one clever tactic and that
was enough to secure victory.
Backward pawns are nothing in comparison to such titanic tactical
oversights. However, it would be useful to understand basic chess
strategy in order to grasp how certain dull chess games are decided.
I expect TK may have difficulty in 'finding' the link I gave above,
so
here it is again:
Taylor Kingston
>
> There may well be many chessplayers reading this who are not yet
> familiar with even the most basic strategic terminology, just like
> Mr. Kingston. So I have decided to post a handy link to a brief
> article in
> which the backward pawn is properly described
Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule. If I had a
dollar for every gaffe Kennedy and Lopez have posted, I could probably
buy a new Cadillac.
I make the occasional mistake myself, as do we all. Unlike the Twin
Trolls, however, I am quite willing to acknowledge and correct my
mistakes, as I did some time ago on the matter of backward pawns. In
contrast, Kennedy and Lopez seldom or never admit their far more
numerous errors.
This is all just a matter of personal prejudice. Because Kennedy
dislikes me, he jumps all over my minor mistake, that in the
Scheveningen Sicilian Black has a backward pawn. But he condones his
fellow troll Lopez's far greater mistake, that the Scheveningen is a
"pawn sacrifice."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_pawn
BTW, Greg, this definition is very sloppy and inaccurate. That's
another dollar toward my Cadillac.
Here's a link for you, Greg:
Matthew 7:3
None
wrote:
I make the occasional mistake myself, as do we all. Unlike the Twin
Trolls, however, I am quite willing to acknowledge and correct my
mistakes,
--And everybody elses too.
Taylor Kingston
Well, Stan, if this group does not serve as an exchange of accurate
information, then it isn't much good, is it? I welcome valid
corrections from whatever source; so should you. I was raised on
"Truth, Justice, and the American Way" rather than your "Eat Shit and
Die."
raylopez99
Wrong again. I clearly pointed out to you that "de facto" a pawn sac
exists if Fritz says the position is 0.50 centipawns or greater in
favor of the side not making the sac. I trust you know what this
means.
RL
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wrong again. I clearly pointed out to you that "de facto" a pawn sac
>exists if Fritz says the position is 0.50 centipawns or greater in
>favor of the side not making the sac. I trust you know what this
>means.
>
>RL
And if somebody hangs a knight, it's equally correct to say he sacked
three pawns??
And if somebody sacs an actual pawn, and Fritz gives the resulting
position a plus of 200 centipawns, then he didn't really sac a pawn??
Ray, you keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Your contention is absolute nonsense. Strong players don't use the
terminology in such a way. If you say somebody "sacs a pawn", that
player has to sacrifice an actual pawn, not accept a disadvantage (in
Fritz' judgment) of something greater than 0.5 centipawns.
sd
. >I trust you know what this
> means.
>
> RL
That you are babbling and have let the computer rule your thought
processes.
SBD
jkh001
Well, that goes without saying. If Lopez and Kennedy are finished
burning incense before the computer, perhaps they should be told that
Fritz thinks White is nearly .5 of a pawn ahead after 1.e4 c5. Such
evaluations are utterly meaningless. Ray Lopez is obviously a patzer,
but I'm surprised that Greg Kennedy, who used to be a decent player,
doesn't take more pride in his work. If you want a definition of
"backward pawn," look it up in the _Oxford Companion._ A rather better
reference work than Wikipedia, which any nitwit can alter.
None
> Well, that goes without saying. If Lopez and Kennedy are finished
> burning incense before the computer, perhaps they should be told that
> Fritz thinks White is nearly .5 of a pawn ahead after 1.e4 c5. Such
> evaluations are utterly meaningless. Ray Lopez is obviously a patzer,
> but I'm surprised that Greg Kennedy, who used to be a decent player,
> doesn't take more pride in his work. If you want a definition of
> "backward pawn," look it up in the _Oxford Companion._ A rather better
> reference work than Wikipedia, which any nitwit can alter.
Now you're being a little harsh here. I think Ray knows that any pawn
with no pawn next to or behind it on an ajacent file is referred to as
backwards by the other club players. What Ray is trying to say, I
think, is that this is a gambit of sort where material is not
sacrificed but it looks like Blacks is worse due to the "backward"
pawn. What Ray knows is that after 1. e4, c5 2. Nf3, e6 !??! 3. d4 (or
c3), then d5!!! and Blacks has a won game. This is the Napoleon-
Corsician variation insofar as the Sicilian and the French are both
involved. If you doubt it check the map.
MikeMurray
wrote:
>> RL
>SBD
I think it's deeper than that.
Letting the computer rule one's thought processes might be something
like an uncritical acceptance of the computer's evaluation of a
position. An obvious example would be one of those totally blocked
positions, no pawns exchanged, where one side is a rook up, but all
the rook can do is run helplessly around behind the zig-zag pawn
formation, while the computer displays +5. Another would be one of
those positions where seven or eight reasonable looking alternatives
favor White, but the computer finds an unlikely way to get to +.01 --
a rational human would probably consider the position too impractical
to handle as Black. Another is a case that NW Chess Editor Ralph
Dubisch pointed out: if you're two physical pawns down and Fritz says
equal, in the real world, you're practically winning.
An analogy for Ray's linguistic confusion: believing that if one has
a net worth of $200,000, then one has that stack of actual cash in
front of him, rather than a (sometimes imprecise) mix of stocks,
bonds, debts, real estate, personal property, etc., all of which would
present very real practical difficulties in converting into said stack
of currency.
Fritz expression of an advantage in terms of centipawns is merely a
way of presenting a snapshot of the "net worth" of a position, and has
little to do with physical pawns.
If, in the hypermodern spirit, one sacrifices an open file, one hasn't
sacrificed a pawn, even if the computer judges the sacrifice unsound
and gives one a minus 100 centipawns.
raylopez99
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
>
> >Wrong again. I clearly pointed out to you that "de facto" a pawn sac
> >exists if Fritz says the position is 0.50 centipawns or greater in
> >favor of the side not making the sac. I trust you know what this
> >means.
>
> >RL
>
> And if somebody hangs a knight, it's equally correct to say he sacked
> three pawns??
You are, like TK, mixing up the English language and causing
confusion. If somebody "hangs" a knight, or a queen, etc, it's not a
sac at all--it's a blunder.
>
> And if somebody sacs an actual pawn, and Fritz gives the resulting
> position a plus of 200 centipawns, then he didn't really sac a pawn??
Yes, correct. That's not a real sac but a pseudo-sacrifice. I trust
you know what that means.
>
> Ray, you keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Nope, try again.
>
> Your contention is absolute nonsense. Strong players don't use the
> terminology in such a way. If you say somebody "sacs a pawn", that
> player has to sacrifice an actual pawn, not accept a disadvantage (in
> Fritz' judgment) of something greater than 0.5 centipawns.
Nope, try again.
RL
raylopez99
> evaluations are utterly meaningless. Ray Lopez is obviously a patzer,
If you call a 2000 Elo player a patzer, I guess so.
RL
raylopez99
> Now you're being a little harsh here. I think Ray knows that any pawn
> with no pawn next to or behind it on an ajacent file is referred to as
> backwards by the other club players. What Ray is trying to say, I
> think, is that this is a gambit of sort where material is not
> sacrificed but it looks like Blacks is worse due to the "backward"
> pawn. What Ray knows is that after 1. e4, c5 2. Nf3, e6 !??! 3. d4 (or
> c3), then d5!!! and Blacks has a won game. This is the Napoleon-
> Corsician variation insofar as the Sicilian and the French are both
> involved. If you doubt it check the map.
Yes, that's more or less true, without checking your specific
variation.
The point being (and the point of this thread) was that in the
Sicilian either e6 or d6 often yields a backwards black pawn, or
outright loses a pawn, in exchange for Black counterplay on the Q-
side. Often an exchange sac by black, trading queen's rook for
white's queen's knight on c3 (when Black has fianchettoed the bishop)
will also give Black Q-side counterplay.
RL
raylopez99
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:27:32 -0700 (PDT), sd <sdowd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 22, 1:49 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >. >I trust you know what this
> >> means.
> >> RL
> >That you are babbling and have let the computer rule your thought
> >processes.
> >SBD
>
> I think it's deeper than that.
>
> Letting the computer rule one's thought processes might be something
> like an uncritical acceptance of the computer's evaluation of a
> position. An obvious example would be one of those totally blocked
> positions, no pawns exchanged, where one side is a rook up, but all
> the rook can do is run helplessly around behind the zig-zag pawn
> formation, while the computer displays +5. Another would be one of
> those positions where seven or eight reasonable looking alternatives
> favor White, but the computer finds an unlikely way to get to +.01 --
> a rational human would probably consider the position too impractical
> to handle as Black. Another is a case that NW Chess Editor Ralph
> Dubisch pointed out: if you're two physical pawns down and Fritz says
> equal, in the real world, you're practically winning.
But these cases happen in real play less than 5% of the time and
probably < 1%.
>
> An analogy for Ray's linguistic confusion: believing that if one has
> a net worth of $200,000, then one has that stack of actual cash in
> front of him, rather than a (sometimes imprecise) mix of stocks,
> bonds, debts, real estate, personal property, etc., all of which would
> present very real practical difficulties in converting into said stack
> of currency.
Nope, wrong again. Google Mark to Market. Except with illiquid
securities, instruments that you mention are equivalent to cash.
>
> Fritz expression of an advantage in terms of centipawns is merely a
> way of presenting a snapshot of the "net worth" of a position, and has
> little to do with physical pawns.
Nope, try again. De facto equivalent to physical pawns.
>
> If, in the hypermodern spirit, one sacrifices an open file, one hasn't
> sacrificed a pawn, even if the computer judges the sacrifice unsound
> and gives one a minus 100 centipawns.
Nope, try again. The ability of a machine to beat a GM belies your
theory.
RL
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And if somebody hangs a knight, it's equally correct to say he sacked
>> three pawns??
>You are, like TK, mixing up the English language and causing
>confusion. If somebody "hangs" a knight, or a queen, etc, it's not a
>sac at all--it's a blunder.
So, if somebody sacs a knight, it's like saying he sacrificed three
pawns ??
And if he blunders a knight, it's like saying he blundered three pawns
??
sd
> Nope, try again. The ability of a machine to beat a GM belies your
> theory.
The ability to perform a task does not signify an understanding of
that task.
sd
> Nope, try again. De facto equivalent to physical pawns.
Only to the computer, who could not grasp chess any other way.
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An analogy for Ray's linguistic confusion: believing that if one has
>> a net worth of $200,000, then one has that stack of actual cash in
>> front of him, rather than a (sometimes imprecise) mix of stocks,
>> bonds, debts, real estate, personal property, etc., all of which would
>> present very real practical difficulties in converting into said stack
>> of currency.
>Nope, wrong again. Google Mark to Market. Except with illiquid
>securities, instruments that you mention are equivalent to cash.
Yeah, a lot of people thought that when they borrowed (or lent) large
sums of money on real estate a few years ago.
It's an accountant's working assumption, founded on social stability.
It's a useful tool, in many circumstances, an arbitrary common
denominator, providing a rough comparison of the financial situation
of different people. It's really a *prediction* of what you'd get
after converting all assets to a single chosen one. But, with many
components of net worth, you really don't know the actual cash
equivalent until you try to convert it.
It's useful in many circumstances to say that a man with a million
dollars in real estate has the same net worth as a fellow with a
million in the money market and another who owns a million dollars
worth of mortgages. But, they are really quite differently
positioned, different risks, different liquidity in different times.
If Fritz had chose deci-rooks instead of centi-pawns as their unit of
measure, you'd be referring, just as improperly, to Sicilian rook
sacs.
sd
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
>
> >> And if somebody hangs a knight, it's equally correct to say he sacked
> >> three pawns??
> >You are, like TK, mixing up the English language and causing
> >confusion. If somebody "hangs" a knight, or a queen, etc, it's not a
> >sac at all--it's a blunder.
>
> So, if somebody sacs a knight, it's like saying he sacrificed three
> pawns ??
>
> And if he blunders a knight, it's like saying he blundered three pawns
> ??
If you use his term "essentially" and believe undyingly in point count
chess, then yes.
His mistake is taking the computer evaluation of a position and
believing in it as gospel.
He thinks because GMs can't beat the machines (always) that makes them
in a sense, intellectually superior to the GM in matters of chess.
That is like saying since a man can't figure out how to beat an
automobile with him on foot, the car has a better understanding of how
to move quickly.
MikeMurray
wrote:
>> So, if somebody sacs a knight, it's like saying he sacrificed three
>> pawns ??
>> And if he blunders a knight, it's like saying he blundered three pawns
>> ??
>If you use his term "essentially" and believe undyingly in point count
>chess, then yes.
>His mistake is taking the computer evaluation of a position and
>believing in it as gospel.
You might be giving Ray too much credit.
If he'd been arguing about someone "essentially" LOSING a pawn, we
could stretch the point in his favor.
But said Ray, earlier in this thread: "I clearly pointed out to you
that "de facto" a pawn sac exists if Fritz says the position is 0.50
centipawns or greater in favor of the side not making the sac.".
No. No. No.
When a player accepts this backward pawn in return for some form of
compenstion, it's unlikely he's deliberately accepting a position
that's say, sixty centi-pawns *worse*. He normally hopes the
sacrifice will give him an equal or better game.
When a player sacs a knight, it's unlikely he believes he's accepting
a position 300 centipawns worse -- the sacrificer believes he's
getting adequate compensation for the value of the knight.
If the computer correctly judges the attacker to be down 100
centipawns after the knight sac, it's silly to say he sacrificed a
pawn -- what happened is the player misjudged the compensation he'd
get for the knight.
When we give up a pawn for dynamic or positional compensation, and the
computer correctly says we're down 100 centipawns, it means we've made
a mistake in judgement. We believed the sacrifice would lead to an
equal or better position.
Disregardling some Lasker-like psychological ploy, nobody sacrifices
material to get a position in the opponent's favor.
raylopez99
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
>
> >> And if somebody hangs a knight, it's equally correct to say he sacked
> >> three pawns??
> >You are, like TK, mixing up the English language and causing
> >confusion. If somebody "hangs" a knight, or a queen, etc, it's not a
> >sac at all--it's a blunder.
>
> So, if somebody sacs a knight, it's like saying he sacrificed three
> pawns ??
>
> And if he blunders a knight, it's like saying he blundered three pawns
> ??
Nope, try again. You have to distinquish between a blunder, a pseudo-
sac and a true sac. I'm not an online tutor.
RL
raylopez99
Nope, Marvin Minsky and AI belies your theory.
I'll back Dr. Minsky rather than you.
RL
raylopez99
And autopilots on every commercial jumbo jet you fly.
RL
raylopez99
>
> He thinks because GMs can't beat the machines (always) that makes them
> in a sense, intellectually superior to the GM in matters of chess.
>
But it does.
> That is like saying since a man can't figure out how to beat an
> automobile with him on foot, the car has a better understanding of how
> to move quickly.
But it does.
RL
raylopez99
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT), sd <sdowd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> So, if somebody sacs a knight, it's like saying he sacrificed three
> >> pawns ??
> >> And if he blunders a knight, it's like saying he blundered three pawns
> >> ??
> >If you use his term "essentially" and believe undyingly in point count
> >chess, then yes.
> >His mistake is taking the computer evaluation of a position and
> >believing in it as gospel.
>
> You might be giving Ray too much credit.
>
> If he'd been arguing about someone "essentially" LOSING a pawn, we
> could stretch the point in his favor.
>
> But said Ray, earlier in this thread: "I clearly pointed out to you
> that "de facto" a pawn sac exists if Fritz says the position is 0.50
> centipawns or greater in favor of the side not making the sac.".
>
> No. No. No.
Yes, yes it does.
>
> When a player accepts this backward pawn in return for some form of
> compenstion, it's unlikely he's deliberately accepting a position
> that's say, sixty centi-pawns *worse*. He normally hopes the
> sacrifice will give him an equal or better game.
But you seem to not understand what a sac is. I'll be an online
tutor, just for you. Pay attention please.
A true sac (de facto or just counting pawns and pieces, either way is
fine) cannot be completely determined by a chess computer (or by the
persons over the board--think Tal). Say you sac your rook for an
opponents knight (exchange sac). A true sac will show up as about
-280 centipawns in your opponents favor. But a true sac will
ultimately work in your favor, so eventually the position will be
rated (as the game progresses) even or better for you (the side with
"less material") by Fritz. But keep in mind that within a chess
program's "move horizon" (I trust you know what this means) a true sac
cannot be seen for what it is: a Greek gift or Trojan horse (not
unlike the Greek Gift sac of bishop for two pawns in chess). That is,
a true sac cannot be seen as even or better for the side making the
sac by the PC.
Contrast this with a pseudo-sac: sacrificing your queen for nothing,
but say it's mate in one if the queen is taken. Fritz, seeing this is
a pseudo-sac, will not rate you down 900 centipawns, but the opposite.
Contrast all of the above with a blunder: that also appears as a
deficit by Fritz, but with this difference: for most true sacs "some"
centipawns are usually given to the side making the true sac, whereas
for a blunder nothing is given: so say a pawn *blunder* will be rated
-100 rather than say -75 (if it was a sac) by Fritz.
>
> When a player sacs a knight, it's unlikely he believes he's accepting
> a position 300 centipawns worse -- the sacrificer believes he's
> getting adequate compensation for the value of the knight.
That's correct.
>
> If the computer correctly judges the attacker to be down 100
> centipawns after the knight sac, it's silly to say he sacrificed a
> pawn -- what happened is the player misjudged the compensation he'd
> get for the knight.
You are confusing semantics. Nobody is arguing this point. I'm
simply saying e6 or d6 effectively is de facto a pawn sac in the
Sicilian on the side of Black.
>
> When we give up a pawn for dynamic or positional compensation, and the
> computer correctly says we're down 100 centipawns, it means we've made
> a mistake in judgement. We believed the sacrifice would lead to an
> equal or better position.
Maybe. Though I've seen instances where a true sac was so outside the
chess engine's "move horizon" that indeed the true sac was classified
as a blunder by the chess engine. Admitedly, these instances are
rare, but they exist.
>
> Disregardling some Lasker-like psychological ploy, nobody sacrifices
> material to get a position in the opponent's favor.
Red herring. Stay on topic.
RL
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If he'd been arguing about someone "essentially" LOSING a pawn, we
>> could stretch the point in his favor.
>> But said Ray, earlier in this thread: "I clearly pointed out to you
>> that "de facto" a pawn sac exists if Fritz says the position is 0.50
>> centipawns or greater in favor of the side not making the sac.".
>> No. No. No.
>Yes, yes it does.
>> When a player accepts this backward pawn in return for some form of
>> compenstion, it's unlikely he's deliberately accepting a position
>> that's say, sixty centi-pawns *worse*. He normally hopes the
>> sacrifice will give him an equal or better game.
>But you seem to not understand what a sac is. I'll be an online
>tutor, just for you. Pay attention please.
And I believe I'm paying what the "tutorial" is worth.
>A true sac (de facto or just counting pawns and pieces, either way is
>fine) cannot be completely determined by a chess computer (or by the
>persons over the board--think Tal).
Again, your lack of experience is showing. This is a very old
distinction between a "sacrifice" and a "combination".
But when you say "a computer", you refer to the whole set of
computers, including super-computers and next year's model onward. You
could define "sacrifice" as something the value of which cannot be
determined by the *particular* computer analyzing the position in the
time allocated and you'd be on safer ground. Maybe this is what you
intended.
What's a "sacrifice" and what's a "combination" seems relative to a
particular player in specific circumstances. What is to Kasparov or
Fritz a "combination" might be a "sacrifice" to me.
>Say you sac your rook for an
>opponents knight (exchange sac). A true sac will show up as about
>-280 centipawns in your opponents favor. But a true sac will
>ultimately work in your favor, so eventually the position will be
>rated (as the game progresses) even or better for you (the side with
>"less material") by Fritz.
What you're calling a "true sac" will work out in one's favor only if
one has judged (or guessed) correctly. Experienced players normally
refer to this as a "sound" sacrifice.
>But keep in mind that within a chess
>program's "move horizon" (I trust you know what this means) a true sac
>cannot be seen for what it is: a Greek gift or Trojan horse (not
>unlike the Greek Gift sac of bishop for two pawns in chess). That is,
>a true sac cannot be seen as even or better for the side making the
>sac by the PC.
Because it would then be a "combination".
>Contrast this with a pseudo-sac: sacrificing your queen for nothing,
>but say it's mate in one if the queen is taken. Fritz, seeing this is
>a pseudo-sac, will not rate you down 900 centipawns, but the opposite.
Again, a "combination".
>Contrast all of the above with a blunder: that also appears as a
>deficit by Fritz, but with this difference: for most true sacs "some"
>centipawns are usually given to the side making the true sac, whereas
>for a blunder nothing is given: so say a pawn *blunder* will be rated
>-100 rather than say -75 (if it was a sac) by Fritz.
I see minimal value in defining "sacrifice" and "blunder" this way.
Sacrifices, sound or unsound, are always intentional, but I can
"blunder" my queen because I didn't see the knight fork, and had no
intention of giving away material.
>I'm simply saying e6 or d6 effectively is de facto a pawn sac in the
>Sicilian on the side of Black.
So you're saying White wins a pawn by force? Is that what you mean by
"effectively de facto"? Naaaa.
>> Disregardling some Lasker-like psychological ploy, nobody sacrifices
>> material to get a position in the opponent's favor.
>Red herring. Stay on topic.
That you would consider this a red herring underlines your lack of
understanding of the issue. If one makes a move that superficially
appears to sacrifice material but the player has *calculated* that it
really gains relative advantage, then it's a "combination". If the
players *judges* that it gains relative advantage, but is unable to
prove it to himself OTB by calculation,then it's a "sacrifice", which
may, in retrospect, prove "sound" or "unsound".
But OTB, we have "practical chances". It's quite possible that a
player will judge that a particular move leads, with best play, to a
disadvantage, but that the opponent will be unable to find the best
line. The move in question could involve some positional theme, a
sacrifice, or even a combination.
The key point in all these semantics is that the player making a move
which gives up material (1) KNOWS he's giving up material, (2) INTENDS
to receive compensation, but (3) CAN'T PROVE IT through calculation.
sd
> On Apr 23, 4:34 pm, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > He thinks because GMs can't beat the machines (always) that makes them
> > in a sense, intellectually superior to the GM in matters of chess.
>
> But it does.
No and the fact that you cannot differentiate between performance and
understanding shows you are in a position where you need to listen,
not constantly babble nonsense just to be heard.
>
> > That is like saying since a man can't figure out how to beat an
> > automobile with him on foot, the car has a better understanding of how
> > to move quickly.
>
> But it does.
A car has no understanding of anything. You really are incapable of
*understanding* that?
sd
> On Apr 23, 4:22 pm, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 2:45 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > > Nope, try again. The ability of a machine to beat a GM belies your
> > > theory.
>
> > The ability to perform a task does not signify an understanding of
> > that task.
>
> Nope, Marvin Minsky and AI belies your theory.
I do believe you bring up unrelated nonsense just to muddy the waters
and listen to yourself babble.
The Master
wrote:
> > There may well be many chessplayers reading this who are not yet
> > familiar with even the most basic strategic terminology, just like
> > Mr. Kingston. So I have decided to post a handy link to a brief
> > article in which the backward pawn is properly described
>
> Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
> queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule.
You sound very confused, Lestrade. If you really believe that I
once
insisted that a black knight on f2 attacks a white queen on e2, then
quote
me. I expect you will, as always, be 'unable to find' such a quote by
me.
> If I had a
> dollar for every gaffe Kennedy and Lopez have posted, I could probably
> buy a new Cadillac.
'Changing the subject' is a good idea, especially considering how
you
got arse-whooped by Ray for being a chess book editor but not knowing
rudimentary chess terminology!
> I make the occasional mistake myself, as do we all. Unlike the Twin
> Trolls, however, I am quite willing to acknowledge and correct my
> mistakes
'Sometimes' willing, depending on who it was that pointed out your
gaffes.
In one case an annoying fellow pointed out that Alekhine did not
live
in Spain at the very end of his life, and you responded with what can
only be described as a ludicrous attempt to 'rephrase' his correction
such that _you were 'correcting' him_ for claiming that Alekhine had
lived in Portugal! For a moment I thought I was seeing double, as
in
two insane-Inneses. Then it hit me-- you were once again in denial.
You could not admit that you had left out Portugal, so you went after
that poor fellow by constructing one of your infamous 'psychotic
defenses.'
> as I did some time ago on the matter of backward pawns. In
> contrast, Kennedy and Lopez seldom or never admit their far more
> numerous errors.
> This is all just a matter of personal prejudice. Because Kennedy
> dislikes me, he jumps all over my minor mistake, that in the
> Scheveningen Sicilian Black has a backward pawn.
I believe it is perfectly clear that confusing the Scheviningen
with
(the similar sounding) Sveshnikov is small potatoes. What Ray and
I have commented on as 'shocking' is the fact that a chess book
editor could have no clue what a backward pawn is. It seems odd
to say the least, but only because we are so accustomed to claims
of '2300+' strength. I could not name a single 2300+ player I have
ever known who did not have such rudimentary knowledge. If you
had claimed to be say, 1400 strength, I would simply guess that
your skill lay in tactics and you did not bother studying books or
reading say, Pandolfini's ABCs of chess.
Former world champion Mikhail Tal reportedly studied and re-
studied the basics of chess-- even very simple things like pawn
structure. He is said to have done so even after winning the wc
title! I would highly recommend reading Pandolfini's ABCs of
chess or some other such book. The worst that can happen is
you discover that you already 'know everything' (not likely in your
case, TK).
The Master
> Well, that goes without saying. If Lopez and Kennedy are finished
> burning incense before the computer, perhaps they should be told that
> Fritz thinks White is nearly .5 of a pawn ahead after 1.e4 c5. Such
> evaluations are utterly meaningless. Ray Lopez is obviously a patzer,
> but I'm surprised that Greg Kennedy, who used to be a decent player,
> doesn't take more pride in his work. If you want a definition of
> "backward pawn," look it up in the _Oxford Companion._ A rather better
> reference work than Wikipedia, which any nitwit can alter.
Dude, what are you smoking?
Taylor Kingston was discussing this centipawn thing with 'Ray
Lopez,'
not Greg Kennedy. The whole 'justification thing' is typical of Phil
Innes,
who I believe is the man behind the curtain of the Ray Lopez
identity. In
fact, only Innes would be so bold (and stupid) as to think he could
get
away with calling Fritz scores 'pawns' rather than 'points.' And
only
Kingston would take such idiocy seriously.
I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
link I
provided earlier. Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly
good
definition, but I cannot be held responsible for the actions of
imbeciles.
The Oxford Companion contains quite a lot of information in one
handy
spot. But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
of
a book like Pawn Power in Chess (although that may or may not be
available in algebraic notation).
raylopez99
> The key point in all these semantics is that the player making a move
> which gives up material (1) KNOWS he's giving up material, (2) INTENDS
> to receive compensation, but (3) CAN'T PROVE IT through calculation.
Right. So we are in violent agreement. Hence in e6 and d6 of the
Sicilian de facto it's a pawn sacrifice. Your distinction between
what I call a pseudo-sac and you call a combination is immaterial to
this.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 21, 9:21 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
> > queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule.
>
> You sound very confused, Lestrade. If you really believe that I
> once insisted that a black knight on f2 attacks a white queen on e2,
> then quote me. I expect you will, as always, be 'unable to find' such a
> quote by me.
Tell you what, Greg: I'll be merciful to start out. Take a look at
the thread titled "Unusual oversight by two great players," which you
seem to have forgotten:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_thread/thread/dfb4e25acfb72987#
If you post a penitential retraction, I'll square it with the Man
Upstairs so that you don't burn in hell, at least for this particular
transgression. But continue in sin, and you're toast, bro.
micky
> > Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
> > queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule.
>
> You sound very confused, Lestrade.
No.. you're the one with your knickers in a twist cher-unlock....
>If you really believe that I once insisted that a black knight on f2 attacks a white queen on e2, then quote me. I expect you will, as always, be 'unable to find' such a quote by me.
Taylor's obviously absent (probably away, cruising around in his
expensive, fully-imported kraut sportscar - without telling anyone on
rgc..) & it's always hard to say what anyone else "believes" but not to
state he never did "insist" as you maintain he did above; he merely
pointed out your reckless, gung-ho, approach to a position under more
sober consideration...So, there's no need to onerously traipse back
through stuff - searching for exactly what ? - more ridiculous
red-herrings by a notorious slap-dash ?
Coincidentally & independently, I too chose to post on the subject under
examination @ approximately the same time as TK (so readers can assure
themselves I know exactly what I'm talking about..) - noting that - even
as *you* would like the White queen on d1 with a resultant f2
knight-fork the facts (as given by the op -- namely that the white-queen
in each of the three famous instances was actually on e2) elicits a
vastly different scenario..
m.
Taylor Kingston
>
> Taylor's obviously absent (probably away, cruising around in his
> expensive, fully-imported kraut sportscar - without telling anyone on
> rgc..)
I was away, but not in the Porsche. Drove the Chrysler Pacifica down
to Chevy Chase, Maryland to attend a big social affair. My daughter is
marrying a young man from there, and his family hosted a reception for
their friends and relatives to meet the bride and her family. Great
time, wonderful people.
> Coincidentally & independently, I too chose to post on the subject under
> examination @ approximately the same time as TK (so readers can assure
> themselves I know exactly what I'm talking about..) - noting that - even
> as *you* would like the White queen on d1 with a resultant f2
> knight-fork the facts (as given by the op -- namely that the white-queen
> in each of the three famous instances was actually on e2) elicits a
> vastly different scenario..
Indeed you did, Mick, just a few minutes before I did. We must have
been composing our messages at the same time. Your riposte to Kennedy
read:
"In the three games given by the op - white's sixth is always 6.Qe2
- I'd have thought a 1600 would not have overseen such a less than
innocuous move... still, stranger things are known - like maybe you're
really a 1200 ....."
But our Greg missed both our posts, along with the position of the
white queen and black knight in the position in question.
The Master
wrote:
> > > Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
> > > queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_thread/thr...
I just revisited that thread and indeed, it appears that my attempt
at
blindfold analysis (duly noted as such therein) overlooked the fact
that
the white queen had just moved to e2 and was no longer on d1. How
you managed to contort this kind of oversight into a 'claim' such as
the ludicrous one above escapes the rational mind. Perhaps it is a
sign of desperation, egged on by the emotional need to change the
subject (or exact revenge) for my having noted your pathetic state
regarding elementary knowledge of pawn structure.
In any case, my contributions that night to the linked thread
appear
as incoherent as a typical Phil Innes rant! I overlooked the fact
that
Anderssen had lost one of the two games, as someone later noted,
and I also imagined that the queen was still on d1. My guess is
that in addition to being terrible at blindfold analysis, I must have
also been exceedingly tired that night-- how else to explain falling
so very far as to glipse the delusional world of PI?
> If you post a penitential retraction
'The penitant man is humble. He kneels before God.'
-- Indiana Jones
> I'll square it with the Man
> Upstairs so that you don't burn in hell, at least for this particular
> transgression. But continue in sin, and you're toast, bro.
A heretic, eh? As Martin Luthor had it, your corrupt attempts to
sell or negotiate 'salvation' in exchange for favors (or gold) reveal
a
thing or two about you which ought to be very carefully noted.
That being said, I wonder if you would consider throwing in that
new Corvette you're always talking about-- the one that costs
seventy thousand dollars? Remember, material things (like this
Corvette of yours) are meaningless. You shall receive your due
reward in the after life-- and I have no doubt that such a vehicle
will be of no use to you as you will undoubtedly be kept busy
pushing your rock repeatedly up that hill while staring admiringly
at your own reflection in the water.
Taylor Kingston
> On Apr 27, 11:31 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > > Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
> > > > queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_thread/thr...
>
> I just revisited that thread and indeed, it appears that my attempt
> at
> blindfold analysis (duly noted as such therein) overlooked the fact
> that
> the white queen had just moved to e2 and was no longer on d1.
Our Greg admits an error? We should notify the New York Times.
> How
> you managed to contort this kind of oversight into a 'claim' such as
> the ludicrous one above escapes the rational mind.
I will agree that it escapes your mind, Greg. However, not a
rational mind.
> In any case, my contributions that night to the linked thread
> appear as incoherent as a typical Phil Innes rant!
Indeed.
> I overlooked the fact that
> Anderssen had lost one of the two games, as someone later noted,
> and I also imagined that the queen was still on d1. My guess is
> that in addition to being terrible at blindfold analysis, I must have
> also been exceedingly tired that night-- how else to explain falling
> so very far as to glipse the delusional world of PI?
There is no need to guess; the facts are plain from your years of
posts here. You are a mendacious troll who does not much care what he
says, as long as it insults someone.
> 'The penitant man is humble. He kneels before God.'
> -- Indiana Jones
Jeez , learn to spell, Greg.
> As Martin Luthor had it ...
You mean Lex?
The Master
wrote:
> > > > > Coming from a guy who said a black knight on f2 attacks a white
> > > > > queen on e2, this is even richer than Ray's ridicule.
Kneejerk ad hominem reaction noted.
> You are a mendacious troll who does not much care what he
> says, as long as it insults someone.
What about your ad hominem style of argument-- I think it works
perfectly here. As a mendacious troll, you dare to call _me_ one?
This is so rich, I feel like King Midas-- surrounded by gold and yet
unable to find a scrap of food to eat!
I did not consider Ray's commentary to be ridicule so much as
a rare moment of clarity and astute criticism on his part. Do you
not agree that a typical reader here would be 'shocked' to learn
that an arrogant chess book editor has no clue what a backward
pawn is? Well, in any case it is the book author who must know
such things, while his editors mainly search for typos and spelling
errors, focusing on trivial things the finding of which offers some
small compensation for their shortcommings.
Here is a very, very small effort on my part: in reading one of
Yasser's books I noticed he uses the term 'spear' where he means
'fork.' I found this rather surprising in view of his undeniable
skill
at the game. But then again, using the wrong word does not cost
rating points or the GM title! Only making bad moves would do
harm to the former, while nothing can take away the latter except
maybe pissing off the FIDE assembly.
Do you happen to know the difference between a spear and a
fork? A spear of course is a weapon useful against lions and
hyenas, while a fork is not often used in respect to them. I was
out of chess for quite a few years, but I believe I can still recall
the difference between a fork and a spear, which leaves me
quite puzzled as to Seirawan's peculiar choice of words. Now,
don't go running to your bookcase for the Oxford Companion. I
want to know if you have a clue right now, not after looking it up
in some reference.
And besides, Ray himself called his reaction 'shock,' not
ridicule. Perhaps you were thinking of the Smothers Brothers.
Taylor Kingston
>
> I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
> link I provided earlier.
Greg, you are as blatant and inept a liar as anyone I've ever read
here. You are referring to this link, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_pawn
You posted that link on 21 April 2010, in this thread. And as anyone
can check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backward_pawn&action=history
that Wikipedia page, as of now, has not been altered since 16 April
2010, five days /before/ you posted the link. And I can assure you
that I have never altered it, as can also be checked in the above
revision history.
I haven't altered it, even though it badly needs alteration, because
I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves what a bad definition you
recommended something "in which the backward pawn is properly
described."
> Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly
> good definition,
Yes, and you also thought it was perfectly obvious that a black
knight on f2 attacked a white queen, even when the queen stood on
e2.
> but I cannot be held responsible for the actions of
> imbeciles.
Ah, so now the "perfectly good definition" is the work of imbeciles.
So then you were equally imbecilic to recommend it?
> The Oxford Companion contains quite a lot of information in one
> handy
> spot. But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
> of a book like Pawn Power in Chess
By Hans Kmoch? I've had that book for years. Kmoch's definition of
"backwardness," on pages 25-26, differs significantly from the
Wikipedia article you so strongly supported. If, as you claim, you
knew Kmoch to have the "real understanding," how could you have
recommended something so different?
raylopez99
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 12:24 pm, micky <mi...@adamsky.blu.net.com> wrote:
> > Taylor's obviously absent (probably away, cruising around in his
> > expensive, fully-imported kraut sportscar - without telling anyone on
> > rgc..)
>
> I was away, but not in the Porsche. Drove the Chrysler Pacifica down
> to Chevy Chase, Maryland to attend a big social affair. My daughter is
> marrying a young man from there, and his family hosted a reception for
> their friends and relatives to meet the bride and her family. Great
> time, wonderful people.
You have kids? I guess gays do marry and reproduce. Chevy Chase...I
see, she married a rich jew that works for the NIH. Good for her.
>
> Indeed you did, Mick, just a few minutes before I did. We must have
> been composing our messages at the same time.
BS. Methinks you and cross-dressing freak Micky are one and the same.
> But our Greg missed both our posts, along with the position of the
> white queen and black knight in the position in question.
Queen? Black? I see where you're going with that...
Why don't you admit you know nothing about chess but trivia? Is chess
nothing but a trivial pursuit, as some say? Or is it a laboratory for
AI? Looking at your posts one would assume the former.
RL
The Master
wrote:
> > I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
> > link I provided earlier.
My comment above was made _in response to_ a claim here in rgc
by someone that 'any imbecile' could modify wikipedia's articles-- a
claim which seemed to be complaining about the absurdity of the
definition of a 'backward pawn' which had been mucked up since I
read it. It was only logical to conclude therefore that *if* it had
in
fact been modified (his claim, not mine) as described, the culprit in
question was most likely Taylor Kingston. Who else fits the above
description, had a motive to modify the wiki definition to something
absurd, and is the sort of lowlife who might stoop to that level?
Come on Lestrade, you know the answer.
> that Wikipedia page, as of now, has not been altered since 16 April
> 2010, five days /before/ you posted the link. And I can assure you
> that I have never altered it, as can also be checked in the above
> revision history.
Good work, Inspector! For once, you have actually done some
real 'legwork' before leaping to unwarranted conclusions... or
sending off a letter to the editor before even bothering to ponder
the issues you are arrogantly pontificating on.
> I haven't altered it, even though it badly needs alteration, because
> I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves what a bad definition you
> recommended something "in which the backward pawn is properly
> described."
Readers here might be interested to know what you -- an admitted
ignoramus on the matter of what a backward pawn is -- now believe
you 'know' about the subject. The other fellow seemed reluctant to
chat about what made him so unhappy about the definition given at
wikipedia.org, preferring instead to attack its allegeded modifier
with
epithets.
> > Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly good definition,
>
> Yes, and you also thought it was perfectly obvious that a black
> knight on f2 attacked a white queen, even when the queen stood on
> e2.
Is this supposed to be a 'retraction' of your previous claim, that
I
had 'maintained' that a knight on f2 in fact attacks d1? Or are you
just playing around with the words, like a small child in a sandbox.
Of course, you do realize that you are free to quote me in context,
if you wish to discuss things like a mature adult. I seem to recall
a fellow by the name of Louis Blair who liked to quote things as
opposed to playing with the words to make of them what you will
like your very own 'playdough.'
> > But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
> > of a book like Pawn Power in Chess
>
> By Hans Kmoch? I've had that book for years. Kmoch's definition of
> "backwardness," on pages 25-26, differs significantly from the
> Wikipedia article you so strongly supported. If, as you claim, you
> knew Kmoch to have the "real understanding," how could you have
> recommended something so different?
Please provide a quote to support your crazy idea (that I 'know'
HK to have this real understanding). I of course know I have not
said any such thing, but after that last go-around I cannot rule out
the possibility of temporary insanity!
If you object to Kmoch's odd approach, there is always the book
by Andrew Soltis. In any case, either of these writers had at
least a far superior understanding of the subject than that which
was displayed by you in the post which even 'Ray Lopez' found
to be 'shocking' in its revelations, and which I happened to note
another of your careless gaffes.