English edition of Najdorf's book on Zurich 1953

[Taylor Kingston]

I thought rgc readers might be interested to know that for the first
time, an English edition of GM MIguel Najdorf's book on the 1953
Neuhausen-Zürich Candidates Tournament, one of the greatest
tournaments of all time, is now available:

http://www.russell-enterprises.com/zurich53.html

The original Spanish version, titled "15 Aspirantes al Título
Mundial", was published in two volumes back around 1954. This English
edition, which it was my privilege to translate and edit, combines
both volumes and is in figurine algebraic notation.

[samsloan]

A great contribution.

Thank you.

Sam Sloan

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 18, 9:47 am, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

I should mention a bonus not available (or possible) in the original
Spanish edition. In the course of editing the book, all the games were
subjected to computer analysis with Rybka 3 UCI. Any significant
analysis errors or omissions so discovered were compiled in an
analytical appendix, which buyers of the book can download (at no
charge) in pdf format from the Russell Enterprises web-site.

[raylopez99]

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:55:16 AM UTC+8, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> I should mention a bonus not available (or possible) in the original
> Spanish edition. In the course of editing the book, all the games were
> subjected to computer analysis with Rybka 3 UCI. Any significant
> analysis errors or omissions so discovered were compiled in an
> analytical appendix, which buyers of the book can download (at no
> charge) in pdf format from the Russell Enterprises web-site.

What is this, a joke? The English version of the all-time best selling Zurich 1953 tournament was translated into Spanish then back to English? You expect people to buy this? Is Sam Sloan cross-posting in your name or have you lost your walnut sized mind?

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 21, 4:28 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:55:16 AM UTC+8, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >   I should mention a bonus not available (or possible) in the original
> > Spanish edition. In the course of editing the book, all the games were
> > subjected to computer analysis with Rybka 3 UCI. Any significant
> > analysis errors or omissions so discovered were compiled in an
> > analytical appendix, which buyers of the book can download (at no
> > charge) in pdf format from the Russell Enterprises web-site.
>
> What is this, a joke?  The English version of the all-time best selling Zurich 1953 tournament was translated into Spanish then back to English?

Ray, although it appears that English is your native language, you
seem strangely incapable of reading it with any semblance of
comprehension.

[None]

You translated and edited the English edition to what? Lakota?

[Taylor Kingston]

No, Stan. Najdorf wrote the original book in Spanish. As far as I
know, that original Spanish edition had never been translated into any
other language. I translated it from Spanish into English.

Got it now?

[None]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:07:21 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> No, Stan. Najdorf wrote the original book in Spanish. As far as I
> know, that original Spanish edition had never been translated into any
> other language. I translated it from Spanish into English.
>
> Got it now?

"This English edition, which it was my privilege to translate and edit, combines both volumes and is in figurine algebraic notation."--T. Kingston

But you said it was your priviledge to translate the English version. But now you claim you didn't translate the English version but rather you translated the Spanish version into English. As Desi would say, "Ay caramba."

[Taylor Kingston]

Yes, I translated the English edition. The original book was in
Spanish. I translated it into English. Thus I am the translator of the
English edition.
I suppose if I had written "I fed my dog," you would ask who I fed
him to.

[None]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:36:56 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> >
> > "This English edition, which it was my privilege to translate and edit, combines both volumes and is in figurine algebraic notation."--T. Kingston
> >
> > But you said it was your priviledge to translate the English version. But now you claim you didn't translate the English version but rather you translated the Spanish version into English. As Desi would say, "Ay caramba."
>
> Yes, I translated the English edition. The original book was in
> Spanish. I translated it into English. Thus I am the translator of the
> English edition.
> I suppose if I had written "I fed my dog," you would ask who I fed
> him to.

Yes, I was wondering about that. Seriously, how did you come to be so fluent in Spanish and German?

[Taylor Kingston]

I took three years of Spanish in grades 7-9, three of German in
grades 10-12, and also a semester each in college. Plus, growing up
in San Diego, I had contact with many Spanish-speaking people from
nearby Mexico. I would not say I'm fluent in German; I speak it
halfway decently but read it with difficulty. Spanish is easier; for
example it has only four ways to say "the" while German has about ten,
depending on whether the noun involved is singular or plural, and
masculine, feminine or neuter, and the case is nominative, dative,
accusative or possessive.

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 18, 9:47 am, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:

This link shows the TOC, the forewords by GMs Averbakh and Soltis,
and some sample games:

http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf

Soltis does a lengthy comparison of this book by Najdorf with the
more famous one by Bronstein. He concludes:

"In the half-century since Bronstein’s work was published, it was
hailed as the perfect tournament book. It is, of course, a classic.
But it might be just the /second-best/ book written about this
tournament."

[The Historian]

Looks like a fantastic book. I look forward to playing through it,
Thanks for the translation!

[raylopez99]

But you lie (mentira) muerta for brains. The 1953 Zurich book was written originally in Russian and English*. Hoist by your own petard, retard.

RL

* Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 (Dover Chess) [Paperback]
David Bronstein (Author)

Product Details
Paperback: 384 pages
Publisher: Dover Publications (July 1, 1979)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0486238008
ISBN-13: 978-0486238005

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 8, 3:45 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:36:56 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On May 24, 10:33 am, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:07:21 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > >   No, Stan. Najdorf wrote the original book in Spanish. As far as I
> > > > know, that original Spanish edition had never been translated into any
> > > > other language. I translated it from Spanish into English.
>
> > > >   Got it now?
>
> > > "This English edition, which it was my privilege to translate and edit, combines both volumes and is in figurine algebraic notation."--T. Kingston
>
> > > But you said it was your priviledge to translate the English version. But now you claim you didn't translate the English version but rather you translated the Spanish version into English. As Desi would say, "Ay caramba."
>
> >   Yes, I translated the English edition. The original book was in
> > Spanish. I translated it into English. Thus I am the translator of the
> > English edition.
> >   I suppose if I had written "I fed my dog," you would ask who I fed
> > him to.
>
> But you lie (mentira) muerta for brains.  The 1953 Zurich book was written originally in Russian and English*.  Hoist by your own petard, retard.
>
> RL
>
> * Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 (Dover Chess) [Paperback]
> David Bronstein (Author)

Ray, as you have been known to say, "lern to reed." I did not
translate Bronstein's book on Zurich 1953. I translated a different
book on the same tournament, by GM Miguel Najdorf. Two different
authors, two different books.

There have been a total of four different books about this
tournament by four different authors: by Najdorf, Bronstein, Euwe, and
Stahblerg. Najdorf's was written in Spanish. I translated it into
English:

http://www.russell-enterprises.com/zurich53.html

Got it now?

[raylopez99]

On Friday, June 8, 2012 7:34:11 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:45 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The 1953 Zurich book was written originally in Russian and English*.
> >

> > * Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 (Dover Chess) [Paperback]
> > David Bronstein (Author)
>
> Ray, as you have been known to say, "lern to reed." I did not
> translate Bronstein's book on Zurich 1953. I translated a different
> book on the same tournament, by GM Miguel Najdorf. Two different
> authors, two different books.
>
> There have been a total of four different books about this
> tournament by four different authors: by Najdorf, Bronstein, Euwe, and
> Stahblerg. Najdorf's was written in Spanish. I translated it into
> English:
>
> http://www.russell-enterprises.com/zurich53.html
>
> Got it now?

Yeah, got it, it's a no-brainer. You translated Najdorf's book of Brontein's from Spanish to English from the original Russian. A mind is a terrible thing to waste; good thing you are not wasting anything.

RL

[Detectorist]

Taylor: Do you have a source for the the original Spanish edition? I
had it but it got lost.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 11, 1:52 pm, Detectorist <johnj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Taylor: Do you have a source for the the original Spanish edition? I
> had it but it got lost.

Not sure what you mean by source. I worked from the original 1954
edition, which was in Spanish descriptive notation. A while back a new
edition of volume 1 (half the games) was put out, still in Spanish but
with figurine algebraic notation (and some of the text abridged), by
Editorial Chessy of Asturias, Spain, but I did not use that.

[Detectorist]

I mean an original Spanish edition i could buy?

[Taylor Kingston]

I have no idea. It's pretty rare. The one I used was borrowed from a
friend of the publisher. If you find one for sale, I'd guess the price
would be pretty high.
The Editorial Chessy edition can be obtained from various Spanish
booksellers at abebooks.com, but as I said, that version adbridged
some of the text — and occasionally got some of the note variations
wrong too! And I don't think they've published Volume 2 yet.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=najdorf&sts=t&tn=15+aspirantes&x=115&y=11

[raylopez99]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 8:19:54 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> I have no idea. It's pretty rare. The one I used was borrowed from a
> friend of the publisher. If you find one for sale, I'd guess the price
> would be pretty high.
> The Editorial Chessy edition can be obtained from various Spanish
> booksellers at abebooks.com, but as I said, that version adbridged
> some of the text — and occasionally got some of the note variations
> wrong too! And I don't think they've published Volume 2 yet.
>

I like your showman style, pumping an obscure book like it's the secret to life itself. Tell us what does your book have that Bronstein's does not? A collection of annotated games, quite possibly the same annotations of Bronstein's (i.e. copyright infringement)?

Do you also sell railway schedules to obsessive-compulsive psychos? About as interesting.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

> Tell us what does your book have that Bronstein's does not?  A collection of annotated games, quite possibly the same annotations of Bronstein's (i.e. copyright infringement)?

The deliberately stupid question probably deserves no answer, but as
a partial one, here's an excerpt from GM Andy Soltis' foreword to the
Najdorf book ( http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf
):

Now as to the books, Najdorf versus Bronstein: Fans who assume that
grandmasters agree on the key moments of a game will be stunned when
they compare the two texts. What one annotator considers crucial, the
other sees as trivial. In game 38, for example, Bronstein wrote that
he could not have passed up the surprising exchange sacrifice 24.Rxe6.
Najdorf made no comment. Three moves later Najdorf criticized 27...a6
as a poor way to defend. Bronstein ignored that move, indicating the
game was over.
Bronstein – or rather Bronstein and his un-credited co-author,
spymaster Boris Veinstein – annotated in a style that was often brief
and cryptic compared with Najdorf. The Argentine’s notes are
frequently twice as detailed, such as in games 117, 120 and the
blunder-filled 130. Bronstein is kind when it comes to mistakes.
Najdorf, on the other hand, more than once called a blunder
“incredible” and he awarded question marks to three straight Bronstein
moves in game 61.
Most readers who are familiar with Bronstein’s book will have seen a
translation of the second Russian edition, which appeared well after
Najdorf’s book. In it, Bronstein indirectly acknowledged how much he
disagreed with the Argentine.
For example, in game 32, Najdorf found 19.Nxg6 inexplicable. Bronstein
replied, “This exchange is explained by Euwe’s intention to give mate
by opening the h-file.”
Bronstein’s reluctance to use punctuation marks often leaves you
wondering where the games were won or lost. Not so with Najdorf. In
game 21 you know what he thinks of “15.dxe6!” and “19.Nf3!” or in game
48 about “19...Bf5?” His
use of punctuation makes the outcome of several games, including games
85, 93, 103 and 104 much easier to understand than in Bronstein’s
work.
This is not just a matter of taste. The instructional nature of the
work is affected. Najdorf’s awarding of a question mark to 13...c4 in
game 112 helps explain why it’s a classic example of prematurely
closing the center. Bronstein’s
comment on the move (“He should stick to waiting tactics and act in
accordance with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful.

[raylopez99]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:03:20 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> This is not just a matter of taste. The instructional nature of the
> work is affected. Najdorf’s awarding of a question mark to 13...c4 in
> game 112 helps explain why it’s a classic example of prematurely
> closing the center. Bronstein’s
> comment on the move (“He should stick to waiting tactics and act in
> accordance with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful.

Yeah well you left out the rest of that passage by Averback which I reproduce below. Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well, and the instruction value of a mistake filled tome is questionable in this day and age where you can run the Zurich 1953 games through a computer and get an instant answer, as Kasparov himself states: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/summer2012/russias-grandest-master

RL

Enough carping. You can enjoy this book just by marveling at the games.
Here you’ll find, for example, Alexander Kotov’s greatest victory, game 96, featuring
the ...Qxh3+! move that adorns his tombstone. Curiously Najdorf does not
point out the faster win, 33...Ng4!, that mars the combination

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 12, 5:26 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:03:20 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >   This is not just a matter of taste. The instructional nature of the
> > work is affected. Najdorf’s awarding of a question mark to 13...c4 in
> > game 112 helps explain why it’s a classic example of prematurely
> > closing the center. Bronstein’s
> > comment on the move (“He should stick to waiting tactics and act in
> > accordance with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful.
>
> Yeah well you left out the rest of that passage by Averback which I reproduce below.

"Averback"? Who is that? Besides, what you quote below was written
by Soltis. Pleeeezz lern to reed, Ray?

>  Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well,

No, really? A man, making mistakes?? Whodathunkit!
That's why I compiled a computer-assisted supplement, an appendix of
analytical errors discovered while working on the book. Buy the book,
and you can download all the corrections and improvements thus found.

[Andrew B.]

On Jun 13, 1:26 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:03:20 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >   This is not just a matter of taste. The instructional nature of the
> > work is affected. Najdorf’s awarding of a question mark to 13...c4 in
> > game 112 helps explain why it’s a classic example of prematurely
> > closing the center. Bronstein’s
> > comment on the move (“He should stick to waiting tactics and act in
> > accordance with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful.
>
> Yeah well you left out the rest of that passage by Averback which I reproduce below.  Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well, and the instruction value of a mistake filled tome is questionable in this day and age where you can run the Zurich 1953 games through a computer and get an instant answer, as Kasparov himself states:http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/summer2012/russias-grandest-master

Where does he say that?

[raylopez99]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:27:53 AM UTC-4, Andrew B. wrote:

> > Yeah well you left out the rest of that passage by Averback which I reproduce below.  Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well, and the instruction value of a mistake filled tome is questionable in this day and age where you can run the Zurich 1953 games through a computer and get an instant answer, as Kasparov himself states:http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/summer2012/russias-grandest-master
>
> Where does he say that?

Lern to reed. The part where he talks about computers n chess.

RL

[raylopez99]

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:34:17 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> >  Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well,
>
> No, really? A man, making mistakes?? Whodathunkit!
> That's why I compiled a computer-assisted supplement, an appendix of
> analytical errors discovered while working on the book. Buy the book,
> and you can download all the corrections and improvements thus found.
>
>

But Dr. Fritz makes no mistakes, and is free, a point you ignore.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

You're right, Andrew. Kasparov says no such thing. But facts like
that never bother our troll Ray.

[raylopez99]

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:55:18 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful.
> >
> > > Yeah well you left out the rest of that passage by Averback which I reproduce below.  Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well, and the instruction value of a mistake filled tome is questionable in this day and age where you can run the Zurich 1953 games through a computer and get an instant answer, as Kasparov himself states:http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/summer2012/russias-grandest-master
> >
> > Where does he say that?
>
> You're right, Andrew. Kasparov says no such thing. But facts like
> that never bother our troll Ray.

Lern to reed shithead. Kasparov is saying you are useless. We knew that for years but now it's official. See below.

RL

GARRY KASPAROV: Let’s start with chess as a bonding mechanism. It has its universal values, and it’s quite a unique game. It’s a game that fits the Internet era, because you can play it online. You can follow the game’s great players, and you can analyze it through computer engines, which is very helpful for amateurs. To some extent, there is no longer a cloak of secrecy covering the game. You may have two of the world’s greatest players competing, and any amateur can immediately see the blunder. It’s very different from when I started.

It is no longer the old-fashioned game, when two big champions play the game and one is smoking a cigar while the other one is drinking coffee, and they look at the board, and it takes ages to make a move. Every move is like an enigma for those who do not belong to this temple of ultimate chess truths. Now they just look at the computer screen, push a button, move the mouse, touch the screen, and the machine can give you quite an objective evaluation. If it’s a bad move, the machine will show that it’s a bad move. The machines don’t know everything, but you can no longer hide behind the authority of the player who made the move.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 13, 5:33 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:55:18 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>  with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful.
>
>
>
> > > > Yeah well you left out the rest of that passage by Averback which I reproduce below.  Note Najdorf makes mistakes as well, and the instruction value of a mistake filled tome is questionable in this day and age where you can run the Zurich 1953 games through a computer and get an instant answer, as Kasparov himself states:http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/summer2012/russias-grandest-master
>
> > > Where does he say that?
>
> >   You're right, Andrew. Kasparov says no such thing. But facts like
> > that never bother our troll Ray.
>
> Lern to reed shithead.

Sorry, Ray — that's your language. I'm not interested in learning
it.

[raylopez99]

That's Kasparov's language. When will you unbury your head from your azz, shithead? Kasparov is saying you are useless. You analysis can be replicated by 1 second of Fritz time. Same with all commentators, including Najdork, except his analysis takes 10 seconds. Give it up, you're finished terd.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 13, 8:48 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> > > Lern to reed shithead.
>
> >   Sorry, Ray — that's your language. I'm not interested in learning
> > it.
>
> That's Kasparov's language.

Kasparov speaks shithead? I thought he spoke Russian, mainly.

[raylopez99]

You callin' me a shithead?

Look TK, I'll apologize for calling you names, as I see you have suffered enough. Truth is, your labor of love will be bought by nobody, since it's useless, per Kasparov. Nowadays you can run the Zurich 1953 database through your Piratebay.org version of Fritz and Chessbase and get instant answers to who beat whom how. The only value these old books have is either in highlighting mistakes made by the annotating authors before the Age of The Machine, or, highlighting which games of the myriad were important and why.

Go gently into the night my old senile fiend and let sleeping dogs lie.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 14, 4:37 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Truth is, your labor of love will be bought by nobody, since it's useless, per Kasparov.  Nowadays you can run the Zurich 1953 database through your Piratebay.org version of Fritz and Chessbase and get instant answers to who beat whom how.  The only value these old books have is either in highlighting mistakes made by the annotating authors before the Age of The Machine, or, highlighting which games of the myriad were important and why.

Ray, your ignorance of the chess book market, and of chess in
general (not to mention life and the world), remains as profound as
ever.

[raylopez99]

So rebut, butthead. Your silence is deafening. Seems GK is right: when you're wrong you just run away like a little sissy boy, girlie man.

RL

[Andy Walker]

On 15/06/12 00:37, raylopez99 wrote:
> [...] Nowadays you can run the

> Zurich 1953 database through your Piratebay.org version of Fritz and
> Chessbase and get instant answers to who beat whom how.

But not *why*. It is certainly the case that a decent
program can point out where the tactical blunders come. But GM
games are often decided by strategic mistakes, and the computer
is much less good at pointing these out, or even knowing when
they occur.

> The only
> value these old books have is either in highlighting mistakes made by
> the annotating authors before the Age of The Machine, or,
> highlighting which games of the myriad were important and why.

I haven't seen the Najdorf book of Zurich '53, but the
Bronstein book is virtually a textbook on middlegame strategy
and on how this relates to openings and endings, illustrated
not by carefully chosen pedagogic examples but by a collection
of games as actually played by top GMs in one tournament. If
that is of no value to you, then there really isn't much point
in even bothering to play through the games.

If Bronstein makes the occasional tactical blunder in
his annotations, that's OK. I personally am much more interested
in *why* Smyslov or Keres chose to put the rook on *this* square
rather than *that*, and in learning to apply those lessons in my
own games. Bronstein is a high-class teacher, unlike Fritz.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[raylopez99]

Yeah well that's a brave defense Andy Walker, but it will get you nowhere. Essentially you are saying that at the GM level there are a plethora of plausible candidate moves, and some of these moves are marginally better than others. At the GM level which rook, QR or KR, you move to an open file might make a long-term strategic difference. But unless you are a GM, and most of us including you are not, this kind of subtlety is lost on everybody below the GM level. And that means a mere class A player like me or whatever your rating is will not benefit from Bronstein's book.

If you flatter yourself by thinking you will learn from GM as to whether a move is 0.15 centipawns better than another then by all means buy this book, but for the rest of us a good puzzle book is of more instructional value. And I suspect it's of more value for you too.

RL

[micky]

> If you flatter yourself by thinking you will learn from GM as to whether a move is 0.15 centipawns better than another then by all means buy this book, but for the rest of us a good puzzle book is of more instructional value. And I suspect it's of more value for you too.
>
> RL

What a load of condescending claptrap!.. oh, & thks so much for pointing
out the often ambiguous nature of 'which' rook (@ any level I might add)
- clearly beyond the comprehension of your vast inferiors here on rgc..
i.e., until you trundled along... what an idiot!..

Speaking of bad attitude.. anyone have anything to say about the lengthy
game between Caruana & Nakamura?.. personally I don't mind it played out
to the absolute end but I can also relate to the following complaint:

Jun-09-12 jmi:
I mentioned this on the main Tal Memorial page so I'll just copy+paste
here (apologies offhand):

"He pissed off Caruana and insinuated that Caruana's ratings are
inflated. He is probably trying to prove that Caruana is a weak GM,
hence, the long stupid draw to try to justify his point.

This was his tweet to Susan Polgar about gaining rating points earlier
this year while Caruana was playing in Iceland:

"@SusanPolgar: Perhaps, but there is no way that playing against a weak
field in Iceland should be the same as playing in Wijk aan Zee..."

If you observe the live video, you can see Nakamura shaking his head
many times from move 90 onwards, he knew it himself it was a draw. In
fact, the greatest brush off occurred just 3 moves before. Caruana
offered a draw after move 104 with the Rook capture.

Instead, Hikaru just brushed him off and played on without even
acknowledging his draw offer! So Caruana just calmly moved his h-pawn up
till Nakamura was forced to recapture with his knight at move 108. If
you want fighting spirit, go for it but this transcends into plain
silliness and being spiteful."

Hope this clarifies.

.....

[Event "Tal Memorial"]
[Site "Moscow RUS"]
[Date "2012.06.09"]
[EventDate "2012.06.07"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "F Caruana"]
[Black "Hi Nakamura"]
[ECO "D22"]
[WhiteElo "2770"]
[BlackElo "2775"]
[PlyCount "214"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 a6 4. a4 Nf6 5. e3 e6 6. Bxc4 b6 7. O-O Bb7
8.
Qe2 Nbd7 9. Rd1 Bb4 10. Bd2 Bd6 11. Nc3 c5 12. e4 cxd4 13. Nxd4 Qb8 14.
g3
O-O 15. f3 Ne5 16. Bb3 Bc5 17. Be3 Qc7 18. Rd2 h6 19. Rad1 Rad8 20. Bf2
g5
21. h3 Ng6 22. Bc4 Ne5 23. Kg2 Qc8 24. Bb3 Kh8 25. Nc2 Rxd2 26. Qxd2
Bxf2
27. Kxf2 Qc5+ 28. Qd4 Rb8 29. Ne3 Kg7 30. Nc4 Qxd4+ 31. Rxd4 Nc6 32. Rd2
Ba8 33. Nd6 Kf8 34. Bc4 Nb4 35. Na2 Nxa2 36. Bxa2 Rd8 37. e5 Nd7 38. f4
gxf4 39. gxf4 a5 40. Rd4 Ke7 41. Bb1 f6 42. Nc4 Bd5 43. exf6+ Nxf6 44.
Bd3
Nd7 45. Be2 Rf8 46. Bf3 Bxc4 47. Rxc4 Nc5 48. Ke3 Rd8 49. b4 axb4 50.
Rxb4
Rd3+ 51. Ke2 Ra3 52. Rxb6 Rxa4 53. f5 Ra2+ 54. Ke3 Ra3+ 55. Ke2 exf5 56.
Rxh6 Ne6 57. Rh4 Kd6 58. Kf2 Ke5 59. Rc4 Nd4 60. Bg2 Ra2+ 61. Kf1 Rd2
62.
Rc3 Kf4 63. Ra3 Kg5 64. Rg3+ Kh4 65. Rg8 Nc2 66. Kg1 Ne1 67. Rg7 Rb2 68.
Rg8 Nd3 69. Rg7 Nf4 70. Rg8 Ne6 71. Kh2 Kh5 72. Kg1 Kh6 73. Rg3 Nf4 74.
Bf3
Rb3 75. Kh2 Rb2+ 76. Kg1 Ra2 77. Kh1 Ng6 78. Bd5 Rd2 79. Bb7 Kg7 80. Rg2
Rd3 81. Kh2 Kf6 82. Rf2 Nh4 83. Be4 Re3 84. Bg2 Ke5 85. Bb7 Kf6 86. Bg2
Rc3
87. Bb7 Kg5 88. Bg2 f4 89. Bb7 Nf5 90. Be4 Ne3 91. h4+ Kf6 92. Bf3 Kf5
93.
h5 Ra3 94. Rb2 Nc4 95. Rb5+ Ne5 96. Kg2 Kf6 97. Rb6+ Kg5 98. Rb5 Re3 99.
Bd1 Rg3+ 100. Kf1 Re3 101. Ra5 f3 102. Kf2 Kf4 103. Ra4+ Re4 104. Rxe4+
Kxe4 105. Bxf3+ Nxf3 106. h6 Ng5 107. h7 Nxh7 1/2-1/2

cg.com

.

[Andy Walker]

On 16/06/12 02:47, raylopez99 wrote:
>> If Bronstein makes the occasional tactical blunder in
>> his annotations, that's OK. I personally am much more interested
>> in *why* Smyslov or Keres chose to put the rook on *this* square
>> rather than *that*, and in learning to apply those lessons in my
>> own games. Bronstein is a high-class teacher, unlike Fritz.

> Yeah well that's a brave defense Andy Walker, but it will get you
> nowhere. Essentially you are saying that at the GM level there are a
> plethora of plausible candidate moves, and some of these moves are
> marginally better than others.

"Marginal" is your interpolation. Quite often, it becomes
obvious after a few moves that move A was better than move B, and
there is instructional value in knowing what it was in the original
position that Smyslov [eg] saw in order to understand that,

Incidentally, one of the features of GM play is not that
they see "a plethora of plausible candidate moves" but that they
see very few -- which is why they can analyse more deeply than the
rest of us.

> At the GM level which rook, QR or KR,
> you move to an open file might make a long-term strategic difference.
> But unless you are a GM, and most of us including you are not, this
> kind of subtlety is lost on everybody below the GM level.

Simply not true. Anyone who has progressed to the point of
understanding basic tactics [and so no longer hanging pieces every
few moves, etc] is at the stage of needing to learn also some
strategy. That would encompass everybody above somewhere around
1500 Elo.

> And that
> means a mere class A player like me or whatever your rating is will
> not benefit from Bronstein's book.

I learned a great deal about chess from books by, amongst
others, Nimzovich, Euwe, Keres, Alekhine, Reti, Capablanca, Lasker
and Fine. Bronstein's book is easily fit to be in such company.

> If you flatter yourself by thinking you will learn from GM as to
> whether a move is 0.15 centipawns better than another then by all
> means buy this book,

Your language betrays a profound misunderstanding of what
strategy is about. At the most fundamental level, there are only
three possible values of a position -- won, drawn or lost. After
that, the task for the player is to make attaining a win or a draw
as easy as possible and to make the opponent's corresponding task
as difficult as possible. Winning material is one way to achieve
this, other things being equal; but you can't win 0.15 centipawns
[or even 15 centipawns]. Centipawns are a proxy, and not even a
very good proxy, for the other factors that measure the ease or
difficulty of achieving the aim. No human, when asked about the
position, says "I'm ahead by 78 centipawns"; but we might say
"I've won a pawn, but he has some compensation", or "material is
level, but I control the centre".

What Bronstein is able to teach [like Nimzovich, Euwe and
the others] is what "compensation" means, and how to translate
"I control the centre" into [eg] launching a successful K-side
attack, or building up pressure against weak points, or forcing
the opponent to make other concessions. That is the sort of
knowledge that developing players need in order to progress from
around 1500 Elo to around 2000 and beyond. That's not marginal.

> but for the rest of us a good puzzle book is of
> more instructional value. And I suspect it's of more value for you
> too.

I have nothing against good puzzle books, but you suspect
incorrectly.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[William Hyde]

On Jun 16, 3:33 pm, Andy Walker <n...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/06/12 02:47, raylopez99 wrote:

>
> >                              At the GM level which rook, QR or KR,
> > you move to an open file might make a long-term strategic difference.
> > But unless you are a GM, and most of us including you are not, this
> > kind of subtlety is lost on everybody below the GM level.
>
>         Simply not true.

As it happens I posted a game here a few years ago which illustrates
your point. Taylor ran it through fritz8 and it turns out that my
opponent's main mistake was playing, as black, the natural Rfe8
instead of Rbe8. As the b-rook was already active and the f-rook
passive, this was not the instinctive choice.

Clearly it's a little late to get Bronstein's comments, but I recall
some soviet writing on the difference between active and "optically
active" pieces. My opponent's rook on the b file looked active, but
bigger issues were being decided in the centre and kingside than the
winning of my b-pawn.

Admittedly we were both a little above A class at the time, but not
much.


William Hyde

[raylopez99]

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:11:02 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

>
> Hope this clarifies.
>

It does not. In your successful attempt to be too clever by half you anticipated too many replies with your oblique commentary and ended up conveying nothing more than a mouth fart followed by gossip about why an Italian-American GM is a better sportsman than a Japanese-American GM.

In short, muddled commentary from a hazy mind in the gutter.

RL

[raylopez99]

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:33:53 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 16/06/12 02:47, raylopez99 wrote:
> >> If Bronstein makes the occasional tactical blunder in
> >> his annotations, that's OK. I personally am much more interested
> >> in *why* Smyslov or Keres chose to put the rook on *this* square
> >> rather than *that*, and in learning to apply those lessons in my
> >> own games. Bronstein is a high-class teacher, unlike Fritz.
> > Yeah well that's a brave defense Andy Walker, but it will get you
> > nowhere. Essentially you are saying that at the GM level there are a
> > plethora of plausible candidate moves, and some of these moves are
> > marginally better than others.
>
> "Marginal" is your interpolation. Quite often, it becomes
> obvious after a few moves that move A was better than move B, and
> there is instructional value in knowing what it was in the original
> position that Smyslov [eg] saw in order to understand that,
>

Oh god. You are putting the cart before the horse. The reason GM Smyslov saw this several moves before you did is because, quite simply, he is a GM that can see further than you. There's no "mystery" to this--nothing in the initial position that will give you insight. It's simply the ability to mentally calculate further than the rest of us. You are reading tea leaves if you think otherwise.

> Incidentally, one of the features of GM play is not that
> they see "a plethora of plausible candidate moves" but that they
> see very few -- which is why they can analyse more deeply than the
> rest of us.

No. This is Reti's lie about "I only see one move--the right move". Simply not true. If you ever analyze with a master (and I do--as a high net worth individual I have a master on call to help me analyze) you will see they have a wider range of moves they consider for every candidate position--and they can analyze both deeper and faster than you and I.

>
> > At the GM level which rook, QR or KR,
> > you move to an open file might make a long-term strategic difference.
> > But unless you are a GM, and most of us including you are not, this
> > kind of subtlety is lost on everybody below the GM level.
>
> Simply not true. Anyone who has progressed to the point of
> understanding basic tactics [and so no longer hanging pieces every
> few moves, etc] is at the stage of needing to learn also some
> strategy. That would encompass everybody above somewhere around
> 1500 Elo.
>

Nope. You misunderstood my point. I am saying some moves at the 15 centipawn advantage level are beyond the ken of understanding of mere amateurs like you and I--not that strategy is not important. Double rooks by all means, and try and use them to invade the seventh rank, and do put your Knight on the sixth rank, but Rad1 vs Rfd1 is beyond us (William Hyde notwithstanding)

> > And that
> > means a mere class A player like me or whatever your rating is will
> > not benefit from Bronstein's book.
>
> I learned a great deal about chess from books by, amongst
> others, Nimzovich, Euwe, Keres, Alekhine, Reti, Capablanca, Lasker
> and Fine. Bronstein's book is easily fit to be in such company.
>
> > If you flatter yourself by thinking you will learn from GM as to
> > whether a move is 0.15 centipawns better than another then by all
> > means buy this book,
>
> Your language betrays a profound misunderstanding of what
> strategy is about. At the most fundamental level, there are only
> three possible values of a position -- won, drawn or lost. After
> that, the task for the player is to make attaining a win or a draw
> as easy as possible and to make the opponent's corresponding task
> as difficult as possible. Winning material is one way to achieve
> this, other things being equal; but you can't win 0.15 centipawns
> [or even 15 centipawns]. Centipawns are a proxy, and not even a
> very good proxy, for the other factors that measure the ease or
> difficulty of achieving the aim. No human, when asked about the
> position, says "I'm ahead by 78 centipawns"; but we might say
> "I've won a pawn, but he has some compensation", or "material is
> level, but I control the centre".

Strawman. Yes you can trade material superiority for tempo and for the attack, etc. Nothing to do with this thread.

>
> What Bronstein is able to teach [like Nimzovich, Euwe and
> the others] is what "compensation" means, and how to translate
> "I control the centre" into [eg] launching a successful K-side
> attack, or building up pressure against weak points, or forcing
> the opponent to make other concessions. That is the sort of
> knowledge that developing players need in order to progress from
> around 1500 Elo to around 2000 and beyond. That's not marginal.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are many ways to win or draw a chess game. You can trade material superiority for a mating attack--or, you can use your material superiority to go into a winning endgame, --or, you can even trade your material for a drawn position if your opponent is stronger. It's not just about winning--but drawing, or playing to your strengths, etc. At least at the amateur level. Even Gelfand vs Anand had a game (the one Gelfand won) where Gelfand could have won 'quicker' but opted for a 'safer' win. Same principle.

>
> > but for the rest of us a good puzzle book is of
> > more instructional value. And I suspect it's of more value for you
> > too.
>
> I have nothing against good puzzle books, but you suspect
> incorrectly.
>

Then you are foolish. I don't know or care what you are thinking, but for your own good I urge you to give up your silly fantasies about becoming a grandmaster, and simply pick up a good book and lern tactics. It will serve you better in the long run than trying to figure out, W. Hyde like or Karpov like, which Q or K rook is better placed on the open file. That's a dangerous fantasy for a duffer like you (or me, or probably W. Hyde, notwithstanding his boasting).

RL

[Andy Walker]

On 17/06/12 04:44, raylopez99 wrote:
>> "Marginal" is your interpolation. Quite often, it becomes
>> obvious after a few moves that move A was better than move B, and
>> there is instructional value in knowing what it was in the original
>> position that Smyslov [eg] saw in order to understand that,
> Oh god. You are putting the cart before the horse. The reason GM
> Smyslov saw this several moves before you did is because, quite
> simply, he is a GM that can see further than you. There's no
> "mystery" to this--nothing in the initial position that will give you
> insight.

Not true, as Bronstein [Nimzovich, Euwe, ...] explains.

> It's simply the ability to mentally calculate further than
> the rest of us. You are reading tea leaves if you think otherwise.

It is certainly true that GMs see further into positions than
I do. But why? It's not as though there is no evidence on this --
there have been a number of studies. It isn't that GMs analyse
faster than other good players, but that they are much better at
"chunking" -- seeing patterns involving several pieces together, and
thereby being able to replace single tentative moves by a whole
series of connected moves. This is similar to the process by which
a beginner learns to recognise forks, or the power of doubled rooks
on the seventh, so that these no longer need detailed analysis.

>> Incidentally, one of the features of GM play is not that
>> they see "a plethora of plausible candidate moves" but that they
>> see very few -- which is why they can analyse more deeply than the
>> rest of us.
> No. This is Reti's lie about "I only see one move--the right move".

Nothing to do with Reti, but with the studies by de Groot
and others. I don't suppose you have ever analysed the position
after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6??. You don't need to; you dismiss it straight
away because it obviously loses a piece -- a trivial chunk that even
a beginner knows. A GM typically dismisses for more moves than you
do, not because they obviously lose a piece but because they obviously
[to him] are not part of the chunks most relevant to the position.

> Simply not true. If you ever analyze with a master (and I do--as a
> high net worth individual I have a master on call to help me analyze)
> you will see they have a wider range of moves they consider for every
> candidate position--and they can analyze both deeper and faster than
> you and I.

There have been GMs, IMs and FMs in the local league, and I
have played and analysed with them and against them. They certainly
analyse more accurately than I do, which is why they are better than
I am. But if you propose a move and the master says "no, that's bad
because of ...", it doesn't follow that he saw your proposal as a
candidate move.

> [...] I am saying some moves at the 15

> centipawn advantage level are beyond the ken of understanding of mere
> amateurs like you and I--not that strategy is not important.

There *aren't* any moves at the 15 centipawn advantage level.
That is entirely an artifact of computer chess; it's just noise.

> Double
> rooks by all means, and try and use them to invade the seventh rank,
> and do put your Knight on the sixth rank, but Rad1 vs Rfd1 is beyond
> us (William Hyde notwithstanding)

I'm with William on this. Sometimes it simply doesn't matter
which rook you play to d1, sometimes there is a reason that I can
understand, and sometimes there is a reason that I don't understand
but Bronstein does and is able to explain [after which I do]. Once
we understand [more of] these reasons, our analysis goes faster, as
we don't even have to think about playing the "wrong" rook.

[...]

>>> but for the rest of us a good puzzle book is of
>>> more instructional value. And I suspect it's of more value for you
>>> too.
>> I have nothing against good puzzle books, but you suspect
>> incorrectly.
> Then you are foolish. I don't know or care what you are thinking, but
> for your own good I urge you to give up your silly fantasies about
> becoming a grandmaster,

I gave those up around 45 years ago, when I came to realise
that if I gave up my professional career and played chess full time,
I might just possibly progress from the UK top 100 or so to the UK
top 10 or so, and perhaps scrape a living and become a footnote in
chess history. It didn't seem a good idea.

> and simply pick up a good book and lern
> tactics.

My tactics are fine, thank you.

> It will serve you better in the long run than trying to
> figure out, W. Hyde like or Karpov like, which Q or K rook is better
> placed on the open file. That's a dangerous fantasy for a duffer like
> you (or me, or probably W. Hyde, notwithstanding his boasting).

The point is *not* trying to figure it out, but *knowing*
which is the right rook. As to whether players are "duffers" or
not, FIDE and national ratings are easily obtained online. I think
we can take it that Dr Hyde is good enough to have a reasonable
idea of which rook to move and where to, if not at the Bronstein
level of understanding.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[William Hyde]

On Jun 16, 11:44 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:


>It will serve you better in the long run than trying to figure out, W. Hyde like or Karpov like, which Q or K rook is better placed on the open file.  That's a dangerous fantasy for a duffer like you (or me, or probably W. Hyde, notwithstanding his boasting).

I've made it clear, often, that I was never an OTB master. And if I
had black in the game mentioned earlier, there's every chance I would
have made the same mistake as my opponent. Thinking about the right
squares for my pieces, however, has won me many games. It also saves a
lot of time on the clock.


William Hyde

[raylopez99]

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:47:02 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with Reti, but with the studies by de Groot
> and others.

Yeah, right. As if you ever read past the Abstract of de Groot's paper. LOL.

> There have been GMs, IMs and FMs in the local league, and I
> have played and analysed with them and against them.

Yeah right says the Duffer.

> > [...] I am saying some moves at the 15
> > centipawn advantage level are beyond the ken of understanding of mere
> > amateurs like you and I--not that strategy is not important.
>
> There *aren't* any moves at the 15 centipawn advantage level.
> That is entirely an artifact of computer chess; it's just noise.

You are noise. You don't understand what 15 centipawn advantage even means. You claim to be a math major? A major failure more like it.

> I'm with William on this. Sometimes it simply doesn't matter
> which rook you play to d1, sometimes there is a reason that I can
> understand, and sometimes there is a reason that I don't understand
> but Bronstein does and is able to explain [after which I do]. Once
> we understand [more of] these reasons, our analysis goes faster, as
> we don't even have to think about playing the "wrong" rook.

Wrong. That's not true. There's rarely a 'obvious' or blitz fast reason to prefer one rook over another, unless you lose material immediately. Even W. Hyde admits this in this thread, when he says he could have made the same mistake as his opponent did with the wrong rook move made.

> I gave those up around 45 years ago, when I came to realise
> that if I gave up my professional career and played chess full time,
> I might just possibly progress from the UK top 100 or so to the UK
> top 10 or so, and perhaps scrape a living and become a footnote in
> chess history. It didn't seem a good idea.

But you are not even a footnote in your professional capacity. Forget the Field prize, have you ever had an original thought in your professional capacity? Quick: 1 + 1 = ? Prove it using Cantor Sets and Dedekind Cuts. (Hint: "2")

> My tactics are fine, thank you.
>

I doubt it.

> > It will serve you better in the long run than trying to
> > figure out, W. Hyde like or Karpov like, which Q or K rook is better
> > placed on the open file. That's a dangerous fantasy for a duffer like
> > you (or me, or probably W. Hyde, notwithstanding his boasting).
>
> The point is *not* trying to figure it out, but *knowing*
> which is the right rook. As to whether players are "duffers" or
> not, FIDE and national ratings are easily obtained online. I think
> we can take it that Dr Hyde is good enough to have a reasonable
> idea of which rook to move and where to, if not at the Bronstein
> level of understanding.
>

Dr. Hyde. Like Dr. Fart and Dr. Karsten Muller. Next you'll be calling Taylor Kingston Dr. Memory. Dr. Bullshit is more like it, all of you. I'm a rocket scientists and a a doctor and you don't see me bragging about it.

RL

[micky]

raylopez99 wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 16, 2012 9:11:02 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>
> >
> > Hope this clarifies.

("jmi" wrote that, not me, dumbkopf!..)

>
> It does not.

what doesn't?.. idiot/klutz..

> why an Italian-American GM is a better sportsman than a Japanese-American GM.

I'll give you that bit troll..ive, yep!..

good point, my little pellet of sustenance...

>
> In short, muddled commentary from a hazy mind in the gutter.

too tru, putz 'n pfft!..

.


>
> RL

[William Hyde]

On Jun 17, 3:47 pm, Andy Walker <n...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

>         The point is *not* trying to figure it out, but *knowing*
> which is the right rook.  As to whether players are "duffers" or
> not, FIDE and national ratings are easily obtained online.  I think
> we can take it that Dr Hyde is good enough to have a reasonable
> idea of which rook to move and where to, if not at the Bronstein
> level of understanding.

An example which is perhaps better than that in my game occurs often,
in particular in the first Tal-Botvinnik match (game six), a type of
position that occurs often from a Sicilian (though in this case it was
the KID). Black has an open c-file, a restrained centre, and the
choice of Rfc8 or Rac8.

It's quite impossible to come up with a tactical reason for one choice
or another most of the time - my instinct is to play Rac8, but I've
noted that masters almost always play the other rook. The reason is
seldom given, as if the choice is just obvious. Later play sometimes
shows a need to keep the a-pawn defended, and if the pawns are
advanced the rook can be useful at a8 or b8.

Tal does discuss the move, though, and gives two reasons. One is to
keep the a-pawn defended, but the other is deception - he wants
Botvinnik to think that he has no intention of attacking on the
kingside with f5 - which he plays, followed by a knight sacrifice,
once Botvinnik's pieces are committed to the queen side. This was
remarkably unstereotyped thinking - we are all used to the idea that
the rook on f8 is essential to this attack, but Tal showed it to be
equally useful on c4, of all places.

I doubt that this is often the reason for Rfc8, though, which remains
to me a bit counter-intuitive in most cases. But this example shows
that even if the rooks are eventually doubled on the open file, it
matters in which order they are played to c8.


William Hyde

[Andy Walker]

On 18/06/12 06:15, raylopez99 wrote:
[Lots of rather silly insults and trolls snipped. But there is one
point that deserves expansion. I hope the following is of interest
and benefit to at least *some* readers.]

> [...] You don't understand what 15 centipawn advantage even
> means.

On the contrary, I understand only too well. It means there is
a leaf node in the game tree, as explored by the computer, corresponding
to some position P that *without any analysis at all* is evaluated at
0.15. If there was any analysis, it would not be a leaf node. When
that value is propagated back through the maximisation, minimisation
and pruning processes, P is the "lottery winner" out of the typically
millions of evaluations. The last few moves leading to P are mostly
rubbish, corresponding to typically a few microseconds analysis. The
value "0.15" is rubbish, as it completely ignores any tactical
possibilities in P [but programs usually make sure that P is not in
the middle of some exchanging or checking sequence], as these would
require deeper analysis. It usually arises simply by adding up a
collection of values for features of the position; those values may
or may not be appropriate to P -- we can't tell without deeper
analysis, impossible at a leaf node. But if they were reliable, we
wouldn't need to use analysis *at all*, we could just pick the move
with the best static evaluation. The only reliable values produced
by Fritz [or any other program] are those produced either by terminal
nodes [eg, mate or repetitions] or by tablebase entries -- but none
of these can be 0.15, as they must represent proven win/draw/loss
results.

Readers may recall an experiment headed by Don Beal in which
the static evaluation really did consist of random numbers; Don found
that the resulting program played "surprisingly" well. The reasons
for this are beyond the scope of this article, but show that even total
noise gives decent play.

IOW, there is *no* chess-related meaning of any significance
to be attached to an evaluation of 0.15, not even a subtle positional
significance "understood" by Fritz but not by even the strongest of
GMs. It is noise; a numerical artifact.

It is a feature of chess that its game trees in general have
a degree of stability which means that *despite* the noise levels in
the evaluation, the evaluation process very often produces strong
moves, and in particular *tactically* strong moves. There seems to
be no particular reason why this should happen for games in general.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[raylopez99]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 6:43:01 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 18/06/12 06:15, raylopez99 wrote:
> [Lots of rather silly insults and trolls snipped. But there is one
> point that deserves expansion. I hope the following is of interest
> and benefit to at least *some* readers.]

Do you know what a Cantor Set is, azz whole? Do you know Dedekind cuts? I doubt it. So if you don't even know mathematics, how can we trust you on the below? We can't.

>
> > [...] You don't understand what 15 centipawn advantage even
> > means.
>
> On the contrary, I understand only too well. It means there is
> a leaf node in the game tree, as explored by the computer, corresponding
> to some position P that *without any analysis at all* is evaluated at
> 0.15.

No. Wrong. Bozo. First some terminology: I mean 0.15 in the range: [0,1]. Not to 100. So "15 centipawns". That is small but not inconsiderable. What 'propagates' up the tree is not a static evaluation, which as you say yields a definite answer, but the position at the leaves of the tree based on rules of chess that are SURPRISINGLY robust. This is the intelligence behind "alpha-beta" or brute force. For example at the leaf nodes, at the end of the event horizon in a static position (meaning no checks, no forced captures, etc), you may have a choice between moves where the side to move has a choice between seizing an open file with a rook and/or connecting rooks and hiding the rook, or unconnecting the rooks. The former two moves will be given an evaluation score in centipawns that is greater than the latter, caeteris paribus. That is the score propagated to the nodes and on up the tree, possibly to the very top, if the pruning score is good enough. Do you even know Alpha-Beta and how it works? I doubt it.

> If there was any analysis, it would not be a leaf node. When
> that value is propagated back through the maximisation, minimisation
> and pruning processes, P is the "lottery winner" out of the typically
> millions of evaluations.

Yes, for 0.15 you can argue it's noise. But only for first generation chess engines. Nowadays 0.15 by Rybka means a lot. It is statistically significant.

> with the best static evaluation. The only reliable values produced
> by Fritz [or any other program] are those produced either by terminal
> nodes [eg, mate or repetitions] or by tablebase entries -- but none
> of these can be 0.15, as they must represent proven win/draw/loss
> results.

No. Second generation engines Bozo.

>
> Readers may recall an experiment headed by Don Beal in which
> the static evaluation really did consist of random numbers; Don found
> that the resulting program played "surprisingly" well. The reasons
> for this are beyond the scope of this article, but show that even total
> noise gives decent play.

I read that article. Beal was comparing first generation engines--the evaluation functions have grown an order of magnitude better since his article. Keep up with the literature Shiite for brains. They've solved Fermat's Last Theorem BTW.

RL

[Andy Walker]

On 19/06/12 04:12, raylopez99 wrote:
> [...] What 'propagates' up the tree is not a static

> evaluation, which as you say yields a definite answer, but the
> position at the leaves of the tree based on rules of chess that are
> SURPRISINGLY robust.

I don't know of any engine that propagates positions, as
opposed to evaluations of positions. For display purposes, you
will want also the moves leading to some nodes so that you can
see the principal variation, but this is irrelevant to the value
of the position and to alpha-beta.

> This is the intelligence behind "alpha-beta" or
> brute force. For example at the leaf nodes, at the end of the event
> horizon in a static position (meaning no checks, no forced captures,
> etc), you may have a choice between moves where the side to move has
> a choice between seizing an open file with a rook and/or connecting
> rooks and hiding the rook, or unconnecting the rooks.

You may indeed. However, at *leaf* nodes, the effects of
such further moves is not considered, by definition. There may, of
course, be bonuses awarded for *having* the rooks connected or
controlling open files or behind passed pawns, and perhaps even
for a potential of having rooks well placed.

> The former two
> moves will be given an evaluation score in centipawns that is greater
> than the latter, caeteris paribus.

No they won't. However, if this choice arises at a *parent*
node, then the move leading to the better position [according to the
evaluation function] will be given a better score. Whether this
score is in centipawns, millipawns, micropawns, ... is of course a
design decision for the programmer.

> That is the score propagated to
> the nodes and on up the tree, possibly to the very top,

Yes, the *score*, as produced by some static evaluation,
not as you claimed above the position.

[...]

>> The only reliable values produced
>> by Fritz [or any other program] are those produced either by terminal
>> nodes [eg, mate or repetitions] or by tablebase entries -- but none
>> of these can be 0.15, as they must represent proven win/draw/loss
>> results.
> No. Second generation engines Bozo.

Even Rybka still scores established draws or mates as 0,00
or "M11" or whatever, never as 0.15. Any actual position would be,
if analysed perfectly, a win, draw or loss; in that context, 0.15
is meaningless; it *has* to be unreliable, because when the game
is played out it will eventually change to 0.00 or M11 or similar.
If it was anywhere near as reliable as you seem to think, then
there would be no need for any more than a 1-ply analysis depth.

>> Readers may recall an experiment headed by Don Beal in which
>> the static evaluation really did consist of random numbers; Don found
>> that the resulting program played "surprisingly" well. The reasons
>> for this are beyond the scope of this article, but show that even total
>> noise gives decent play.
> I read that article. Beal was comparing first generation engines--the
> evaluation functions have grown an order of magnitude better since
> his article.

Completely irrelevant. The claim was not that a random
evaluation function produced play of the quality of Fritz [or Belle
or any other engine of the period], but that it produced decent play,
You can easily test this for yourself. Take any modern open-source
engine, replace the evaluation function by a suitable random number
function [it needs to be reproducible, so it should probably be
seeded by something like the hash value of the position], and see
how you get on. It will work best if the program is given time
to get to a reasonable depth, say two minutes per move rather than
two seconds per move.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Taylor Kingston]

Hear, hear.

[raylopez99]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:44:14 PM UTC-4, Andy Walker wrote:
[garbage deleted]
> Andy Walker,
> Nottingham.


So typical of you English: win the battle, lose the war, Agincourt notwithstanding.

How the mighty (and the weak patzers like you) have fallen.

RL