Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2
From	Message
wrecking_ball 20-Jul-14, 20:45	Always here to help Les.There are a good number of players in this club already to help you out and more to come in time.I may not always be the "perfect" or best teacher(never believed I was),but I do have a vast amount of knowledge learned over the decades that I try to direct you to and put in a few of my thoughts to boot.I have trouble sometimes in trying to dissect the info down a bit to the level of the 1000-1300 players that they can understand...but I try,nonetheless.
tough_customer 22-Jul-14, 09:07	Deleted by tough_customer on 24-Jul-14, 06:08.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 05:39	Deleted by tough_customer on 24-Jul-14, 05:41.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 05:43	Deleted by tough_customer on 24-Jul-14, 05:43.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 05:45	Deleted by tough_customer on 24-Jul-14, 05:45.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 06:06	KNIGHT OUTPOSTS This is my knight position after 24 moves. It restricts the movement of white's queen, makes itself known on the h-file, protects a couple of black pieces, challenges a white bishop and guards another square. That shows the potential strength of a knight on the fifth rank, where it is sometimes considered stronger than a bishop.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 06:13	Deleted by tough_customer on 24-Jul-14, 06:13.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 06:23	OUTPOST GAME LINK This is the game where the above OUTPOST occurred: game
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 14:53	Deleted by wrecking_ball on 24-Jul-14, 14:54.
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 15:25	Good job Les,on defeating that higher rated opponent!On page one of this thread,I did indeed mention that...""5th rank is considered superior to a Bishop".And that would be the time to play an aggressive attacking style in your game,especially if your opponents Bishops are either hemmed in or not as free as your Bishops.That timing in the game can yield superior initiative in many cases. A bit of a correction,however,Les:You will note however,that your Knight is NOT on the 5th rank,but rather the 4th rank.Look again,in the above diagram of yours.Much of the theory still holds the same in the 4th rank,however,as I mentioned in the list...."3rd rank or 4th rank is theoretically "normal", and can be used defensively & aggressively."So,the 4th rank that your Knight is on can be used defensively,aggressively or for regular normal development. Your assessment of the position is right on,except I would not necessarily say that your Knight restricts the Q much,but rather contributes a bit to the restriction,but only minutely.Your Bishops,contribute more to that and the Q can maneuver into many safe squares.It is a moot point however,since white is down a 4 point value in this game and his position is poor with lack of pawn development and his central board control is minimal. Nice game,Les!
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 15:35	Now,if you are looking at the board in the sense of "descriptive notation"rather than Algebraic,then it may be considered YOUR 5th rank.But in technical accuracy and since we are now using Algebraic notation(not descriptive) and the board is illustrated that way,then,by precise definition,there is only one 5th rank,not two fifth ranks.So,your Knight is on the 4th rank,not the 5th.See?Not trying to confuse...just saying!Its done that way so that all parties annotating as well as both opponents have a precise frame of reference to avoid confusion and what is called..."ambiguity".There was much "ambiguity"in the old days with descriptive,but now,much of that has been eliminated.Not all,but most!
cplusplus11 24-Jul-14, 16:09	wrecking_ball, I don't think the strength of a knight should be affected by the type of notation being used. Instead, lesplay's f4-knight should be considered superior to a bishop (5th rank). You said "6th rank is the most devastating and might force your opponent to sacrifice an exchange to get rid of it." If this is meant to apply white's 6th rank with black's knights, then black will always have better knights.
hogfysshe 24-Jul-14, 16:16	in terms of this breakdown from page one of this topic... <<<<< 1.) 1st or 2nd rank is generally defensive 2.) 3rd rank or 4th rank is theoretically "normal", and can be used defensively & aggresively. 3.) 5th rank is considered superior to a bishop 4.) 6th rank is the most devastating and might force your opponent to sacrifice an exchange to get rid of it. 5.) 7th rank is not as good as those on the 6th 6.) 8th rank...the Knight basically needs to get out of the rank >>>>> ...5th rank must mean "your" 5th rank, no? Isn't Les's knight in what this list refers to as "5th"? Because if "6th...is most devastating," then as black your knight would be most devastating after one move, to c6 or f6 (which must not be correct???). In other words, if there is only one 6th rank, that is a "white only" list. In a breakdown for black, a knight on the 3rd rank would be most devastating. Tricky to successfully discuss knight strength in connection with rank without stating your reference point first: list from page one or precisely defined algebraic. I took Les's reference point to be the list on page one.
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 16:38	Deleted by wrecking_ball on 24-Jul-14, 16:43.
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 16:43	"wrecking_ball, I don't think the strength of a knight should be affected by the type of notation being used. " cplusplus11,i'm not saying that the strength is based upon type of notation used,only that in regards to the notion being used PRESENTLY as it IS being used(not descriptive with the diagram above,but algebraic)....Les's Knight is simply on f4,meaning the 4th rank in an algebraic perspective. I did that in order to eliminate ambiguity.Todd is correct,however,that the list above can be referenced from both sides.I simply have another way of describing the rank for better precision in definition,even though it IS the 5th rank relative to descriptive,as I mentioned above.That list did come off of my white side records,however!I am very use to someone saying the f4 rank.But I do stand corrected and I can easily see the point.I suppose i'm a bit "programmed"in the way I write and think as well.I would have said...."blacks" 5th rank on rank f4,or the f4 square.I thought perhaps that Les might have been looking at the board incorrectly,perhaps as an f5 rank. Thanks for the sharp observation Todd and cplus!
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 16:51	Les had asked me if I knew anyone that may want to annotate his game.Right now,with the summer coming,I have very little time to do that.My focus would be on more involved theory posts that would diffuse to everyone's game.Those posts take hours and days to get together sometimes.So my one on one time is next to zero.Anyone else that wants to help les annotate or make additional comments on his game is very welcome!
wrecking_ball 24-Jul-14, 17:06	As above... N-KB5 or N-B5 is obviously the same as Nf4 but I was trying to simply make sure Les would define the position in a pure Algebraic sense(even with that chart).I thought perhaps,right or dead wrong that Les at the 1217 rating would either not know this or perhaps define it in a way i'm more use to.Well,I just woke up,so I need to adjust my brain with coffee!
hogfysshe 24-Jul-14, 17:44	re clarity, I like WB's "black's 5th rank." One think I sometimes do with a diagram is state the move right above or below the diagram. For example: position as of 24...Nf4 That way, if I say knight on 5th rank, the reader can see that I have also said Nf4, making it (reasonably) clear I know the f4 square is on "my" 5th rank.
hogfysshe 24-Jul-14, 18:29	re annotating... Les, my experience with annotating is this. I annotate my own game, stating my rationale at points of interest (examples gameknot.com) and then I ask for others to analyze and comment, preferably expert or master players. Many benefits to this. It's good for you to review your own successes and failures and the GK annotation format is very good for back and forth discussion in the annotation. I haven't annotated a game in this club. But if I did, I would ask WB, shamash, and the other high ranked players to review and comment if they were able to. I'd also make it public meaning that others may find it on the main GK annotations page and comment. Always a chance, you'll get a bad commenter. But just ignore that if it happens. Never happened to me. But i saw a few people get strange/unhelpful comments. Or keep it private and just share the link within the club forum, limiting who can comment to club members, again preferably the experts and masters. I don't know how others feel. But I have not tended to annotate wins. This may be a mistake. But annotating losses and getting feedback from experts has been helpful. Hey annotators, do you mainly annotate losses, or wins, or a mix? What ratio of losses to wins? Oh, I did annotate a win once, at bigpeta's suggestion, the game where I first hit 1800. That was fine. But I don't think I gained nearly as much from review and discussion of that game as I have from review and discussion of losses. It was still fun to annotate, though.
tough_customer 24-Jul-14, 19:37	re annotating... I think it would be presumptious of me to comment or cast any judgement on someone considerably higher in rank such as my opponent. That's why I need a person of at least equal and preferably higher rank as my opponent to collaborate in the annotation. I don't think all wins should be annotated but I think that I made some small breakthroughs in the 2 games (one in May), and I'd like to crystallize them in my mind. Thanks, Les
hogfysshe 25-Jul-14, 03:51	I think a benefit of annotating yourself is that if you state your rationale behind a particular move or strategy, commenters can weigh in and point out other things that should be considered. not that a good reviewer who has annotated for you can't say "at this point, things to consider include..." and not that you can't state your rationale IN the comments on their annotation and have subsequent commenters respond. annotating takes some effort. so, if you can't get someone to do it, you could do a bare bones annotation in order to get it up, just briefly drawing attention to the areas of interest (no presumptuousness or casting of judgement, though maybe giving a brief statement of your rationale). Then ask the masters and experts in the club for comment. a compromise idea, in order to get an annotation produced. Another nice thing about doing it yourself is that it would start an "Annotated Games" link on your profile page. but I agree it would be great if an expert or above would do it.
wrecking_ball 25-Jul-14, 14:29	As I mentioned many times before and FYI: As mentioned above,annotations are not always necessary in winning games.Sometimes,you win not because you have done well in the game,but your opponent has done badly or even blundered and you simply took advantage of that.As long as you understand even just one or two key moves in a 60 move game,that may suffice your reinforced thoughts on that game to remember for future games....without annotating the entire game move for move.That is one of my "styles"in explaining the theory behind just one or two critical/key moves deep in the game that probably changed the game in ones favor or not.I usually do not annotate full games...I leave that chore to others.Whether it be that Knight on the 5th rank,that Bishop controlling the light square diagonal,an open file leading to massive control and more...that is what I am good at spotting for others and myself.In reality,many times its the pure quality of the opening book you are using,combined with the better statistical sub variant lines that lay the proper foundation for your advantage in the game opening and a better or easier middle game.I never promote any GK opening book,I consider it inferior compared to many others regardless of how much you may like it. I have found out that many MORE times it is simply better to annotate games that you lost,not won.This breaks the game down to see where and why you went wrong and try to adjust and improve that weakness in position,piece exchange,taking advantage of that "hole"your opponent developed and much more.In many games that you won,the player most of the time understands WHY he won,so analyzing a won game many times is less critical than analyzing a lost game where there are many more questions....usually. Again,as I have mentioned,I may "partially"annotate a club members game in the future(not all moves but a few key moves).But summertime is not the time for me.My time is very limited until fall/winter.I may be posting a few more posts on theory but mot much more till the summer ends.But,in time,there will be more experts and hopefully masters that want to join this club.They may have more time than me to get with a "one on one" helping annotation. Remember guys what I told you...."I never have considered myself a chess mentor or chess tutor",but I kind of guide you in the right direction with your games in theory,positional/tactical ploys and statistics in order to improve the quality of your games". But an annotator that has the time and desire to annotate,a person that "wants" to take the time to annotate and help on an individual tutor/mentor basis....that,I am not... and never will be!I will leave that to others.Just the pure bulk and length of my posts on theory,linking old posts,doing the research and typing in the lengthy reports and opinions of myself and others,GM's and more take tons of time....weeks and months.So,if I NEVER help in annotations....you now know why!I'll leave that up to other future experts or masters.My quality time must be spent in the club in other avenues.And what you get out of those posts is up to you.I can only direct my time to maximum efficiency in certain zones of chess.Some players spend most of their time annotating(a good thing)....but I do not.That is the nature of the beast with me,take it or leave it.I am an excellent annotator,but generally will not do it as I explained.I will go back occasionally in a players game and spot a crossroads mistake and tell you about it,but that is the limit.But technically, placing a GK computer analysis or outside program on your post game can do a similar job to what I will tell you...at least where you went wrong.Then it may be easy to discover "why"you went wrong.If you cannot see "why",then perhaps post the position for me and I may tell you why.But annotating the whole game or twenty moves of a 50 move game?Not my style.Again,take it or leave it...I'm always brutally honest! WB
tough_customer 25-Jul-14, 20:02	Had no idea that annotation was such a controversial issue. Used wrong term. Sorry. Would settle for an expert's eye cast on the key turning points in my game. How many could there be? Just a couple of sentences on each. Don't need comprehensive analysis of entire game. Computer analysis should help.
baddeeds 25-Jul-14, 20:10	What you might also want to use is the fen notation that goes over each position for the move played.
tough_customer 26-Jul-14, 03:51	Jkarp Thanks, I became familiar with the fen, when I learned how to set up a diagram that I used in the post about the knight outpost . See above.
wrecking_ball 26-Jul-14, 05:12	Deleted by wrecking_ball on 26-Jul-14, 05:19.
wrecking_ball 26-Jul-14, 05:19	Quote from lesplay: "Had no idea that annotation was such a controversial issue."There is no controversy at all lesplay and I explained this with the bothersome message you sent me as well. Why would you "invent" an incorrect statement about me lesplay,or draw immediate false conclusions and more?That is NOT at all what my statement above reflects. In addition above you said.... "I think it would be presumptious of me to comment or cast any judgement on someone considerably higher in rank such as my opponent....." Again,your alluding to something a bit more untrue and sinister in your words. You have been expelled from the club.Anyone else?
wrecking_ball 26-Jul-14, 05:20	Lock on this thread and it will be extinguished in 10 days.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2

GameKnot: play chess online, chess teams, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.