Chess With Your Power 2.0 - IT BEGINS

[voorhese]

im sad, i went 2 and 2 in a chess game, and didnt get to finish (in real life)

 

[jugfingers]

WTF are you guys talking about, fischer>>>>kaspanoob and also fischer never went crazy


k lets have a chess debate war butter paddle battle


im gonna post a really dope game by fischer, then someone who thinks kasparov is better post an ill game of his, also you can post videos of fischer getting beat by someone badly and then ill post a game of kasparov gettin beat and so on? ok heres my first match

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMN9lGuPRas&feature=related fischer ****** byrne



in my opinion kasparov had amazing opening theory, very solid attacks, but not even close to the genius of fischer

 

[ru5514n]

Meh, this game's better.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478

It's a shame there's no annotations here, cuz this game is really deep. There's just so many complications, variations and possibilities.

P.S. "Kaspanoob" has been retired for 4 years, and he'd still utterly **** you.

P.P.S. Fischer had huge problems with mental health. By the time of his death last year (just in case you didn't know he died) he was basically seen as a raving, anti-Semite maniac, because of his outrageous statements about America, 9/11, etc. Most people blamed his madness on chess, which is total BS.

 

[jugfingers]

Meh, this game's better.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011478

It's a shame there's no annotations here, cuz this game is really deep. There's just so many complications, variations and possibilities.

P.S. "Kaspanoob" has been retired for 4 years, and he'd still utterly **** you.

P.P.S. Fischer had huge problems with mental health. By the time of his death last year (just in case you didn't know he died) he was basically seen as a raving, anti-Semite maniac, because of his outrageous statements about America, 9/11, etc. Most people blamed his madness on chess, which is total BS.

lol ok that game was pretty tight, took me a second to figure out the tactics on the Rook E7 check,

I said fischer never went crazy because alot of the things he said were very true, people just thought he was crazy cause they didn't agree with him, he never said anything really anti-semetic to like jewish people as a whole, i think he was sort of referring to the big players on wall street when he said round up all the jewish ringleaders, but yea fischer never went crazy in my books, said alot of very sane things in those rants, like how white people stole the native american land etc.

anyways heres another game of fischers analysis from kingscrusher

http://www.youtube.com/kingscrusher#p/search/3/E1PQCCFUHwQ Fischer is 14 years old at the time of this game

sick tactics at the end of this game

P.S. "Kaspanoob" has been retired for 4 years, and he'd still utterly **** you.

^^ are you being serious or joking I can't tell.

 

[cemo]

Kasparov might be a little better overall, but I find Fischer's chess to be more inspiring.

 

[Overload]

anyways heres another game of fischers analysis from kingscrusher

http://www.youtube.com/kingscrusher#p/search/3/E1PQCCFUHwQ Fischer is 14 years old at the time of this game

sick tactics at the end of this game

That was awesome. I loled.

 

[jugfingers]

http://www.youtube.com/user/kingscrusher#p/search/9/GYdp9CmRFCo


13 year old fischer, famous game of the century!

 

[~N9NE~]

Played an OTB tournament game today against a Deaf Chess Club. Was really cool.

Will check these videos and then comment back.

 

[ru5514n]

^^How would you offer them a draw?

 

[~N9NE~]

lol ended up as a draw. My opponent offered it. It was pretty easy communicating. Here's the game

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/4th-otb-tournament-game

Here's my other OTB games that I've posted on chess.com, feel free to comment:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/my-first-tournament-game2

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/my-2nd-otb-tournament-game

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/3rd-otb-tournament-game

Keep in mind that I've only been playing OTB for 3/4 months.

 

[jugfingers]

in your game against the deaf guy, when you play Qg5 to try opening the H file, it seems like a logical move since if your opponent takes you will have considerable pressure with the H file, however moves like Qg5 only really work if there is a reason for your opponent to take the Queen i.e it is threatening mate or simply a piece or a pawn, or some other weak square that it can inflitrate in the position, basically there has to be some threat or else your opponent will play like he did with Rad1 with no reason to give you the Hfile to his king.

also if your opponent castles king side and you can castle queen side safely you can potentially really undermine king safety with a king side pawn push if your opponent has no quick way to get at your king, In my opinion you should always look at your attacking possibilities before offering a queen trade.

anyways good games though.

 

[DMG]

2. ... d6 is a slightly inferior response for Black to e4 e5 Nf3. Playing Nc6 is the standard move, Nf6 is also playable there too but you have to know the lines extremely well.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 (One of the two main tries for White to develop a stronger advantage. Bc4 is the other.) and here your options aren't that amazing. White gets free, natural development while your development is cramped and will take time to flourish. It is very playable, although fairly passive, because it is a very hard to crack defense if played correctly. By playing Philidor's defence, you really at that point are playing for a draw. There's nothing wrong with that, and getting a draw as Black is still a good goal to strive for, but it's like settling for less too early. You don't want to settle for a draw on move 2 when you have other moves that give you better chances. Now if you get into a complex endgame or if you are down and your opponent offers you a draw, that's one thing. But that early into a game it's not a bad idea to play some of the stronger choices you have.

Playing moves like 2. ... d6 has the occasional advantage of you knowing the book lines more than your opponent, but against someone really knowledgeable you won't be able to surprise them with this enough to turn it into a win.

 

[jugfingers]

getting a draw as Black is still a good goal to strive for,

Draws are for *******

 

[ru5514n]

Draws aren't always bad. But yeah, 2. ...d6 is generally considered a bit inferior to moves like Nf6/Nc6. The only reason I see people playing some other move at this point is to avoid complications that tend to arise after either the Petroff or the ruy.

 

[jugfingers]

Draws aren't always bad. But yeah, 2. ...d6 is generally considered a bit inferior to moves like Nf6/Nc6. The only reason I see people playing some other move at this point is to avoid complications that tend to arise after either the Petroff or the ruy.

complications are for men, draws are for octopussies.


I hate Gm's that play the slav or the petroff. I guess its how they make their money though so there not really in it to be manly and go beast mode all the time.

 

[ru5514n]

complications are for men, draws are for octopussies.


I hate Gm's that play the slav or the petroff. I guess its how they make their money though so there not really in it to be manly and go beast mode all the time.

Ok, you're kinda descending into trolling by now.

The reason GMs play openings like slav and petroff is because they're solid defences that offer them the best chances for equality or a slight advantage. Draws are common at that level simply because GMs know the theory for like the first 30 moves, and by then they get into an equal endgame, which usually ends up being a draw. And most GMs do go into complications and take risks when they have to.

From now on I'm just gonna speculate. Another reason most games played at that level are solid openings, middlegames and endgames, is because how long it would take to work out complicated lines, and how stressful it would be. If you screw up once, you go down in flames. Imagine doing that for six to eight hours straight, in front of a live audience, journalists, and a few million people on the internet. Then you have do it for several days in a row. It's tough enough playing the solid, drawn games.

 

[jugfingers]

Ok, you're kinda descending into trolling by now.

The reason GMs play openings like slav and petroff is because they're solid defences that offer them the best chances for equality or a slight advantage. Draws are common at that level simply because GMs know the theory for like the first 30 moves, and by then they get into an equal endgame, which usually ends up being a draw. And most GMs do go into complications and take risks when they have to.

From now on I'm just gonna speculate. Another reason most games played at that level are solid openings, middlegames and endgames, is because how long it would take to work out complicated lines, and how stressful it would be. If you screw up once, you go down in flames. Imagine doing that for six to eight hours straight, in front of a live audience, journalists, and a few million people on the internet. Then you have do it for several days in a row. It's tough enough playing the solid, drawn games.

Um slav and petroff are definitely super solid but don't give an advantage, they only gain an advantage if white pushes for a win, but that goes the same for black if black pushes for a win they will also be at a disadvantage, so by playing an opening like the slav your basically playing for a draw at high level play.

chess culture at the top level is super wack because nobody likes losing, i've seen matches were players who needed to win the match or else they were out of the tournament were offered draws in a middle game and accepted the draw because they saw their position as a slight disadvantage and just didn't want to risk losing. (topalov you *****)

ive also seen matches where players probably secretly agreed to draw before the match then make like 20 standard mainline moves and then draw.

look at kasparov playing deep blue jr, drew in the last round for no real reason other than to save face, and not risk losing to a computer

hey look everyones a winner its a tie, yay!


it just takes the beauty out of chess, just reduces it to the final outcome rather then
the art of playing.

bring back Greco I say!

 

[~N9NE~]

Thanks for all the comments, will take them on board for my next game.

How long have you guys been playing chess btw. You all seem to know your stuff.

 

[ru5514n]

Um slav and petroff are definitely super solid but don't give an advantage, they only gain an advantage if white pushes for a win, but that goes the same for black if black pushes for a win they will also be at a disadvantage, so by playing an opening like the slav your basically playing for a draw at high level play.

chess culture at the top level is super wack because nobody likes losing, i've seen matches were players who needed to win the match or else they were out of the tournament were offered draws in a middle game and accepted the draw because they saw their position as a slight disadvantage and just didn't want to risk losing. (topalov you *****)

ive also seen matches where players probably secretly agreed to draw before the match then make like 20 standard mainline moves and then draw.

look at kasparov playing deep blue jr, drew in the last round for no real reason other than to save face, and not risk losing to a computer

hey look everyones a winner its a tie, yay!


it just takes the beauty out of chess, just reduces it to the final outcome rather then
the art of playing.

bring back Greco I say!

Ok, we've established that openings like the Slav are soild defences that don't give White anymore of an edge than it needs to. That's why they're played. I did say in the previous post that GMs know the most of the theory all the way to the middlegame. And from there on endgames aren't too far away, and a draw is the likely outcome there, simply because GMs rarely make inaccuracies in their games, thus neither really gets an advantage, so a draw is the likely result in most openings, not just the Slav or Petroff.

Now, who likes losing? Particularly when you play for hundreds of thousands or even millons of dollars. I do dislike matches that are drawn in like 10-15 moves, but they are not that common. And a slight disadvantage can often be decisive in a grandmaster game. (That being said, I still don't like Topalov.)

If it's a tie, you can of everyone as losers, it might help.

If you don't like how chess is too theorized (and too a degree, it is) you can try Chess 960.

And btw, ~N9NE~, I've only started playing in tourneys about three years ago.

On a side note, why are we having a chess debate in a Smash forum?

 

[jugfingers]

Ok, we've established that openings like the Slav are soild defences that don't give White anymore of an edge than it needs to. That's why they're played. I did say in the previous post that GMs know the most of the theory all the way to the middlegame. And from there on endgames aren't too far away, and a draw is the likely outcome there, simply because GMs rarely make inaccuracies in their games, thus neither really gets an advantage, so a draw is the likely result in most openings, not just the Slav or Petroff.

Now, who likes losing? Particularly when you play for hundreds of thousands or even millons of dollars. I do dislike matches that are drawn in like 10-15 moves, but they are not that common. And a slight disadvantage can often be decisive in a grandmaster game. (That being said, I still don't like Topalov.)

If it's a tie, you can of everyone as losers, it might help.

If you don't like how chess is too theorized (and too a degree, it is) you can try Chess 960.

And btw, ~N9NE~, I've only started playing in tourneys about three years ago.

On a side note, why are we having a chess debate in a Smash forum?

actually GM's almost always play innacurately to a degree its just whether or not the othe player identifies the mistakes that are made. There are 16 year olds that are beating Gm's regularly just cause the spend hours everyday looking through there games identifying weak moves they play in their pet systems. i've seen games that were theory all the way to the final move which ends in a draw, then i've seen the same player play that same system against an opponent of similar strength and offer a draw at the same move but the draw is declined because the opponent has prepared a variation beyond that position that will give him an advantage, thats sort of what I mean is how GM's are content to just cop out with a draw , when it is not actually a technically drawn position.

it really hurts the progression of chess, and like you say its mostly due to money,

its stupid, if people were smarter in the world and took down all the corporations and governments that are controlling all the resources and started growing food everywhere they could and shared it with everybody we wouldn't have issues like money corrupting the game of chess, cause nobody would have to worry about not being able to eat if they lost lol.

 

[CRASHiC]

does anyone know a counter to Owen's Defense? I can't really find anything about it.

 

[ru5514n]

actually GM's almost always play innacurately to a degree its just whether or not the othe player identifies the mistakes that are made. There are 16 year olds that are beating Gm's regularly just cause the spend hours everyday looking through there games identifying weak moves they play in their pet systems. i've seen games that were theory all the way to the final move which ends in a draw, then i've seen the same player play that same system against an opponent of similar strength and offer a draw at the same move but the draw is declined because the opponent has prepared a variation beyond that position that will give him an advantage, thats sort of what I mean is how GM's are content to just cop out with a draw , when it is not actually a technically drawn position.

it really hurts the progression of chess, and like you say its mostly due to money,

its stupid, if people were smarter in the world and took down all the corporations and governments that are controlling all the resources and started growing food everywhere they could and shared it with everybody we wouldn't have issues like money corrupting the game of chess, cause nobody would have to worry about not being able to eat if they lost lol.

Well, that depends on whether there's some unknown novelty in the position, and usually there isn't. And a lot of those 16-year olds are about grandmaster strength themselves, even if their ratings don't reflect it. And, sometimes a player will accept a draw because he's not confident with his position, or preparation or w/e, and the other player won't because he is confident with his knowledge of the position. Even then, if a lot of those positions were actually played out, they would end up being draws in the end. GMs realize this, so they usually save themselves time and health by drawing a game 20-30 moves earlier.

There's a name for what you talk about in the second paragraph. It's called anarchy. It tends to cause more harm than good. Just ask any person living in a failed state that is ravaged by war, poverty, crop failures, etc. Their governments are so corrupt and ineffective, it makes no difference whether they're there or not. Atrocities happen on a daily basis, simply because their government is unable or unwilling to help.

P.S. Aren't we kind of getting off topic a little bit? Just sayin'.

 

[voorhese]

slav, petroff?

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I joined a while back. I would love to play my fellow SWF members in a good game of chess.

-Terywj

 

[jugfingers]

Well, that depends on whether there's some unknown novelty in the position, and usually there isn't. And a lot of those 16-year olds are about grandmaster strength themselves, even if their ratings don't reflect it. And, sometimes a player will accept a draw because he's not confident with his position, or preparation or w/e, and the other player won't because he is confident with his knowledge of the position. Even then, if a lot of those positions were actually played out, they would end up being draws in the end. GMs realize this, so they usually save themselves time and health by drawing a game 20-30 moves earlier.

There's a name for what you talk about in the second paragraph. It's called anarchy. It tends to cause more harm than good. Just ask any person living in a failed state that is ravaged by war, poverty, crop failures, etc. Their governments are so corrupt and ineffective, it makes no difference whether they're there or not. Atrocities happen on a daily basis, simply because their government is unable or unwilling to help.

P.S. Aren't we kind of getting off topic a little bit? Just sayin'.

theres no country in the world that is an anarchist state, and people do not need to be governed nor should they be.



anyways there is always an unknown novelty in the position unless your playing for a draw, otherwise you would know the outcome before playing the match lol.

"Chess is infinite: There are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece. There are 72,084 positions after two moves apiece. There are 9+ million positions after three moves apiece. There are 288+ billion different possible positions after four moves apiece. There are more 40-move games on Level-1 than the number of electrons in our universe. There are more game-trees of Chess than the number of galaxies (100+ billion), and more openings, defences, gambits, etc. than the number of quarks in our universe!"

game-tree complexity of chess is approximately 10^123

thats an unfathomable number, there is always a novel move to be played.
always.

 

[ru5514n]

The main problem with that argument is that the vast majority of those moves aren't any **** good. Some are just plain horrible, while others are unsound, dubious, or simply meh.

 

[jugfingers]

The main problem with that argument is that the vast majority of those moves aren't any **** good. Some are just plain horrible, while others are unsound, dubious, or simply meh.

I don't think your comprehending how large a number 10^120 is, yea theres alot of bad moves that can be played, but its 10^120 lets just say hypothetically that almost all of the moves that can be played are bad, that still lives trillions upon trillions of good moves,

its 10^120 thats like infinity basically.

I don't even know what comes after a trillion and thats just 10^8 lol

think about how much larger a trillion is than billion and think about how much larger whatever comes after that and after that and so on over a hundred times,

think about having a billion possibilities, thats a minute fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the possibilities in chess.

seriously, I think you are completely underestimating the depth of chess.

1000 years from now people will be playing completely different openings with completely different theory

just in the london classic nigel short was saying that he was playing a position that had like 1500 games in the chess database, so this very same position had been played 1500 times before in recorded games, and he played like a simple move like Qf3 and it was a novelty,

foreal though chess theory is in zygote stage right now if you know what I mean

 

[cemo]

maybe i'm not good at chess since i only bothered to learn like... half of one opening.

 

[ru5514n]

I don't think your comprehending how large a number 10^120 is, yea theres alot of bad moves that can be played, but its 10^120 lets just say hypothetically that almost all of the moves that can be played are bad, that still lives trillions upon trillions of good moves,

its 10^120 thats like infinity basically.

I don't even know what comes after a trillion and thats just 10^8 lol

think about how much larger a trillion is than billion and think about how much larger whatever comes after that and after that and so on over a hundred times,

think about having a billion possibilities, thats a minute fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the possibilities in chess.

seriously, I think you are completely underestimating the depth of chess.

1000 years from now people will be playing completely different openings with completely different theory

just in the london classic nigel short was saying that he was playing a position that had like 1500 games in the chess database, so this very same position had been played 1500 times before in recorded games, and he played like a simple move like Qf3 and it was a novelty,

foreal though chess theory is in zygote stage right now if you know what I mean

Well, you're correct to an extent. But lets think one move at a time. In any given opeming/middlegame position, there are maybe about 100 possible moves. Around 60% of that would lose outright, maybe another 10% would be completely pointless, and around 10% more would probably hurt your position. Now you have to consider the ~20% left. That may not seem like a lot, but most grandmasters think 5-10 or more moves ahead. So you'd have to consider all the possible variations for those 5-10 moves. And that is a LOT. I'm not underestimating depth of chess, I'm just saying GMs are human, and it may not be possible for them to calculate all those variations. Occasionally, a GM uses a novelty, and it works well, but that GM usually put hours of thought into that move beforehand.

I certainly would like to see chess theory from 1000 years in the future. (Assuming chess would still exist, and there would be no major rule changes. And it's likely computers will get strong enough in the future to instantly decide whether a move is good or bad.)

 

[jugfingers]

Well, you're correct to an extent. But lets think one move at a time. In any given opeming/middlegame position, there are maybe about 100 possible moves. Around 60% of that would lose outright, maybe another 10% would be completely pointless, and around 10% more would probably hurt your position. Now you have to consider the ~20% left. That may not seem like a lot, but most grandmasters think 5-10 or more moves ahead. So you'd have to consider all the possible variations for those 5-10 moves. And that is a LOT. I'm not underestimating depth of chess, I'm just saying GMs are human, and it may not be possible for them to calculate all those variations. Occasionally, a GM uses a novelty, and it works well, but that GM usually put hours of thought into that move beforehand.

I certainly would like to see chess theory from 1000 years in the future. (Assuming chess would still exist, and there would be no major rule changes. And it's likely computers will get strong enough in the future to instantly decide whether a move is good or bad.)

its true that there most of the possibilites might be bad moves in any given middle game position, but if there say 2-3 good candidate moves, each of those moves if played will lead to several other candidate moves, and from those there could be a number of others even if there are only a few very strong moves this will lead to a massive amount of variation in lets say a 12 move tree, and Gm games aren't always preperation, nigel short had nothing prepared for some of his variations in the london classic, Carlsen beat Kramnik by creating a very unfamiliar position for both of them, I mean all chess games are different, there aren't very many games that have the exact same move order to the finish, infact I don't know of any but maybe their are. so in every game unless your playing the exact same move order as a previous game there are going to be novelties, of course masters prepare enormously for games but that preparation can get tossed out the window if their opponent doesn't play the moves that they thought they would.


also computers still don't understand important issues such as pawn structure and certain aspects of positional play, yu would need an incredibly powerful computer to be able to say for certainty whether a move was good or bad.

 

[ru5514n]

its true that there most of the possibilites might be bad moves in any given middle game position, but if there say 2-3 good candidate moves, each of those moves if played will lead to several other candidate moves, and from those there could be a number of others even if there are only a few very strong moves this will lead to a massive amount of variation in lets say a 12 move tree, and Gm games aren't always preperation, nigel short had nothing prepared for some of his variations in the london classic, Carlsen beat Kramnik by creating a very unfamiliar position for both of them, I mean all chess games are different, there aren't very many games that have the exact same move order to the finish, infact I don't know of any but maybe their are. so in every game unless your playing the exact same move order as a previous game there are going to be novelties, of course masters prepare enormously for games but that preparation can get tossed out the window if their opponent doesn't play the moves that they thought they would.


also computers still don't understand important issues such as pawn structure and certain aspects of positional play, yu would need an incredibly powerful computer to be able to say for certainty whether a move was good or bad.

Remember, in the end, it's up to the GM to choose a move he wants to play. Whether he prepares a novelty for days before the game, or picks it spontaneously mid-game, or goes by a mainline, that choice is his alone. It may depend on GM's playing style, or other factors.

And computers, especially super chess engines like Fritz and Rybka are getting increasingly better at playing chess. Their ratings are rising past 3000, and are likely to keep getting better and better, until eventually, they'll be able to find the best counter for any move played. Then any of the novelties will be rendered pretty much useless.

 

[jugfingers]

Remember, in the end, it's up to the GM to choose a move he wants to play. Whether he prepares a novelty for days before the game, or picks it spontaneously mid-game, or goes by a mainline, that choice is his alone. It may depend on GM's playing style, or other factors.

obviously. what is your point?

And computers, especially super chess engines like Fritz and Rybka are getting increasingly better at playing chess. Their ratings are rising past 3000, and are likely to keep getting better and better, until eventually, they'll be able to find the best counter for any move played. Then any of the novelties will be rendered pretty much useless.

what do you mean novelties will be rendered useless, do you not understand that there are novelties in everygame of chess?

are you talking about opening novelties? I mean GM's sometimes prepare into the middlegame, but after a certain point there will be a novelty, because thats the only way to win. If you just use moves that have been played before what use are you as a chess player or a chess engine you simply cannot prepare a whole game of chess from start to finish unless your playing yourself, everygame of chess has novelties, its simply that the first novel move is played sometimes deep in the middlegame, rather than in the first 15 moves.

I think your confusing opening novelties with novel moves in general.

and chess engines have a way to go, right now a master paired with a chess engine will destroy another engine. but the advance of chess engines will not render novel moves useless lol this is a preposterous statement, it simply means the novel moves that are played will be better moves, tactically, positionally and otherwise.

 

[ru5514n]

obviously. what is your point?

This goes back to your first posts about GMs that play drawish openings like the Slav and Petroff , and how often they draw. It's their choice, not yours.

hat do you mean novelties will be rendered useless, do you not understand that there are novelties in everygame of chess?

are you talking about opening novelties? I mean GM's sometimes prepare into the middlegame, but after a certain point there will be a novelty, because thats the only way to win. If you just use moves that have been played before what use are you as a chess player or a chess engine you simply cannot prepare a whole game of chess from start to finish unless your playing yourself, everygame of chess has novelties, its simply that the first novel move is played sometimes deep in the middlegame, rather than in the first 15 moves.

I think your confusing opening novelties with novel moves in general.

and chess engines have a way to go, right now a master paired with a chess engine will destroy another engine. but the advance of chess engines will not render novel moves useless lol this is a preposterous statement, it simply means the novel moves that are played will be better moves, tactically, positionally and otherwise.

I probably could have worded that better... But either way, eventually computers will be strong enough so that you can plug in a position and a novelty in the said position and after some analysis, it will tell you whether the move will give you an advantage, an edge, equality, or if it's bad. And you seem to be underestimating how good chess engines can be. They certainly have no problems out-analyzing, and even beating most GMs.

 

[jugfingers]

This goes back to your first posts about GMs that play drawish openings like the Slav and Petroff , and how often they draw. It's their choice, not yours.

I realize its their, choice, I was just saying their choice was bad for the game of chess.

I probably could have worded that better... But either way, eventually computers will be strong enough so that you can plug in a position and a novelty in the said position and after some analysis, it will tell you whether the move will give you an advantage, an edge, equality, or if it's bad. And you seem to be underestimating how good chess engines can be. They certainly have no problems out-analyzing, and even beating most GMs.

I realize the strength of engines, but engines like humans simply do not have enough power to calculate with 100% certainty the best move

thats why the best chess engines today are able to destroy the chess engines of yesterday and the chess engines of tomorrow will destroy the chess engines of today. Of course there are simplified positions where the answer is more straight forward and even weak engines can determine winning moves, but the game of chess starts from the first move and although Gm's stick to mainlines, engines do not, Gm's use mainline theory because they know the theory behind the position there trying to create very well, but for engines they can analyze any position so they play whatever they deem to be the best move which creates many interesting novelties

So actually as Chess engines get stronger there will be even more novelties, especially in the opening.

 

[ru5514n]

I realize its their, choice, I was just saying their choice was bad for the game of chess.

Well, that's your opinion. I'm sure someone else might disagree with you.

I realize the strength of engines, but engines like humans simply do not have enough power to calculate with 100% certainty the best move

thats why the best chess engines today are able to destroy the chess engines of yesterday and the chess engines of tomorrow will destroy the chess engines of today. Of course there are simplified positions where the answer is more straight forward and even weak engines can determine winning moves, but the game of chess starts from the first move and although Gm's stick to mainlines, engines do not, Gm's use mainline theory because they know the theory behind the position there trying to create very well, but for engines they can analyze any position so they play whatever they deem to be the best move which creates many interesting novelties

So actually as Chess engines get stronger there will be even more novelties, especially in the opening.

Well, who knows, technology is advancing on a pretty much daily basis. Maybe in the future computers will be able to at least give a preliminary evaluation of any possible move. It's all in the future, so it's all speculation. Anything could happen.

 

[cemo]

I think you guys should tell me how to effectively play the Sicillian. (:
I wanna add it to my game and eventually move to something like the Dragon because it has an exciting name.

But I'm kinda at a loss at what to actually do. Should I just look up games? Or would it be better to mess around with it and see how it works?

 

[DMG]

Both actually. Looking at previous games with themes you want to incorporate lets you see what others have done, and what works/doesn't work/how to follow that theme well. I'd suggest both experimenting with the opening and also reviewing multiple games covering that opening/theme.

General Sicilian themes for Black are to keep a good pawn structure, pawns on e6/d6 are common, you give White the early development lead in exchange for better prospects in the latter stages of the game, you usually aim to control the Dark Squares, and generally attacks are made on opposing flanks (Black generally attacks on the Queenside while White attacks the Kingside. This generally holds true even if White castles Queenside or if Black elects to do such.), and you are fighting not only for equality, but for the advantage. That is important to note.

 

[jugfingers]

I think you guys should tell me how to effectively play the Sicillian. (:
I wanna add it to my game and eventually move to something like the Dragon because it has an exciting name.

But I'm kinda at a loss at what to actually do. Should I just look up games? Or would it be better to mess around with it and see how it works?

learning the Sicilian takes a lot of study because there is so much theory behind it, it is a black hole of an opening. it is also has slightly controversial variations such as the dragon which many people consider to have been refuted at top level play. If your going to play the Sicilian I recommend just learning one variation really well maybe the najdorf variation which is an fairly solid variation that kasparov used with success. But just messing around to see what works is not a good idea unless you have studied the theory behind the position.

so my advice is study first, then try it out and fool around with it.

 

[ru5514n]

Well, the tourney is now officially over. ~N9NE~/DMG, are you gonna wait until after New Year to start the new tourney? I need some more games to play.

 

[DMG]

I'm not making a tournament anytime soon (can't if I am in a tournament already).