Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Wolff Morrow's Opening Analysis


  • 11 months ago · Quote · #81

    ponz111

    In the ancient Olympics in Greece they would have running competition for various distances.

    Then in more modern times someone had a bike.  One could ride a bike faster and longer distances than a runner could run.

    The Olympic Committee recognized this and there were events where using a bike was allowed.  In other words they saw that it was cheating to use a bike.  Some have better bikes than others so it is an unfair advantage.

    I want to compete in some so called "bike events" but I have a ten year old bike that is even a little rusty.  Why don't I get another bike so I can compete?  Because these bike events are cheating anyway so do I have to cheat to compete?

    Bike events as used by dishonest runners are distracting from the honest runners who won titles and tournaments before the use of bikes was allowed.

    I am skilled in running and challenged one of the best bikers to a 5 kilometer run but the so called champion biker did not respond.

    You know these people who use bikes--it is like a drug to these people. They are so used to cheating by using a bike that they do not know how to run anymore.

    You know when the Olympics changed the rules so as to "purpetuate that these new people are not cheats is just not good enough, and does nothing to change my stance of the matter."

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #82

    blumzovich

    David_Star wrote:

    Why doesn't blumzovich challenge Wolff Morrow to a game in this variation on chess.com? Make it unrated so you can use engines. If you can't prove what you are saying, then you should not accuse someone of having crappy opening analysis.

    It's still crappy analysis because of the lack of detail.  He should have at least addressed ...h6 in his notes, instead of just sprinkling ! around.  Yeah I did that too, but I'm trolling on chess.com, not writing a feature for the USCF's website.  IM Pfren's comments were much more helpful, and we would never have gotten them without me trolling.

    BTW I'd never be caught dead playing this sort of thing as Black.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #83

    ponz111

    blumzovitch my wayward friend, listen to what David_Star is telling you.

    Your presentation was mean-spirited and that was not necessary and in the end you really did not prove your point.  

    You got some interesting comments from pfren however.

    Do not assume an old published rating or even a new published rating is indictitive of the current strength of a player.  Especailly when the two ratings are from a different type of chess.

    Look at my blitz rating [this is an example] do you think that rating is equal to my correspondence rating?  Also, do you think that the blitz rating reflects my blitz play?   [the answer is "no" to both questions.]

    Finally, do you think being a "troll" is something good?

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #84

    InDetention

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #85

    Expertise87

    ponz I have to say your bike analogy was brilliant!

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #86

    ponz111

    thank you thank you!

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #87

    blumzovich

    I've got to get back on my psych meds.  I'm not joking Cry  Got an appointment in 2.5 weeks, just trying to hold on until then.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #88

    Polar_Bear

    ponz111 wrote:

    So tired of all these people saying it is cheating to use a chess engine in correspondence chess where it is allowed. 
    [...]

    This has been already discussed to death. I am also tired of adressing it again and again, especially when I see the same man having failed to learn anything.

    Simple. There are 2 forms of correspondence chess today, they must not be confused and must be kept strictly apart. The casual one with external assistance (including computers) allowed and the serious competitive one, strictly one to one.

    No, sisu wasn't completely right, there is centaur chess where engine use isn't cheating, eg. FICGS or LSS. The actual question is whether engine use in the ICCF qualifies as cheating or not, because ICCF's rules are somewhat unclear. So ICCF possesses no authority anymore and creates confusion as their rules fail to adress this serious issue. I haven't found anything there about allowed external assistance, only vague statement that players should decide moves themselves and avoid external influence. Despite this, ICCF never ever policed it, even in the pre-computer era, and most ICCF players use external assistance today, almost exclusively in the form of computers. I wholeheartedly disagree with internet ignoramuses who insinuate that ICCF's spoiled habits could serve as universal norm for online and correspondence chess.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #89

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    ponz111 wrote:

    In the ancient Olympics in Greece they would have running competition for various distances.

    Then in more modern times someone had a bike.  One could ride a bike faster and longer distances than a runner could run.

    The Olympic Committee recognized this and there were events where using a bike was allowed.  In other words they saw that it was cheating to use a bike.  Some have better bikes than others so it is an unfair advantage.

    I want to compete in some so called "bike events" but I have a ten year old bike that is even a little rusty.  Why don't I get another bike so I can compete?  Because these bike events are cheating anyway so do I have to cheat to compete?

    Bike events as used by dishonest runners are distracting from the honest runners who won titles and tournaments before the use of bikes was allowed.

    I am skilled in running and challenged one of the best bikers to a 5 kilometer run but the so called champion biker did not respond.

    You know these people who use bikes--it is like a drug to these people. They are so used to cheating by using a bike that they do not know how to run anymore.

    You know when the Olympics changed the rules so as to "purpetuate that these new people are not cheats is just not good enough, and does nothing to change my stance of the matter."

    Running hills is far easier than biking them.  Still, this reminds me, I need to ride my bike today, and I'll even go up a hill.  The downhill speed makes it worth it. 

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #90

    FirebrandX

    The OP's account has already been closed, but my apologies for completely missing this thread. Setting aside the obvious intent to troll me and make ad hominem attacks, I'll address the OP's slanderous remarks:

    1. I stand by 8.a3 as being the more accurate move, specifically because of what I detailed in the article about 8.Qd2 b4! completely stifling white's ability to create complications. On ICCF with everyone using deep computer analysis to bolster their gameplan, not being able to generate a complex middlegame spells guaranteed 1/2 - 1/2. Consider the following:

    You don't need a computer to see that white has no play where he needs it (the queenside). Black will swap off the b-pawn, play Be7, and then 0-0. This is an easily held draw on ICCF. That's why 8.Qd2 is inferior to 8.a3, and why after my own experience on ICCF that I gave the move an exclam. It's because most people will miss this subtle issue with the opening and end up parroting whatever book percentage move shows up on their computer. This brings me to my next point:

    2. A computer engine was NOT used to determine my opening play. This was all research and experience I earned and applied on my own. Any veteran player on ICCF will tell you that computers are absolutely worthless in the opening. In fact, if computers could dictate the opening, I would have zero interest in playing centaur chess in the first place. The fact that I can still out-prepare my opponent even though they likely have a monster machine helping them is what appeals to me most about ICCF play. To put it bluntly, I LIKE beating computer parrots. It's especially satisfying when you consider that my own desktop is now 7 years old and many times slower than a current cheap laptop. It's not the hardware that counts, it's your own input that makes the difference.

    3. My OTB rating, while obviously old and outdated, does not dictate the skill I apply in my ICCF games. Having enough of my own chess experience has in fact helped me to generate the right kind of winning chances and avoid drawn endings on ICCF, but my skill in preparation there as well as knowing how to use all tools to maximum potential is something I developed completely independant of OTB chess. I win on ICCF because I put in extra effort, not because I'm some "class player with an engine". As I've said before, those types don't win championships.

    4. The OP's counterline involving 10...h6 doesn't work as well as he thinks. My own cc games archive show white enjoying a whopping 70% performance rate against it, so I seriously doubt black is "fine". After 11.0-0-0 Rc8, white can start the typical kingside pawn storm with h4 straight away, or even 12.Rg1. Here's an ideal game:


    Black resigned early, but the ending is in fact lost.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #91

    kleelof

    I just saw this thread for the first time today.

    Not trying to re-hash a debate about engines in CC. I would like to ask, How do you play 'computer assisted' CC? It seems to me the only thing an engine can do is take a position and, depending on how much time and power you give it, determine a move.

    Does this make it just a matter of who has the strongest engine? I can't believe this can be true.

    Sorry. It's just that I have never played CC, but I do use an engine for analysis, and this is just how it appears to me that it would work.

    If someone could say a bit about how this works, it would be great.


Back to Top

Post your reply: