ChuckBurch proposed an interesting idea to me.  He challenged me to an "education" game, meaning we would play with the specific goal of his learning from the experience.  Some problems with this jump out right away - my goals in the game will be conflicted, am I that much better than Chuck to teach him anything, etc.  Nonetheless the idea has merit as a tool for stronger NC group members to help the weaker.  Thoughts? 

It is good to help friends improve if you can.  You both win!

Sounds like a great idea. Learning games are quite fun.

One way you can do this is to play the game and allow active comments.  Some of the stronger players can ask why you made certain moves or suggest other moves that might be better.

Typically, I have seen things like this happen by two people suggesing a particular opening so they can learn those positions better.  And then after the opening sequence they can comment on why they made moves.  If you are going to do this you might want to consider playing an non-rated game. 

But if you have one that you want us to look at and possibley make comments.  Let us know...

~madik

I think we have our basic format then.  One member challenges another to an unrated "education" game and announces the game to the rest of us as a new forum topic.  The nonplaying members can make comments if they wish to help out.  The two players,however, must understand that comments might affect the course of the game despite being directed at past moves. 

Zembla,

If you want we can run one of these games.  Just challenge me and we can discuss an opening if you have a particlar one that you want....

~madik

As  Zembla noted, we have started an unrated game for educational reasons.  I'm not sure if anyone other than us can make a comment directly on the game.  So, if someone can try and if you fail let us know here.  Once I find out where to post, I'm gonna throw some of my ideas out as the game progresses. 

Have fun all...

this is good - Chuck  

Okay, It was brought to my attention that non-players cannot read the comments that we are making on this educational game that we are playing http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=20362176.

So, if anyone has any comments to make on this game, please do so on this tread.  I'm going to check here before I make any moves so that way I should be able to provide feedback as we go along.  Also, like was mentioned before, this is an unrated game so make whatever comments you wish.

~madik

So to catch everyone up on the discussion that has been happening about this game by Zembla and me.

We decided to play the Classical Defense to the Ruy Lopez, C64.  Zembla really likes the Bc5 move in this sequence but the reply of c3 creates some difficulties for him so he tries to play the Nf6 first.  But he indicated that this leads to the Berlin Def., to which he doesnt like.  I noted that if you recieve Chess Life, over the past two issues they have gone over about 20 different games using this defense so it might be worth looking at these articles if you like this option.

So, after a few more moves, Zembla fell into a position where I forked his bishop and knight (move six).  He responded to this with a6, which looks strong.  But I have a surprize for him ready.  My copy of MCO, v15, has this move listed in its notes with all good positions for white.  So, lets see what happens.

Reads like a thriller.  Chuck, can we commission you to write the novel?

(my comment before I made move 8)

Well, Bxd4 is new. The rest of this line in the MCO is: 7. Be2! Be7 8. dxe5 Nxe4 9. Be3 d5 10 c4 c6 11. cxd5, with White having the advantage (G. Hernandez - Godena, Moscow Ol. 1994)

And the second line is: 7. Be2! Ba7 8. dxe5 Nxe4 9. Qd5! with White again with the lead.

But then again, Black is going to go down a piece here anways, but I think I like the first option best here becuase it saves the Bishop which I think will be a stronger piece for Black in the long run.

And Zembla, I will do a full anotated write up when I'm done.  I think I will even post it on my blog "http://fromclassplayertoexpert.blogspot.com/"

One of my many uread chess books is "How To Become a Candidate Master" by Alex Dunne.  Of course candidate master = expert.  I think I'll give it a look.

About my blog, it's just my ramblings and a place for me to write down the lessons that I have learned.  Kind of a one place for me to go for my thoughts.  I'm also using it to record what books I like and which I don't like. 

But as for the game we are playing, I was wondering why you didn't elect to move the knight.

My ninth move was a mistake.  I overlooked that when he moved his knight it was threaten my queen.  I don't know how I did that, espeically since I spent the time to look into a few variations.  I probaby had a better move here than the f4 move. 

Oh well, time to back peddal and try to gather another attack.  Black has won some time here.

Black isn't down a piece in any variation here (see your comment #12), you must have taken too quick a look when you said that .  Anyway the reason I didn't move my N on move 7 (is that the move # you asked about?) is that this is something I've done before when faced with the fork trick - I like to get my pawn back this way.  I deviated from my article here by the way, it suggested 7...Nxe5 or 7...Ba7 though it concedes White has a good game.

This is amazing!! So much wisdom and knowledge - the team can only win! 

ok - been thinking about this for a while- I have played Zembla and Madik - cannot touch them - What I find very interesting, for players like me (learners), is that if you think 1 move ahead - you lose - if you think two moves ahead - you have a chance - to win you must think at least three - this is what I am going to do, this is what you are going to do, and this is what I am going to do back - always playing your moves againt mine.  

In the commentary between Zembla and Madik - it is almost history - (i.e there is no game of chess that has never been played before - study every game and history shows you how to win) - I play moves (I am not a student of Chess) and Zembla and Madik play "collections" of moves based on history.       

So rambling aside! When such great players play - are the games decided by the history choices they decide!  

PS: Madik, Zembla - thank you for doing this - we will all learn - Chuck      

Well, I think 10 or so moves is enough for me to realize I may want to rethink using the Classical Def to the RL.  I'll keep playing for the glory, but it seems the theoretical part of the game is over & White stands better.

Chuck,

I don't think that every move has been played before, just like I don't believe that knowing an opening sequence will ensure a win.  I believe that there is more to the game than a few sets of moves. 

Currently, I have been reading a few books about Kaprov and Kasparov and how they handled their many world champion games.  And one thing that might be relevant in these games is the number of new ideas or new moves they tried.  Given, these "new" moves didn't occur until the 12 or 15th move of the game which means that they did follow some deep theory but it still points out that as few as 10 years ago, new moves were being played.

When I use databases and books on theory its so I can see what major lines have been played before.  It keeps me from having to re-envent the wheel every time I play.  However, I think it is more important to study end-game theory than to study openings.

My opening logic, OTB, is very weak in comparison to other 1500 players.  However, I think that my ablity to analyize in the middle game and to find good combinations in the end-game is what keeps me alive and a challange to other people.

I guess I want to make sure that you don't think that you have to memorize thousands of games (something I know that I can't do) to be a good player.  In fact, I'm less about memorizing moves as I am about learning why the moves were made. 

In fact, I have a good book on this subject.  "How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire" by Steve Giddins.