Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Comments


  • 12 months ago

    IM DanielRensch

    Interesting points John. I think part of my position on *style* has been misinterpreted by you. Or maybe I just made my comment too casually Tongue Out  without explaining the full "philosophy" behind my point (likely, as it was a Live Session Wink).

    Without going into it too deeply, I will say that once a player reaches the levels of 2400+ it is easier to see, and "justify" a style. You're right, I DO have a style and so do all those you mentioned. I think all players with that level of experience do start to naturally "prefer" certain positions over others. All your points prove that...

    BUT their knowledge of the game (which is vast) is enough that they are making more unbiased decisions than you realize Wink . So though you may only remember the great players for their "Tal-type wins" , he also won many games that didn't make it to the magazines with positional subtleties and no sacrifices based on intuition...

    BUT my point was more a teaching one for all the rest of the world! The majority of chess players below 2200 who *think* they have a *clearly developed style* are often simply justifying their "miscalculations" and "choice to avoid the right approach" because of their supposed style.

    • "I just prefer positions with the queens on the board..."
    • "I just like endgames better..."
    • "well, I'd much rather have my king on the opposite side of the board of his because I like to attack..."
    • "I like trading my bishops for knights..." (someone just said that the other day to me)
    • OR I'll even go as far as saying that "I just don't like fater time controls..." is a "personality / style weakness.

    The point is that before someone has reached a high level (in my opinion 2400+ and at least 2200+) they need to be willing to "work on themselves" to "overcome" their style choices. NOT avoid them!

    If a player struggles thinking quickly, they need to work on it! If a player isn't comfortable with queens off the board, work on it! If a player is changing his calculation because he just desperately doesn't want to give up a bishop for a knight, he / she needs to work on it!

    That's my point.

    Your points are excellent and true. BUT honestly, even at that high level, and even with people "choosing lines that suit their style" (which we all do) it still doesn't mean I'm wrong! We must always work on being unbiased and trying to let calculation and evaluations guide us, not pre-conceived preferences...

    Thanks and I hope that helps clarify my comment and position on it!

    Danny

  • 12 months ago

    brankz

    hold on for one more day was definitely early 90s. 90 or 91.

  • 14 months ago

    JohnSutcliffe

    I find really interesting what you say about style being an illusion. In some way, I completely agree with you. You cannot decide you have a certain style and therefore you must attack the king in every position or grab material in every position and so on. You need to play what the position calls for. However, there's a deeper sense of what style might mean. For example, when you have multiple opportunities (like you had in your game at a certain point) to change the position in a certain way, there's something personal about you as a player that makes you choose. You didn't go for the pawn sacrifice when you didn't see anything concrete. However,  the position was blowing up and your opponent's king was in the center. Intuitively, some players might go for that kind of position without calculating. Do you think Shirov (in his good times) or Morozevich see "something concrete" every time they start an attack? It's a fact that Shirov's intuition was much more powerful than his ability to calculate. However, his intuition was especially powerful in attacking positions. Wouldn't that resemble something like style? You went for a more positional advantage instead of a pawn sacrifice or an exchange sacrifice. Did you see something concrete there?

    You say style is weakness. In this era of engines everyone feels like they're a computer and must play the perfect moves, regardless of their style. Well, are you sure Rybka agrees with you in the decision of not going for the attack? Of course you're not, but you prefer to risk less and play positionally. I've been watching your live sessions and I've noticed that's actually your style. You don't go for sacrifices unless you see something concrete. You don't like to complicate the position when there's "no need" to do it. Players like Alekhine or Kasparov went for complicated positions almost every time they had the chance.   You'd rather take a positional advantage that guarantees you won't lose (but maybe draw). Of course you're able to attack, but that's because you're a tactical prodigy, not because you have intuitive confidence in your attack. Don't tell me style isn't a factor there. A player like Shirov or Tal would have taken some of the positions you've refused without even thinking. I might be wrong, but I think you're a kind a player that is more similar fo Fischer than Tal. Curiously Fischer thought the same thing you do about style.

  • 2 years ago

    iblunderedmyqueen

    hey what about the joke? you said you would tell us the joke...

  • 2 years ago

    Braingasm

    Hahaha, Honey badger doesn't care. When honey badger is hungry, he eats.

  • 3 years ago

    Cashionova

    "Listen to your pawns"  

    That's whassup.

  • 3 years ago

    UNiMEDiA

    I actually do have a little bird that sits on my shoulder when I play. Unfortunately, he's only around 1400 uscf....

  • 3 years ago

    StevenBailey13

    I always pronounced it el-eck-hine- It's like Kasparov - some say long a and some short.

  • 3 years ago

    Vladan88

    Who cares whether Alekhine is pronounced Alyokheen or Alekheen. The main problem is American pronounciation Alikain? Lol 

    I am Russian btw and always pronounced it as Alyokheen.

  • 3 years ago

    offerrall

    Instructive!!

  • 3 years ago

    Aquinas65

    All of your videos are very good - but for me, this was your best so far.

  • 3 years ago

    FM gauranga

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago

    IM DanielRensch

    Yeah, Bf3 followed by immediately using the e4-square was much better Frown...

    Thanks guys

    Danny

  • 3 years ago

    jflores33

    sammj is right, after ...g6, bf3  is better than be2

    still, i loved this game.  I saw Bh5 too, but really liked c5, whuch had much more power because black was not castled

  • 3 years ago

    pumpupthevolume247

    On form Danny excellent game!! Easy to digest content it's amazing listening to your thoughts whilst you prepare your next move(s) you must be a very good coach!

  • 3 years ago

    ienj0ychess

    Thanks for another great video! Your explanations during these live sessions really help to reinforce the ideas you discuss in your other videos, e.g. pawn structures and other positional ideas such as getting a pawn to e5 and kicking the f6 knight.

  • 3 years ago

    Iron_Duke

    I did not mean to start a controversy. I was only commenting on how I have heard it pronounced, or have read how it was pronounced. Obviously there is some difference of opinion.

    And to DanielQuigley, I did not imply the Russian was a GM, he was club member strength, and a member of the same club I was (Koltanowski's in SF). SF in the 50's had quite a few Russian immigrants, and to meet one in a chess club, was not unusual. As to the comment on my rating, you look to be in your late 30's or early 40's. I am 77, let me know what your rating is in another 35 or 40 years.    

  • 3 years ago

    DanielQuigley

    I learned something new too. I had no idea Al YOKH in was a common RUSSIAN pronunciation (or mispronunciation). Anyway, no offense intended. I have too much respect for your great ability and wonderful videos to ever want to irritate you. I think your discussions of your games as you play them are worth $15-25 lessons in and of themselves, and you're the best at it I have ever heard. So, I will leave this subject now.

  • 3 years ago

    DanielQuigley

    From Winter's Chess Notes numbered 4284, 4289, and 4304 on the Pronunciation of Alekhine’s name:
    http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter21.html#4285._Chess_by_wireless_C.N._4249

    Below is a reference to Alekhine from page 184 of Grandmasters of Chess by Harold C. Schonberg (Philadelphia and New York, 1973):
    ‘It infuriated him when his name was pronounced Al-OKCH-in. That was a Jewish pronunciation; the correct pronunciation was Al-YEKCH-in.’ Also, in an article by Hans Kmoch that appeared at Chess Cafe: "The correct Russian pronunciation, [Alekhine] said, was Al-YEH-khin, explaining that the name was derived from that of a tree (‘alyesha’) that grew abundantly near one of his family’s estates."

    That being said, there's no reason to honor Alekhine's preferred pronunciation of his name. Is there?

  • 3 years ago

    lespagnol

    I think these opening is known as good for black if black play e5 after Kc3 . (A gambit).
Back to Top

Post your reply: