thats not my problem. and me trying to make that point whether or not it went over anyones head is no attack. but rebs respose clearly was an attack
You have proven in this thread over and over again that you regard anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you as an attacker. How dare they!
citation needed
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, ...35. This thread.
start from the beginning you ignoramus. nobody even managed to disagree with me. reb just attacked me without provocation and i responded in kind.
Your assessment of the contours of the discussion is intended as satire; I get that. Nuance is not lost on me. You are mocking yourself with this claim.
Clever move!
Ruy Lopez is considered the best white weapon on 1.e4 e5 because all the alternatives enables theorically speaking, black to equalize.
Other openings lead to forced lines where black found the way (or the ways) to equalize, more complicated in ruy lopez, because there are many options for white.
For instance, white can choose between big centre with c3-d4, or with "simple" d3 where its not so easy for black to find counter play.
Of course, top players sometimes change with Scotch, Italian, 4 knight, and others (i like Vienna with g3 personnally), but its more for a surprise value.
Ruy Lopez is the more complicated opening, many ways, demands deep knowledge and skill, u dont have this in king's gambit for example.
and
i think the italian and scotch are as good. maybe the ponziani also. i also think white has good options on move 2 such as the vienna. but anyway the ruy doesnt happen after e4 e5... 2 nf3 nc6 are needed. black doesnt have to play nc6 so the ruy might not even be an option at all after e4 e5 so we can ignore it being the best option.
World Champions and other world class ( 2700+) GMs certainly don't agree with you it seems as many are known for playing the Ruy but almost none play the other openings you mention on a regular basis . I can name several world champions that relied heavily on the Ruy in their opening repertoire and cant think of any who relied heavily on the other openings you mention , care to enlighten me ?
non sequitor. gms will play what they know even if other options are as good. and they learn what they know by studying each others games. thus fashion. what is popular among gms doesnt necessarily imply superiority.
Nice dodge ! The fact is that , as usual , you dont know what you are talking about , as most B class players don't but at least most of them know they don't know much about chess . Your problem is that you think you know as much as masters and even GMs , encouraged by your engine no doubt and the fact that you rarely play otb tournament chess so that you are missing your " attitude adjustments " that most class players get on a regular basis when they play against experts and masters . I play enough OTB chess to know that I shouldnt argue with my superiors ( GMs in particular ) as I have had enough beatings by them to understand that they know far more than I do about chess . Kasparov brought back the scotch opening for a spell and I doubt anyone played it better than him and yet he played the Ruy far more . As for the Italian game , thats what I played as a class player but later switched to the Ruy and from personal experience I believe the Ruy is superior for white to the Italian .
and yet you learn no humility when arguing with people of superior intellect. bottom line i made a point and you didnt.
start from the beginning you ignoramus. nobody even managed to disagree with me. reb just attacked me without provocation and i responded in kind.
Your assessment of the contours of the discussion is intended as satire; I get that. Nuance is not lost on me. You are mocking yourself with this claim.
Clever move!
you are hopeless. im done with you.
And so we return to Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln. Maybe we should throw in "O Captain, My Captain" by Walt Whitman for those able to read the first page of this thread with understanding. Or maybe we should remember the final words of Kurtz--both the merchant and the colonel.
and i responded to poucins post without attacking him. or did you not notice that
Your tacit admission that you attacked Reb is a good beginning. If you seek help, there is hope.
Still here ? I thought you said you are done with it.
Some people find the effort to edumacate me quite addicting.
im finding it somewhat amusing to expose certain peoples stupidity. even if it goes over their head.
You might actually sound like you knew what you were talking about if you used proper capitalization and punctuation. Are you sure YOU made it through the third grade?
petty. stupid.
Absolutely! It takes a really small mind to care about something like clear expression of one's ideas. Of course, when it is abundantly clear that one has nothing to say, things like spilling are less critical.
your aim was quite low.
One does not aim high when shooting rats in the gutter.
you could not hope to attack me with the wit or depth that i attack others with. not even going to say nice try.
Depth I believe. You've spent enough time looking for the slide down from the gutter.
im finding it somewhat amusing to expose certain peoples stupidity. even if it goes over their head.
You might actually sound like you knew what you were talking about if you used proper capitalization and punctuation. Are you sure YOU made it through the third grade?
petty. stupid.
Basically describes this whole thread. Lol.
where you trying to correct my spelling of depth?
Where indeed? You spelled it correctly. Do you need that confirmation?
Okay, let's talk about Vienna game vs. Ruy Lopez please.
The Vienna is an offbeat line that seems playable. In the handful (266 games) published in Chess Informant, White has scored well enough. Shak has employed it recently and has two games in Informant 124.
The Ruy has better pedigree, as was pointed out when this thread first began. That doesn't mean that nothing else is playable.
Here's the better of Shak's two games, but without CI's annotations. If you want the annotations, you can buy the book. http://www.chessinformant.org/
@ NM Reb post #576
I am not trying to teach title players any thing. I was merely trying to stop an agruement between you, Thrillerfan, and FOS.
Simply because you guys were agrueing over a point in which case I believe all 3 of you were correct on.
You all were trying to disprove each other over something that can't be disproved.
Bascially you and TF were agruing 1+3 = 4
and
FOS was agruing 2+2 = 4
and all 3 of you were going back and forward saying your right and other person is wrong. While entertaining as it was. In the end none of you guys could disprove the other.
Which is why I said what I said trying to move the conversation along to something more interesting before the forum closed again.
Furthermore, I know Fischer used 9.h3 and Tal used it as well. You can even see a Tal game using it on one of the Backyard Professor videos.
@ NM Reb post #577
You have always had databases and engines Reb.
Even before they were called Databases and engines.
Back than they were called informants, books, and coaching lessons.
Books often show a collects of games played by GrandMasters
Which is exactly what a Database can do. It shows a collect of games played by GrandMasters.
The only thing it does not have is the insight/commentary by the person writing the book.
Which can come in very handy for beginners.
However, if you are a seasoned player and already know why certain moves are played than you really don't need the commentary.
You just need the raw data. Which is the function of databases now.
My agruement was what if nothing existed.
No books, No informant, No coaching lessons, No databases, No engines.
The only thing you would rely on would be your own mind. An the problem with that is you could be wrong. If a person only relyed on there own mind and own idea's there is no way for them to verify if they are correct or not because there is no way to compare with anything.
The reason beginners can figure out were they went wrong in a position is because they can compare there moves to other peoples moves etc.
or
They can try and be inventive/creative and build off other peoples idea's to create new moves and idea's.
All of which can not be done unless there is something to start with.
What I do not like is people saying to ignore engines than they say ignore databases.
However, they approve of books and coaching lessons.
In the end, All people really are doing is picking and choosing there own preference.
It all comes down to personal preference nothing more or nothing less.
Case and point!
FM Rumo showed a diagram demonstrating how engines are terrible. He showed a position where he said his engine read the position wrong.
Well guess what there are books which have been published that are wrong too. Some books show variations which can't even be played any more. A few 100 years ago people wrote the Sicilian Defense was inferior!
Today its the most played line against 1.e4
What does that mean? Should we ignore all books just because there is a couple that have some errors?
This is the stance some people are taking. Which really does not fly well with me.
He is going to say don't stick no value in an engine because 1 engine made 1 mistake.
Ok
So I shouldn't stick no value in a chess book either because 1 book made 1 mistake as well.
There is always going to be errors/bugs.
An Reb you claimed in one of your own comments to have gotten informants. Tell us is some of those lines which were given in there even playable any more? I'm sure some are not often seen as well.
Which goes to show how these stances are very bais.
Now obviously I don't know your stances so I can't speak for your take on the situation.
However, Since we are talking about engines and databases I felt it is relevent to mention it because its true.
@ BettorOffSingle #578
"I had over a hundred fifty books at one point"
Your books are doing exactly the same thing a chess database can do. It is showing a collection of games.
Granted some books do other things such as given explaintions, themes, idea's but the majority show games.
All chess databases do is put all the games into a raw data format. Which can come in very handy for players who are seasoned who just want to see move options.
Furthermore, Most players still use engines as a way of checking tactics.
So not much as changed which goes back to the point I was originally making.
Just because they have different names for things does not mean they can not preform similar functions.
Even today some chess databases are trying to improve to add commmentary to the moves by other high level players. Which show how innovation/techinically has changed during the years.
There is now E-books which people can buy with out having to even have a hard copy reducing clutter and space.
Furthermore, Grand masters have also used chess engines and have tryed to help improve chess engines.
There are plenty of examples of Grandmasters who have tryed to help programmers make stronger chess engines.
If I remember correctly there was one GM who was out there challenging programmers to beat him. He offered a cash prize for the programmer who could create a engine to beat him. He did eventually get beat by a programm in like the 80-90's.
@ FM Rumo75 #583
My point is that even in late queenless middlegames assessments made by the machines can be very inaccurate.
I am sorry Rumo.
However, There has been inaccurate assessments by Grand Masters and Title players as well through out history?
How does showing 1 engine making a mistake prove you right?
Are you trying to say Title players are incapable of error in the opening?
You showed 1 game of 1 engine having a problem reading a position.
So now I am going to show you 1 game of 1 GrandMaster who is an Ex-World Champion who had trouble reading the position in the opening.
He resigned in 6 moves.
The person playing the black pieces was Anand Viswanathan
Me showing you this game does not prove me right any more than you showing that engine game proves that your right.
Obviously there is no perfect engine.
There is no perfect human.
Mistakes can happen!
Should we dismiss all Grand masters and Chess engines because of a few minor mistakes?
Come on Rumo in your heart you know the truth.
If a Chess Engine or a Grand Master was to offer you free information.
Would you not listen to them?
or
At least take there suggestion into consideration?
There is no harm in listening and taking things into consideration.
Which is the point I am making here.
I used an engine and a database as ways of consideration and suggestions.
A engine believes the position is equal
A database shows a pretty high draw rate
Title players have played alot of lines from this position.
Chigorin, Breyer, Flohr, Keres, Smyslov.
This year in fact.
@ NM Reb post #576
I am not trying to teach title players any thing. I was merely trying to stop an agruement between you, Thrillerfan, and FOS.
Simply because you guys were agrueing over a point in which case I believe all 3 of you were correct on.
You all were trying to disprove each other over something that can't be disproved.
Bascially you and TF were agruing 1+3 = 4
and
FOS was agruing 2+2 = 4
and all 3 of you were going back and forward saying your right and other person is wrong. While entertaining as it was. In the end none of you guys could disprove the other.
Which is why I said what I said trying to move the conversation along to something more interesting before the forum closed again.
Furthermore, I know Fischer used 9.h3 and Tal used it as well. You can even see a Tal game using it on one of the Backyard Professor videos.
@ NM Reb post #577
You have always had databases and engines Reb.
Even before they were called Databases and engines.
Back than they were called informants, books, and coaching lessons.
Books often show a collects of games played by GrandMasters
Which is exactly what a Database can do. It shows a collect of games played by GrandMasters.
The only thing it does not have is the insight/commentary by the person writing the book.
Which can come in very handy for beginners.
However, if you are a seasoned player and already know why certain moves are played than you really don't need the commentary.
You just need the raw data. Which is the function of databases now.
My agruement was what if nothing existed.
No books, No informant, No coaching lessons, No databases, No engines.
The only thing you would rely on would be your own mind. An the problem with that is you could be wrong. If a person only relyed on there own mind and own idea's there is no way for them to verify if they are correct or not because there is no way to compare with anything.
The reason beginners can figure out were they went wrong in a position is because they can compare there moves to other peoples moves etc.
or
They can try and be inventive/creative and build off other peoples idea's to create new moves and idea's.
All of which can not be done unless there is something to start with.
What I do not like is people saying to ignore engines than they say ignore databases.
However, they approve of books and coaching lessons.
In the end, All people really are doing is picking and choosing there own preference.
It all comes down to personal preference nothing more or nothing less.
Case and point!
FM Rumo showed a diagram demonstrating how engines are terrible. He showed a position where he said his engine read the position wrong.
Well guess what there are books which have been published that are wrong too. Some books show variations which can't even be played any more. A few 100 years ago people wrote the Sicilian Defense was inferior!
Today its the most played line against 1.e4
What does that mean? Should we ignore all books just because there is a couple that have some errors?
This is the stance some people are taking. Which really does not fly well with me.
He is going to say don't stick no value in an engine because 1 engine made 1 mistake.
Ok
So I shouldn't stick no value in a chess book either because 1 book made 1 mistake as well.
There is always going to be errors/bugs.
An Reb you claimed in one of your own comments to have gotten informants. Tell us is some of those lines which were given in there even playable any more? I'm sure some are not often seen as well.
Which goes to show how these stances are very bais.
Now obviously I don't know your stances so I can't speak for your take on the situation.
However, Since we are talking about engines and databases I felt it is relevent to mention it because its true.
@ BettorOffSingle #578
"I had over a hundred fifty books at one point"
Your books are doing exactly the same thing a chess database can do. It is showing a collection of games.
Granted some books do other things such as given explaintions, themes, idea's but the majority show games.
All chess databases do is put all the games into a raw data format. Which can come in very handy for players who are seasoned who just want to see move options.
Furthermore, Most players still use engines as a way of checking tactics.
So not much as changed which goes back to the point I was originally making.
Just because they have different names for things does not mean they can not preform similar functions.
Even today some chess databases are trying to improve to add commmentary to the moves by other high level players. Which show how innovation/techinically has changed during the years.
There is now E-books which people can buy with out having to even have a hard copy reducing clutter and space.
Furthermore, Grand masters have also used chess engines and have tryed to help improve chess engines.
There are plenty of examples of Grandmasters who have tryed to help programmers make stronger chess engines.
If I remember correctly there was one GM who was out there challenging programmers to beat him. He offered a cash prize for the programmer who could create a engine to beat him. He did eventually get beat by a programm in like the 80-90's.
@ FM Rumo75 #583
My point is that even in late queenless middlegames assessments made by the machines can be very inaccurate.
I am sorry Rumo.
However, There has been inaccurate assessments by Grand Masters and Title players as well through out history?
How does showing 1 engine making a mistake prove you right?
Are you trying to say Title players are incapable of error in the opening?
You showed 1 game of 1 engine having a problem reading a position.
So now I am going to show you 1 game of 1 GrandMaster who is an Ex-World Champion who had trouble reading the position in the opening.
He resigned in 6 moves.
The person playing the black pieces was Anand Viswanathan
Me showing you this game does not prove me right any more than you showing that engine game proves that your right.
Obviously there is no perfect engine.
There is no perfect human.
Mistakes can happen!
Should we dismiss all Grand masters and Chess engines because of a few minor mistakes?
Come on Rumo in your heart you know the truth.
If a Chess Engine or a Grand Master was to offer you free information.
Would you not listen to them?
or
At least take there suggestion into consideration?
There is no harm in listening and taking things into consideration.
Which is the point I am making here.
I used an engine and a database as ways of consideration and suggestions.
A engine believes the position is equal
A database shows a pretty high draw rate
Title players have played alot of lines from this position.
Chigorin, Breyer, Flohr, Keres, Smyslov.
This year in fact.
It's kinda late in my time zone. I'll read this book tomorrow.
so you lack the intellect to understand how the popularity of an opening does not necessarily imply its superiority. it doesnt follow. if different openings are equally good one may still be preferred.
The practice of World Champions and 2700+ players is not an argument about popularity. Extended Reb's point: no other king's pawn opening has been universally part of the repertoire of every World Champion and nearly every World Championship contender. Most have played it as both White and Black.
That's not "popularity", that's trial by fire.
Anish Giri recently used the phrase, "the worst possible line", for an opening variation that he deployed three times in a brief period of time. I'm certain that you realize that he plays only "effective" openings. I'm equally certain that you know exactly what opening he was referring to.