what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?

Problem is, if he needed to cheat then his teaching is suspect at best.... if his ideas and theories were of worth he wouldn't have had to cheat. Of course that is dependant on this being true and not a mistake. I still can't understand why anyone would cheat at internet chess. I can understand the motives of a tournament cheater. Avarice. The prize money. Not that I condone such theft, but the motive is certainly clear. What the hell does one gain by cheating on here though? Weird!

Anyway, good luck in your game man. Have fun above all else.... Peace

Spiritbro77, we're not discussing cheating on here. I'm  in the middle of a game, and that is the end of discussions of cheating or the person Jaglavak on here. We're discussing target-generating, and my games. back to my game now.  End of discussion about Jaglavak. If you want to talk with me about Jaglavak please message me. If yu want to discuss Jaglavak, feel free to try to open a thread about him. 

Spiritbro,Jag's teaching was suspect.

End of discussion of Jaglavak. Really. 

Sombodysson, you started this thread, but nobody appointed you King/Dictator/Ruler of it.  Your arrogance is a little hard to take at times. People have a right to say what they feel whether you like it or not.

I do hope that others such as Yaroslavl et al will continue to contribute despite your attitude. I notice that there has been some dropping out of some of the main contributers recently.

hello? This thread is about my game, and my learning. My 'attitude' and that of generous contributors to it,  is what produced this thread!! You are free to start a thread about your game and your learning. 

interesting that the people who are most concerned about my 'attitude' are people who have not been significant participants in this thread and are harassing the thread when I have said I'm in the middle of a game. Oh well. 

Ah well, all's well that ends well. Or something like that anyway.  I lost internet connection, and was marked abandoning the game after like move 8. Its too bad, it had an interesting start, then as I got involved in the nonsense above I missed seeing my opponent had a pawn fork coming up, so I dropped a bishop, but still felt a chance in the game...and then my friend's  little kid threw a tantrum at his video game and threw a pillow at his laptop, knowcking over the modem, killing the connection, and I lost due to abandonment with 78 minutes left on my clock, and my opponent having 70. Too bad they marked it abandoned, but I guess they have no way of detecting the difference between abandonment and temporary internet down. 

Looks like we go it alone until Jaglavaks situation resolves & he either comes back or is gone forever. I'm not sure about others here but I was starting to get a feel for what was being done here so there's no reason why we can't continue on. There are some very good contributers here & we have made some good progress so lets keep going & see what we can do.

Its your thread Somebodysson how would you like to proceed from here?

I'm with you QueenTakesKnightOops. It was clear you were acknowledging the value in what Jaglavak was giving, and I was thrilled to read your posts about your experiments. My game tonight ended prematurely; there's not much to analyze. I have two games on Saturday, both tournament games on chess.com. And then chess club next Monday. 

QueenTakesKnightOops, here's me quoting myself from post #442 above. Maybe you missed it because of the news. Here it is again. 

 QueenTakesKnightOops, hang in there. This is too good an experiment to drop it for one or two people's diassapearance. QueentakesKnightOops, your description of "I didn't turn it off so much as when I caught myself doing the evaluating I'm used to doing I caught myself and said 'move, Move' was nice. I want you to keep posting the results of your experiment. And jojopo, I think we can proceed with an attmpt to create a game of improving our targetting. for e.g., when I went over the casual game I played a few days ago, (and I know I didn't post it...I will when I get to it, probably Thursday), I realized I didn't make what could have been a winning move earlier...but I didn't take that move seriously because it 'looked' too transgressing of maxims. It involved pushing a pawn that should not have been pushed according to the conventional maxims (pushing king pawns, etc). So part of targetting has to include considering all targets, and somehow paring down those targets quickly, efficiently, so that you can focus down on a few targets, and eventually choose one. 

I'd like us to together create a targetting-generator game.

So, let's see what we can do with deepening our understanding of target consciousness.

QueenTakesKnightOops, you're on. Here's a first proposal. Post a game of yours that you won and that you want to listen to being discussed for a bit. Don't annotate it at first.  Let us annotate it. Our annotations will adhere as strictly as we can to target-consciousness. We will critique each other's annotations, and we will completely ignore any maximal annotations that have to do with positional or Heisman's 'hand-waving' considerations. Then you, the game player, will tell us your target-consciousness, and any other thoughts you had during the game that went into your choice of moves.   

That's my first stab at two ideas. 

We will stick to target-consciousness in our annotations, because there are plenty of other forums and sites where people can discuss maxims and principles. We will dispense with those, and we will let them back in if we find one indispensible. The one who played the game when they provide their annotation will tell us whatever move-choosing considerations they had, so that we can try to determine if that was a useful consideration, or if it muddied and/or was a replacement for/was synonymous with target consciousness. 

By the way, just to recap, the admonition against making moves based on principles is seconded by Dan Heisman who calls such gobbledygook maxims "hand waving". To quote Dan Heisman  "Hand-waving is the error of using general principles to make moves in analytical positions."   In the article by Heisman at the following link he writes that making decisions by general principles (hand-waving) is a worse practice than his much more famous "playing hope chess".  http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman111.pdf 

Ok, Somebodysson what sort of game would you like me to post? I have a few games from my past in the only scorebook that survived from my past or some chess.com computer games from my current experiment.

The prob with the computer games is the computer was rather suicidal so my wins have been more because it lost rather than my winning play. Their quality is a bit suspect but they were more to test my ability to play a different style of chess. I used the medium setting on the computer which claims to be approx rating of 1200 but often what it plays is a load of rubbish. To get a feel for it how do you go against the computer at this level? I can try a higher level but at this point I have been raising the difficulty slowly because it is my style of play that I am concentrating on.

Let me know what your thoughts are & I'll try & post something that is worth analysing.

I'm living an a non Chess playing area so OTB opponents are hard to find but I'll start recording my wifes games, (she needs to start doing that anyway) & see what I can come up with. I haven't been playing on this site much because when I found out how much calculating power I had lost after my time away from Chess it became downright embarrassing, but maybe I'll give it another try

Here's a game I played a few hours ago against the site computer. This is just to test the waters. I'm not proud of it but you win how you can & I was focussed on what is being worked on in this thread & changing my thought processes. See what you make of it & I'll increase the difficulty as I get more proficient.

Time was approx 10 minutes to force me out of old habbits. I thought the computer play was poor, it never really pushed me.

I have my own thoughts on the game as I played it so if anyone wants to analyse it using the processes this thread is about I'll post my comments on it later after everyone has picked it apart

thanks QueenTakesKnightOops. I'll only get to this tomorrow, and then I'll work on it tomorrow. The quality of the computers play is irrelevant to this 'game' of looking at targets. All we need is your knowledge of your thought process, and our attempt to evaluate moves on the basis of targets. Then we compare notes. 

Thanks again. And thanks from refraining from diluting this thread into something other than what its for. 

And, if you want to post a game of your wifes, that would be okay, as long as you have your wife participate in the 'game' i.e. that she writes her annotation of her game according to targets, and that we then post our target annotation, then she posts hers, and we compare.

QTKOops: what do you think of my proposal? Does it seem to you a good idea for learning? Does it seem to have any merit? Do you have any idea for other ways of testing this method?

By the way, I'm perfectly happy just having this conversation with you. If anyone else shows up that's cool, but my intention with this thread was never to try to have a popular thread, but a meaningful thread. So I've been serious about removing  those people who tried to turn it into yet another meaningless infantile chess.com thread, and I intend to keep it serious. 

thanks again. 

Thanks.  

1.25 am here, last post for a few hours, I like your proposal, we will need to run things according to what we have learned & how the other strong contributers participate. I may have some other ideas for testing this method but lets see what happens, its a fairly fluid process for me plus some serious change in thought processes.

I'm hoping to get the game quality up soon & raise the computer level to 1600 but I am taking 5 wins at each level before I move it up. Some of the games with my wife may work, I'll talk to her about getting into it as part of the process. BTW my wife is only playing me at the moment so you will get both our thoughts in the annotations on the same game.

I wouldn't spend time analysing a game where the computer gives away 3 free pieces.

awesome. And I'll post my games as they come up, and I'll annotate your game above, and we'll proceed. I'm happy about this. Last post for the day. I'll be back tomorrow. 

I would. The quality of the opponent's play is immaterial to this experiment. The experiment is to develop target-consciousness in the player playing the experiment. Its a very focussed experiment. 

Target the free pieces, simplify and win. There's no point focusing on target consciousness regarding a backwards pawn if you're 2 pieces up.

QTKOpps, I just looked over your game quickly, and its a perfect game for this experiment. As you and I get stronger, and as you ramp up the computer strength (and there should be NO RUSH in ramping up the strength...remember, we're trying to learn new thought processes during play...its worth it to give ourselves as goal doing the new thought process...) the quality of the games will go up, but that is not the goal.  The improvement to  the quality of the thought process, of the move-selection process, of the target mindedness is the goal.

ok, for real, away from computer till tomorrow. 

good to see you aronchuck. I aopreciate your continued participation. I am on my semismart phone, and can't go over QTKOops game until tomorrow. I will post my analysis without looking at aronchuck's and then I will compare my analysis with aronchucks.

Aronchuck, here's a total beginner question. How do you write such notes, in a post on this thread. Do you keep scrolling up to the game, then down to your note, then up to the game, then down to your note? Is there some easy way of reading your (aronchyck's)analysis without scrolling up and down? How do people do this. I can't read the game and memorize it at this point, and so I have to scroll up and down repeatedly. Thanks.