I made 21 developing moves in a row, left Houdini with six pawn islands (...)
Even for patzers who do not see clearly how impossible it is that you played Houdini in the games you posted before, you just lost all credibility here.
One pawn island = one set of pawns that are on adjacent files and separated from other island by at least a file. The maximum you can ever have is 4 pawn islands, for instance on files a, c, e, g/h.
I think you can have 6 pawn islands. As in this game.
No, Irontiger is correct. Four is the maximum AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN THE GAME. From a chess tutorial web site:
http://69.65.33.91/~jm96pbwz/manusfealy2/ch06.htm
If you're referring to Black's position after move 25, he has four pawn islands but also has two doubled pawns.
Am I the only one who doesn't understand how you can make 21 developing moves in a row? Especially since in the game by move 21, he ends up in a pin and playing 21.kf2, is he developing his king?
"This is the best game I ever played". I don't understand that either, haven't you said that in the past you've beaten Houdini, surely those should be the greatest games you've ever played. In this game you were worse by move 20, I just.... i don't...
Am I the only one who doesn't understand how you can make 21 developing moves in a row? Especially since in the game by move 21, he ends up in a pin and playing 21.kf2, is he developing his king?
"This is the best game I ever played". I don't understand that either, haven't you said that in the past you've beaten Houdini, surely those should be the greatest games you've ever played. In this game you were worse by move 20, I just.... i don't...
Just in case you didn't read everything... this guy forces Houdini to play a specific opening (originally the Two Knights Defense and always with himself playing the white pieces) using "human book" instead of allowing it to choose its own moves. Then he uses the analysis window and a number of lines he has memorized to "beat" Houdini. If you question anything, he just ignores it and makes another post of a game he has "played".
He got called on it several times, so now he's branching out and "playing" against other openings.
(Yeah, the quotes are intentional.)
"No, Irontiger is correct. Four is the maximum AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN THE GAME."
Silly. You can capitalize all you want but from any reasonable strategic perspective those are 6 pawn islands. Capitalizing and pointing me to a beginner website is just not very convincing.
In fact, IronTiger's attack here was unwarranted as was your defense of it. Tons of GM's would be comfortable describing that as 6 pawn islands and yet IronTiger uses that as evidence that the poster is a fake? The quality of the games posted here is very high. I don't know where they came from but whoever was playing either side of them is very skilled.
Forgive my stupidity. I humbly bow to your superiority.
Am I the only one who doesn't understand how you can make 21 developing moves in a row? Especially since in the game by move 21, he ends up in a pin and playing 21.kf2, is he developing his king?
"This is the best game I ever played". I don't understand that either, haven't you said that in the past you've beaten Houdini, surely those should be the greatest games you've ever played. In this game you were worse by move 20, I just.... i don't...
What I am trying to do is to promote a rethink of what constitutes "development". When you restrict it to moving a piece away from its original square that makes little sense. In the last game I took only 17 minutes on my first 21 moves so focusing on development instead of tactics allows you more time to calculate tactics in the late middlegame and the ability to convert an advantage in the endgame.
I stepped into the pin because Qc1 just loses; yes it is a developing move as I define development. Stepping into the pin was forced but it led to complications where Black won a pawn but was saddled with a horrible pawn structure. It is incredible to me how easily Houdini won the BOC ending.
Development is the activation and improvement of your pieces' positions, pawn moves aren't developing, that goes into a whole different area, called structure and it also ties into the positional element of your game, you moved many pawns in your opening 21 moves, therefore all of them are not development.
"tactics often involve "undeveloping" moves" You should go on tactics websites, only about 5% of tactics are undeveloping moves. I'm not sure you understand these concepts in chess.
21 developing moves in a row is my new favourite chess phrase.
White was equal in the early middlegame but then drifted into a worse position, blundered and lost. What makes the game noteworthy is the position after 19.Rfe1.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Be3 e6 7. f4 e5 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. fxe5 Ng4 10. Qd2 Nxe5 11. Be2 Be7 12. O-O Be6 13. Nd1 O-O 14. b3 Bf6 15. Rb1 Qe7 16. Nf2 Rfe8 17. c4 a5 18. a4 c5 19. Rfe1 Reb8 20. Bd3 Nc6 21. h3 Nd4 22. Bc2 Bd7 23. Bxd4? Bxd4 24. Kh1 Qh4 25. Nd3 g5 * 0-1
No---it is Moody versus Houdini 3. Here, for instance, I narrowly missed beating Houdini in the Evans Gambit. If you think it is Rybka see whether Rybka or Houdini agrees with my moves in any of the games I have played.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bd6 (The Stone-Ware Defense) 6. d4 Nf6 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 h6 9. Nbd2 Re8 10. Qb3 Qe7 11. a4! Rb8 12. Nh4 Na5 13. Qa2 Nxc4 14. Nxc4 exd4 15. Nf5 Bxh2+ 16. Kxh2 (+/=) Qd8 17. cxd4 d6 18. Bf4? (Ng3) Nxe4 19. Nce3 b5 20. Qe2? b4 21. Qh5 b3 22. Rab1 Qf6 23. Bxh6? g6 * 0-1
Why the huge discrepancy with your results and play on chess.com? Do you get drunk to play on chess.com but take play with a computer seriously?
Fifteen years ago I had my first bout of "competitive intuition". When this happens I suddenly can see 10-15 moves deep in complex middlegames. When I came up with an improvement in the Blumenfeld Countergambit, I called GM Lev Alburt to discuss my new idea. He disagreed with me. I defended my point of view and we began arguing over the phone. The next thing that happened is that it became a blitz game over the phone. I had a strong attack and Lev later told me I was winning in the middlegame, but mishandled the attack. Lev offered me a draw and I accepted. It is the only game we ever played.
I have had one game published in Inside Chess and three in Chess LIfe. I once beat a postal master in 16 moves!
When my game is "off" I am a total patzer; the losses online are largely forfeits because I am on dialup and tried to enter a couple of tournaments. The computer would not allow me to input moves and I forfeited all my games for maybe 20 losses. That impacts my rating. But, in general, I played lousy chess online.
My "competitive intuition" would only occur about once every six months; now I seem to have acquired permanent competitive intuition and look forward to playing tournament level chess. I am playing in the New York State Open where I tied for first in the U1800 section last year.
Why the huge discrepancy with your results and play on chess.com? Do you get drunk to play on chess.com but take play with a computer seriously?
Peek back at post #167.
yes! by houndi 4!
One question that is answered here is what is the quality of my chess when my game is “on”. Here are four of my best games:
This is Moody-Shields (Provisional Master) Black snatched a poisoned pawn on move 6 & was soon much worse.
1.e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Qe2 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Bxd4? 7. Nxd4 Qxd4 8.Bd2! Bf5 9. Bc3 Qxe4 10. Bxh8 f6 11. O-O-O! Na6 12. f3 Qf4+ 13. Qd2 Qa4 14. a3 Nc5 15. g4 Be6 16. Qe3 * 1-0
The second game was published in Inside Chess v.10, Issue 3, p.3 Moody-Kline (Postal Expert). This was a “complete” game. White played a novelty on move 4, essayed a flawless middlegame and the ending, a “Knight Wheel” has only been seen twice before. Once in a game by World Champion Capablanca and a second time by GM Larry Evans.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Qe2 Nc6 4.d4!? N This temporary pawn sacrifice appears as the Moody Gambit in Bill Wall's data base. It is, at best, equal. 4...exd4 5.e5 Nd5 6.Qe4 Bb4ch?! 7.Bd2 Bxd2ch 8.Nxd2 Nde7 9.O-O-O d5! 10.Qh4 Bf5 11.Nb3 Ng6 12.Qxd8ch Rxd8 13.Nbxd4 Bg4?! 14.Bb5! Nge7 15.Rhe1 O-O 16.Nxc6 Nxc6 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Rd4! Bc8 19.b4! (White freezes the c & a pawns) Rfe8 20.Re3 f6 21.Kd2 fxe5?! (Lev suggested Kf7) 22.Nxe5 Bb7 23.Nd3 Rxe3 24.Kxe3 Ba6 25.Kd2 Bb5 26.Rf4 Rf8 27.Rxf8ch Kxf8 28.Kc3 Ke7 29.Kd4 Kd6 (Now the Knight Wheel) 30.Nc5 Be2 31.Nb7ch Kd7 32.Kc5 Bb5 33.Na5 Bb5 34.Nb3 Bb5 35.Nd4 Ba4 (Now we see a “squeeze”) 36.c3 a6 37.a3 g6 38.f4 h6 39.Nf3 Ke6 40.Nd4+ Kd7 41.g4 g5 42.f5 Bd1 43.Nxc6 Ke8 44.Ne5 Bb3 45.Kc6 Kd8 46.Kb7 Ba4 47.Kxa6 1-0
The third game was published in Chess Life February 2011, p.44-45. In Lev's column “Back to Basics” This is Moody-Fritz 12:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Qa5 8. f3 Be7 9. Ne3 O-O 10. Be2 Bd7 11. O-O Qc5 12. Kh1 h5 13. Nc2 h4 14. Be3 Qh5 15. f4 Qg6 16. Bf3 a6 17. a4 h3 18. Rg1 hxg2+ 19. Rxg2 Qh7 20. Qe2 Rfc8 21. Rag1 g6 22. e5 dxe5 23. fxe5 Nxe5 24. Bxb7 Bc6 25. Bxc6 Nxc6 26. Rf1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Nce5 28. b3 a5 29. Nd4 Qh4 30. Rf4 Qh7 31. Nb5 f5 32. Ned6 Rc6 33. Nxf5 exf5 34.Rxf5 Re8 35. Nd4 Rf6 36. Rh5 Qf7 37. Rh6 Bf8 38. Rh3 Bc5 39. Qh5 Rf1+ 40. Bg1 Qg7 41. Rhg3 Bxd4 * 0-1
In the 1994 Golden Knights I played the same first five moves in the opening in 30 games to test the “Universal Attack”. It consists of 1.g6/2.Bg7/3.e6/4.Ne2/5.O-O. This is for players who always want to survive into the middlegame; Black overprotects the f7 square the weak point in the Black position. What disguishes the UA from the Modern, Rat or Hippo is that I always play d5, never d6. It works best against the Bird and could be called the anti-Bird because White cannot play Bf4. Here Marcuson (Postal Expert)-Moody saw my best UA:
1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Nc3 e6 4. f4 Ne7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be3 d5 7. e5 b6 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. Qd2 Nd7 10. O-O c5 11. Nb5 Nc8 12. c4 a6 13. Nc3 Ne7 14. a4 Rc8 15. b3 f6 16. exf6 Bxf6 17. Ne5 Nf5 18. Bxf5 exf5 19. cxd5 cxd4 20. Bxd4 Nxe5 21. Bxe5 Bxe5 22. fxe5 Qc7 23. Rf3 Qxe5 24. Re1 Qg7 25. Re6 b5 26. axb5 axb5 27. Rfe3 f4 28. R3e5 Qc7 29. Nxb5 Qc5+ 30. Nd4 Bxd5 31. Qf2 Qc1+ 32. Re1 Bxe6! 33. Nxe6 Rf6 34. Qe2 Qe3+ 35. Qf2 Rxe6 36. Rxe3 fxe3 * 0-1
Why the huge discrepancy with your results and play on chess.com? Do you get drunk to play on chess.com but take play with a computer seriously?
Fifteen years ago I had my first bout of "competitive intuition". When this happens I suddenly can see 10-15 moves deep in complex middlegames. When I came up with an improvement in the Blumenfeld Countergambit, I called GM Lev Alburt to discuss my new idea. He disagreed with me. I defended my point of view and we began arguing over the phone. The next thing that happened is that it became a blitz game over the phone. I had a strong attack and Lev later told me I was winning in the middlegame, but mishandled the attack. Lev offered me a draw and I accepted. It is the only game we ever played.
I though that you have said in the past that you have been a Lev Alburt student for the past 25 years. How is it possible that you only had play once?
Why the huge discrepancy with your results and play on chess.com? Do you get drunk to play on chess.com but take play with a computer seriously?
Fifteen years ago I had my first bout of "competitive intuition". When this happens I suddenly can see 10-15 moves deep in complex middlegames. When I came up with an improvement in the Blumenfeld Countergambit, I called GM Lev Alburt to discuss my new idea. He disagreed with me. I defended my point of view and we began arguing over the phone. The next thing that happened is that it became a blitz game over the phone. I had a strong attack and Lev later told me I was winning in the middlegame, but mishandled the attack. Lev offered me a draw and I accepted. It is the only game we ever played.
I though that you have said in the past that you have been a Lev Alburt student for the past 25 years. How is it possible that you only had play once?
It was out of respect. He didnt want to humiliate Alburt.
It's also much more convenient. No empirical data to prove anything. When this guy becomes world famous for his chess genius (???) and Alburt claims not to know him...
I found this worth a double belly laugh:
I suddenly can see 10-15 moves deep in complex middlegames
What? It's only a few billion lines.
Why the huge discrepancy with your results and play on chess.com? Do you get drunk to play on chess.com but take play with a computer seriously?
Fifteen years ago I had my first bout of "competitive intuition". When this happens I suddenly can see 10-15 moves deep in complex middlegames. When I came up with an improvement in the Blumenfeld Countergambit, I called GM Lev Alburt to discuss my new idea. He disagreed with me. I defended my point of view and we began arguing over the phone. The next thing that happened is that it became a blitz game over the phone. I had a strong attack and Lev later told me I was winning in the middlegame, but mishandled the attack. Lev offered me a draw and I accepted. It is the only game we ever played.
I though that you have said in the past that you have been a Lev Alburt student for the past 25 years. How is it possible that you only had play once?
I got my lessons through the mail. My lessons consisted of me asking Lev to analyze whatever opening I found interesting. Most of his analysis was of the Evans Gambit, 4.Ng5 in the Two Knights' Defense and the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qe2). We never had face to face lessons.
Why the huge discrepancy with your results and play on chess.com? Do you get drunk to play on chess.com but take play with a computer seriously?
Fifteen years ago I had my first bout of "competitive intuition". When this happens I suddenly can see 10-15 moves deep in complex middlegames. When I came up with an improvement in the Blumenfeld Countergambit, I called GM Lev Alburt to discuss my new idea. He disagreed with me. I defended my point of view and we began arguing over the phone. The next thing that happened is that it became a blitz game over the phone. I had a strong attack and Lev later told me I was winning in the middlegame, but mishandled the attack. Lev offered me a draw and I accepted. It is the only game we ever played.
I though that you have said in the past that you have been a Lev Alburt student for the past 25 years. How is it possible that you only had play once?
It was out of respect. He didnt want to humiliate Alburt.
It's also much more convenient. No empirical data to prove anything. When this guy becomes world famous for his chess genius (???) and Alburt claims not to know him...
I just gave you four games---two were published in Chess Life and a third was published in Inside Chess. That is empirical data. See post 182
Houdini earns its 3300 rating in this game. I made 21 developing moves in a row, left Houdini with six pawn islands, yet in a Bishops of opposite color ending, Houdini was able to find the win through pure tactics. This is the best game I ever played and still lost.
One of the fundamental differences between tactics and development is that tactics often involve "undeveloping" moves. Consider the move sequence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 (So far both sides have made developing moves. White has a choice to either play tactically or positionally. The tactical choice is to go after the b-pawn and play 7.Bf1 losing time.
The positional way to play is to play 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5; it is a matter of taste.
Here White finds the resource 21.Kf2, a developing move as opposed to Qc1, a non-developing move, but it is still not enough. I think my 9.Nc2 may be a novelty to restrain d5. I hope this game makes the anthologies.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. c4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Be2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Nc2 b6 10. Ne3 Nd7 11. f4 Bb7 12. Bf3 a6 13. a4 Qc7 14. Ne2 Bf6 15. Rb1 Rad8 16. g3 a5 17. b3 Nb4 18. Ba3 Rfe8 19. Bxb4 axb4 20. Qc2 Qc5 21. Kf2 e5 22.Rbd1 g5 23. Qd3 gxf4 24. gxf4 Kh8 25. Kg2 exf4 26. Nd5 Be5 27. Kh1 Bxd5 28.Qxd5 Qxd5 29. Rxd5 Nc5 30. Rb1 Re6 31. Nc1 Rg8 32. Nd3 Nxd3 33. Rxd3 Rh6 34.Rd2 Rh3 35. Rf1 Rg5 36. Rdd1 Kg7 37. Rd5 Kf6 38. Rdd1 Ke6 39. Rd5 h5 40. Rdd1 Rgg3 41. Bg2 Rxb3 42. Bxh3+ Rxh3 * 0-1