Chess theory

Sort:
eastyz

I don't know much about computers but I was trying to explain some basic progamming that I did to my brother.  It nothing related to any of this.  He  waived me away, saying "Brute force."  I will never forget that.  Anyway, a lot that passes for pattern recognition is brute force learning, inefficient and can be misleading.  By the latter I mean that if you are relying on pattern recognition, you will look at a position thinking that you have seen this type of position before and look again and again until you finally convince yourself that there is nothing on.  Obviously, if you had some way to telling you fairly quickly that there is nothing on, then that would be an advantage.

najdorf96

I fully agree with you.

A disclaimer though, heh.

I truly believe, overall, that tactics trainer (and the like) is very much like endgame compositions.

Entertainment but educational, though if one is a pragmatic player, hardly useful.

An example. My good friend (rated unofficially @1705 USCF-he was officially rated at 1657 during the time of my anecdote) played out a position from Silman's Endgame course with me. At the end, he asked me just how I was able to solve it? (Obviously without having read the book, and just drinking my beer throughout).

"Dunno buddy. Wait. Actually I do know. I just calculated how many tempi I would need to get my King from g2, including pawn moves, to c5. Locking the pawns on the kingside and opposing your king (blocking him out of the center squares) and invading the "hen house" Silman's terminology. I was using Capa's Attrition principle.

Same thing, different generation!

Another recent example would be a YouTube video on the Carlsen-You game. Where the commentator asked the audience what was the right move to draw in the endgame position.

I silently said, "a5" because I was thinking b6 (via b4) is where I could invade the position. The host said that you might take some time figuring this out, try not to use your engines! Heh. Anyways, common sense in Chess is not really talked about these days. Fancy that.

najdorf96

Heh. I would disagree with you that OTB is correspondence chess (as I advocate OTB as the purest form) but maybe you could elaborate later on. Or you could just be joking!

eastyz

Apologies.  I touch type.  The fingers do their own typing.  OTB chess is NOT correspondence chess.

eastyz

As to TT, its practical value for OTB chess is limited, I agree.  I have been saying that for a long time.  To make it more useful, there would have to be a lot of hard work done on it but the resources are not available.  Some time ago, I actually argued that same point on chesstempo but made myself very unpopular as a result.

MadMagister

...

Sqod
raintong wrote:

...

It's more explanatory to write "bump."

So how is the book going, eastyz? The problem with starting to write a book is that usually they never get written.

ChessOfPlayer

Yes.  Intuition and "feeling" where the correct moves are is the only reason humans come close to the machines.

fieldsofforce
eastyz wrote:

As to TT, its practical value for OTB chess is limited, I agree.  I have been saying that for a long time.  To make it more useful, there would have to be a lot of hard work done on it but the resources are not available.  Some time ago, I actually argued that same point on chesstempo but made myself very unpopular as a result.

The main reason why its practical value for OTB is limited is because it is only one fourth of the complete visualization pattern memory bank.  The 4 memory banks are:

 1. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank

 2. Endgame technique visualization pattern memory bank

 3. Openings visualization pattern memory bank

 4. Middlegame visualization pattern memory bank

eastyz

fieldsofforce, there is a fundamental assumption in your post which is not right but I am not prepared to debate it here.  No offence.

Sqod, the book has not progressed, not for now.  What I have done is expand the system for the opening and middlegame.  I am testing the opening aspect of it elsewhere and it seems to work by giving me the answer about 80% to 90% of the time.  Where previously I would sit at the board and look at a position from an opening I had never seen before and wonder what to play next, the system gives me a good idea of what are the playable and even best moves, even in positions where it is not so obvious.  I wish I knew what I do now when I had time to play competition chess (I run a business now and money has taken precedence over any interest in chess).  Anyway, I don't intend to say more to avoid another torrent of hate mail.  And thank you for your interest.

fieldsofforce

eastyz wrote: "...fieldsofforce, there is a fundamental assumption in your post which is not right but I am not prepared to debate it here.  No offence..."

I have found that good points of reasoning are simple to state and rigorous in their argument toward a self evident conclusion.  If your system is better than  Aaron Nimzowitsch's you would be among the top super GMs in the world.  There is sufficient money  at that level.

Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.  That is the overarching principle.  Chess is Siege warfare in the form of a game.  Siege warfare was practiced in the middle ages.  It consists of 3 methods (restrain, blockade, and execute the enemy).  There are also some subsidiary methods known as overprotection and prophylaxis.

eastyz

fieldsofforce, many words.  Firstly, I earn much more than the super grandmasters except possibly for Carlsen from his endorsements.  Secondly, I don't have time to play competition.  When I did, I was one of the top players locally without any training.  At any rate, what works for you, stay with it.  As for Nimzovitch, I feel for him because he copped heaps of scorn in his time for his approach.  Nothing changes in this world.

najdorf96

Indeed. I don't imagine anyone here would care to debate, overturn or even add to Nimzowitsch's classic work. It's untouchable, in my opinion.

It's always conceivable that someone would challenge a peer. His theories, experience, resume etc etc the like. Easy (dunno why I call him that?) and I have had our disagreements on other forums, but as far as his own thread goes, not soo much.

It's intriguing, free flowing with poignant statements without so much judgement. Interesting that some intend to emphasize the basic, strategical, fundamental rites just about everyone here who has posted, has gone through. It's a drag and superfluous. It doesn't make one such poster, smarter. 

najdorf96

It's a downer that your book hasn't progressed, bro. But it's great to hear you're expanding your system into other realms. Wishing you all the best

eastyz

najdorf96, I think it was Kotov who wrote that one of Botvinnik's main rivals in the soviet era used to look at the most ridiculous move on the board when it came to his turn.  That highlights the fact that the game is so complex that there can be more than one approach to it.  I have tried to systemise an approach that will work for anybody provided they have average intelligence and are prepared to work at it.  It has proved harder than I expected.  Anyway, all I can say is that it works.  I was reputed to be a good tactician when I was playing competition.  But I also remember slaving over tactical problems before finding the answer.  I also remember thinking that I wish I could verbalise the thinking process and make it more systematic rather than random.  I suppose that is what has happened now.

eastyz

And Nimzovich was a figment of history's imagination.  As was Reti and a few others.

najdorf96

Huh? I can't believe that you just posted that, my friend.

Or could it be just a sarcastic comment?

AussieMatey

Sarcasm, of course.

eastyz

Sarcasm.  Ambiguity is its nature.  Of course, Nimzovich and Reti were greats of their day at both the theoretical and playing levels.

Ashvapathi

So, what is this chess theory of eastyz? Can anyone summarize?