You know what's gonna happen, right?
Spassky plays 1.d4
Doh!
Help! I'm going to play Boris Spassky
Sort:
WanderingWinder wrote:
@Kupov: I'm going to presume that by wanderingknights you mean me. Yes, after reading that, it seems incredibly unlikely that he is so strong. But I still find your post directly insulting my intelligence completely unfounded. (It also seems that your qualifications of the black pieces in the KG have very very little to do with things, and that actually he has better drawing chances in the KG than most openings). Show me what I said that isn't absolutely true. There is nothing. "A shot" does not mean a good chance, and I never said that it did. Furthermore, would you have him not even try? I mean, come on, give the guy a break.
@OP: If you want your best drawing chance, I'd go for one of the KG drawing lines. Gonnosuke would, I believe, be an excellent person to ask advice from as to what particular lines will be most critical. However, the KG also gives you a very very good chance of losing quickly and rather spectacularly. Given that there's an enormous chance you'll lose any way you go and that the difference in your drawing chances with the KG as opposed to other openings are only marginally improved, you might decide that your secondary goal of lasting as long as possible is more important. In that case, I'd go for the Caro-Kann. I'd imagine that you'll pretty certainly lose in that opening, but on the other hand, you have a fairly decent chance of surviving twenty moves without being down a piece or having been mated.
Oops, yes I meant you.
You implied that he would have a better drawing chance playing black in the kings gambit. This is untrue.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
You know what's gonna happen, right?
Spassky plays 1.d4
Doh!
OMG then he can't play the Caro-Kann!
Jul 7, 2009
0
#25
Personally, depending on who the opponent was and what was at stake, yes Ozzie, I probably would feel like I wasted a bunch of time. On the other hand, the OP may feel differently (though if he understood just how much time that would take, yeah... you're probably right. But who knows, maybe drawing Spassky means a LOT more to him than I'd imagine).
Study up on the KG theory, study his KG games, play hundreds of KG games as black, start excercising physicly, eat healthy, get a good nights sleep before the game.
Prepare as if it where your World Championship match!
And then loose on move 25, probably, but hey, you might improve some, and you might actually enjoy it.
It isn't very hard to get to move 20 without being down against a GM. Play a solid opening that takes a while to crack. This forces the GM to come up with a plan which is tough to do in a simul.
KillaBeez wrote:
It isn't very hard to get to move 20 without being down against a GM. Play a solid opening that takes a while to crack. This forces the GM to come up with a plan which is tough to do in a simul.
lol
Jul 7, 2009
0
#29
Kupov, his claim isn't really that far out there. There are some lines where play will divert from opening theory more quickly than that, but it really isn't hard to hold the position for 10-15 moves in any line really, and in many lines to move 20 or further. The theory is all out there, waiting to be memorised, so against a GM who you can guess pretty easily which opening he'll play, pretty much any decent player with some time can book up. The other part of his post seems far more controversial to me - I don't really think the GM will have much difficulty in coming up with a plan.
This is the third time in the last two days that I've noticed you ridiculing someone on their post, which was not clearly wrong at all, and indeed seems at least to have a very good chance at being correct, and not giving ANY support for your side.
Jul 7, 2009
0
#30
just a tip: if you're going to learn a new opening for the match make sure you get plenty of practice playing it first so you can get a feel for the goal and possible weaknesses. also you should look over games that were played against Spassky using that opening so you understand how he plays.
now other than openings try doing some tactical problems before the match, that helps me get in my best tactical mentality.
i hope you can calculate well because thats the best weapon against old people :)
just stay focused and play your game, don't stress about opening prep too much. anything can happen in a simul.im a <2000 player and i beat bareev a few weeks ago in toronto (yes it was mostly luck, thats the only way to not lose against a GM). but just worry about having a good time and enjoy the experience
Jul 7, 2009
0
#32
DaPharaoh wrote:
just a tip: if you're going to learn a new opening for the match make sure you get plenty of practice playing it first so you can get a feel for the goal and possible weaknesses. also you should look over games that were played against Spassky using that opening so you understand how he plays.
now other than openings try doing some tactical problems before the match, that helps me get in my best tactical mentality.
i hope you can calculate well because thats the best weapon against old people :)
This is generally good advice, but I seriously doubt that he'll out-calculate Spassky, I don't care how old he is. ;) On the other hand, calculations are going to be something that's hindered in a simul, so that should help to give the OP chances to hang in there.
Jul 7, 2009
0
#33
Just be sure to answer 1.e4 with 1...e5. That always seems to confuse Mr. Spassky.
WanderingWinder wrote:
Kupov, his claim isn't really that far out there. There are some lines where play will divert from opening theory more quickly than that, but it really isn't hard to hold the position for 10-15 moves in any line really, and in many lines to move 20 or further. The theory is all out there, waiting to be memorised, so against a GM who you can guess pretty easily which opening he'll play, pretty much any decent player with some time can book up. The other part of his post seems far more controversial to me - I don't really think the GM will have much difficulty in coming up with a plan.
This is the third time in the last two days that I've noticed you ridiculing someone on their post, which was not clearly wrong at all, and indeed seems at least to have a very good chance at being correct, and not giving ANY support for your side.
He is a 1600 player. Unless a GM played 15 moves into an opening he was familiar with (and remember, 20 is 5 more than 15) his claim is absolutely false. Most people who play chess will find themselves in a losing position against a GM after 20 moves (not necessarily down significant material, but a losing position nonetheless). Even if they can properly play 20 moves deep into a few lines of theory, why is this?
The GM is not forced to play into that line. You might know 22 moves of good theory in multiple lines of the kings gambit, but that GM could easily shake things up by playing something you have never seen before, or never prepared for.
Unless of course you know every single opening variation 20 moves deep, in which case you are probably close to GM strength anyway.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Just to point this out, if you get a "drawing" line from someone on this site, then prepare it and go play it, and get a draw in 10 or 11 moves, won't you feel like you wasted a whole lot of time?
Are you kidding me?!?!?!??! I would waste my life trying to draw Spassky!
Jul 7, 2009
0
#36
This has nothing to do with his rating, this game, or him at all. I said that his claim wasn't far from off because I think 20 is probably stretching it a little bit, but somewhere in the 15-18 range is perfectly reasonable. What do you need to do? You need to be a pretty decent player to start with probably. You need to book up for this specific GM. You need to learn multiple lines to your desired depth. You also need to understand the moves rather than just memorising them; that way, if he deviates, you'll understand why that move isn't one of the main lines and at least be able to hold equality. It's not the easiest thing in the world, but it's not very hard. For you to unequivocally claim that a statement which contains such a subjective phrase as "isn't very hard" is "absolutely false" is sorta ridiculous. What's very hard to you is not very hard to someone else on more than one level. The first level is that some things are easier to you than they are to other people. The second level is that you might call a certain level of difficulty very hard where someone else calls the exact same level of difficulty relatively easy.
It doesn't matter how much you "book up" for a specific GM. He/she can easily play an opening line you've never seen before.
20 moves is well into middlegame, and if you think that it's "not very hard" (as killabeez stated) to hold an equal position with a GM (even in a simul) well into the middle game, you're mad.
Jul 7, 2009
0
#38
Kupov wrote:
You implied that he would have a better drawing chance playing black in the kings gambit. This is untrue.
I implied (I actually think I've directly said it by now) that he would have a better drawing chance, being forced to play black, in choosing the KG over another opening. I think this is absolutely true. It's essentially impossible to collect the data to prove it one way or the other, but in the KG if you survive the initial onslaught (and there are many known ways that seem to be able to do this) then you're more or less fine. In other openings the Spassky will make you suffer long and hard under pressure, and you'll have to play long strings of subtle, good moves, where it's very easy to crack. You probably won't lose quickly in these openings, but you'll probably lose.
As for the phrase "not very hard" being relative. Well that's true enough, but I think we can agree that for 90% of the chess community playing an equal position against a GM for 20 moves is VERY HARD.
WanderingWinder wrote:
Kupov wrote:
You implied that he would have a better drawing chance playing black in the kings gambit. This is untrue.
I implied (I actually think I've directly said it by now) that he would have a better drawing chance, being forced to play black, in choosing the KG over another opening. I think this is absolutely true. It's essentially impossible to collect the data to prove it one way or the other, but in the KG if you survive the initial onslaught (and there are many known ways that seem to be able to do this) then you're more or less fine. In other openings the Spassky will make you suffer long and hard under pressure, and you'll have to play long strings of subtle, good moves, where it's very easy to crack. You probably won't lose quickly in these openings, but you'll probably lose.
You're right! The only way to play the Kings Gambit is an explosive attack at the start, and after that runs out of steam (It's so easy to run it out of steam as you said) a draw is almost assured!
/end sarcasm.
Spassky will play subtle and good moves no matter what opening system is played. Spassky has also played the Kings Gambit to a win against many very strong GRANDMASTERS.
I if I were you, I'd try to get into his head, do something weird, show up in your pyjamas, maybe a swimsuit then ask him do you like it? Cough randomly during his thought process, Just do whatever you find annoying.