Supranormal Acitivity in Chess

i got to someting about lazy then i quit

From Breaking Through by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, page 126.

"I think (and my parents agree) that Sofia is the probably most talented of the three sisters. She was only 5 years old when she won her first national title at the under 11 Girls' Championship in Debrecen.

However, her problem always has been that she was somewhat lazy, and would give up fights more easily." This is apparent in her last game at Rome 1989 where she had won 8 games in a row, stood better in Game 9, drew and still, as an IM, achieved the fifth highest performance rating ever seen, 2879. According to Susan, the only thing she noticed that was different about Sofia in this tournament, was,

"Everything seemed normal during the tournament, except that Sofia had an exceptional appetite. She would eat a huge plate of some kind of pasta as an appetizer, followed by the main course (some kind of  meat/fish with potato/rice and vegetables) and dessert each lunch and dinner for ten consecutive days."

It is reasonable to assume that the extra calories were coursing through her brain.

"Not to poke fun, but how does a player rated 1400 in turn draw a GM or write a book on the Evans Gambit?" That is a good question. You tell me. Here are a list of my accomplishments through the years:

1)In one of the oldest openings in all of chess, the Petroff Defense, I came up with a new gambit on the 4th move of the opening. This game was published in its entirety in Inside Chess, a magazine devoted to chess professionals, and Chess LIfe. The gambit is named after me in a number of data bases: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6.3.Qe2 Nc6 4.d4! N

2)In one of the oldest openings in all of chess, here are a list of novelties I have discovered:

   a) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.O-O N (unclear) This won me the Best Question in Larry Evans' column in Chess Life,

   b) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Bb4ch 7.c3 Be7 8.O-O N = to +/=

   c) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.d4 Be6 7.O-O N +/-

   d) 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 (Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 Ba6! N) 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Qf2 N +/- or 13.Nc3 N +- This opening was analyzed and touted by Correspondence World Champion Dr. Hans Berliner for thirty years as the refutation of 4.Ng5 in the Two Knights' Defense.

   e) Main line 4.Nd5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 many novelties, check the thread.

King's Gambit Accepted: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qe2 N  = to unclear according to World Champion Garry Kasparov (How many class players get to have their analysis reviewed and approved by a World Champion?)

Modern: 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 c6 4.Nc3 d5 5.Qe2 N I used this novelty to defeat a Postal Master in 16 moves.

Evans Gambit---As a class player I wrote the most controversial book of 1995. My publisher, Ken Smith of Chess Digest, spent more advertising space on this book than on any books written by World Champions, etc. This book features dozens of novelties.

In the Latvian Gambit, my innovation appears to cook the gambit according to ICM John Elburg, one of the leading experts on the Latvian: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.Ne3 Be7 8.Be2 N +/= According to Elburg. This is an attempted improvement on Fischer-Pupols won by Pupols.

In the King's Indian: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b4!? N (to restrain c5) Bg7 4.Bb2 unclear

You tell me. How is it possible for a 1400 player to come up with all these novelties? I have also beaten Fritz 8 four times, drawn a half dozen times.

You've convinced me -- I guess there's no other explanation than something like spirit possession.  Are you a medium of some sort?  Maybe your great grandma was?

In any case you're lucky to have been influenced by a chess playing spirit, instead of the kind that makes you soil yourself and post ludicrous claims on chess message boards while everyone laughs at you.  Those kind are the worst.  Yep, you sure are lucky.

For those expecting paranormal chess instead of mere supranormal chess I bring you:

The spirit formerly known as Geza Maroczy vs Korchnoi

Korchnoi is quite an acerbic old fellow, I'd have loved to hear what he had to say about this over a glass of vodka or 5, you can be sure it was droll.  It makes me bust out laughing just to consider it.

For those of you bored by the same old theory, try some new ideas that get you out of a rut. Here are a few games I've played in the Alekhine Defense with some commentary by GM Lev Alburt:

The first game is Sloughterchess-Bullock, Postal, 1994:

The game Sloughterchess-Graham saw the following move order:

1.e4 Nf6 2.Qe2 d5! N? 3.e5 Ne4 4.d4 h6 5.Nd2 Bf5 6.Qb5ch Nc6 7.c3 Nxd2 8.Bxd2 Qd7 9.Bd3 (Mr. Graham thought that I should have pounced on the little guy but 9.Qxb7 Rb8 10.Qa6 Rb6 looks like a lot of compensation) e6 10.Bxf5 exf5 11.Nh3 O-O-O 12.a4 f6 13.f4 fxe5 14.fxe5 g5 15.Nf2 Be7 16.b4 Rdg8 Qd3 +/= (According to Mr. Graham, but I lost the thread of the game and lost)

The third Alekhine I played on line as a correspondence game:

Sloughterchess-Miller:

1.e4 Nf6 2.Qe2 e5 3.f4 d5 (A Falkbeer Counter Gambit by transposition) 4.d3 c6 5.f5 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bd7 7.Nc3 d4 8.Nd1 Na6 9.g4 Nxg4 10.Rg1 h5 11.h3 Nf6 12.Rxg7 Rh7 13.Qg2 Rxg7 14.Qxg7 +/=

Here is a new (?) Caro-Kann played against Fritz 8 120/40.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Qd3 N? Qd5 6.f3 Na6 7.c3 Nf6 8.Nxf6ch exf6 9.Qc4 Qd7 10.Ne2 b5 11.Qb3 Bd6 12.Ng3 O-O 13.Nxf5 Qxf5 14.Kf2 Nc5! 15.Qd1 Rfe8 16.g3 h5 17.Kg2 h4 18.g4 Qd5 19.Be2 (Qc2 =) Ne6 -/+

Actually the final position is unclear (to me anyway) -- either way the queen is not easily superior to two rooks.  If the rooks are coordinated the rooks are easily equal to the queen and it depends on pawn structure and if any passers to know which side is ahead.

Also white's opening seems fine.  Too wild for me to play it, but white really did seem better up till Nc3 as in the notes.

What is the ISBN number of the book you have written?

Megalomania is treatable guy, it's not too late to get help!  Perhaps you have a friend or relative you can talk to about this.

lol

wow

1514 glicko with the average opponent of 1492 doesn't spell "recognizion between a GM and a WC". It spells 30 years wasted on bad chess.

"1x10" to the power of 36 is completely incomprehensible figure with which I don't even want to start speculating how you ended up with.

And what the hell sort of a way to use the word 'supra' is that anyway?

He bases GM and WC strength on how many moves deep the program said it was searching, not on the quality of the moves... I think anyway.

In the thread, "A New Opening Repertoire When You MUST Win with Black", I played the same five first moves in 30 games in the preliminary rounds of the 1994 Golden Knights---1...g6/2...Bg7/3.../e6/4...Ne7/5...O-O always followed by d5, not d6.

The UA doesn't work well in any opening where White plays an early e4/d4, but works against the Reti, Bird and especially the English. Here I faced a Postal Master in the Semi-Finals of the Golden Kings.

I keep coming here just to read what everyone else is saying.  You guys are actually reading the OP's posts?  lol

@Uhohspaghettios --

In other threads you've been trolling the "CC is worthless chess" waters, and I've heroically resisted though god knows I was sorely tempted to respond, but you've got me with this latest nonsense -- I can take no more:

"Last time I checked a queen is easily superior to two rooks and can easily force a win (except in very rare situations where the queen is in immediate danger of being pinned in front of the king or something)."

'Last time I checked' is an obnoxious phrase, and an embarasssing one too, when you're dead wrong. You should check again. Rooks for Queen creates an interesting imbalanced situation -- you cannot presume either side has an advantage without looking at the position closely. Statistically the rooks hold a slight edge. The queen is nimble, the rooks, which support each other, are strong.  In general success or failure is decided by who has better targets for attack, how exposed each king is, and whether the position allows the rooks to coordinate.

There was a paper done on the worth of pieces that subjected a lot of material imbalances to statistical analysis, it's available online but I can't recall the name or author at the moment. 

 UhohSpaghettio -- I don't want to get into a you're wrong, no you're wrong debate (fascinating as those are) -- can you show me ANY IM or GM on the web or in print saying anything like the nonsense you're spouting.

It took me ten seconds with google to back up my side with a link:

Here's GM Robert Byrne writing in the New York Times about a game featuring two rooks for Queen.

Yes... and actually I watched a game at a club between two masters where one accidentally allowed his opponent to get two rooks vs his queen -- the pawn numbers were equal but I guess were such that it was a terrible blunder because he immediately resigned while his opponent who was going to get the two rooks nodded his head in agreement.

Of course if the rooks can be kept uncoordinated they're at a big disadvantage.  And if the rooks don't have a passed pawn or good infiltration they're not superior either.  You're right that this is a well known endgame, it should be easy enough to look this up...

Fischer had 20 wins in a row when considering the Petrosian match wherein he won the first game.  Unprecedented considering the Mikhail Botvinnik computing center was dedicated during the 1971 Candidates series to analyzing positions for the Russians.

Here is something to consider..........

At chessbase.com a rating system that accounts for tournament ratings as you have alluded too has the following best ever performance ratings for the World's Best Gandmasters:

Fischer         October 1971      2895

Kasparov       March 1993        2886

Botvinnik      October 1945     2885

Lasker          May 1894            2878

Capablanca   May 1921            2877

Alekhine       May 1931            2860

Karpov         March 1989         2848

Anand          March 1999          2833

Kramnik       August 2001          2826

Steinitz       April 1876            2826

Here is the link: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2354

This post is devoted to "supranormal" or beyond normal activity. In two complex middlegames, the Berliner Gambit and the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler, I have been able to crush a World Class computer, Fritz 8 in two complex middlegames (the scores of the games are posted on line). Can you name any GM in the past 5 years who has accomplished a similar feat?

Could Rybka or Fritz 12 duplicate this? Why not turn them loose at 120/30 with this starting position I had i.e. 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nf3 Kf7 9.d3 Kg8 10.Be3. If it takes Rybka or Fritz 12 longer to achieve a winning position (+-) at 120/30 against a World Class computer playing Black, wouldn't it be a reasonable conclusion that I played the middlegame better than Rybka or Fritz 12?