Supranormal Acitivity in Chess

Yeah-- which side do you suppose was being supranormal?

This is the third attempt to get the diagram editor to work. If it doesn't work, you'll have to mesh this with comment 174.

Hmm, your live chess rating is 1514, I wonder why your supranormal episodes only ever happen in the privacy of an engine match.  I understand not all of your games are supranormally inclined, however surely you've had one against a live human opponent?

I know none of us can choose our most basic motivations, and we each have our own unique peculiarities, but sloughter, I can't help but to think that if you spent as much time and energy studying chess as you do plagiarizing analysis and posting fake Fritz vs You+Fritz games you'd probably have a master title at least.

If this is manufactured game, perhaps you could put my game into Rybka or Fritz 12 and find out how many of my moves are actually found by the computer. Since my games have been published in Inside Chess and Chess Life at a time when computers were still weak, it doesn't seem that when I beat Postal experts and one Master it was necessary for me to rely on a computer.

How do you manage to beat postal experts while being bad at chess?

Don't try to argue you aren't bad at chess, your games here are proof enough.

One of the mistaken notions about computers is that they play sharp middlegames well. I have been able to beat Fritz 8 in the middlegame a couple of times in the auxilliary lines and won  one drawn about 1/2 dozen in the main line. If you've got good piece coordinations, you should have nothing to fear from these "monsters" of the middlegame.

In the game presented here, my innovation, 8.Nf3

 was vetted on line extensively in the Wilkes-Barre thread, analyzed with the aid of Fritz 8 for hours by the author and analyzed by over an hour by Senior Life Master Andrew Karklins. If you believe all the theory, then the Wilkes-Barre is busted. Unfortunately, we all failed to follow basic Wilkes-Barre practice i.e. attack at all costs! Here is a game where I took the Black side of the Wilkes-Barre.

sorry for not believing on you but if you play that bad att livechess here I can't trust you. Try to beat some good correspondence chess player and give us against human games

To answer Manic-Dragon, White can play on with Nc4.

White is better in the Wilkes-Barre after 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7ch Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nf3 Kf7? 9.d3 Kg8 10.Be3 Bd4 11.Bxd4! (Not Nxd4) exd4 12.c3! +/- (according to Fritz 8)

In an earlier post I mentioned intutive iteration, the process of giving equal weight to intuition versus facts and logic. In a critical variation of the Two Knights' Defense I played with ArKheiN, I lost five games in a row. Most players would give up and agree that the opening was unsound. My intuition kept telling me that I was missing something, so I stopped playing "tactically" and looked at the positional response. This is what I found.

10. c4 is a positional error since it weakens the d4-square. Black can improve with 13...Be6, followed by ...c5, ...Nc6-d4, and maybe ...e4 with sufficient compensation for the pawn.

It depends on how you define positional error. Other concepts e.g. Ng5/Ne4/Ng3 can be defined as a strategic error especially when Black can kick the White pieces around by advancing the Kingside pawns. By playing c4 White frees a retreat square for the Queen so that she can retreat behind her own lines. By retreating his Bishop to e2, White also steers towards a Universal position. Finally, by exchanging off the g5 Knight, White has gone from a typical Classical attack (Queen, Bishop and Knight ahead of the pawns), snatched a pawn, and then returned to a Universal position which is very difficult to attack. One of the best way to defend against a strong gambit attack, especially when you only get a pawn, is to retreat to a Universal position, consolidate, defend, and then counterattack with your extra material.

Clearly, c5/Nc6/Nd4 is a resource that needs to be analyzed, but I think that you will find with accurate play (b3/Nc3/Bb2/O-O/Qxe2/Rad1/Rfe1/Na4/Ba3) that White can tie Black down to the defense of the c5 pawn and eventually win a second pawn. The backward d-pawn can be defended forever, and White is better, if, in the process of winning the d-pawn, White can engineer massive exchanges and then go to work with a three to two pawn majority and better pawn structure (Black has three pawn islands) on the Queenside.

One goal of mine is to put theoreticians like me out of business. Chess should be a game of talent, not rote memorization. How many times have you seen some top GM spring an "opening" surprise on move 15?

Instead of Fischer/Random chess, how about this? Have two dice with twenty sides on it each corresponding to the twenty legal first moves of chess. Give Black two of these dice, toss them on the table and two moves will show up on the dice. The Black player then gets to pick which first of the two moves White has to play. It might be Nh3 or c3 or d3, etc.

This preserves all the basic patterns in chess, doesn't change the rules, and, more or less takes away the first move advantage because it would be useless to spend time analyzing theory after say 1.e3 (White, however, might try a French Defense with colors reversed, and an extra tempo. This is sort of like turning the English into a Sicilian with colors reversed.)

True talent will emerge. Because World Champion Vishy Anand is so good and so quick on his feet, with the new openings (perhaps call it nouveau chess), I predict that he would be the first player to hit ELO 3000.

When I state that 10. c4 is a positional error, I mean that it weakens the d4 and d3 squares thereby rendering an advance of the d-pawn impossible. In general, one does not want such backward pawns.

You are absolutely correct, in general, that giving White a backward pawn on the open file is generally a bad idea for White, but if massive exchanges occur when Black wins the d-pawn, White is still better because he has the superior pawn structure i.e. fewer pawn islands and the better pawn structure, something the "old timers" several generations ago thought was a winning advantage.

Probably the best continuation for Black (I haven't analyzed it in detail) is to "bite" the bullet and play an early Nd5/Bxg5 with the indirect exchange of pieces that should give White a slight plus i.e. +/=

In the system 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.b4 Bg7 4.Bb2, an idea that looks very interesting for White is an early Qb3 with a great square for the Queen, where she cannot be attacked by the Black minors.

Talk about delusional...

I kind of like White in your last diagram; I'd put it at +/=. Looks kind of like the same idea as converting the English into a Sicilian with Colors Reversed.

In the diagram of post 205, it's white who has something to prove after giving up control of so many queenside squares.  b4 and c4 are more targets than pluses, black just has to be patient and play logically and the wake of weak squares/fundamentally poor structure after b4,c4, and d4 will be felt, eg ...d5 and ...0-0 for starters, and I think black is at least equal (if not a small edge) already, you see this kind of stuff all the time online and it never seems to do much good.