Chess Scotland Noticeboard

John Blake · Pawn Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 9

You could be one of the lucky 1 in 10 who will be able to solve them. The other 50% can't.

Jim Johnston · Rook Joined: 29 Mar 2008 Posts: 44

"These guys Short, Fischer, Petrosian lived and breathed chess
and learned their craft by studying on a full sized set."

There's nothing like a good logical argument, and the above truly is nothing like a good logical argument...

Shakespeare never used a typewriter.

That's why the infinite number of monkeys wasting an infinite amount of time trying to emulate him won't succeed.

But if someone was to extend that to all the writers who DO use a typewriter (or word-processor) and say they can never be any good because they aren't using "the correct and proven way" would be ridiculous.

I realise we're not going to convince you. It's your party-piece, (along with the full-sized prehistoric chess-piece debate) and I predict you'll keep defending your unprovable premise because "I'm fighting this one on 4 fronts" and you love it.

PS You said in a couple of threads that "The CT in CT-ART = Crap Training" and talked about "...something mysterious called: A Book." Then I guess nobody told you that CT-Art is based on Maxim Blokh's book?!

PPS @AMcHarg... you DO know there are computer programs which can solve Sudoku? (I recommend Spritz 12) They can even help with training! As the old Japanese saying goes, "Give a man a sudoku puzzle and he'll pass some time, TEACH him how to do one and he can become a master".

Keith Ruxton · Queen Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 148

Well it's almost New Year so before 2009 ends I am going to agree with Geoff about something!

Geoff may sometimes exaggerate his arguments for the usual comic and baiting effects but there is definitely a detrimental effect to the use of computers in some situations that would not have happened 'BC'...

1) Whenever I log onto ICC to watch some top-flight game live, the vast majority of comments from observers are of the form...

"comp eval?"
"Shredder gives +0.34"

The game will then enter some hideously complicated mess of a position and one of the super GMs will play Fritz's second choice and then we get a chorus of...

"How could he miss that?"
"Blunder!"

The point is that all of these players are not thinking about the position, they are just letting the computer do the work. No-one can surely think that sitting reading off the computer's moves is more beneficial for your chess than trying to work things out for oneself?

2) Similarly, on more than one occassion, I have had a player come up to me the day after we've played a game of chess (which I've won) and proceed to tell me that really I shouldn't have won becuase Fritz says...at which point they will reel off some complex tactical sequence that a non-titled human would never find. Doesn't bother me...I know Fritz would beat me every time...but is this really beneficial for their chess? They haven't looked at the game themslves or tried to analyze variations for themselves and, even worse, they now assume that in fact they played fine but were just 'unlucky' to lose against my unsound play. Again, it's clear that this cannot be good for ones chess.

I do understand that using computers for database purposes is useful and I dont hold with Geoff's fear of doing exercises on the screen, but using a computer as the oracle to understand your games when you dont have sufficient skills to contradict the computer when it mis-evaluates a 'human' position seriously hampers progress.

Good, that's that, now I can leave it a year before I have to agree with Geoff again.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Cheers,
Keith

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:28 am Post subject:

I don't love it Jim.

I'm getting as fed up writing about it as you are no doubt fed up
reading about it.

My only real regret is the strong players who agree with me but will
not back me on here for fear of ridicule or biting the hand that feeds them.

The real sad bit is everyone knows I'm right and they are too lazy or
find obscure excuses not to work at their chess.

Book, Bedroom and Board. It works.
You cannot say otherwise. The old Masters produced wonderful chess.
Chess that first got you interested in the game.
You have all stagnated....drones....fallien for the hype...
...you have been assimilated.

What scares you is that I might reach one young player who has
an ounce of talent for the game and he will soar in the clouds of
freedom of thought.

The rest of you will try to suck him back into the hole that they are in
but he will shun you and kick your shiney arses.

Your PS. has backfired:

"PS You said in a couple of threads that "The CT in CT-ART = Crap
Training" and talked about "...something mysterious called: A Book."
Then I guess nobody told you that CT-Art is based on Maxim Blokh's book?! "

I'm saying READ THE BOOK and stop sitting infront of q monitor
looking at postage stamp sized diagrams for 10 secs and then clicking
a mouse for the answer.

Edit1:

Cheers Keith.

We posted at the same time.

Right that is one good player onboard.....Next?

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

My predictions for 2010:

1) If you sum all games played by top 50 players in CS rating list. Then more than 50% of these games will be played outside of Scotland.

2) The most improved player starting from a position of 2000+ will have played at least 50% of their 2010 games outside of Scotland.

3) Total entry levels in each Scottish weekend Congress will be less than it was in 2009.

Happy New Year Everyone!

AMcHarg · Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject:

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

Hamilton will win the Scottish Lightning for the 8th consecutive year Razz

Happy New Year

Jim Johnston · Rook Joined: 29 Mar 2008 Posts: 44

Geoff,

I have the book, the diagrams are postage stamp sized. The ones in the computer program are actually bigger, and can be enlarged even more.

You say Keith agrees with you about this. "I dont hold with Geoff's fear of doing exercises on the screen". You're in denial...

You say "read the book" (filled with almost the same puzzles) because you think looking at them on a monitor is detrimental to learning chess. But you don't really believe looking at them in the book is much better. You have said in the past "I was reading on another forum a strong player ripping to pieces the value of the positions CT-ART were showing." So why are they better on a page?

You have said a lot more about CT-Art:

"I've been waiting for this to appear.

"Tactics are pattern recognition and can easily be developed using a
program such as CT-Art. For developing your pattern recognition quantity "

Complete and Utter Nonsense.

Yes for recognising patterns on a monitor.

If you study chess through a monitor your OTB play will suffer."

The thing is, you're talking about two different things, learning pattern recognition on-screen, and using a program like Fritz, but talking about these separate issues as one. So people like me might agree with one of your arguments (I don't use Fritz or any of it's competitors) but disagree with your dogmatic assertions about the use of diagrams, or whether they are any different on a 2D page or 2D screen.

Anyway, I predict you won't get what I'm talking about, in 2010 or any other year Smile

Cheers,
Jim

sigrun · King Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 307 Location: Europa

interesting discussion.
Our first two GMs were extremely lucky: They were both living in Dundee & could practise with each other - their friendly rivalry helped them to improve - unless one of them tells me now that they never played each other if they could help it.
They were also lucky because they gained their first & last norms in various Olympiads.
_________________
''All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.'' Voltaire

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject:

Hi Jim.

You DO NOT try to solve the problems from the diagram in the book.

You set the position in the diagram up on a chess board and THEN
solve it.

That way you get the eyes moving about in the skull just as they
do when you play a real game.

How on earth do you expect to produce patterns OTB that you have
only seen in a diagram or on a monitor. Give yourself a chance.

Has it come to this....Do I really have to explain how you use a chess book.

Hi Siegrun.

I believe Nancy Elder had a big influence on the boys when they were youngsters.

Two brilliant chess players.
Motwani on the attack is instructive and inspiring.
Some of McNab's best games are unique masterpieces.

There was something in the Dundee air when these two emerged.

Paul Denham · Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:17 pm Post subject:

Happy New Year Folks,

I agree with Jim's analysis that Geoff has several points re use of board at least one of which I agree with (use of board to review games/your own games and prior to allowing any silicon help with finishing off analysing your games), but that he mixes them up at times or jumps from one to the other.

One element I cannot agree with is solving puzzles by setting them up with a set. WHY?

Takes far too long.

You can review more tactical problems (PROPERLY) in the same training session using diagram/screen than OTB.

Properly refers to the laziness I (we) often use when solving tactics and know the win is there and don't check all key lines.

My 1st two recommendations of the "teenies" for players sub 1600 rating for 2010;

1. Buy Ray Cheng's book "Practical Chess Exercises: 600 Lessons from Tactics to Strategy (Paperback)". White or black to play... none of this play and mate in 2 or play and draw etc etc nonsense or whole chapters devoted to a tactical theme.

2. For every tactical puzzle you do (be it on screen, using board and set or on a train from a book or in a newspaper), aside of the obvious try to find the win as rigorously as you can checking all key lines, is..... once solved it try to look at the puzzle as if it was defender to play and see if you can thwart the tactic (Its an idea of Dan Heisman's and it means you get twice the value for any program/book/paper as you can use the same position twice). Helps you deal with threats and makes your defensive skills sharper as you learn tactics need to be applied or addressed to be an effective defender (soon you will be rattling through capture, block, defend, move and counterattack automatically)

PD

PS First rant of the teenies - a sin Kotov or his publishers and many others (e.g. Van Wijgerden in his excellent Step by Step series) make is to show a chess position but have no B or W to tell you who it is to move. A position without telling you whose move it is is not a position!! Evil or Very Mad

Its like half of a postcode or set of co-ordinates.

PPS Haven't got Rampant Chess yet so don't know if Geoff and Keith fell into or avoided this pitfall.

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Happy New Year!

Paul Denham · Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:02 am Post subject:

Hi Mike,

Fair point. I have done what Jim was saying Geoff has done and switched arguments a bit.

My complaint re incomplete info on chess diagrams is more about books where the author is trying to tell you something about the position based on white or black to move, but doesn't tell you who it is to move... rather than chess puzzles.

PD