If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
All I can offer is "oops"! It is clearly stated on the "Follow the tournament" pre-registration list as "NS". I guess I now have to buy Ken a coffee as atonement?? Is that the NS protocol?
Well, I guess I now know that at least one person has read my Blog # 2! :D
Bob A
Hi Bob:
I appreciate the effort you put into your blog and I am happy to read it. Since having Black is an advantage from a game theory standpoint, I have to ask who you bribed for your pairings!?
You don't HAVE to buy Ken (a real nice guy IMO) a coffee but if you want to do so, God bless you!
I am just glad we really WEREN'T occupied by Quebec as most Bluenosers would consider that a fate worse than death!!
Blog # 5 - Pt. I - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22
2014 Canadian Open U 2000 Blog (Armstrong)
Blog # 5 - Pt. I - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22
NOTE
1. This blog is duplicate posted: a) on the FQE Canadian Open website ("Follow the tournament"); b) on the CMA Chesstalk. But the FQE website has the great advantage that it includes a game-viewer. So my Rd. 2 game, and that of Mario’s, that are in the text, can be immediately played over. The URL for the blog there is: http://echecsmontreal.ca/co/suivre_en.html .
2. The advantage of the Chesstalk site, is that there is capacity for anyone to comment and discuss any CO matters. The URL is: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/foru...hp?2-ChessTalk
Starting the Day Off Right – Wee Hours of the Morning
After midnight today (Tuesday), I continued work on the draft Blog # 4 and went to bed at 1:30 PM. I awoke at 5:00 AM – a bit less than I really need for my health, but not uncommon during tournaments. So I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I continued analyzing Aiden Zhou’s U 2000 Section game to be used in blog # 4 (was hoping to get it out today, Tuesday, by noon). Mario got up at 8:00 AM, and went to his laptop to muck around, as he is want to do sometimes – like posting on Chesstalk. I offered to go get us 2 coffees. On the way back I found out the U 2000 section was now back on track – pairings and standings up outside the playing hall. And on the net! So back up to the slavemaster laptop.
Mid-Morning
We later went to get breakfast to bring back up to the room. It must have been something in the air…..we forsaked our favourite Timmies! The adventurers went to McD’s! This is a modest budget tournament for both of us – the bloody hotel parking is an arm and a leg!
Mario then took a nap. I got the whole blog # 5 ready, and it just needed me to finish Aiden’s game, and I was ready to rock! “Won’t be long” I told myself – first blog out the next morning. Whoohoo!
Afternoon
Mario and I continued our respective work on the laptops. I had missed the noon deadline (sigh). Aiden Zhou’s game, which was for my Blog # 4, was giving my computer program problems. It was dithering around, changing its mind, giving me inconsistent propositions….all to say this was neither expected nor good.
Mario and I then went down to the food court under the hotel, for a walk around to get a break and get away from our masters. We didn’t really want lunch – we were going to eat before the round. But we both needed something to keep us going ‘til then. Finally, about 3:00 PM, I finished the annotations. And out went the material to Roman, my FQE techie support (I know nothing; just enough to do what I want to do; not a stitch more. Then I posted the blog # 4 on Chesstalk (getting longer…hmmm….had to use 4 parts this time, due to the 10,000 character limit per post).
I then started my draft of Blog # 5 for Tuesday. Mario, who has now assumed the unpaid but appreciated role of “Official Blog Researcher” continued his mysterious work. My adult daughter and I e-mailed back and forth a bit, getting ourselves organized to have lunch together. We hadn’t quite worked it all out when we went downstairs.
About 4:00 PM we went down to the food court below the hotel to get some India fast food. While there, Frank Lee, CFC Youth Coordinator from Windsor, Ontario, and his wife (who have a son and daughter playing) came and sat beside us. We all discussed an idea he and Vlad Drkulec, CFC President, are working on. It is rated norm tournaments on-line. There are lots of technical things to be worked out, but on-line matches are not that uncommon now. It is an interesting idea. What do you think of it? Maybe give Vlad and Frank some feedback?
Rather than going back to the room, we went to the hall outside the playing area. I was a bit into a tired zone, and so just sat on a sofa and kind of semi-dozed for about 20 min. Mario took on the role of the biblical gadfly and tried to alert the pairers to some problems with the tentative pairings for the U 2000 section that were on the net and in hard copy on the bulletin board. In any event, the pairings (as they were) were available and we started the round right at 6:00 PM.
Now last blog, we saw that Mario (my CO roomie), who had definitely declared he is not superstitious, had an MLP (My Lucky Pen). It totally panicked last round and fled the scene, leaving poor Mario to fend for himself. This is not good. On his own, Mario lost. So I asked what pen he was using for Rd. 5? (Sometimes I admit I am just trouble waiting for a place to happen). Mario thought about it, and tried to explain to me the Tao of the MLP, and the issue of whether it deserved a second chance. But I’d better let Mario himself tell you about this, and the major decision he had to make as to which pen to use:
Round 5
So, in Mario trooped, a bit apprehensively with his MLP. I had not won a game yet (last round got a forfeit), and so I was really gunning for a win – and I was paired up a bit.
I did win in about 2 hrs.. I am pleased with it and it is below.
So I went back upstairs to work on this blog # 5, and deal with some other matters, one being my daughter and I actually organizing the details of meeting for lunch. I wanted the games to be further advanced when I went back down to watch.
I then entered my game and started analyzing it for this blog.
My Games
(Because new readers come to the blog from time to time, I want them to have the following information, and so I am repeating the template of it each day – I’d ask the daily readers of the blog to tolerate the repetition)
As I’ve said in prior year’s blogs, I like to think “class” games, like those in the U 2000 section, down in the middle of the bowels of the tournament, have some interest. I believe in some ways they are more educational to class players than GM games, if properly annotated. They are understandable, because we all think similarly – GM moves are many times incomprehensible to us class players.
For years now, I’ve used a chess website, Chess5 (http://www.chess5.com ), as my own personal chess games blog and back up storage site – I have gotten to know the owner/administrator Eydun, quite well over the years. I introduced Canada to his website, after I first saw it. Canada is now one of the main posters to this on-line databank. I post all my games, using what I call my “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS)”, hoping that this makes them even more helpful to viewers. In prior years, this is where I have posted my Open games for those interested to play over. Click on the heading link “public games”, and you get a list of games posted this month so far. There is an option to go back and look at posted games from prior months. In past years, my Can. Op. games have been posted there during the tournament. But I am not doing that this tournament, since I am now blogging on the FQE website, and there now is a gameviewer in my blogs.
My games may not be dramatic, but I am told I am a somewhat messy and adventurous player (I lose a lot!), and that my games, win or lose, are often interesting to play over (some friends say, so they’ll learn how not to play chess…sigh). However in this tournament so far, I must admit I have played quite conservatively, even passively, before this game 4. But I think I am entitled to say that my Rd. 5 game was a bit messier and tactical, and more what I like to think I am (at least sometimes) capable of. You can decide.
The 4 U 2000 Leaders Post Rd. 5
1. – 5 pts. (Won all games) – 1 player – Germaine, Michel (1947 – QC)
2/ 4. – 4 ½ pts. – 3 players - Thanabalachandran, Kajan (1798 – ON); Petit, Raymond (1789 – QC)); Baumgartner, Christopher (1766 – USA).
Our section started with 13 top players who I termed the “favourites”. They were all in the 1900’s. But a number of them were not in the full Can. Op.; they were only in the Mini-COC and so they should not have been in our favourites group. Here are the true 5 non-leader favourites and their scores – I kind of like to keep tabs on them since, though they may not be doing well early on, they are quite capable of suddenly again rising to the top [Note that 2 of them are tied for 6th with 4 pts.– it is a long tournament (though we now are past the half-way mark)]:
1. Shah, Omar – 1999 – ON– 3 ½ pts. (See picture in Blog # 2)
2. Have, Didier - 1992 – QC – 3 pts.
3. Weston, Paul – 1963 – QC – 3 pts.
4. Pomerantz, Daniel – 1937 – QC– 4 pts.
5. Chang, Michael – 1912 – QC – 3 ½ pts.
6. Sarra – Bournet, Marc – 1911 – QC – 4 pts.
Re: Blog # 5 - Pt. II - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22
Blog # 5 - Pt. II - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22
Continued from Part I above
My Round 5 Game
The time control is 40/90 min. SD/30 min, with a 30 sec increment from move 1.
Here it is – it is annotated using my own “Comprehensive Annotation System (CAS), Fritz, and my own annotations. Hope you enjoy playing it over.
Armstrong, Robert J. (1645) - Robichaud, Nicolas (1715) [E86]
Canadian Open (U 2000) (5), 22.07.2014
In copying a Fritz game into Chesstalk, some symbols change. Here they are:
2 = plus/= (CT cannot print the plus sign)
3 = =/plus
U (with a tail) = - over plus
1.d4² [0.35]
1...Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 [King's Indian Defence]
5.f3?!= [Samisch Line]
[5.Nf3 0–0 6.Be2 e5²]
5...0–0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 c6?!² [7...Nc6 8.d5 Na5=]
8.g4 [this move, in some lines, like here, has a thematic minor sac for 2 P's, that becomes somewhat wild. I am aware of it, and checked before I moved - I wrongly calculated that this position did not generate it, and so played it. But the good sac is there after all.]
14...Nd4 15.Bg2??–plus [I had been aware of this situation cropping up in earlier analysis and told myself I had to defend from e2, even if it allows a N for B exchange. Then when I got here, I blundered....I just forgot, I thought I'd keep my B......totally missing the earlier realized point. I give up a P for nothing. Nicolas gets a "winning" advantage. This should be the losing move.]
32.Qa5 plus– [17.28 Nicolas resigns. He must lose more material.]
1–0
Later Evening
I spent the evening going up and down. I watched games for a while, and then went to the room to continue analyzing my game. When downstairs, I also cumulatively got our U 2000 stats from off the results mark-up sheet (so I won’t have to wait for the official standings to do my blog, if they should be late).
I did as much of the draft blog # 5 as I could, and of analyzing my Game 5. I should also note that Tuesday night, the U 2000 standings/pairings after Rd. 5 were posted! Congratulations to the organizers for getting things slowly back on track for our trouble-racked section – we seem to be the anomaly of the tournament, since it seems things have gone comparatively well for all the other sections.
Re: Blog # 5 - Pt. III - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22
Re: Blog # 5 - Pt. III - Day 4/ Rd. 5 – Tuesday, July 22
Continued from Part II Above
Wednesday Morning
Mario went to bed at 2:00 AM and I hit the sack soon after about 2:30 AM. Miraculously, I finished the draft blog. But I admittedly was a bit tired (this schedule does eventually take a bit of a toll on we 69 year olds!), so I decided to wait ‘til later in the morning to post (avoids the inevitable unnecessary mistakes one always makes when too tired).
Wednesday morning, I managed to get 3 1/2 hrs. sleep. Not great, but not bad for a tournament. I checked e-mails, posted on the 4 FB chess sites I manage/co-manage, and looked at the other 2 non-chess FB pages I manage. Then I reviewed my finished draft blog # 5, and sent it out for posting by FQE (Roman). I then went and posted it on Chesstalk.
Mario rose about 8:00 AM. We happily discussed the fact that we were mutual winners Tuesday night……have to get your enjoyment when you can…this may not happen again!
The U 2000 Leaders’ Rd. 6 Pairings (top 12)
Round 6 on 2014/07/19 at 10h10
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 43 Thanabalachandran Kajan 1798 4½ 5 Germain Michel 1947 8
2 46 Petit Raymond 1789 4½ 4½ Baumgartner Christopher 1766 53
3 19 Sarra-Bournet Marc 1911 4 4 Weston Paul 1963 6
4 11 Pomerantz Daniel 1937 4 4 Desautels Richard 1813 38
5 28 Miettinen Eric 1854 4 4 Gunapalan David 1912 18
6 5 Libersan Mattieu 1965 3½ 4 Pulfer Luke 1784 48
My Rd. 6 Pairing
28 30 Armstrong Robert J. 1845 2 2 Zhou David 1707 72
The Top Section Leaders After Rd. 5
First prize is $ 4,000. There are 42 registered players (one shown actually in U 2400).
Here are the 3 Leaders:
1/ 3. – 4 pts.
GM Tiviakov, Sergei (2656 – Netherlands)
GM Kovalyov, Anton (2636 – Canada – top FIDE-rated Canadian, playing for Canada)
GM Van Kampen, Robin (2636 – Netherlands)
The Top Section Leaders’ Pairings
Round 6 on 2014/07/23 at 18
Bo. No. Name Rtg Pts. Result Pts. Name Rtg No.
1 1 GM Tiviakov Sergey 2656 4 4 GM Kovalyov Anton 2636 2
2 5 GM Moradiabadi Elshan 2593 3½ 4 GM Van Kampen Robin 2636 3
3 33 FM Cao Jason 2177 3½ 3½ 3 1/2 GM Hansen Eric 2596 4
4 6 GM Ghaem Maghami Ehsan 2586 3½ 3½ FM Preotu Razvan 2341 20
5 15 GM Fedorowicz John Peter 2422 3½ 3½ IM Sevian Samuel 2464 12
Invitation
Unfortunately, the website format FQE uses, does not allow for any comments, questions, etc. concerning the blog material. This is why it is being duplicate posted on the Chess ‘n Math Association national chess discussion board, Chesstalk. There this can be done. So, I'd like again to invite everyone to join into the discussion on Chesstalk by making comments, suggestions, questions, constructive criticisms , etc. Anything to do with the Can. Open is welcome. I will try to respond on Chesstalk if that seems appropriate.
I hope you will weigh in again after you have read my blog presentation on my annotation method. And that others do too. I would like to hold a discussion about the effect of computers on chess!
Actually I don't see the relevance of putting so many unchallenged computer lines. In my opinion, the computer should be used as a tool helping you to understand your game better, instead of pushing a button and getting a line with an evaluation number.
Here is an example of what I mean. In game 2, you played 17...Qc7. And you question this move, giving the computer line 17...e6 18.d6 e4 with advantage to Black.
But after 17...e6, why in the world should a human player want to play 18.d6 ? Because the computer says so? Look again at the position. Why did you play 17...Qc7 in the first place? Answer: because your pawn e5 is attacked twice and defended only one, and you wanted to defend it a second time. But since you do not protect the pawn after 17...e6, the relevant answer to consider is NOT 18.d6, but instead 18.Nxe5 or 18.Bxe5 winning a pawn.
And this is the real line you have to see before playing 17...e6: 18.Nxe5 (18.Bxe5 Bxe5 19.Nxg5 comes to the same) Qg5! (threatening mate and attacking the Knight) 19.Ng4 h5 20.Ne3 Nxh3 21.Kh1 Nxf2! 22.Rxf2 Qxe3. Not only Black has won his pawn back, but he won another pawn as well.
So here is my conclusion: if Black sees this line, he can play 17...e6. If he does not see this line, he cannot. And quite obviously, not only you did not see the line in your game, but you did not even saw it after your computer analysis. This is why I believe this analysis is worthless: the line you give (17...e6 18.d6 e4) is pointless and does not help you to understand your position any better.
This is only one completely random example. I could probably repeat this exercise at about every computer line you give. As I said, computer has to be used as a useful tool to help you better understand what is going on, not as a button giving the plain truth without any effort.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Wednesday, 23rd July, 2014, 07:20 PM.
Good stuff, Bob! As with every year's CO, I look forward to your blogging. Now get out there and score some more points.
Hi Sam:
Very glad I'm adding to your summer enjoyment! Thanks for the encouragement.
As to my chess ability, well I can only say I try hard.....results.....sometimes good, but often not...my cross to bear in life I guess. But as I often quote: The sun always rises! So there is hope for me yet.
Actually I don't see the relevance of putting so many unchallenged computer lines. In my opinion, the computer should be used as a tool helping you to understand your game better, instead of pushing a button and getting a line with an evaluation number.
Here is an example of what I mean. In game 2, you played 17...Qc7. And you question this move, giving the computer line 17...e6 18.d6 e4 with advantage to Black.
But after 17...e6, why in the world should a human player want to play 18.d6 ? Because the computer says so? Look again at the position. Why did you play 17...Qc7 in the first place? Answer: because your pawn e5 is attacked twice and defended only one, and you wanted to defend it a second time. But since you do not protect the pawn after 17...e6, the relevant answer to consider is NOT 18.d6, but instead 18.Nxe5 or 18.Bxe5 winning a pawn.
And this is the real line you have to see before playing 17...e6: 18.Nxe5 (18.Bxe5 Bxe5 19.Nxg5 comes to the same) Qg5! (threatening mate and attacking the Knight) 19.Ng4 h5 20.Ne3 Nxh3 21.Kh1 Nxf2! 22.Rxf2 Qxe3. Not only Black has won his pawn back, but he won another pawn as well.
So here is my conclusion: if Black sees this line, he can play 17...e6. If he does not see this line, he cannot. And quite obviously, not only you did not see the line in your game, but you did not even saw it after your computer analysis. This is why I believe this analysis is worthless: the line you give (17...e6 18.d6 e4) is pointless and does not help you to understand your position any better.
This is only one completely random example. I could probably repeat this exercise at about every computer line you give. As I said, computer has to be used as a useful tool to help you better understand what is going on, not as a button giving the plain truth without any effort.
Hi Louis:
Thanks very much for taking the time to look closely at my annotation system, and to make the effort to give me a detailed criticism. I appreciate you trying to bring my annotation understanding up a notch.
You are not alone in making a somewhat severe criticism of it. There is significant opposition. And I have tried to understand it and answer it.
But you have been a bit more precise and detailed in giving examples of why it does not work, or is not effective. I intend, after the tournament, to give this post due regard. But I need to sit quietly and go through it slowly. The conditions at the moment during the tournament are not ideal to do this. But I am home alone for a few days after the tournament, and it will be a priority to respond to you.
I hope I have a sound defence, sounder than some of my game defences so far!:D
Then you need work much harder to eliminate these nonsenses "1.d4² [0.35]" LOL
Hi Egis:
I have already had my official "CO Blog Researcher", who has a better engine, and better hardware check this. With limited time, he advises that 1.d4 is 0.15 or =. He is going to confirm this on a better program and better hardware, and give it more time, to confirm his tentative evaluation.
This will be a very difficult concession for me to make, since for 8 years now, on a limited engine, with limited hardware, and limited time, I have always gotten the same .d4 /= answer in many, many different 1.d4 lines. Now I readily admit that these limitations may well be leading me to the incorrect answer.
Now, with a better researcher than me on board, I will be able to determine the extent to which my own personal limitations have caused me to err.
I have already had my official "CO Blog Researcher", who has a better engine, and better hardware check this. With limited time, he advises that 1.d4 is 0.15 or =. He is going to confirm this on a better program and better hardware, and give it more time, to confirm his tentative evaluation.
This will be a very difficult concession for me to make, since for 8 years now, on a limited engine, with limited hardware, and limited time, I have always gotten the same .d4 /= answer in many, many different 1.d4 lines. Now I readily admit that these limitations may well be leading me to the incorrect answer.
Now, with a better researcher than me on board, I will be able to determine the extent to which my own personal limitations have caused me to err.
I think you misunderstood Egidijus.
The point is, no engine can correctly evaluate 1.d4. Don't even try. It's not a hardware or software problem.
Tweet
Comment