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.
In the books "Chess Openings for Black" and "Chess Openings for White" by Lev Alburt and Co., there is a small chart that purports to show which players had a healthy respect for material and which players had a healthy disrespect for material. Kasparov is in the middle, Karpov to the "right" (more conservative with giving up material) and Fischer is just to Kaspy's left.
Nezhmetdinov was all the way to the left. I mean, no one in the same postal code. He was the chess equivalent of the rich uncle who gives the kids toys to keep them quiet--sure, the kids are happy but the uncle has some peace of mind.
On the other extreme, FWIW, was Korchnoi who, if the chart is to be believed, would give up a piece whenever there was a blizzard in hell.
Question: Where do you think you would fall?
A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing
A player's (dis)respect for material may be a closely guarded secret for most players. They don't want their opponents to know how (un)comfortable they feel up/down material when one side has compensation.
In my case it depends on the opponent, for one thing. I generally wouldn't want to play down material vs. a computer, for example, if the compensation wasn't of a very healthy positional nature.
For most of my career, at least in my home study, I automatically rejected, as a possible part of my repertoire, opening lines that led to compensation for material for the other side. I viewed it as giving the other side some form of an initiative. However in practice I often find myself defending up material, particularly with Black. The main exception to this repertoire policy, when I used to play it, was the 4.Ng5 line with White against the Two Knights Defence. There I used to be attracted to Steinitz' (and Fischer's) preferred 9.Nh3 variation in the ultra-main line, because it used to seem to me Black didn't have enough for the pawn .
Nowadays, at least in my home study, I view as possibly 'playable' any line where I am up/down material for compensation, at least until I see who I'm playing in a specific game. This has expanded my possible repertoire options, in some cases permitting whole openings I never considered before. It's also easier to prepare, at least somewhat, for such unbalanced cases with computer-aided analysis, especially if the compensation is not largely positional, but more to do with attacking chances.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I'm not sure I agree with T. Petrosian being put on the far right of the chart. He was famous for positional Exchange sacrifices, often for defensive purposes though. If you subscribe to Lars Bo Hansen's categorization of styles in his various books on chess strategy, both Petrosian and Karpov are 'Reflectors' who among other things have a fine sense of small advantages and piece-co-ordination, but who also make intuitive positional sacrifices, e.g. of a pawn or the Exchange.
Lasker paid homage to Steinitz' theories in his famous Manual, so one might think, perhaps, he should be placed not too far from where Steinitz is placed on this chart. Gambits should be accepted if they are to be refuted, according to Steinitz. However Lasker's defence to the Evans Gambit (while avoidable for White says modern theory) involved returning the pawn for a favourable endgame. Steinitz would cling to the material. On the other hand, Lasker never seemed to offer/advocate gambits afaik, either. So on the whole Lasker is probably just a bit to the left of Steinitz.
Even for all his chess psychology, Lasker didn't pick opponents to whom he'd be more generous with. Unlike me. I'd be a bit to the left of wherever Lasker would be, despite my liking of his philosophy otherwise. I'm all for the Evans Gambit, against most human beings, for example. On the other hand I haven't been involved yet on the material up/down side of a Najdorf Poisoned Pawn in critical unclear lines where White is a rook and pawn(s) down.
One can often save a position down a pawn, but not a rook, if the initiative evaporates. Not saying I wouldn't brave it some time as White/Black, just I would go into it donned with a thick armour of pre-game preparation. The most I've sacrificed on speculative grounds so far, as I recall, has been a queen for 2 pieces, or the sac of 2 Exchanges, not counting a pawn or two as part of the deal.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 20th February, 2010, 12:40 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I'm surprised Spassky rates so low on the chart. What does the chart show? The percentage of the games in which a player offered a gambit? The percentage of the games in which a gambit was accepted? The total number of times a gambit offered and/or accepted? Of course totals would not allow for players who played few games or years.
Spassky, of course, defeated both Fischer and Karpov with the Kings Gambit.
Is the Queens Gambit counted in these numbers for the graph?
Lev Alburt on numerous occasions said Qeens Gambit Accepted or Declined is NOT a gambit!
Thank you. The chart offers only generalizations. It's subjective rather than objective. The reason I asked about Spassky is I consider him an expert on the King's Gambit in which he defeated some of the best players of his time.
Accepting the opinion the Queens Gambit is not a gambit, can we call something like the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit in the French defence a gambit? Accepting the pawn is mostly losing.
Is Combo-Bombo really a gambit? Often the result is more immediate while in a "real" gambit where the opponent has practicle chances there is more of a lack of respect for material.
Now I have something to consider for the rest of the day. :)
Accepting the opinion the Queens Gambit is not a gambit. :)
It's not a matter of opinion. Gambit is where you sacrifice material for advantage in development, in Queen Gambit Accepted you "loan" a pawn and get it back two moves later. It's not a gambit. Don't get confused by the name of the opening.
A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing
It's not a matter of opinion. Gambit is where you sacrifice material for advantage in development, in Queen Gambit Accepted you "loan" a pawn and get it back two moves later. It's not a gambit. Don't get confused by the name of the opening.
So what is a minimum number of moves required to be in a material disadvantage to call an opening a gambit in your opinion?
So what is a minimum number of moves required to be in a material disadvantage to call an opening a gambit in your opinion?
This very hard question and IS matter of opinion. My personal view is at least five moves. I personally prefer to play Scotch Gambit and there is no debates about pawn sacrifice. Seriously, do you consider Queens Gambit a real gambit?
A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing
For me, this is a name for the opening (d4 d5 c4) with myriad variations and a rich history. It is a real gambit, as there is a counter-gambit :D (e5)
I have not heard about a Scotch counter-gambit :p
Tweet
.
Comment