Healthy disrespect for material

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Healthy disrespect for material

    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

  • #2
    Re: Healthy disrespect for material



    Where Lasker belongs on the chart?
    Last edited by Ernest Klubis; Friday, 12th February, 2010, 12:15 PM.
    A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Healthy disrespect for material

      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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Healthy disrespect for material

        Originally posted by Ernest Klubis View Post


        Where Lasker belongs on the chart?
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Healthy disrespect for material

          Originally posted by Ernest Klubis View Post
          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.
          Which probably explains why Korchy is also one of the world's biggest pawn grabbers...
          No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Healthy disrespect for material

            Originally posted by Ernest Klubis View Post


            Where Lasker belongs on the chart?
            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?
            Gary Ruben
            CC - IA and SIM

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Healthy disrespect for material




              Lev Alburt on numerous occasions said Qeens Gambit Accepted or Declined is NOT a gambit!
              A computer beat me in chess, but it was no match when it came to kickboxing

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Healthy disrespect for material

                Originally posted by Ernest Klubis View Post

                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. :)
                Gary Ruben
                CC - IA and SIM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Healthy disrespect for material

                  Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Healthy disrespect for material

                    Originally posted by Ernest Klubis View Post
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Healthy disrespect for material

                      Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Healthy disrespect for material

                        Originally posted by Ernest Klubis View Post
                        do you consider Queens Gambit a real gambit?
                        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

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X