Crushing the Caro Kann

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

4...Nd7 was the main line for some time, until 4...Bf5 came back in vogue.

'Theory' worked out using computers can only be trusted so far, naturally, just like theory/evaluations from strictly humans. Positional stuff being evaluated by computers probably moreso. Even tactical stuff is not a sure thing, if complex enough. Try 'solving' the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn with a computer.

The 4...Nd7 Classical Caro can be either positional or tactical (or a mix like most openings), and in any event once a line has been 'evaluated' by a computer, humans still have to play it out. In correspondence the difference is that one can keep using a computer, at least avoiding blunders.

A friend once told me years ago he played by mail, and opponents could be just as careless as in otb. I wonder how much that still happens in the age of playing programs.

What I meant was most of the theory worked over by computers was pretty accurate even though the theory was known before computers became very good. Some theory contained errors.

I take it you assume the correspondence players turn the game over to a computer to play. I think many use the programs to check and make sure they aren't hanging a piece or the game.

A correspondence team is pretty much like an over the board team. That goes for the CC national teams and the league teams. Every country has one or two good players. (CC Olympics play 6 boards a team). Once you get past the top boards, the level of competition drops. Not what one would expect if all the players were using computers.

A few Olympics ago FIDE invited the ICCF to field a team of players. The ICCF entered a team and sent the names of the players. It included one Canadian player and 3 or 4 correspondence ex world champions. After they saw the team, FIDE withdrew the invitation. Maybe coincidence.

Players still play 40 or 50 games at a time. I used to play up to 50 games when I was younger. The idea is to prioritise according to the importance of the event. Spend more time on the moves of the more important events. Also, I had to either remember or write down the ideas I had in each game. Of course, the events weren't all at the same points. Some would be openings, some middle games and some endgames. I'd say the large game loads were a contribution factor to some of the bad mistakes. Others were, and still are, from setting up the board wrong.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

What I meant was most of the theory worked over by computers was pretty accurate even though the theory was known before computers became very good. Some theory contained errors.

Theory is being added to all the time, whether it goes deeper and/or wider. Plus someone can probe a line that a computer evaluated, and it may turn out it was evaluated prematurely/incorrectly, or alternative(s) along the way also were evaluated prematurely/incorrectly.

I take it you assume the correspondence players turn the game over to a computer to play. I think many use the programs to check and make sure they aren't hanging a piece or the game.

I played several games on the old Ottawa CC website at one move per day where I and my opponent got 'permission' to use an engine, plus books or any other resources. The only thing we weren't supposed to do was consult other players. I found that the games I played were pretty well always decided by the outcome of the opening. Computers go a long way towards leveling the playing field in correspondence games - more I imagine than in the days of correspondence prior to computers.

A two game match, I (2200+ CFC), played against Craig Sadler (then about 1500 CFC) was typical. As White I played an Anti-Marshall line of the Lopez. At move 12 I noticed in my database that a certain move scored well, and it wasn't in the books I had, so I played it, thinking Craig might not know what what to avoid. Sure enough for a couple of moves he followed an obscure game that Kindermann (a 2500+ German player) won as White, and then played a move (...h6) that lost time by encouraging a move (Bxf6) I wanted to make anyway (presumably both he and his computer loved the B for Kt swap). After that my edge was at least as big as Kindermann's, and I used my computer for the rest of the game minimizing counterplay (sometimes prefering my own moves as seemingly safer).

Meanwhile in my game as Black I used a QGD Classical Orthodox. Craig played a Bxf6 exchange himself that was an interesting novelty. The play became fairly forcing, and I missed a chance to make things murky, in spite of using a computer, since I didn't probe an interesting candidate move my computer may have underestimated. After that, Craig soon had the chance to make things murky or force a draw. He chose the draw (the Anti-Marshall game was still in progress, in the early middlegame).

The result of the match (1.5-0.5 for me) was better for Craig than the otb rating difference would suggest should have happened.

I wonder if a typical list of national correspondence ratings these days would show a much smaller gap between the worst correspondence players in a nation, and the best players, compared to the gap between a nation's worst and best otb ratings for otb players. People complain that the skill gap in open one section cash prize otb events discourages people from staying with or even starting serious otb chess. Allowing people to use computers in otb or internet cash prize competitions might help the popularity of the game by leveling the playing field a lot. Correspondence with computers does prove that the best skilled players would keep an edge, so they might not largely balk at the idea.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

It seems to me most of what you posted is based on the theory the games are played mainly with computers and your tests, which require statistics I don't have, are slanted in the same direction. Since I don't care what my opponents use or who they consult this isn't something which I spend much time thinking about.

In the event I'm currently playing I've won 3 and drawn drawn 5 with 0 loses and 4 games still in play. At least one of them will be a win.

I'm spotting those players up to 40 years in age in that event, and probably good looks, and a good education while I wasted my youth at chess clubs and pool halls. My question is why those younger guys with their fast computers and computer savvy aren't rewarding me with a lot of ZEROs in the crosstable.

If they're abusing me with computer software, I kind of hope they willl keep it up.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Well, the core of what I'm saying is that having access to a playing engine, books and databases can raise someone's playing strength a lot, even though he may still lose or draw in the end. Avoiding tactical blunders alone is worth a lot of rating points. Positional errors, that's another story, but even then computer suggested moves can help. I did prefer my moves to a computers often (don't know a percentage), but I always checked my move with a computer before making my final choice.

If you wish I can post some of the games I have records of. Including an Evans Gambit where our old friend NJF (below 1600 CFC?) got a draw off of me. I offered it to him because I realized that because I trusted my computer without checking carefully enough, I transposed moves in a way that allowed a perpetual check, if he used his computer to find it. I didn't want to give him the satisfaction to play the drawing sac :). So you see, carelessness still does play a part if someone doesn't probe a position deeply enough with their computer, or their brain.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Well, the core of what I'm saying is that having access to a playing engine, books and databases can raise someone's playing strength a lot, even though he may still lose or draw in the end. Avoiding tactical blunders alone is worth a lot of rating points. Positional errors, that's another story, but even then computer suggested moves can help. I did prefer my moves to a computers often (don't know a percentage), but I always checked my move with a computer before making my final choice.

If you wish I can post some of the games I have records of. Including an Evans Gambit where our old friend NJF (below 1600 CFC?) got a draw off of me. I offered it to him because I realized that because I trusted my computer without checking carefully enough, I transposed moves in a way that allowed a perpetual check, if he used his computer to find it. I didn't want to give him the satisfaction to play the drawing sac :). So you see, carelessness still does play a part if someone doesn't probe a position deeply enough with their computer, or their brain.

Well, Kevin, I think you're too hung up on ratings. Canada is a third world chess power where the players appear to be generally over rated. You only have to look at the performance ratings from the just finished Olympiad. Only 2 of the 5 players had a performance rating higher than their own rating. Two of the players had performance ratings in the 2300's.

On the women's team there was also only 2 players whose performance rating was higher than their own rating.

Maybe concentrate more on raising the level of chess played rather than inflating ratings.

How some game you played with YOUR friend (he's not mine) has any relevance to reality is a mystery to me. It's kind of "folksy" with a "down home" feel but really doesn't mean much.

Why would you need a computer to defeat a "legitimate" 1600 player? You should know enough theory to catch him in something and disect him regardless of what he tries. Maybe unbalance the position, sac a piece where the computer doesn't understand the compensation, etc.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Well, Kevin, I think you're too hung up on ratings. Canada is a third world chess power where the players appear to be generally over rated. You only have to look at the performance ratings from the just finished Olympiad. Only 2 of the 5 players had a performance rating higher than their own rating. Two of the players had performance ratings in the 2300's.

On the women's team there was also only 2 players whose performance rating was higher than their own rating.

Maybe concentrate more on raising the level of chess played rather than inflating ratings.

This time, at least, our men's team was handicapped by having one less reserve player. Of course, training and studying harder can help, as you allude to.

How some game you played with YOUR friend (he's not mine) has any relevance to reality is a mystery to me. It's kind of "folksy" with a "down home" feel but really doesn't mean much.

Why would you need a computer to defeat a "legitimate" 1600 player? You should know enough theory to catch him in something and disect him regardless of what he tries. Maybe unbalance the position, sac a piece where the computer doesn't understand the compensation, etc.

Well, one draw against a 1600+ or below player might be a fluke, but when I take into account the draw against Sadler as well, it gives me pause for thought. The involvement of computers etc., or the one move per day time control may have favoured the underdogs a little more. I can't claim to be absolutely sure which.

The draw against NJF was in a prearranged opening, after which NJF took the game into a line possibly incorrectly evaluated by Harding. When I let slip a draw I stood no worse with White in an Evans. So maybe I was just a little careless in two games against sub-1700 players. But they did make it well out of the opening successfully. Most don't in otb games against me.

Btw, another, earlier, game against Sadler also ended in a draw, when I refused to try to grind out a (symbolic!?) edge in an endgame. I thought in correspondence, with computers, it would make less sense to try than otb, especially since my computer kept coming up with good defences for Craig.

Sorry, I didn't realize you're still sore at NJF. He's more of an acquaintance for me, who I haven't seen in over a year, so I was being light-hearted when I refered to him as our friend. Yeah, he can be nasty, but a lot of players I've met can be, to some extent, too.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

This time, at least, our men's team was handicapped by having one less reserve player. Of course, training and studying harder can help, as you allude to.

Our team had the same number of reserve players as the other teams. The team had the maximum number of players.

The draw against NJF was in a prearranged opening, after which NJF took the game into a line possibly incorrectly evaluated by Harding. When I let slip a draw I stood no worse with White in an Evans. So maybe I was just a little careless in two games against sub-1700 players. But they did make it well out of the opening successfully. Most don't in otb games against me.
me, who I haven't seen in over a year, so I was being light-hearted when I refer

Btw, another, earlier, game against Sadler also ended in a draw, when I refused to try to grind out a (symbolic!?) edge in an endgame. I thought in correspondence, with computers, it would make less sense to try than otb, especially since my computer kept coming up with good defences for Craig.

Sounds like the game was book not computer.

I don't play much over the board chess. The reason is that I get into bad habits in over the board. I set up cheapoes and small traps which would never work in CC. Then I can't get out of the habit of doing it.

I used to play at the local seniors club but there wasn't much competition. Stopped going to the club a few years ago. The problem with seniors clubs is you just get to know someone and he gets some small ailment and he's gone. It got too discouraging so I stopped going. I used to go for the chess, poker and billiards.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Here are the four Internet games (played with computer & book assistance allowed) that I refered to in previous posts, in case anyone is curious:

K.Pacey (2216)-C.Sadler (1367)
C44 Board One, Ottawa CC (Internet) 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4 10.Qb3 Qxb3 11.axb3 Nxd4 12.Bxb7 Nc2+ 13.Ke2 Ne7 14.Bxa8 Nxa1 15.Nd5 Bd6 16.Nxe7 Kxe7 17.Bd5 Nc2 18.Rd1 Nb4 19.Bc4 Bc5 20.Kf3 Bb6 21.Bd2 Nc6 22.Bc3 f6 23.Kg3 Rd8 24.Rxd8 Kxd8 25.b4 +/=



25...Nd4 26.Bxd4 1/2-1/2


K.Pacey (2174)-N.Frarey (1419)
C52 Evans Gambit Theme, Board One, Ottawa CC (Internet) 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6 7.Qb3 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.0-0 Bb6 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Bxg8 Rxg8 12.cxd4 Bxd4 13.Nc3 Qe8 14.Bb2 Qg6 15.Nd5 Bxb2 16.Qxb2 c6 17.Nc7 Rb8 18.Qa3 Kf7 19.Rae1 Rd8 20.f4 Kg8 21.e5 Bf5 22.e6 Be4 23.Rf2 d5 24.e7 Rdc8



25.e8R+ (25.Qxa7!?) 25...Rxe8 26.Nxe8 Rxe8 27.Qxa7 1/2-1/2 (27...Bxg2!=)


K.Pacey (2219)-C.Sadler (1499)
C88 King of Ottawa, Ottawa CC (Internet) 2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.a4 Bb7 9.d3 d6 10.Nbd2 Na5 11.Ba2 c5 12.c3 Qc7 13.Nf1



13...c4?! (13...h6) 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Ne3 Rac8 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.Nd2 Rfd8 19.Ndxc4 Bxe4 20.Nxa5 Qxa5 21.Ng4 Bg6 22.Nxf6+ gxf6 23.Bd5 Kg7 24.Ra3 Qc7 25.a5 f5 26.b4 f4 27.Qe2 Qa7 28.c4 Rb8 29.Rb3 Rg8 30.Ra1 Qc7 31.b5 1-0


C.Sadler (1499)-K.Pacey (2219)
D63 King of Ottawa, Ottawa CC (Internet) 2004

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 0-0 7.Rc1 dxc4 8.Bxc4 a6 9.0-0 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Bxf6!? (Novelty) 11...Nxf6 12.a3 c5 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Nxb5 Bxf3 15.gxf3



15...Bxe3 (15...Nd7!?) 16.fxe3 axb5 17.Bxb5 Nd5 18.Qe2 (18.Qd4!?) 18...Qg5+ 19.Kf2 Qh4+ 1/2-1/2

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

I used to play at the local seniors club but there wasn't much competition. Stopped going to the club a few years ago. The problem with seniors clubs is you just get to know someone and he gets some small ailment and he's gone. It got too discouraging so I stopped going. I used to go for the chess, poker and billiards.

I live right next to a medium size shopping mall. Lots of seniors live in my area, and groups of them sit for a while every day at tables in the food & coffee kiosk areas. Often some shopkeepers take time out to play backgammon, when business is slow (often is, nowadays). A number of master strength players I know live near the mall too but they don't play there, talking instead when we run into each other. I have occasionally played there with non-competitive players who aren't much above novice level, to socialize.

Seniors vote in higher numbers than young adults, so we keep getting the same local councillors in Ottawa. The only thing that seems to change is who's the mayor. In Toronto voters will either have to have amnesia, or hold their nose and vote for Smitherman because they distrust Ford even more. Some seniors here in Ottawa call Smitherman 'Diaperhead' because as the Liberal Ontario Health Minister he once mused about wearing adult diapers to make a point. Can't recall the whole story.

How's that old Simon & Garfunkel tune go?
Something like:

...

Goin' to the Candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

... not only is he a star winger for the 2011 stanley cup champion new jersey devils...

LOL!!!! Are you talking about the 1-4-1 New Jersey Devils that are at the bottom of their conference.... and division?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

A little more in the spirit of this thread, here are three not quite publishable (but more or less workmanlike) Black wins of mine in the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann:

S.De Kerpel (2076)-K.Pacey (2237)
B18 RA Summer Pickup #1 (Ottawa) 26.05.2005

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.N1e2 h6 7.Nf4 Bh7 8.Be3 Nf6 9.c4 e6 10.a3 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 Nbd7 13.Nfh5 Nxh5 14.Nxh5 Nf6 15.Ng3 Qc7 16.Qb3 c5 17.Rac1 b6 18.Rfd1 Rad8 19.Bf3 e5 20.dxe5 Qxe5 21.Ne2 Ne4 22.Bf4 Qf5 23.Rxd8



23...Bxd8 24.Qa4 Bg5 25.Bxg5 Nxg5 26.Bd5 Qd3 27.Ng3 Qd2 28.Rf1 Qxb2 29.h4 Ne6 30.Qxa7 Bd3 31.Re1 Qc3 32.Re3 Qc1+ 33.Kh2 Bxc4



34.Bxc4? (34.Bxe6=) 34...Qxc4 35.Re4 Qc2 36.f3 Nd4 37.Kh3 Qb1 38.a4 Ne6 39.Ne6 39.a5 bxa5 40.Qxa5 Qb8 41.Qd2 Rd8 42.Qc2 Rd4 43.Ne2 Rxe4 44.Qxe4 Qb4 45.Qe5 Qe1 46.Qb8+ Kh7 47.Ng3 Qd2



48.Qe8? Nf4+ 49.Kg4 Nxg2 (49...Nd5-+) 50.Qxf7 Ne3+ 51.Kf4 Nf1+? (51...Nc4+!-+) 52.Kg4 Nxg3-+ 53.Kxg3 Qd3 54.Kf2 c4 55.f4 c3 56.f5 Qd4+ 57.Ke2 Qe4+ 58.Kf1 c2 0-1


D.Gordon (2143)-K.Pacey (2198)
B19 RA Spring Open (Ottawa) 05.03.2006

1.d4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.h5 Bh7 8.Nf3 Nd7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 e6 11.Bd2 Ngf6 12.0-0-0 Be7 13.Kb1 0-0 14.Ne4 c5 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.dxc5 Nxc5 17.Qxd8 Rfxd8 18.Be3 Na4 19.c3 a6 20.Kc2 Rac8 21.Bd4 Bxd4 22.Rxd4 Rxd4 23.Nxd4 Kf8 24.Rh3 Rc5 25.b3 Nb6



26.c4? (26.Rf3=) 26...Nd5-/+ 27.g4 b5 28.Kd3?? Nf4+ 0-1


D.Dougherty (1859)-K.Pacey (2172)
B16 RA Summer Pickup #2 (Ottawa) 13.07.2006

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ gxf6 6.Be3 Bf5 7.Ne2 e6 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.Bd3 Na6 10.a3 Nc7 11.Bxg6 hxg6 12.c4 f5 13.Qd2 Bg7 14.h3



14...g5!? 15.Bxg5 Qxd4 16.Qxd4 (16.Qb4!?) 16...Bxd4 17.Rb1 f6 18.Bd2 0-0-0 19.Ne2? Bxf2+ 20.Kxf2 Rxd2 21.Rhd1 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 e5 23.Ng3 f4 24.Nf5



24...Ne8?! (24...Ne6!-/+) 25.Kf3 Kc7 26.Rd2 Rh7 27.Kg4 Ng7 28.c5?! (28.Nxg7=) 28...Ne6 29.b4 Rd7?! (29...Rh8=/+) 30.Rd6 Rxd6 31.cxd6+?! (31.Nxd6=) 31...Kd7 32.h4 b6 33.h5 c5 34.bxc5 bxc5



35.Kf3?! (35.g3=/+) 35...Ng5+ 36.Ke2 e4 37.h6 c4 38.Kd2 f3 39.gxf3 exf3 40.Kc3 f2 41.Ne3 Kxd6 42.Kxc4 Kc6?! (42...Ke6-/+) 43.Kd3 Kb5 44.Ke2 Ka4 45.Kxf2 Kxa3 46.Nd5 a5 47.Ke3 Kb3



48.Nxf6? (48.Nb6=) 48...a4-+ 49.Ne4 a3 50.Nc5+ Kc4 51.Ne4 Nh7 52.Nd2+ Kb4 0-1

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Daniel Sedin has 7 goals in 7 games...

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Canada is a third world chess power where the players appear to be generally over rated. You only have to look at the performance ratings from the just finished Olympiad. Only 2 of the 5 players had a performance rating higher than their own rating. Two of the players had performance ratings in the 2300's.

On the women's team there was also only 2 players whose performance rating was higher than their own rating.

Hi JW

Are you refering to FIDE Performance ratings calculations here?

Here's a link to a post by the CFC's Executive Director on the CFC Discussion Board. It shows the rating gains/losses for the Canadian teams:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1226

I noticed only 5 Canadian men are mentioned. Don't know for sure if having one reserve (instead of two, as before) is now the norm for mens teams at olympiads, but I didn't see the change mentioned anywhere. Just recall an earlier post by somebody saying we weren't sending a full team. I have to admit I don't follow olympiads in real time, nor do I always keep up with all threads on chesstalk.


On a completely different topic, do you still doubt men landed on the moon? I kept an open mind about it for some time, after believing for decades, like everyone else, that there were actual landings.

I once watched a show dedicated to the 'controversy'. With point & counterpoint by each side apparently balancing out till the end of the show. Then two unrebutted points in favour of acual landings came up. One was that a piece of equipment left on the moon sends back signals that can be picked up by astronomers (this could be dismissed if you believe they might be lying). The final (major) point in favour of actual moon landings was that the Soviets never claimed they were faked by the US. They would have had an interest in saying so.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Well, Kevin, I think you're too hung up on ratings. Canada is a third world chess power where the players appear to be generally over rated. You only have to look at the performance ratings from the just finished Olympiad. Only 2 of the 5 players had a performance rating higher than their own rating. Two of the players had performance ratings in the 2300's.

On the women's team there was also only 2 players whose performance rating was higher than their own rating.

Maybe concentrate more on raising the level of chess played rather than inflating ratings.

How some game you played with YOUR friend (he's not mine) has any relevance to reality is a mystery to me. It's kind of "folksy" with a "down home" feel but really doesn't mean much.

Why would you need a computer to defeat a "legitimate" 1600 player? You should know enough theory to catch him in something and disect him regardless of what he tries. Maybe unbalance the position, sac a piece where the computer doesn't understand the compensation, etc.

Gary, why do you insist on putting up incorrect theories ? Canada has a fairly small pool of FIDE rated players and events and is in general underrated as a result. Your example is terrible it would not surprise me if the two Olympiad teams gained FIDE points as a whole at the event.

Performance ratings themselves tend to be distorted by playing unrated or lowly rated players at events like the Olympiad. The women's event in particular is flooded with young up and coming players who themselves are underrated as well. It is not uncommon for lower board players to be recent or current youth stars on the world stage. These kind of players are notorious for being underrated.

To claim as you do that Canadian players are overrated on the FIDE system is garbage.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Crushing the Caro Kann

Hi JW

Are you refering to FIDE Performance ratings calculations here?

Here's a link to a post by the CFC's Executive Director on the CFC Discussion Board. It shows the rating gains/losses for the Canadian teams:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1226

I noticed only 5 Canadian men are mentioned. Don't know for sure if having one reserve (instead of two, as before) is now the norm for mens teams at olympiads, but I didn't see the change mentioned anywhere. Just recall an earlier post by somebody saying we weren't sending a full team. I have to admit I don't follow olympiads in real time, nor do I always keep up with all threads on chesstalk.

Yes. Performance ratings. The ones they use for norms.

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr3679...0&m=-1&wi=1000

Canada had a full 5 player team. Four boards and ONE reserve.