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.
So my experience, players can see a position completely different based on their level/rating. A 1800 will see a position one way and I'll look at it and they're for the most part very wrong. But now here's the interesting thing. Given that same position, would an FM/IM looking at it say that I'm completely wrong, and a GM saying the IM is wrong and so on.
What I want to know if you guys have seen (and maybe a link/reference) is a position analyzed by an IM, and then independently analyzed by a GM, where their analyses are very different. Of course I'd be looking for a full assessment of the position, as opposed to just "white/black is better" type thing. I'd settle for FM vs. IM too, just different levels of strong players.
All I can tell you is that when I look with one of my super GM friends (one of whom is staying at my home at the moment) at analysis by an IM or lower they quickly punch holes in it, less on the basis of tactics (which theses days are largely computer generated) than on positional considdrations.
All I can tell you is that when I look with one of my super GM friends (one of whom is staying at my home at the moment) at analysis by an IM or lower they quickly punch holes in it, less on the basis of tactics (which theses days are largely computer generated) than on positional considdrations.
I'm assuming you're talking about Nigel Short, I'd like to borrow a GM for a week or so. So much to learn...
I remember watching Mark Bluvshtein analyzing at the CYCC last year. The speed at which he was seeing things was crazy to me. That suggests that probably half the moves I thought were even worth considering just wasn't.
you guys have seen (and maybe a link/reference) is a position analyzed by an IM, and then independently analyzed by a GM
The closest book I know is Inside the Chess Mind by Aagaard. It contains test positions and it provides (independent) analyses by GMs, IMs, and amateurs. I don't remember if it has really opposite evaluations by GM and IM.
So my experience, players can see a position completely different based on their level/rating. A 1800 will see a position one way and I'll look at it and they're for the most part very wrong. But now here's the interesting thing. Given that same position, would an FM/IM looking at it say that I'm completely wrong, and a GM saying the IM is wrong and so on.
What I want to know if you guys have seen (and maybe a link/reference) is a position analyzed by an IM, and then independently analyzed by a GM, where their analyses are very different. Of course I'd be looking for a full assessment of the position, as opposed to just "white/black is better" type thing. I'd settle for FM vs. IM too, just different levels of strong players.
Denton
Denton, your note tweaked some memories in my ancient brain. This will probably be way too vague, but here it is anyway:
1. Back in the '90s, Alex Yermolinsky and a partner, Boris Men (2500+ USCF at one time), ran a chess school for (advanced) students. It was called the Yermo Chess Academy (YCA).
2. There was some material available online including an essay, if I remember correctly, by Boris Men which dealt with the topic of 'how' do we think and analyze. I remember hardly anything about it except that there was some discussion about a quantum leap in playing strength being preceded by, among other things no doubt, an awareness of what was lacking in the player's accumulated knowledge and in the player's way of perceiving the game.
3. Yermo also had his own website back then which was full of interesting articles on chess in general. It was linked to the YCA site. Much of Yermo's former site is still available online but I can't locate anything significant from the YCA.
4. So, to finally get to the point, below is a link to what's left of Yermo's site. Perhaps you are more adept at moving through cyber-space than I am and you'll be able to locate some old YCA stuff from clues in Yermo's site. If not, at least you'll have some interesting reading!
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Denton, your note tweaked some memories in my ancient brain. This will probably be way too vague, but here it is anyway:
1. Back in the '90s, Alex Yermolinsky and a partner, Boris Men (2500+ USCF at one time), ran a chess school for (advanced) students. It was called the Yermo Chess Academy (YCA).
2. There was some material available online including an essay, if I remember correctly, by Boris Men which dealt with the topic of 'how' do we think and analyze. I remember hardly anything about it except that there was some discussion about a quantum leap in playing strength being preceded by, among other things no doubt, an awareness of what was lacking in the player's accumulated knowledge and in the player's way of perceiving the game.
3. Yermo also had his own website back then which was full of interesting articles on chess in general. It was linked to the YCA site. Much of Yermo's former site is still available online but I can't locate anything significant from the YCA.
4. So, to finally get to the point, below is a link to what's left of Yermo's site. Perhaps you are more adept at moving through cyber-space than I am and you'll be able to locate some old YCA stuff from clues in Yermo's site. If not, at least you'll have some interesting reading!
Thanks for posting this, Gary. All I can tell you is that the site works ok for me without any apparent problems. If Norton is giving you that message though, then best to not take chances.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
So my experience, players can see a position completely different based on their level/rating. A 1800 will see a position one way and I'll look at it and they're for the most part very wrong. But now here's the interesting thing. Given that same position, would an FM/IM looking at it say that I'm completely wrong, and a GM saying the IM is wrong and so on.
What I want to know if you guys have seen (and maybe a link/reference) is a position analyzed by an IM, and then independently analyzed by a GM, where their analyses are very different. Of course I'd be looking for a full assessment of the position, as opposed to just "white/black is better" type thing. I'd settle for FM vs. IM too, just different levels of strong players.
Denton
Your views on chess ratings and their reflection on knowledge seem to be extremely superficial.
Your views on chess ratings and their reflection on knowledge seem to be extremely superficial.
Your comments to Denton seem to be rude and extremely inconsiderate.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Your comments to Denton seem to be rude and extremely inconsiderate.
Peter, I'm not into the religon of chess and ratings as some of you are. Here's the great thing, my chess rating is so LOW you
can discount my opinion immediately.
Last edited by Duncan Smith; Monday, 19th September, 2011, 01:05 PM.
So my experience, players can see a position completely different based on their level/rating. A 1800 will see a position one way and I'll look at it and they're for the most part very wrong. But now here's the interesting thing. Given that same position, would an FM/IM looking at it say that I'm completely wrong, and a GM saying the IM is wrong and so on.
What I want to know if you guys have seen (and maybe a link/reference) is a position analyzed by an IM, and then independently analyzed by a GM, where their analyses are very different. Of course I'd be looking for a full assessment of the position, as opposed to just "white/black is better" type thing. I'd settle for FM vs. IM too, just different levels of strong players.
Denton
I remember I once heard about a quote from a super-GM (maybe it was Nigel Short?) who had been persuaded to have a look at a game between 1600s. His response was something like: "I had forgotten chess was played like this."
Peter, you are quite welcome to agree with Denton's concept no matter how superficial it is as stated. I'm not quite into
the religon of chess and ratings as some of you are.
I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with Denton. But thanks for letting me know that I have your permission to agree with him should I choose to do so.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Tweet
Comment