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.
Brilliancy prizes can produce controversy depending on how they're judged. Possibly resulting in hard feelings (though what else is new in chess and sports ). I think that's why such prizes stopped being awarded so much, decades ago.
Good point! However, there's many solutions to that:
-Shared prizes, if the quality of the games is close.
-The prize could also be shared (i.e. 75-25%) between the winner of the game and the loser. It takes two to tango.
-Have more than one prize, so it's not just one guy leaving with the pot. You could even have a prize for the best defensive effort, so the guys with a more conservative, solid style would not be left out.
The actual system, with appearance fees and invitations mostly 'awarded' on ratings is a huge incentive for conservative play. Most of the top players don't want to risk losing rating points, drop out of the top 10, top 20 etc. And who are we to blame them? They just maximize their return.
Originally Posted by Kevin Pacey
After reading a couple of books on the Najdorf, if I took them at face value I would have concluded that defence equalizes fairly comfortably against 1.e4.
Got some recommendations? I gotta brush up on that again.
If you're meaning for White, I wouldn't rule out 6.Bc4, 6.Be2 or even 6.g3, but the lines with the greatest fear-factor for Black would still be 6.Be3 and 6.Bg5 in my eyes.
The poisoned pawn variation queenless middlegame that results from 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Qxd4 etc. might just be equal, but a perhaps liberal reading of Rizzitano's description of one typical position as "balanced" might be "with mutual chances" (or "unclear"?) rather than "equal". Each to his own taste. Nevertheless this is the one line that might make me say that objectively 6.Be3 might be better than 6.Bg5 - plus it keeps the queens on longer possibly, if you like that.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 25th September, 2012, 12:54 PM.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Brad, I don't like to be critical because you are the one who, like me, is in favour of chess960, and kudos for that.
But I don't understand the mentality of wanting all games to be hard-fought draws. Do you really want to see every tournament result in equal first among all participants?
If you're a hockey fan, do you want to see every game a hard-fought tie, even playoff games, and thus 30 teams sharing the Stanley Cup?
My point is that I do not mind draws at all if they are hard-fought and played out, and to me that are at least as good as decisive games. As for hockey, I attend every home game of les Olympiques de Gatineau in the "Q", and I hate overtime and shootouts, there is nothing wrong with a tie in a hockey game in the regular season.
Very poor argument... Even though a draw is a possible result in chess, there's still only 1 world chess champion.
Mathieu
Sure, but Brad is saying he wants to see every game of chess be a hard-fought draw. He's saying he doesn't want to see mistakes, but he does want to see risky or double-edged play, and the only proper result is a draw. I'm extrapolating Brad's view to other sports.
The point being: to determine rankings and champions and who is better than who, there must be decisive games.
In chess, Brad points out that can only happen with a mistake. The "horizon effect", in which you calculate out a line to 12 plies and it looks equal, but don't see the 13th ply which is winning and so you enter the line, this would qualify as a mistake, and this is how a lot of games are won and lost. Brad is saying he prefers not to have even that happen.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
My point is that I do not mind draws at all if they are hard-fought and played out, and to me that are at least as good as decisive games. As for hockey, I attend every home game of les Olympiques de Gatineau in the "Q", and I hate overtime and shootouts, there is nothing wrong with a tie in a hockey game in the regular season.
I agree... introducing a single 5-min overtime (or whatever it is...) was barely acceptable (but not necessary), but deciding the game with a shootout was an abomination.
Imagine: let's settle a hockey game by shootout - emphasizing only one aspect of the game and ignoring all others... The playoffs are a different situation altogether - there I am in favour of overtime until a winner.
My point is that I do not mind draws at all if they are hard-fought and played out, and to me that are at least as good as decisive games. As for hockey, I attend every home game of les Olympiques de Gatineau in the "Q", and I hate overtime and shootouts, there is nothing wrong with a tie in a hockey game in the regular season.
Ok, now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying decisive games (that are hard fought) are just as good as draws (that are hard fought).
But previously you said only mistakes can lead to decisive games, and you don't like to see mistakes. You put it this way:
"I do not understand the mentality of hoping for mistakes, I would rather see a game without mistakes. The best possible chess game must be a hard-fought draw, and this is what I would prefer to see."
So again, extrapolating, it seems that earlier this morning, you would prefer every tournament share equal first among all participants. No decisive games at all.
But now with your latest post, it seems you have come around to understanding why spectators of all sports do actually like to see mistakes. It's simply because someone has to win and someone has to lose.
Keep pressing for chess960!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I agree... introducing a single 5-min overtime (or whatever it is...) was barely acceptable (but not necessary), but deciding the game with a shootout was an abomination.
Imagine: let's settle a hockey game by shootout - emphasizing only one aspect of the game and ignoring all others... The playoffs are a different situation altogether - there I am in favour of overtime until a winner.
What is especially ridiculous about this is the fact that some games are worth a total of two points in the standings while others are worth three. But of course all games should be worth the same number of points. To me having ties is the best solution, the second best solution would be to give 3 points for a win, and go 2 and 1 for overtime or shootout games. The worst possible solution is what they have chosen to do.
I agree... introducing a single 5-min overtime (or whatever it is...) was barely acceptable (but not necessary), but deciding the game with a shootout was an abomination.
Imagine: let's settle a hockey game by shootout - emphasizing only one aspect of the game and ignoring all others... The playoffs are a different situation altogether - there I am in favour of overtime until a winner.
And if a defenceman's shot from the point in overtime deflects off half-a-dozen skates and sticks and the goalpost and into the net, what part of the game does THAT emphasize?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
And if a defenceman's shot from the point in overtime deflects off half-a-dozen skates and sticks and the goalpost and into the net, what part of the game does THAT emphasize?
luck
:)
That is an important part because: if a team loses in such a situation, they can then (legitimately) trash talk that they lost only due to 'luck' not because they were in any way inferior... thus leading to a rematch etc. Game preservation and longevity.
Last edited by Kerry Liles; Tuesday, 25th September, 2012, 01:44 PM.
That is an important part because: if a team loses in such a situation, they can then (legitimately) trash talk that they lost only due to 'luck' not because they were in any way inferior... thus leading to a rematch etc. Game preservation and longevity.
But I would hazard a guess that if luck were somehow introduced into chess, you'd be among those calling it an "abomination".
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
But I would hazard a guess that if luck were somehow introduced into chess, you'd be among those calling it an "abomination".
Well, one could argue luck is already a part of chess - look at Carlsen-Giri from the other day. Giri must certainly consider himself lucky to have won! Carlsen could certainly have had a draw, but he pushed too hard and got in time pressure and blundered - is that not lucky (for Giri)?
I am ok with draws where there is clearly a hard fought contest - "arranged draws" or draws of convenience like several that have been referenced recently are not very interesting to anyone.
Well, one could argue luck is already a part of chess - look at Carlsen-Giri from the other day. Giri must certainly consider himself lucky to have won! Carlsen could certainly have had a draw, but he pushed too hard and got in time pressure and blundered - is that not lucky (for Giri)?
I am ok with draws where there is clearly a hard fought contest - "arranged draws" or draws of convenience like several that have been referenced recently are not very interesting to anyone.
It is VERY debatable to say luck is part of chess currently. Time pressure is a tool that is used by both players. I haven't seen the game you mention, but perhaps Giri played unorthodox moves or created double-edged positions that made Carlsen use up a lot of time? That isn't luck, that's strategy. Or perhaps Carlsen just wasn't thinking clearly, that's part of the skill of chess and every time you play is another test of that skill.
In any event, Carlsen made a mistake and that decided the game. If Carlsen himself were to come out and say Giri was lucky, that would be considered by Giri as an insult, I am sure, and rightfully so.
The only current factor in chess I would attribute to luck is if a player is physically ill or is having a family / personal crisis on the day of a match.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
If you're meaning for White, I wouldn't rule out 6.Bc4, 6.Be2 or even 6.g3, but the lines with the greatest fear-factor for Black would still be 6.Be3 and 6.Bg5 in my eyes.
I found 6. Bg5 or 6. Be3 as comfortable for white. Usually, the databases show the response of your opponent to those moves. As an example, if I want to play 6. Be3 and my opponent likes to reply with Ng4 sometimes I'll play 6. f3 and play Be3 next move depending on the response.
I don't like 6. Be2 and 6. Bc4 seems to be quite "trappy" as I recall. Haven't played the Sicilian Sozin in a very long time.
I found 6. Bg5 or 6. Be3 as comfortable for white. Usually, the databases show the response of your opponent to those moves. As an example, if I want to play 6. Be3 and my opponent likes to reply with Ng4 sometimes I'll play 6. f3 and play Be3 next move depending on the response.
I don't like 6. Be2 and 6. Bc4 seems to be quite "trappy" as I recall. Haven't played the Sicilian Sozin in a very long time.
Hi Gary
The 6.Bg5 Poisoned Pawn queenless middlegame line that I mentioned to Bindi is a line long thought to be just slightly better for White, but in recent years it's been reappraised. Black does okay, even scoring a good win percentage at low levels in my databases, but I imagine it's tough to win with it very often against an elite player determined to draw, like in a lot of fairly even positions without queens on.
Some might say who would play either side of the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn in order to draw, but Kasparov playing Black last decade ended up settling for allowing one of the forced draws in the main line with queens still on, against a significantly lower rated player.
Karpov made 6.Be2 look quite interesting for White for years. Now it's less so, maybe. I gave up the Sozin when it became clear many lines where White castled kingside had been de-fanged. I didn't want to spend too much time learning from scratch all the dicey lines where White goes long instead.
There's probably nothing too much wrong with 6.f4, though I remember an old quickie equalizing line I saw that Pachman gave against it. Probably too good to be true.
I thought after 6.Be3 a lot of the edge had been taken off 6...Ng4. If not, my only qualm about using the 6.f3 move order is a certain line where Black gets in the thematic Sicilian break ...d5 quite soon. Still unclear, if one believes ECO.
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Tuesday, 25th September, 2012, 03:19 PM.
Reason: Minor typo
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
). I think that's why such prizes stopped being awarded so much, decades ago.
Comment