I beat you fair and square!

[loinburger]

I always thought that p -> KB4 was used in some goofy white counter-sicilian opening. The Grand Prix or something. (Not that there's much chance that my opening looked anything like the Grand Prix, but that's beside the point.)

[chequita guevara]

I tought my former best friend to play chess, and eventually he surpassed me. When our school splayed chass against each other, he told his teammates what my weaknesses were and the guy who played me remembered and won because of it. Bascially, I have a tendency to leave myself open when I go on the offensive, and when I had the guy on the ropes he was about to surrender when he saw a way out and beat me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
** reads MTG's posts **

That at least gives you an idea of the Candidate Master/Master thought process when playing chess. Essentially, the same as GM's and IM's, just less skilled in the quality of the the thought process and having less knowledge/preparation on theory.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That at least gives you an idea of the Candidate Master/Master thought process when playing chess. Essentially, the same as GM's and IM's, just less skilled in the quality of the the thought process and having less knowledge/preparation on theory.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I really need to work on my ability to plan effective attacks. I'm relatively good at viewing the board and setting up good defensive positions, but I just can't seem to build momentum and "cut out their still beating heart", as MtG so poetically put it.

I hope learning chess theory will help me become better at planning ahead.

It's a matter (IMO, but I've hear quite a few master and higher level players say the same thing) of forgetting about pieces and pawns, and starting to think in terms of geometry and lines of force.

Here's a start - how many possible moves does a knight have in the corner? 2. How many on the edge? 4. How many in the center? 8. So a knight is far more valuable in the center, in terms of the influence it exerts, but it's also relatively less mobile, depending on the position.

Look at a bishop - worst case in the corner is 7 squares, best case is 13, it can transfer fast, if the pawn structure is right, or it can be trapped. So the value of bishops is based more on pawn structure and ability to get to different diagonals to exert pressure, than it is on location. Whether a bishop is on a particular color, or it's opposite, or both (if you still have a pair), is relevant only to the extent that pawn structrure combines to make it so. Is it a big pawn, stuck behind it's immobile brethren, or an agile little pin-pricker, able to hound and harass and deny access to enemy pieces?

Rook - 14 moves open board movement no matter where it is on the board, but it's ability to maneuver around any board that's not nearly empty is very limited. It's value is based solely on it's ability to provide support or to exert pressure. i.e. on the seventh row, on an open column, or behind a mobile pawn.

Queen - 21 to 28 squares open board movement, but has the best ability to transfer from one part of the board to another, and change the points on which it applies pressure. In other words, it's advantage is in high mobility across the board, which is why it shouldn't be tied to defending anything.

Pawns and pawn structure are susceptible to the same style of analysis, but by different criteria. Are they mobile or locked, and to what degree? Do they support your pieces, or hinder their mobility? Do they allow you to control key squares where your enemy would like to be, or move through, or do they have gaps such that they allow enemy pieces or pawns to be in those gaps, immune from displacement by your other pawns?

Once you start to internalize the geometric/dynamic mobility view of the game, you see attacks as nothing more than bringing more pressure faster on given points than the enemy can bring to defend it. You start looking for ways to overload defenders - exchange them off, kick them, etc. You start seeing the game in terms of advantages in both time and space, and how you can exploit those to crack a defensive position.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun

Anytime you're up for a whooping, Yankee, just let me know. There is an "other games" forum for that sort of thang.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Anytime you're up for a whooping, Yankee, just let me know. There is an "other games" forum for that sort of thang.

I play chess online through Yahoo sometimes, but I admit that I am but a novice.

[Drake Tungsten]

Once you start to internalize the geometric/dynamic mobility view of the game, you see attacks as nothing more than bringing more pressure faster on given points than the enemy can bring to defend it. You start looking for ways to overload defenders - exchange them off, kick them, etc. You start seeing the game in terms of advantages in both time and space, and how you can exploit those to crack a defensive position.

Sounds like I have a long way to go.

And all I want to do is be able to beat my computer at chess.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait, what the Hell is this?

I come back from a weekend away and a chess thread is on top of the 1st page?

Things suuure changed since I was last here .

[Drake Tungsten]

Things suuure changed since I was last here .

You leave and the level of discussion goes up? Maybe there's a lesson there...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Things suuure changed since I was last here .

You leave and the level of discussion goes up? Maybe there's a lesson there...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Once you start to internalize the geometric/dynamic mobility view of the game, you see attacks as nothing more than bringing more pressure faster on given points than the enemy can bring to defend it. You start looking for ways to overload defenders - exchange them off, kick them, etc. You start seeing the game in terms of advantages in both time and space, and how you can exploit those to crack a defensive position.

Sounds like I have a long way to go.

And all I want to do is be able to beat my computer at chess.

Unless you have a real fast time limit set for the computer, or a lame program, beating a computer in an attack oriented game is difficult. It's slow, stodgy positional play where the computer falls apart, because it can't clearly determine advantage between one line of play and another, and then runs short of time.

Znosko-Borovski's book will help a lot, though.

[Drake Tungsten]

I just have a basic, gnuchess based program. It absolutely destroys me, even when I set it to the fastest time limit. I usually end up squandering what seems like a good advantage by making a mistake, upon which the computer rips out my heart. Very disheartening, although not as bad as the humiliation I suffer at the hands of my Go program.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Go is exponentially more deep than chess.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You leave and the level of discussion goes up?

Only if you actually consider this up..