Chess Fans Castle

[ChamberNut]

For fans of this wonderful game!  I've been playing for almost a year now, and it's such a great game.  Pretty easy to learn too (yet extremely difficult to master  )

Anyways, I'd love to hear from some other fans of the game.

If there were such a thing, I think it would be really cool to have a "Composers" chess set. 

[bwv 1080]

Is chess solvable?  I do not play that much but am curious if bigger computers will be able to solve chess - the game is deterministic and therefore ISTM be no different, save in the number of permutations, than tic-tac toe.  With ideal play will white always win, or will it be a stalemate?  There is something like 10^120 (more than the atoms in the universe) board configurations, so the answer may be a ways off.

[Dana]

      I wonder if there is some sort of flash game out there that would allow us to play each other? I know that facebook has chess softwares, but obviously not many people have facebook.

If there were such a thing, I think it would be really cool to have a "Composers" chess set. 

      Beethoven would be the King, Clara Schumann would be Queen, Brahms the rooks, Bach the bishops, and Stravinsky the knights (just to mix things up). But who would suffer the indignity of being assigned the pawns? Clementi? Dittersdorf?

[ChamberNut]

      I wonder if there is some sort of flash game out there that would allow us to play each other? I know that facebook has chess softwares, but obviously not many people have facebook.

Dana,

I play on-line on GameKnot.  It's a very popular on-line chess site.  My stepson competed in a tournament on the weekend and finished 2nd in his Grade 4 age group.   

[toledobass]

There is also Red Hot Pawn. It's very convenient to play there as it's a 'correspondence' site so no need for both players to be at the computer at the same time.  I play there under toledobass.  If you look up my games you can see how terribly I'm playing at the moment. 

When I have good amounts of time I like to go through the Silman books, but it's been a while since I've done that.  Maybe the results of my games are telling me I should do it again.


Allan

[ChamberNut]

There is also Red Hot Pawn. It's very convenient to play there as it's a 'correspondence' site so no need for both players to be at the computer at the same time.  I play there under toledobass.  If you look up my games you can see how terribly I'm playing at the moment. 

When I have good amounts of time I like to go through the Silman books, but it's been a while since I've done that.  Maybe the results of my games are telling me I should do it again.


Allan

GameKnot works the same way.  You don't have to both be logged in at the same time to play.  You can check every now and then to see which games are ready for you to make your move.

[bwv 1080]

When I was playing alot a few years ago, I figured since I was not going to get any kind great skill, I would focus on one opening and its development, so pretty much every game as white would be this - the English opening and what one of the books I had called the Botvinnik position:



the only things left are to castle and move up the queen's pawn one space to open a diagonal for the black bishop

[ChamberNut]

Which do you prefer to utilize between your Bishops and Knights?  Technically speaking, they are worth the same point value.  I prefer my Knights, and in my opinion they're just as valuable as the Rooks.

That being said, I tend to lose my Knights early in the game as I like using them.   

[Florestan]

Here's a little fun problem.

Suppose the rules of the game are modified and at each move a player is allowed to move two pieces instead of one. Prove that for this type of chess there is no winning strategy for the white. 

[ChamberNut]

I've never played the 4-way Chess, either as a partening or 4 singles game.  But it does look interesting! 

[toledobass]

Which do you prefer to utilize between your Bishops and Knights?  Technically speaking, they are worth the same point value.  I prefer my Knights, and in my opinion they're just as valuable as the Rooks.

That being said, I tend to lose my Knights early in the game as I like using them.   

Is the board open or closed
Allan

[ChamberNut]

Is the board open or closed
Allan

Allan,

Yes, that's definitely a consideration.  Knights are much more effective in closed in areas.

[JoshLilly]

Here's me! http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12822531

I play the English Opening myself, and the Botvinnik works well against Black playing early ...Nf6 with ...g6 ...Bg7 ...e5 and possibly ...d6. The plan almost plays itself. White will form the F-E duo (pawns on f4 and e4), eventually pushing f5, and if needed, g4 (yes, even after g3!), Ng3... oh man, so sweet!! I'm far from a Master, or even an Expert ("Candidate Master" to Europeans), but here's a fairly recent game of mine out of the Botvinnik:


[Event "North Carolina Open"]
[Site "Greensboro, North Carolina"]
[Date "2007.11.02"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Lilly, Joshua"]
[Black "Jones, Ellis"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A36"]
[WhiteElo "1733"]
[BlackElo "1854"]
[EventDate "2007.11.04"]

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 d6 5. e4 c5 6. Nge2 Nc6 7. O-O O-O 8. d3 a6 9. f4 Bg4 10. h3 Bxe2 11. Nxe2 e5 12. f5 Nd4 13. g4 Nd7 14. g5 f6 15. h4 Rb8 16. Ng3 b5 17. Qg4 bxc4 18. dxc4 Nb6 19. h5 Nxc4 20. hxg6 fxg5 21. Bxg5 Rf6 22. Qh5 h6 23. Bxh6 Qd7 24. Bg5 Bh8 25. Qh4 Rxb2 26. Bxf6 Bxf6 27. Qxf6 Rxg2+ 28. Kxg2 Ne3+ 29. Kh1 1-0

Here is the position after 9.f4:



I made some errors of course, and I have some Master analysis of this game (my best friend is a USCF Life Master) if anyone were interested, so before you point out improvements, I might already know about them!

Yes, chess is my whole life pretty much. My goal is to make Class A, and this once seemingly impossible goal might actually be in my grasp, and within the next few years at that!! Next step after that: Expert! Though that one might not be realistically possible, no reason to try for it next if (when!) I make A.

By the way, Bishops and Knights are not "technically" "worth the same point value". A Bishop is worth more, and the Bishop pair where the other player lacks it increases this value. Obviously, there are exception positions, but most of the time, a Bishop is worth more than a Knight. The "point value" where they're both given 3 is known as the "beginner scale" of material count. Winning Bishop for Knight is considered a slight win of material. But I do play the Nimzo-Indian which promptly gives up Bishop for Knight in most lines early on. 

[ChamberNut]

Josh,

Thank you for those tips.     Is Class A close to "GrandMaster"?

I just learned how to play last April, but it's alot of fun.  Even though I play most of my games on-line, I much prefer to play them face-to-face.

[ChamberNut]

By the way, Bishops and Knights are not "technically" "worth the same point value". A Bishop is worth more, and the Bishop pair where the other player lacks it increases this value. Obviously, there are exception positions, but most of the time, a Bishop is worth more than a Knight. The "point value" where they're both given 3 is known as the "beginner scale" of material count. Winning Bishop for Knight is considered a slight win of material. But I do play the Nimzo-Indian which promptly gives up Bishop for Knight in most lines early on. 

Interesting Josh.  I did not know this. 

[JoshLilly]

Thank you for those tips.     Is Class A close to "GrandMaster"?

 You're closer to a prime Michael Jordan at basketball, than I am to Grandmaster at chess. The gap between even good chess players and GMs is larger than any other gap I know of in any other competitive, gaming, or sport venture. If you really get into serious chess, and study it, you'll realise why most of the chess community practically worships GMs. They're the high priests of our religion.

I would be glad to play and talk chess with you online. I play only on the ICC (http://www.chessclub.com), but I'd be willing to make an exception and head somewhere else a time or three. I don't play well online, though. For some reason, I have to touch and see real pieces to play properly. I'm much, much weaker looking at a monitor. I prefer analysis chess history, and watching Masters+ play to actually playing myself, though. Chess history is my specialty, and I have dozens of books on it within arm's reach of my bed at all times.


More on "points" of material... the very crude, base idea of these values is how many squares a piece or pawn can cover. A bishop in theory can cover more squares than a Knight, hence it has slightly more value. A bad Bishop (blocked by its own pawns), a stifled Bishop (blocked by opposite-coloured pawns), and other exceptions can change this evaluation. For example, in the game I gave above, I'd have been delighted to give up my light-square Bishop on g2 up for a Black Knight at any time. I put all my pawns on light squares, largely off-setting the absence of this bad Bishop. Black's king position was also strong on light, with the pawns on that colour, and the Knight providing extra light-square coverage. Had to get in on dark, which is where I made perhaps my greatest inaccuracy in that game (should have played 22.Qh4!, and 24.Qg5, in both cases further pressuring on dark). In this specific situation, a Knight was preferable to a light-square Bishop... but not preferable to my darksquare Bishop most of the time!

[ChamberNut]

 You're closer to a prime Michael Jordan at basketball, than I am to Grandmaster at chess. The gap between even good chess players and GMs is larger than any other gap I know of in any other competitive, gaming, or sport venture. If you really get into serious chess, and study it, you'll realise why most of the chess community practically worships GMs. They're the high priests of our religion.

I would be glad to play and talk chess with you online. I play only on the ICC (http://www.chessclub.com), but I'd be willing to make an exception and head somewhere else a time or three. I don't play well online, though. For some reason, I have to touch and see real pieces to play properly. I'm much, much weaker looking at a monitor. I prefer analysis chess history, and watching Masters+ play to actually playing myself, though. Chess history is my specialty, and I have dozens of books on it within arm's reach of my bed at all times.

Well, I certainly know who to go to for any questions I have.     Maybe I'll join the ICC one day, unless it requires qualifications?

I was recently beat in 7 moves, and I couldn't believe it!  It is where the opponent (white) gives up their Knight freely to a Black pawn, and after Black captures pawn, White swings out the Queen, and from that point there is no defence.

[JoshLilly]

ICC requires pay, actually, which is the only qualification. But, it is oldest place on the Internet for "serious" chess players, and is the reigning king of chessplaying locations on the Internet. There are other big ones. They ensure that there is very rare computer and other cheating, they have lectures, Grandmasters, International Masters (IMs), and FIDE Masters (FMs) are on there all day, every day, from all countries. It's amazing. I suggest you check it out for free and see what you think, there's no harm in that. You can play, analyse, watch Grandmasters on down, and so on. A lot of the world's very top players actually go there and play blitz with each other sometimes! That's a mind-boggling thing to watch. I'd be glad to help you check it out. It does cost, though. There's FICS, for free playing locations, it's the best; indeed, the only one worth anything as far as I'm concerned. No, I'm not affiliated with either one of these, so I have nothing to gain by "selling" ICC!

Unfortunately, what you're describing with the 7-move loss doesn't give me quite enough information.

[bwv 1080]

Again, I am not a serious player but I have read that the skill of Grandmasters is not so much in calculating permutations of moves (which are too large for a human to grasp) but in their encyclopedic knowledge of past games and matching current positions to past solutions - so that their decision tree is much narrower than a less skilled player. 

[springrite]

I am undefeated!









I played once (againist the person who was teaching me at the time) and won. Beginner's luck, you might say. (And no, she didn't take it easy on me.) I decided to quit while I was ahead and retire undefeated. I won't play again (and can't since I have forgotten most of what I had learnt).