The Chess Thread! (not the record label!!!)

[connoisseur series500]

yak! yak! yak! yak!

Cmon jim, I'll move for you:

1...Nf6 (pretty much the most common reply).

Now someone else make some moves and I'll join in again later.

[connoisseur series500]

Thanks Swede for the pic.

Not the most flattering picture of Aruna but I appreciate the effort.

Take it from me guys, this woman is beautiful. I've seen her in other pics.

BTW, Sophia, Peter Leko's wife is the daughter of a grandmaster as well. Wonder if she's the brain behind Peter's fondness for pink suits?

Edited August 12, 2003 by connoisseur series500

[Jim R]

Um, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was hoping for a little clarification on how to notate moves. Are there two major approaches? Which one are you using here so far? Also, if two corresponding pieces (for instance, the two white rooks) are capable of moving to the same space, do you specify by putting a Q or a K before the "R"? Are the space designations (such as "f6" in your current move) conceived according to which side of the board you're facing, or do both players refer to each space by the same designation?

Like I said, it's been awhile.

[connoisseur series500]

Hope this helps:

imagine a board in front of you (white on your right, of course!)

you have the white pieces.

the lower left square (which is black is a1); the white square above it is a2; the white square to its right is b1 etc.

King=K;

queen=Q

Rook=R

Bishop=B

Knight=N

pawns don't have letters; they just occupy squares; for ex. d4 means the pawn on d2 or d3 moves to d4. If the move is Nd4, then a Knight moves there.

O-O means castle kingside; O-O-O means castle queenside.

if two pieces can occupy a single square then it is notated in this fashion: Nge2. That means the Knight on g-file moves to e2 (and not the Knight on say, c3). If it was the knight on c3 which moves to e2, then you say Nce2.

For rooks which can move to the same square you can notate it in two ways: R1e2 (if both rooks are on the e-file already; or Rff1 (if one rook is on the f-file, while another is on the first rank but not f-file.) And so on. Best way is to look at any chess book and there's usually a diagram which describes algabraic notation. That's the most common notation.

This may take a while to get used to.

[Big Wheel]

Jim--you're right; there are two accepted forms of notation, but algebraic has become more popular. "Traditional" or "descriptive" notation, which I learned first, uses the names of the pieces to describe each square. instead of h3, that square is called KR3 or King's Rook 3--it's the third square up on the file your King's Rook is on. You describe a move first by naming the piece that is moving, then a dash, then the square the piece moves to. So if you want to move your knight to KR3, you notate N-KR3. If you're in a position where it's possible for both knights to move to KR3, and you want to move the one that started out on the king's side, you notate KN-KR3; likewise for your Queen's Knight, QN-KR3. (In traditional notation, pawns ARE notated as P, so the most common opening move is notated P-K4 rather than e4. Captures are not notated by square but by the piece being captured, so if your pawn takes a bishop it's just notated PxB--a big difference from algebraic notation, which only refers to the square that the piece captures, not the piece.) There are two big reasons traditional notation has fallen out of favor:

1) it generally requires more writing than is required by algebraic notation. Moreover, it requires you to remember more or less meaningless details. By the end of the game, it really doesn't matter which knight is your King's Knight or your Queen's Knight. If you're studying a position in the middle of a game, it's a huge hassle to go back and figure out which is which. Of course, you could circumvent this by replacing the specific name of the piece with the square it's originally sitting on-- instead of QN-QB5 you could write N(QN3)-QB5. or in English, "the Knight that is sitting on QN3 is the one that moves to QB5". But this means your notation gets even lengthier--using 10 characters instead of 6. In contrast, as Paul noted, algebraic notation can notate the same move in only 4 characters: Nbc5.

2) it can be more confusing because the way squares are named is *relative* to whether you're playing white or black. When you notate the white pawn moving two squares in front of the king, in algebraic notation it's notated e4. When black does the same thing with his own king's pawn, it's notated e5--and if he moves it another square on his next move, it's notated e4--the same square as white landed on in the first move I mentioned. Each square has one distinct name. But in traditional notation, each square has TWO names, depending on which side is making the move. If white moves his knight to KR3, it's notated N-KR3. But if black moves his knight to the same exact square, it's notated N-KR6, because that square is six rows in front of him.

Hope this is not too confusing! Here are a couple of sites that explain things a bit more clearly:

http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/descript.html

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_..._chess_notation

Edited August 12, 2003 by Big Wheel

[Jim R]

Thanks guys. Very well explained. I'm learning already...

[JazzKitten]

2. c4

I hope more folks will jump in... I might want to play black in the next move

JK

[Swinging Swede]

Not the most flattering picture of Aruna but I appreciate the effort. 

Take it from me guys, this woman is beautiful.  I've seen her in other pics.

I really thought it was a flattering picture! Different strokes maybe. Anyway, here are a few more. Maybe some will be more in accordance with what you had in mind.

[Swinging Swede]

Regarding the two different types of notation:

Keep in mind that this refers to the English language specifically, where descriptive notation was prevalent until the 70s/80s, but now has been superseded by algebraic notation. In other languages algebraic notation was used before that too. If you for example read a German chess book from the 19th century it will have algebraic notation.

[moneyp]

Hey, y'all. Just so you know we engage in play-by-post chess over at JazzCorner. Feel free to kibbitz on the current thread here.

[Jim R]

Hey, y'all. Just so you know we engage in play-by-post chess over at JazzCorner. Feel free to kibbitz on the current thread here.

Mone, Mone, Mone. Were you skimming?

You and SDC Steve (and of course Larry Nagel) were the reason I brought it up here (earlier... read back a ways).

[connoisseur series500]

Great pics, Swede. I guess you have pretty much covered her.

GOM, there are lots of sites. I don't play in them or keep up with them because I feel they are bad for my chess, but you can play for free at yahoo, I think.

2...c5 (we've got a potential Benko or Benoni going here)

[moneyp]

Hey, y'all. Just so you know we engage in play-by-post chess over at JazzCorner. Feel free to kibbitz on the current thread here.

Mone, Mone, Mone. Were you skimming?

You and SDC Steve (and of course Larry Nagel) were the reason I brought it up here (earlier... read back a ways).

I was skimming. Curse you, Jim, always two moves ahead. :-)

[Swinging Swede]

I was following the Dortmund games live over the past few weeks.

You too!? I followed them at ICC, which I think is a great place. One has to be careful though, because ICC has a tendency to be addictive. There are people that have played tens of thousands of games there. The record holder has close to 250 000 games under his belt! Btw, I noticed that German grandmaster Eric Lobron's handle is "YARDBIRD", and he mentions Charlie Parker in one of his finger notes. That's cool!

[connoisseur series500]

That is cool. I used to play over at KC when I found that it was ruining my chess. Used to watch the GM games over their live as well. It's great because you've got people commentating on them live. I would throw in these wisecracks and so on. Not very helpful. B)

Maybe I should join ICC in order to watch GM games live. As it stands, I simply follow the games from the tournament websites and that seems good enough. I mean I've got to put in some time at work!

Saw one of the Polgar-Anand rapid games live yesterday. It was the one where she won in a Sicilian Najdorf. Found it very interesting. That Nd5 move with her bishop hanging and all that. Those openings are ultrasharp. What if Anand had just traded his knight for the knight on d5 and then bishop taking the d5 pawn? He probably would have been better, but perhaps this was home prep for Judit.

[JazzKitten]

No one else is jumping in on our group-effort game?

JK

[connoisseur series500]

Okay, I switch to white now: 3. Nf3

This avoids most book lines.

[Swinging Swede]

That is cool.  I used to play over at KC when I found that it was ruining my chess.  Used to watch the GM games over their live as well.  It's great because you've got people commentating on them live.  I would throw in these wisecracks and so on.  Not very helpful.  B)

Does KC refer to kasparovchess.com? Although I was aware of the site’s existence, I was largely inactive in chess during the time it existed and never checked it out, and now the site has folded.

Maybe I should join ICC in order to watch GM games live.  As it stands, I simply follow the games from the tournament websites and that seems good enough.  I mean I've got to put in some time at work! 

You don’t have to be a member to follow relayed tournament games on ICC. You can also see the time of the players, and read the kibitzes from members, including grandmasters (GMs like Kamsky and Short sometimes pop in and say something). There are advantages to being a member though, since in that case you can also kibitz yourself and follow the special grandmaster commentary they often have during top tournaments. Of course, if you are at work it might not be such a good idea to follow the numerous kibitzes, since it's easy to be engulfed by them!

Saw one of the Polgar-Anand rapid games live yesterday.  It was the one where she won in a Sicilian Najdorf.  Found it very interesting.  That Nd5 move with her bishop hanging and all that.  Those openings are ultrasharp.  What if Anand had just traded his knight for the knight on d5 and then bishop taking the d5 pawn?  He probably would have been better, but perhaps this was home prep for Judit.

It is unlikely that 17.Nd5 was home preparation. She spent 6 of her remaining 15 minutes on that move, and she was behind on time already before that move. I think the reason that Anand avoided 17…Nxd5 might be that it would open up lines for White, and he didn’t want to do that since it would favour Polgar’s style (she is a feared attacking player). 17…Qc5 actually wasn’t a bad move; it was later that he made the decisive error when he played 22…Bxe4?. In any case it was a very entertaining match. 5-3 to Anand and no draws!

If you are interested, GM Sergey Shipov has annotated the games in the match on worldchessrating.com, which is a pretty good site. (He gives some lines after 17…Nxd5, btw. It's complicated, but he thinks White has compensation for the pawn.)

Shipov annotates the Anand-Polgar match

[connoisseur series500]

Saw one of the Polgar-Anand rapid games live yesterday.  It was the one where she won in a Sicilian Najdorf.  Found it very interesting.  That Nd5 move with her bishop hanging and all that.  Those openings are ultrasharp.  What if Anand had just traded his knight for the knight on d5 and then bishop taking the d5 pawn?  He probably would have been better, but perhaps this was home prep for Judit.

It is unlikely that 17.Nd5 was home preparation. She spent 6 of her remaining 15 minutes on that move, and she was behind on time already before that move. I think the reason that Anand avoided 17…Nxd5 might be that it would open up lines for White, and he didn’t want to do that since it would favour Polgar’s style (she is a feared attacking player). 17…Qc5 actually wasn’t a bad move; it was later that he made the decisive error when he played 22…Bxe4?. In any case it was a very entertaining match. 5-3 to Anand and no draws!

If you are interested, GM Sergey Shipov has annotated the games in the match on worldchessrating.com, which is a pretty good site. (He gives some lines after 17…Nxd5, btw. It's complicated, but he thinks White has compensation for the pawn.)

Shipov annotates the Anand-Polgar match

Yes, SS, KC stands for Kasparov Chess. I was disappointed when it closed down on us as I had made a lot of friends chatting and playing. Felt as orphaned as most of us did when the BNBB closed down.

I do think 17. Nd5 was possibly prepared ahead of time, but if it wasn't it wouldn't have been difficult for a player of Judit's caliber to find it. For one thing, it is very much a thematic move for white in that variation. White constantly thinks of that move after Rhe1 has been played. The attack shifts from the kingside to the center. I believe Jan Timman was the first to introduce the Nd5 theme.

I am familiar with www.chessrating.com but haven't yet seen Shipov's analysis of the game. Will have to look at it.

BTW, I don't get on the internet at work. I do it at home when I should be in the office instead!

[connoisseur series500]

Well I had to live up to my Organissimo avatar!

Just played my first chess tournament in three months. It was a quadrangle tournament, which means that we were placed in 4-man sections, and it's all-play-all.

I was placed in the top section according to my rating and was second seed. The third seeded player was only 10 rating points below me, so it was a good even quad. I cleaned everyone up for a 3-0, first place score, and I FEEL GOOD right now!!

My USCF rating has moved up to 2012 so I am now an official USCF "Expert." (2000+). I went to the USCF ratings calculator and plugged in my results to get my rating. My performance rating was 2436(!) which is pretty meaningless.

Gotta go over my games tomorrow when I'm relaxed and fresh. I think I played really well, but won't know for sure until I analyze tomorrow.

Was worried about rust, but I studied pretty good over the last two weeks practicing calculations. It paid off!

Ah. life is good right now!

[Jazz]

Wow Conn, that sounds excellent! You mentioned "practicing calculations". What kind of calculations? What kind of chess secrets do you have stored up there in your noggin?

[connoisseur series500]

I collected a certain column from a British Chess magazine called (appropriately) "Chess." Basically, 10 positions were given in each month's issue and a panel of masters/grandmasters predicted the correct move for the position. The majority choice would earn 10 points, and the second most common move, 8 points and so on.

I basically studied 2-3 positions on a daily basis and thought over the move WITHOUT MOVING THE PIECES. If there is a "secret" that I have, it would be to avoid moving the pieces while thinking over the board. This helps to develop your calculation abilities: "if I move here, then he'll move there, then I do this, and he does that" etc.

During my tournament, I encounted less difficulty during the critical parts of the game than my opponents did. I was able to calculate 5-6 moves while my opponent might go 3-4 moves deep, and that gave me an advantage right there. Of course, chess knowledge helps as well, but the mind has to be exercised just as muscles need to be. I feel I was better prepared than my opponents despite their high ratings.

That's my "secret."

Oh yes, I had a good night's sleep before the tournament.

[dave9199]

Anyone ever play 3D chess? I remember watching my brother & father play this in the early 80's. I couldn't grasp how it works until about a year or two ago when I understood how to play 3D Tic Tac Toe. I was taught how to play chess, but never developed strategy. I could never think of moves ahead.

[connoisseur series500]

Just played in my first tournament since December and I won first prize with a 3-0 score.

Took home a measly $100, but victory is always sweet!!

I was second seed; never got the chance to play the top seed as he lost in the second round. I then defeated the fellow who beat him to go undefeated.

Was nervous as shit. Didn't get a good night's sleep and felt rusty. Of course, I had studied during the week, but when you're under pressure...nothing prepares you for that other than just playing tournaments.

Picked up 10 more rating points. Not too many.

Next tournament will be end March in Columbus, Ohio. Big team event.

My three games all went into endgames where I was nursing a pawn advantage. Lots of drawing chances despite the extra pawn. I didn't play my best, but my opponents missed their chances to draw.

I think I'm still improving. (Even at my age...)

[Swinging Swede]

Congratulations!

Korchnoi didn't reach his prime until he was in his 40s when he became No 2 in the world and remained so for a decade. He played his first WC match (of two) at 47! So it is possible to improve at a higher age. At 72 he is still strong.

The rule seems to be younger and younger players though. Wijk aan Zee last month saw the birth of a new Scandinavian (OK, Norwegian ) superstar in 13-year-old Magnus Carlsen who scored his first GM norm with a large margin and a 2702 performance rating! His play was very impressive too. He may be a future WC challenger. It will be very interesting to follow his career.

Btw, in a couple of days Linares, called the Wimbledon of chess, with Kasparov and Kramnik among others starts. Hopefully we will see some good chess there!