|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-22-05 | | sharpnova: regarding philidor.. i have a hard time thinking he wouldn't be a supergrandmaster in our day. he played chess in a time where there was basically no theory at all. he ended up creating it. and his tactics were impressive for a man of his day. the best for a man of hi day. it's like newton.. imagine his achievements if he'd had the foundations he laid down to stand on in the first place? |
|
| Mar-22-05 | | Jaymthegenius: I alway's considered Philidor to be a fine tactician, but his real strength is in his radical positional understanding especially for his time! <Misguided aggression>: I am rated at 945 and easily defeated a 1700 player. So the one that creamed you, was he a defender or attacker? You should start to practice playing against that kind of style as a prophylactic measure to dramatically reduce youre weakness vs. it! also, I can't even pretend to be a 2700 ELO even if I tried (if I did, I would put all 8's and 9's under my statistics, and maybe a 10 for attacking as black) so who is this ferociousbeast that think's he can insult real 2700 FIDE ELO's like that? (double fianchetto openings are boring) How can you say that? They are fun and exiting I think! I wouldnt be surprized if Alekhine or Tal played a few! Also about my memory: In the kingpawn white games I have I've played a few token games against the scandinavian and played the Kings gambit with some success (I even had the balls to play the king gambit against a player 200 points higher then me and won!) and these lines are sometimes 12 moves deep in theory, but I don't like king pawn games anymore because they dont really allow for much pawn play (I prefer 1.e3 and 1.Nf3 nowadays) and have a higher blunder ratio. And no offense, but I don't like the traxler. I've read in SCO and white moves the same piece twice!!! This is incorrect! only d3,a3(to eventually control c5 via b4 with fianchetto) and 0-0 are acceptable in place of the knight move (and maybe c3) Thanks for the speach misguidedaggresion! I actually dont consider myself better then anyone and promote equallity, and I don't post every game I've ever won on here (only in games I think are similiar to what I've played or in my profile) And FerociousBeast may be a 2700 over the internet (I've defeated someone around 2800 (Chess21 scale) over the internet on chess21.com in spite of the fact I've missed a checkmate in that game (and as shredder pointed out chances for more advantage, but as a human in 10 minute blitz it is expected 3rd and 4th best moves will be played especially if I am set up to lose against a player rated 500 above me), but who's to say not (Game against Kasparov, how funny! I think I will get my OUIJA board out and face Philidor in a match! Sounds crazy, but some believe in this stuff.) So I will post my Phildor match sometime tommorrow here (or the game against myself if you don't believe in ghost!) |
|
| Mar-22-05 | | misguidedaggression: <So the one that creamed you, was he a defender or attacker?> Honestly, I just blundered away an exchange in the opening and didn't feel like playing on after that. < I think I will get my OUIJA board out and face Philidor in a match! Sounds crazy, but some believe in this stuff.)> ha! Now you're getting into the "spirit" of Chessgames.com! And for the record, Looking at your games and comments, you seem to be more of a positional player than a tactitian. You seem to value things like space and pawn structure (Positional factors) over tactical themes like material imbalance, superior development or quick attacks against the king. You like to make solid moves where a player like myself will go on a wild attack without a clear win. All of your tactics come from a superior position. You're probably right about the 4.Ng5 line in the 2 Knights being bad for white. That's why I use the traxler (which starts at 4...Bc5) Actually, in some variations white moves the knight 4 times to win the h8 rook (usually getting himself mated in the process) But 4.Ng5 is a mainline. It's probably playable on a higher level as it does win material. I personally prefer 4.d4 but that's just my playing style. I just dislike fianccettoing both of my bishops because one aims at the kingside and one at the queenside. I prefer to concentrate on one side of the board, creating an imbalance on the other side. I guess I really have no right calling anything boring considering that I play the stonewall often and have found it to be a wonderful attacking weapon. And I still have no idea why The Italian game is called the Giuoco Piano (quiet game). Every one I've ever played has turned into a slugfest! :) I'm just glad that you didn't take it as an insult. I didn't want to be too hard on you, I just felt it would be wise to step in before things got to the point where the moderators have to start deleting posts. |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | Swapmeet: <Oct-14-04
Jaymthegenius: I would definately defeat Philidor.... ....Philidor today would probably be a class-J opponent in modern America (rated 100-300, around he would be!) though I am using USCF terms because I lack knowledge on the french system, (except I know that instead of R they write T for rook. for tour)> <Mar-22-05
Jaymthegenius: I alway's considered Philidor to be a fine tactician, but his real strength is in his radical positional understanding especially for his time!> Do you just make it all up as you go along? I mean, really... |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | Runemaster: There has been some talk recently on this page about IQs and <TheAlchemist> posted some IQs of famous people from the past. I am not a specialist psychometrician, but I have looked into this a bit. There is a scientific theorem called the Flynn Effect that deals with exactly this question - how to quantify the change in IQ values over time. The point is, apparently, that in the time (just two generations or so, really) that IQ tests have been given to large numbers of adults, scores on the tests have generally risen consistently. After a while, tests begin to give a higher average score and becoming "devalued" as measuring devices or even completely untrustworthy. For example, a score of 130 on a test in 1960 might be worth 145 today (low genius level). This is the "Flynn Effect". One can see the problems therefore in trying to assess the IQ of someone who lived centuries ago. |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | Runemaster: The other important factor is that IQ was invented to assess children with learning disabilities - using it to assess adults came later. I have seen quite a few of the sorts of lists that <TheAlchemist> found and some of them base their guesses on what the historical person's IQ might have been as a child or at least before, say the age of 18. This obviously favours those who achieved great things earlier and probably explains why, on lists like this, someone like Einstein scores lower than we might expect. He was young (twenty-something) when he did his first great work, but was not exceptional during his schooldays. |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | Runemaster: Now, childhood scores usually have to be adjusted downwards to give an approximation of the likely score as an adult (a child's IQ measures the potential of the person without the benefit of the learned knowledge we gain later in life). For example, a child who scores an IQ of 170 (high genius) at say, age 11, will probably have an adult score of about 155 (middle genius). So, in conclusion for anyone who is still reading this, the whole "how smart was Leonardo, Philidor, etc" question is really impossible to answer. I would just say that if you ever see any attempt to make such lists or comparisons, try and analyse the basis of the findings: (a) are these childhood estimates - up to what age? (b) Have they been adjusted to give "adult" scores? (c) have they been adjusted for Flynn Effect (to take account of the passage of time). Most estimates will not give much detail on these matters, so really you don't exactly what the figures are supposed to show. |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | Jaymthegenius: I just got THUMPED in my Philidor game! Here it is!
1. Nf3 d5
2. b3 Nf6
3. Bb2 e6
4. e3 Be7
5. Be2 O-O
6. O-O c5
7. d3 Nc6
8. c4 d4
9. Nbd2? (9...exd4 is said to be better, but I didnt want to fall behind on development) dxe3
10. fxe3 Ng4
11. Qc1 Nxe3
12. Rf2 Ng4
13. Rf1 Qc7
14. h3 Ne3
15. Re1 Bd7
16. Ne4 Nf5
17. Qd2 Nfd4
18. Bxd4 cxd4
19. a3 f5
20. Nf2 Bd6
21. Qb2 Bf4
22. Nd1 a5
23. Qc2 e5
24. Bf1 Qd6
25. c5 Qe7
26. Kf2 a4
27. b4 Be6
28. g3 Bb3
29. Qb2 Bh6
30. Kg1 Rf6
31. Nxd4 Nxd4
32. Qxd4 Re8
33. Qc3 Rg6
34. Kh2 Bf4
35. Kh1 Qg5
36. g4 fxg4
37. Nf2 gxh3
38. Nxh3 Bd5+
39. Re4 Qh5
40. Qc2 Bxe4+
41. dxe4 Rd8
42. Qc3 Rd2
43. Ra2 Rd1
44. Rf2 Qe2
45. Rxe2 Rxf1+
46. Ng1 Rfxg1# 0-1 I will face him next time as black, would have resigned alot earlier, but I wanted to finish the game to see how he'd end it. |
|
Mar-23-05
 | | TheAlchemist: <Runemaster> You're right that IQs from the past are hard to assess, but that wasn't my point. My point was, that what has changed over the years is more the quantity of information we know, not the basical intelligence (common sense). That's why I gave those examples from the past. Einstein was a genius in mathematics and physics, but, for example, Leonardo was more of a Hominem Universalis. And today's standard IQ tests are a mix of various areas (mathematical, spatial, logical, verbal, etc. intelligence) so maybe they took this into account. Otherwise, Einstein would of course be much higher. Ok, that's it for me about IQs, it's been fun :) , but it's a chess page afterall... |
|
Mar-23-05
| | TheAlchemist: <Jaymthgenius> I think 8.Nbd2 would be more in the anti-computer spirit. Too bad, you gave that pawn so early, by the time you regained it, you were already worse. Maybe you will do better with black. What was the time control? |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | azaris: <Einstein was a genius in mathematics and physics> Einstein's contributions to mathematics are nil. |
|
Mar-23-05
| | TheAlchemist: <Azaris> I wasn't talking about contribution, but his knowledge. Formulating the Theory of relativity also required great knowledge of mathematics. |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | azaris: <TheAlchemist> Well, not really. Besides, his theory was later formalized into mathematics by other people. |
|
| Mar-23-05 | | Jaymthegenius: <thealchemist>I think 8.Nbd2 would be more in the anti-computer spirit. Well Spotted! I have defeated Excalibur, Jester on 10, and Chessmaster from this position! But not Philidor though. The time control was 30 minute's a side. I will go for a paulsen sicilian next time I face him |
|
Mar-23-05
| | TheAlchemist: <Azaris> Ok, I resign :) |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | Jaymthegenius: Also, here is my black game against Philidor's spirit (again got creamed!)
This one annotated by Deep Shredder 9
[Event "120'/40+60'/20+30'"]
[Site "computer"]
[Date "2005.03.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Philidor"]
[Black "Jay"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B48"]
[Annotator "Deep Shredder 9 (30s)"]
[PlyCount "57"]
♗48: Sicilian: Taimanov: 5 ♘c3 ♕c7 6 ♗e3 a6 without ♗e2 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Nxc6 Qxc6 8. Qd4 b5 9. O-O-O b4 10. Ne2 Bb7 11. e5 Rc8 12. Qd2 f6 Secures g5 13. Nd4 (13. f4 Qd5 $16) 13... Qc7 (13... Qa4 is worthy ofconsideration 14. Kb1
Bd5 $11) 14. Nf3 Be7 15. Bf4 g5 16. Bg3 (16. Be3 Be4 17. Bd3 Bxf3 18. gxf3 b3 19. axb3 Rb8) 16... f5 17. h4 f4 ♗lack gets more space (17... g4 18.
Ne1 $14) 18. Bh2 $16 h6 (18... b3 19. axb3 Bb4 20. c3 $18) 19. Bd3 (19. Qd3 Kd8) 19... Kf7 (19... Bd5 20. Bxa6 Ra8 21. Qd8) 20. Rhe1 (20. Qe2) 20... Qa5 21. Kb1 (21. a3 Qa4 22. Kb1 bxa3) 21... Bd5 $14 22. b3 Covers c4 Bxf3 (22... Qa3 is an interesting alternative) 23.gxf3 Bc5 (23... Rc6 24. Bc4 Rc7 25. Qd3 $18) 24. Bg6+ (24. Bc4 Rc7) 24... Kxg6 25. Qxd7 Rf8 leading to a quick end (25... Ne7 26.
Qxe6+ Kg7) 26. h5+ Kxh5 27. Qg7 Ne7 28. Bxf4 Clearance to allow e1-h1 [%emt 0:00:00] gxf4 (28... Rxf4 29. Rh1+ The nicest combinations are those leading to mate) 29. Qg4# (29. Rh1#) 1-0 |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | Swapmeet: What happened Jay? Just a few months ago you were going to use your <knowledge of the Nimzowhich attack to defeat him> I mean, after all, <Philidor is not adept at "Nimzowhich's system" and also Philidor lacks an understanding of Prophylaxis, which Nimzowhich has invented the concept of.> |
|
| Mar-24-05 | | Boomie: The development of social skills is a matter of focus. Mozart and Newton, who somehow didn't make Alchy's list, were polar opposites socially. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between intelligence and social skills. |
|
Mar-24-05
| | TheAlchemist: <Boomie> Alchy? I like that :)
Seriously, I didn't put Newton because he wasn't in the original list (which I already said I copied), but I'm certain he would make it. And you're right about the social skills. |
|
| Mar-25-05 | | Jaymthegenius: I did use a Nimzo system, but I played 1.Nf3 first to restrain the e-pawn (and I figured Philidor would offer it as a gambit, seeing how they played back then) and I didnt play 1...Nc6 because it is very commiting, as once a knight is on that square, the important c-pawn is deprived of going to a usefull square, and white can simply open up lines for his bishops and gain space without trouble. |
|
| Mar-25-05 | | Swapmeet: I realize it was a Nimzowitsch-Larsen attack, just trying to illustrate how asinine your previous comments were. As for Nc6, the Nimzowitsch defense, I think you're confusing it with the Chigorin. The c-pawn isn't really the issue there, but rather giving white the center and probably getting a cramped position. Black wouldn't necessarily fear the opening of lines in that case. |
|
| Mar-25-05 | | crucify: jay your a joke.. double fianchetto is a joke.. nobody with any chess knowledge would open with that anyway.
i play double fianchettos and it is easy to beat because of lack of developement. always win miniatures against it and will against you. ICC my handle is "apix". ill put the game up for every1 to see. |
|
Mar-25-05
| | TheAlchemist: Anyway, <Jay>, even if you created a Philidor personality, you cannot succesfully emulate him. For example, the Chessmaster personality of Anderssen plays anything like the "original", except for openings. As soon as it's out of book, it will play like the normal "Chessmaster", maybe it will slightly emphasize the attack and control of the center (but it won't make dubious sacrifices) but the old masters from the 19th century and before are almost impossible to emulate. I don't think the real Philidor would have played 8...d4 and 11.e5 (he said pawns that advance to the fifth rank become vulnerable to attacks of the enemy pawns from the sixth rank, or somkething like that) |
|
| Mar-26-05 | | Jaymthegenius: The Philidor persona I have put on chessmaster would have played 3...Bf4, and I havnt played CM in about a week, as I am practicing with Shredder, a real program, <Crucify>:jay your a joke.. double fianchetto is a joke.. nobody with any chess knowledge would open with that anyway. As it so happends that Kasparov defeated Deep Blue from a double fianchetto possition, and the bishops are on the longest diagonals controling the center with piece power And I say " Giuco Piano Ruy Lopez and King gambit is a joke" as the black e-pawn isnt restrained like in the Reti, and pawns rot on there home squares. And the worst logical spot for a bishop to be is g4,g5,b4,b5, as the knight pinning is pointless. |
|
| Mar-26-05 | | Swapmeet: <Jaymthegenius><And I say " Giuco Piano Ruy Lopez and King gambit is a joke" as the black e-pawn isnt restrained like in the Reti, and pawns rot on there home squares. And the worst logical spot for a bishop to be is g4,g5,b4,b5, as the knight pinning is pointless.> What are you smoking??? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 29...Rxh2+
