Kramnik a BAMF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbdN-iKzFDE

not quite hellmuthicus though

I had a 1700ish player try this against me a few times 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5. Qxd4 c5. It's so not the e4 e5 Lasker's defense.

Do any of you find that you can win a lot of games by just waiting until your opponent makes a mistake? In other words, you don't directly force a mistake; you just concentrate on not making making mistakes until your opponent makes an overly-aggressive (impatient) move.

Anyway, I find that this works pretty well for me...but I feel sort of like a vagina winning this way. It's a lot cooler to win doing something creative, but I find that I end up losing way more often when I am the aggressor.

It's a perfectly good strategy and not inferior at all. Most importantly, it seems to be the one you feel comfortable with. Endgame skill is something that needs to accompany this kind of strategy at higher levels.

would like some help finding these videos of Kasparov analysing, without the spanish translation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFLc...eature=related

Hey guys. This is a replay of a game I won today against a chess.com player rated ~1900 on there (don't know how this translates to ELO). I thought I would be well advised to exchange as much as possible to possibly reduce his edge (I'm rated ~1500 on chess.com). Input is welcome, let me know what my blatant mistakes were .

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=33928

Well, I don't think this really works so well. He is likely very much better at the endgame as well as the other aspects of the game, so I don't think you can really expect to be closer to equal just because many pieces are exchanged off.

Another idea would be to keep all the pieces on and hope to create a very complicated position so that he has the best chance of missing something and giving you a chance to win material or a serious positional concession.

However, I think the best idea is to just play normally and ignore the rating difference. You'll do best if you play the type of game you are most used to, creating positions that you generally play best. I wouldn't think that deviating from this to follow some generalized plan would be +EV.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks for the advice. Generally, I agree, but looking back (game lasted ~ 1.5 weeks) I think my goal was to draw, since it was a group match in a tourney and a draw against the by far highest rated player in our bracket would secure my 2nd place in the bracket.

Possibly your points are still valid, but I think it's more likely to achieve a draw with less pieces on the board. Do you agree on this?

Anyone catch that Geico 'FIXED!!!" the chess commercial. The Knight that captures the pawn can no longer be taken, and the Bishops have been moved to opposing colors. I guess they actually read the internet and saw they were getting flamed. I find it so funny they fixed it, i noticed last time it was on it was correct positioning

Got a link?

edit: talking about fails: I was gonna buy a chess board the other day and came across this

http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/imag...8&s=toys&img=0

cwtdt?

And they have the nerve to call themselves experts in manufacturing chess-related stuff.

no. I cant even find mention of it on the internet being fixed. But i caught it in the corner of my eye yesterday and it looked fixed. So then i watched it closely next time it came on and confirmed it. But all I have is my own view at the moment.

lol speak of the devil it just came on again and I just watched again. it def is fixed now.

thats funny cuz i saw that commercial like 4 months ago and it disappeared, didn't examine the position but figured they were using a position from a famous game.

This is probably close and it might go up very, very slightly. The problem is that you are unlikely to know many of the fortresses or how to theoretically draw slightly imbalanced but drawn positions (3 v 2 pawns in a R + P ending, N v R, etc). Plus obv general endgame principles and calculation where your opponent should be even more ahead of you than normal. I would expect the score to go from something like win 10%, draw 5%, lose 85% to win 0%, draw 5.5%, lose 94.5%. So you might increase your drawing chances very slightly but you're going to absolutely kill any winning chances. The thing you did correctly there was keep the queens and one pair of rooks on until you had a winning material advantage.

Yeah I noticed that too.

I was all like "HEY THEY FIXED IT!!!"

I don't know how something like that slips through in the first place..

considering the position other than than those bishops being on the same color square (one of which being able to immediately take that knight) "looked real" MY guess is they actually did do their homework to put a realish position on the board. And what we are seeing now is what they meant to put up in the first place. Probably an error in instructions sent to someone or something.

I'm guessing somebody got canned over it too.

After sucking in a 7rd live rated Blitz Tournament (2-3 start)... I at least got to put these 2 "games" up to end it vs the minor leaguers...




1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nxd4 Nxd4 5. Qxd4 d6 6. Bc4 Be6 7. O-O Bxc4 8. Qxc4 Qd7 9. Nc3 O-O-O 10. Be3 Kb8 11. Nb5 a6 12. a4 g6 13. Qd4 f6 14. Qa7+ Kc8 15. Qa8++


1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bf4 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. a3 Ncxe5 8. axb4 Nd3++

Crosspost from the "Documentaries" thread in EDF:

I expect most of you guys know this already but I have found it only now. So to the few who haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

Yes, this is absolutely great. On youtube there is also a tv show with Kasparov, from January 1993, about 40 minutes long. He says that Kamsky has no talent, Fischer is too old to improve and Short will beat Timman in their match. Unfortunately, it's in Russian, no English subs. First part here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGADXimbtDc

what's the most popular online site to play at these days, haven't played in years used to have an account at fics, still good there? any other new comers?

How could the recently played Malkovich chess format best be used as a learning tool for an inexperienced player?

I'd like to play but I am a) unrated and b) very poor. My rating on CTS has been hovering around 1300 for a long time now. I find I quickly get short of time playing time controlled games (less than 30 minutes) and I struggle to find time to play anything longer in one sitting. This format would allow me to play at a pace that allows me to think over the position and actually study the implications - with the added benefit of the scrutiny of forum posters to go over afterwards.

Would anyone like to play a game in a thread on this forum? Is there any way that this could be handicapped so that a rank amateur could play a game that would be enjoyable by a more competent (but not godlike) opponent? (I don't really want to play rook odds etc. as I hope to use this as an excuse to play a normal game and think about "usual" opening lines) .

I think the format would be excellent for helping a weak player improve. Not only is having the time to think valuable, but taking the time to explain your decisions helps a lot to clarify what your thought process is. Plus, there will probably be a lot of comments from other posters, which will be incredibly valuable teaching points for you to read after the game is over.

I might be willing to play you a game, if noone else will, but I'm pretty busy right now and can't guarantee how timely my moves will be.

Edit: 1318 on CTS after signing up and trying one session. Will probably even out a little higher than that, once I adjust to the interface, but then again, maybe not.

You could play correspondence games so you get more time to think. Or you could play solitaire chess - my personal recommendation. Take a book of well annotated games, preferably appropriate to your level and cover up the hero's moves. Then you just play through the game but before you reveal the hero's moves you have to decide what you would play there and why and then see what the hero does and why (from the annotations). Not exactly like the Malkovich game but sort of similar.