replayer or gtfo, imo

my houdini actually gives Qc4 as 0 and Nxe4 as -0.27 at 20-ply. Nxe4 doesn't give away the knight though because after fxe4 Qxe4, g6, e6, and e7 are way too vulnerable. as the board is, it seems like black is only better because his pawns give him a space advantage that constricts white to the point where he can't use his better coordination to punish black for his slow development. get rid of that e5-f5 strong point and all hell breaks loose.

Apologies, I don't know what has happened to my manners.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=82355

Some brief thoughts...

I played 10...a5 because I was concerned that 11. a5 from white would give him too much queenside space. After the game, the GM mentioned he thought my playing a5 was a mistake because he said it took away virtually all play on the queenside, which is true. I trust his opinion, but still have concerns that black would be getting squeeze on all sides of the board.

YKW pointed out, and rightly so, that 15...Ne5 isn't that accurate. It doesn't do much from there. At the time, I wanted to get that knight to c4 but as the game played out, it wasn't able to do much from that square. But during the game, I didn't see too many ideas/alternatives and just went with it.

This is my first time trying 1...g6 against d4, and trotting it out against a GM probably isn't ideal. But I figured I'd lose regardless of what I played, so might as well try to learn something.

judging by the QGA thread, your choice of opening won't be liked

Haha you're not kidding. I was scared to post it

"Haters gonna hate"

"Dogs bark, the caravan keeps going"

Any other sayings that fit here?

Nice game, Tex. I see my c6 KID suggestion is not too far off...

Re: ...a5: That's an important point in these types of positions, which was recently pointed out to me as well. White's happy to lock the queenside and just move to the kindside once f5 isn't reasonable for Black. ("like the Ruy Lopez" was said, if that means something to you :P.)

Time for an "Adventures with 1...g6 thread"?

Need a chess clock for purposes of playing other board games with time constraints - was looking on ebay and they seem reasonably low priced. Does anyone have a good recommendation for brands to go for/avoid? Budget would probably be ca. £30 plus p&p so not looking for a super deluxe model or anything.

I need a suggestion against the Grunfeld as White. I'm looking for something pretty lightweight; I face this once in a blue moon against strong opposition and want something where I don't need to do a lot of work and don't mind an early repetition.

Or yell at me so I stop thinking about 4.Qa4+: (1.d4 g6! 2.c4 Nf6?! 3.Nc3 d5) 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qd1 (haven't checked Qb3 as an alternative that carefully yet, although NCO's refutation of this looks incorrect). Assume that a 7 move draw (if 5...Bc8) is OK (cue: "You're white, you have to play for a win" video.)

jd_poker: What brands are in that range...DGT? Assuming you're getting a digital clock :-)

Yeah DGT is in my experience the best if it fits your budget

Sholar: Qd1 I offer you two less embarassing options:
1) 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 Bg7 (Be6 is not a problem if you don't mind repeating, tho 6.-Be6 7.Qb5+ Nc6 requires a look) 7.Bf4
2): 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.h4: see recent games - it's easy enough to play, the only thing worrying me is that I don't know how to go on after 5.-h6

Also look at 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.Qa4+

Thanks, guys.
6...Be6 7.Qb5+ Nc6 -- this is the NCO line which just ends with a White blunder and a -/+ eval which I'll continue next; 7...Bd7 8.Qxb7!? looks tempting, although repeating with Qc4 is more in the spirit of things -- 8.Nf3 Nd5 9.e4 a6 and now instead of 10.Qb3? Ne3! White seems OK just by preventing this with 10.Qe2 or Qa4 and playing chess.

6...Bg7
The choice is then Bf4 or e4 (Nf3 lines probably transpose); 7.e4 0-0 8.Nf3 seems a little safer than Bf4 (or the move order TinM suggests, which is the same unless Qxb7 is an option). Kaufman gives 8....b5 which seems to more or less equalize but with reduced material after a forcing line starting with 9.Nxb5 Nxe4 10.Qxc7; 8...Bg4 reaches normal lines in the Qb3 move order.

Given the lack of outrage, I think I'll plan on Qa4+/Qb3 (or Qd1!) lines next time this comes up and take a look at wlrs's h4 suggestion (and normal Bf4 lines) if I find myself playing this more than once a year. (The idea of just taking twice on d5 and playing Ne2-c3 also seemed like a simple solution, if the goal is just to avoid stumbling around in someone else's preparation.)

There is truly a lack of opening books sold for amateurs who want to troll IMs in open events.

Chronos are my favorite, but even used the prices were out or range. DGT looked like it might be findable in that price range in a quick search.

You're absolutely right about a5. At the time I didn't realize how much it locked down the queenside, but as the game went on I kept thinking "man I really wish I had some queenside tension right about now". Although, I think by that point I had already played a subpar opening. I've looked through some games now and would certainly play things differently if I had the chance.

And yep, I'll be starting an "Adventures with 1...g6" thread, which, for the first few games, will be me dropping games like I'm allergic to them.

I love this line. Promise me that if you ever become a titled player, you'll write an opening book on this theme and incorporate that into the title.

I think "How to Draw Garry Kasparov (with White)" is a better title.

If I get to IM (jokes!), then I'll remember this post, and see what I can do. Getting some rinky-dink candidate master title isn't going to cut it. (Yes, this exists.)

Good grief. How long until we get titles for every rating level?

I always smile when I see a WCM title on the pairings sheet. I figured the rating would be low, but didn't know what it is until I saw your link that it's just 2000 FIDE. It's ok FIDE, we don't need titles for everyone.

Might as well put their horoscope sign next to their rating.

Fide must like the money that goes with granting titles

FYP.

What FIDE is doing now (has been doing for several years, really) is a crime against chess IMO. What is the lowest ELO now, 1000 I think? I mean it's unbelievable. Every rated player means extra taxes from his federation. And the number of rated players has probably increased like 10 times in the past 5 years. How much ***** money they are making off of this is unreal. This low rating system SORT of works in USCF just because you have much bigger swings, so it's easier to get your rating up if you are really much better than your rating. But with ELO..

Imagine your kid getting a starting rating of, say, 1600 ELO because of this stupid ass system. Even if your kid is really good, getting 1600 ELO is entirely possible, because in the tournaments that counts toward his initial ELO he might play a ton of guys rated like 1000-1400, so no matter how many frickin pts he scores he still isn't even potentially able to get a high initial rating. Now imagine that he wants to pursue chess and get his rating up. He needs to gain 700(!!!!) pts just to reach FM (which is a useless title anyway). 800 pts to become an IM. No matter how much ahead of the curve your kid is, it will take a TON of tournaments to achieve that. A ton of tournaments = a ton of cash. What is the return? Money wise it's zero. There some intangible gains, sure. But are they worth all that cash? proly not. So even the most talented kids who get these ratings, and their parents, are simply driven away from the game by this ******ed ***** organization. It's a shame, really. I mean in the older days when the lowest ELO you could get was 2000, at least there was hope - say, 350 or 300 pts till IM is still a lot, but it def feels doable with improvement.. The system that FIDE created now is absolutely detrimental to the development of chess talent IMO. ****ing Kirsan should go talk to his alien buddies. He proly made enough cash from his abominable organization to build a spaceship..

Just a few years ago, didn't you have to be at least 2200 to get a FIDE rating? I can't remember what it was, but I think it was somewhere around there.

Solid rant, YKW, although they could keep the lower rating floor and still solve most of your objections if they just increased the k-factor at lower rating levels. Right now, it's a k of 30 for your first 30 games, but after you have those 30 games, it's k=15 until you hit 2400. And even if you're a lot better than your rating indicates, it's hard to drive your rating up with a k of 15.

If they kept the rating floor at 1000, so that getting an initial ranking was easy, but then even for established players they used something like a k factor of 32 (same as ICC) for players rated U1600, and then between 1600 and 2000 used a k of 24, and didn't drop it to 15 until after you hit the OLD rating floor.

More rating mobility down in that rating range that didn't used to exist would help keep players from getting stuck there. And in general, Class level players enjoy seeing big rating swings, and there's no real reason not to have them. Only gaining 7.5 rating points for beating someone with the same rating as you is pretty demoralizing, when you're trying to get your rating up quickly. +16 points for that same win feels a lot better.

You are absolutely right, changes to K factor would probably be the only decent way to salvage the current situation. But even then, I would still like to see the rating floor a bit higher..

would it be plausible to have the initial rating floor at like at least 1600, but the actual rating floor at, say, 1000? So that if you perform below 1600, you just don't get the rating at all instead of getting 1200. But if you get your 1600 and then play like crap, it decreases accordingly. Just brainstorming here

That would work fine, mathematically, but it depends on your goal. Speaking as a Class D patzer, I know that if the initial rating floor were 1600 (or 2000 like it used to be), I would never consider playing in a FIDE event. What's the point of playing a chess tournament where I can't even earn a rating? However the ability to be "FIDE rated", no matter how embarrassingly low that rating may be, is pretty cool in my mind. I'd love to play a FIDE rated event (schedules and travel notwithstanding - there aren't even USCF events within 250 miles of where I live, much less FIDE events). I assume that among the patzer set, I am not at all alone in that. So a rating floor of 1000 should serve to encourage and increase overall participation in chess tournaments. And that can't be a bad thing for the game of chess.

Now, if I'm 1600 strength, and I totally choke in my first FIDE event and get saddled with a 1200 rating, that's frustrating, sure. If I'm ACTUALLY 1600 strength, though, then it should work itself out before I hit my 30 game threshold (while I still have a K of 30). If I get an initial rating of 1200, and when I play my 30th game, all with K=30, my rating has only climbed to 1300, then it's safe to say I was never 1600 strength to begin with.

So the only place where it's *really* an issue is with players (mostly youngsters) who are rapidly improving. Their rating will of course lag behind, but if we drop the 30-game rule, and instead tie K factors to rating level, and make them nice and high for lower rated players, then a couple good tournaments as a young player improves can get their rating up towards where it should be in a hurry. So overall, I definitely think that low rating floors with high K factors is the best option for the health of FIDE as an organization, and chess as a game.

That said, if they keep the K factor where it is, then those youngsters really are trapped at low ratings, and really are more likely to abandon the game. I agree with all your objections as they pertain to the system actually in place, which I do NOT think is good for the game.

yeah, a FIDE rating definitely has an attraction to many people, and what's broken is not that lower rated players shouldn't be able to have ratings, but that they can be so inaccurate because of bad k-factors. I think there's a Jeff Sonas article saying k=20 or so would make the rating system more accurate as a predictor even for the world elite, so definitely there's scope to increase it to 30 or more for juniors/low rated players.

why is fide catering to low strength hobby players? isn't that what individual federations are for?