tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post8219684926700723477..comments2024-01-29T10:45:34.227-08:00Comments on Robert Pearson's Chess Blog: Read for YourselfRobert Pearsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01357942424904415208noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-8551485513118934472008-04-15T18:15:00.000-07:002008-04-15T18:15:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-22418369267179793642008-04-12T09:37:00.000-07:002008-04-12T09:37:00.000-07:00I am surprised to agree with Glenn a bit here. I a...I am surprised to agree with Glenn a bit here. I also use general principles to evaluate the end-node in a line I'm visualizing during analysis of a position. All else being equal, I'll go down the line with a rook on an open file.<BR/><BR/>That said one interesting thing I've noticed now that I've stuck to a couple of openings for longer than I used to, some principles have shown themselves to Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-81010534256432330002008-04-12T04:21:00.000-07:002008-04-12T04:21:00.000-07:00"Chess can only be expressed with concrete variati..."Chess can only be expressed with concrete variations." <BR/><BR/>Chess is 100% tactics.<BR/><BR/>Now, how one arrives at the variations, the ideas behind them, etc can and does use general principals and other shortcuts.<BR/><BR/>Bot no one ever plays an idea. They play a move. A series of moves is a variation.<BR/><BR/>"These shortcuts are useless generalities." I disagree with this in that Glenn Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06098720545929557126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-29209794884237579402008-04-10T19:27:00.000-07:002008-04-10T19:27:00.000-07:00LEP: I think you are right about the target audien...LEP: I think you are right about the target audience. Another example is in endgame books--you have the position dump style (learn these endgames), and the Silman-esque style that takes you by the hand a bit more.<BR/><BR/>I even met someone who got annoyed with Chess Tactics for Beginners, as they wanted an explanation of some of the tactics. Luckily there are tons of explanation-rich tactics Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-1704454040694528632008-04-10T16:15:00.000-07:002008-04-10T16:15:00.000-07:00The weaker the player, the more description is nee...The weaker the player, the more description is needed. It probably depends more on the target audience than anything. We're probably all familiar with seeing a variation, the writer giving a -+, and we're sitting there saying "Huh?" Then we realize that the commentary was (hopefully) not written for the class player.<BR/><BR/>Unrelated: The better you know the participants of a potential Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-21974811736297343772008-04-10T13:02:00.000-07:002008-04-10T13:02:00.000-07:00Watson and Aagaard have had it out over the issue ...Watson and Aagaard have had it out over the issue of general rules versus concrete variations (Watson responds to Aagaard <A HREF="http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jw/jw_excelling_chess.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> in fairly strong words...it is quite entertaining).<BR/><BR/>As I said above, the most reasonable position I've read is not extreme (all rules versus all variation crunching),Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-20587001943249830652008-04-10T11:58:00.000-07:002008-04-10T11:58:00.000-07:00Ok BDK: there goes your pronounced tendancy again...Ok BDK: there goes your pronounced tendancy again to make others wrong and criticism as a habitual way of being.<BR/><BR/>my turn now. who told you that you were less so that you must so often put yourself there? i thought that you quit blogging or dedication to chess? what do you want now? do you know what it is?<BR/><BR/>you havent seen the book or the positions and how it is assembled andtransformationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10834788878068428887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-56782145267097751182008-04-10T10:31:00.000-07:002008-04-10T10:31:00.000-07:00dk--yes, you read it right, I wanted to draw atten...dk--yes, you read it right, I wanted to draw attention to your post, the book and the articles at J. Silman's site; the paragraph about concrete variations was an example of one (among many) that struck me during my reading, and seemed to apply strongly to me personally. Other parts for other people, I presume.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, this post reads as a bit of a mishmash, it is true. Not the Robert Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357942424904415208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-30718396032529013862008-04-10T09:53:00.000-07:002008-04-10T09:53:00.000-07:00Thanks for pointing Ziatdinov's articles out - the...Thanks for pointing Ziatdinov's articles out - they are both interesting and entertaining!<BR/><BR/>To your question about annotations: Yes, he is probably right that ultimately only concrete variations count. But he also writes in one of his articles (forgot which one, sorry) that there are only 4 possible evaluations: 1-0, 0-1, draw, and unclear. When I read through variations presented by a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-59815243290975934522008-04-10T09:06:00.000-07:002008-04-10T09:06:00.000-07:00I really like his articles, which have strong and ...I really like his articles, which have strong and extreme positions on everything.<BR/><BR/>My two cents on his claim.<BR/><BR/>I think that in practice he seems to be wrong on this. In a position is relatively quiet it would be a bad use of time to do extensive variation crunching, time that should be saved for sharp positions with lots of forcing moves. In such quiet positions, in which Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21716553.post-30123955803170027142008-04-10T04:48:00.000-07:002008-04-10T04:48:00.000-07:00to my esteemed co-blogger. i read and reread this...to my esteemed co-blogger. i read and reread this post, and try to have {Jap: hopo-moku} 'eyes wide open' as Sensei called it in Shorinji Kempo.<BR/><BR/>i try to read and 'see' instead of judge.<BR/><BR/>i feel that you have two posts here, is that correct?<BR/><BR/>one at once drawing FURTHER attention to GM-Ram as worthy of a serious look (thank you also for the acknowledgment, it is somewhattransformationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10834788878068428887noreply@blogger.com