Well, not really, but ...
I discovered something amusing yesterday. In the last round at Hastings 1895
Von Bardeleben, needing a win to be among the prize winners, answered 1e4 with 1g6 - the modern defense. I play this against Stockfish all the time, and the 1895 game went just as my games against the computer tend to go in this line. White attacks prematurely with an early h4, black beats back the attack and wins the endgame. Of course the tactics in the Hastings game were
much superior. I rarely go through a game without a blunder or two.
Pollock, the Canadian entry in that event, is also interesting. He
finished near the bottom, but scored six wins, including ones against Steinitz and Tarrasch. Both were decent games, not ones where the
stronger players blundered badly.
Twice he tried the Benoni defense, much to the disapproval of the annotators, but he got good positions out of the opening, only going wrong later as he didn't have a grasp yet of how to play Benoni middlegames. Unsurprisingly.
Shall we dethrone Nimzowitsch and Reti and put the beginning of Hypermodern chess back to 1895, with Von Bardeleben and Pollock as its founders?
All of this is from the centennial edition of the Hastings 1895
tournament book. Every game is annotated by a tournament
participant, but never by one of the players in that specific
game, which gives (to me) interesting insights.
https://www.amazon.com/Hastings-1895-Centennial-Sid-Pickard/dp/1886846014
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
William Hyde
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Well, not really, but ...
I discovered something amusing yesterday.-a In the last round at
Hastings 1895 Von Bardeleben, needing a win to be among the prize
winners, answered 1e4 with 1g6 - the modern defense.-a I play this
against Stockfish all the time, and the 1895 game went just as my
games against the computer tend to go in this line.-a White attacks
prematurely with an early h4, black beats back the attack and wins the
endgame.-a Of course the tactics in the Hastings game were much
superior.-a I rarely go through a game without a blunder or two.
Pollock, the Canadian entry in that event, is also interesting.-a He
finished near the bottom, but scored six wins, including ones against
Steinitz and Tarrasch.-a Both were decent-a games, not ones where the
stronger players blundered badly.
Twice he-a tried the Benoni defense, much to the disapproval of the
annotators, but he got good positions out of the opening, only going
wrong later as he didn't have a grasp yet of how to play Benoni
middlegames. Unsurprisingly.
Shall we dethrone Nimzowitsch and Reti and put the beginning of
Hypermodern chess back to 1895, with Von Bardeleben and Pollock as its
founders?
All of this is from the centennial edition of the Hastings 1895
tournament book.-a Every game is annotated by a tournament
participant, but never by one of the players in that specific
game, which gives (to me) interesting insights.
https://www.amazon.com/Hastings-1895-Centennial-Sid-Pickard/dp/1886846014
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
William Hyde
Interesting! So Reti & co was just marketing then? ;)
As for the book, this was the closest I could find online:
https://annas-archive.org/md5/ee6e9219cd6401a49a81a9399677c4a5
but not the same I'm afraid. =(
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
However, it is possible to get a copy of the Hastings book for less than >$30, though how it differs from the 1995 version I do not know. Though
I assume it uses English descriptive notation.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:34:06 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
However, it is possible to get a copy of the Hastings book for less than
$30, though how it differs from the 1995 version I do not know. Though
I assume it uses English descriptive notation.
One of my dreams since my teens has been visiting the Hastings
Tournament but it's now "just" a major Swiss rather than the GM round
robins that were typical before WW2. My daughter emigrated to Britain
and now lives in Brighton but that would mean spending Christmas there
- which would exclude my other two children. By car Hastings is about
an hour from Brighton.
(Our daughter emigrated in 2014 and we went to Britain in June 2016
and had a great time - we flew home the Saturday before the Brexit
referendum so saw a lot of campaigning plus lots of other high points
like walking down the center aisle of both the Commons and Lords which happened to be the only day during our trip when we could since it was
on a Friday and the politicians reconvened the following Monday and
adjourned the day before the referendum - which was after we came
home. We also made a side trip to Belfast and saw the Game of Thrones shooting sites as well as visiting a cemetary where several of my
forebears are buried - including the man I named my son for - he
commanded a ship during WW1 and did plenty of notable things beyond
that)
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea. Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book. Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the
"general" kind of books such as the two Laskers.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the
"general" kind of books such as the two Laskers.
For me, since I don't play professionally, and since my chess mood comes--
and goes, it feels that I can easily read them a couple of times over
and pick up something here and there.
Usually I have an intense period of focus, then I might not touch a
chess board for 5-6 months, then the mood hits me again, and I might
read or play intensely for a month or two.
On and off it goes.
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries >>>>> might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can learn >> something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the "general" kind of >> books such as the two Laskers.
Tal was known to watch beginner's programs on soviet TV.
I'm sure that even at my peak I could have learned more from either Lasker.
And now that I've forgotten so much, I can learn even more!
But it is best to switch to another book, and only come back to the first later. It's not for you, but I recommend switching between manuals and game collections, with far more of the latter as you get stronger.
William Hyde
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this
book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries >>>>>> might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the
"general" kind of books such as the two Laskers.
Tal was known to watch beginner's programs on soviet TV.
Fascinating! I wonder if Tiger Woods watches beginner gold programs?
I'm sure that even at my peak I could have learned more from either
Lasker.
And now that I've forgotten so much, I can learn even more!
Old age... The gift that keeps on giving! ;)
But it is best to switch to another book, and only come back to the
first later.-a It's not for you, but I recommend switching between
manuals and game collections, with far more of the latter as you get
stronger.
This is the truth! I last flipped through the Emanuel Lasker book 3-4
years ago, just the sections I found interesting. And now, after reading
the Edward Lasker book, I decided to give Emanuel another chance and
this time, with the modification, of actually trying to read it cover to cover and play through at least 50% of the games. I'm currently at page
165, and I did skip the opening section. I have to say that slowing down
the pace was very valuable.
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but >>>>> do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this >>>>>>> book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries >>>>>>> might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you
can learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the
"general" kind of books such as the two Laskers.
Tal was known to watch beginner's programs on soviet TV.
Fascinating! I wonder if Tiger Woods watches beginner gold programs?
I'm sure that even at my peak I could have learned more from either
Lasker.
And now that I've forgotten so much, I can learn even more!
Old age... The gift that keeps on giving! ;)
But it is best to switch to another book, and only come back to the
first later.-a It's not for you, but I recommend switching between
manuals and game collections, with far more of the latter as you get
stronger.
This is the truth! I last flipped through the Emanuel Lasker book 3-4
years ago, just the sections I found interesting. And now, after
reading the Edward Lasker book, I decided to give Emanuel another
chance and this time, with the modification, of actually trying to
read it cover to cover and play through at least 50% of the games. I'm
currently at page 165, and I did skip the opening section. I have to
say that slowing down the pace was very valuable.
I played a game in the ambulance with one of the workers.-a Just to make conversation I lied and said, "It's all about the openings."
This isn't entirely false, but for me, I study openings about 6 moves
(where black move counts as one move, white move counts as one move),
but after that I let chess skills take over.
My question is this:-a For how many moves do you find openings
invaluable?-a Some of them go on for as long as twenty moves I've seen,
but I have limits on time to study new openings.
.../v]andrak|rei... wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but >>>>>> do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this >>>>>>>> book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced countries >>>>>>>> might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the
ChessBase main databases?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you
can learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the >>>>> "general" kind of books such as the two Laskers.
Tal was known to watch beginner's programs on soviet TV.
Fascinating! I wonder if Tiger Woods watches beginner gold programs?
I'm sure that even at my peak I could have learned more from either
Lasker.
And now that I've forgotten so much, I can learn even more!
Old age... The gift that keeps on giving! ;)
But it is best to switch to another book, and only come back to the
first later.-a It's not for you, but I recommend switching between
manuals and game collections, with far more of the latter as you get
stronger.
This is the truth! I last flipped through the Emanuel Lasker book 3-4
years ago, just the sections I found interesting. And now, after
reading the Edward Lasker book, I decided to give Emanuel another
chance and this time, with the modification, of actually trying to
read it cover to cover and play through at least 50% of the games.
I'm currently at page 165, and I did skip the opening section. I have
to say that slowing down the pace was very valuable.
I played a game in the ambulance with one of the workers.-a Just to
make conversation I lied and said, "It's all about the openings."
This isn't entirely false, but for me, I study openings about 6 moves
(where black move counts as one move, white move counts as one move),
but after that I let chess skills take over.
My question is this:-a For how many moves do you find openings
invaluable?-a Some of them go on for as long as twenty moves I've seen,
but I have limits on time to study new openings.
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying.-a Studying openings without the games
is a dry business.
I never found openings invaluable, except in postal chess.-a Opening
ideas are far more important for those of use who are not playing at a
2400 level.
One exception would be with risky openings like the Modern.-a While it is perfectly sound, a small error can get you crushed.-a So I once knew that fairly well.
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move twenty two.-a The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a master in
a speed game.-a At move twenty three he'd used most of his time, I'd used fifteen seconds. With my extra time I managed to hang on for the draw.
Not much reward for the work.
He erred, incidentally, on about move six.-a But I had not memorized how
to take advantage of that error, so I just transposed back to the main line.-a No matter how much you memorize, it is never enough.
William Hyde wrote:
.../v]andrak|rei... wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:24:02 -0400, William HydeNo idea.-a Some, like Steinitz-Von Bardeleben must be everywhere, but >>>>>>> do they have Pollock's early Benonis?
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately only those with a lot of spare cash can afford this >>>>>>>>> book.-a Used copies may be available, or those in advanced
countries
might be able to get it via inter-library loan.
Stupid question perhaps but how many of these games are in the >>>>>>>> ChessBase main databases?
William Hyde
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you >>>>>> can learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking
the "general" kind of books such as the two Laskers.
Tal was known to watch beginner's programs on soviet TV.
Fascinating! I wonder if Tiger Woods watches beginner gold programs?
I'm sure that even at my peak I could have learned more from either >>>>> Lasker.
And now that I've forgotten so much, I can learn even more!
Old age... The gift that keeps on giving! ;)
But it is best to switch to another book, and only come back to the >>>>> first later.-a It's not for you, but I recommend switching between
manuals and game collections, with far more of the latter as you
get stronger.
This is the truth! I last flipped through the Emanuel Lasker book
3-4 years ago, just the sections I found interesting. And now, after
reading the Edward Lasker book, I decided to give Emanuel another
chance and this time, with the modification, of actually trying to
read it cover to cover and play through at least 50% of the games.
I'm currently at page 165, and I did skip the opening section. I
have to say that slowing down the pace was very valuable.
I played a game in the ambulance with one of the workers.-a Just to
make conversation I lied and said, "It's all about the openings."
This isn't entirely false, but for me, I study openings about 6 moves
(where black move counts as one move, white move counts as one move),
but after that I let chess skills take over.
My question is this:-a For how many moves do you find openings
invaluable?-a Some of them go on for as long as twenty moves I've
seen, but I have limits on time to study new openings.
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying.-a Studying openings without the
games is a dry business.
I never found openings invaluable, except in postal chess.-a Opening
ideas are far more important for those of use who are not playing at a
2400 level.
One exception would be with risky openings like the Modern.-a While it
is perfectly sound, a small error can get you crushed.-a So I once knew
that fairly well.
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move
twenty two.-a The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a
master in a speed game.-a At move twenty three he'd used most of his
time, I'd used
fifteen seconds. With my extra time I managed to hang on for the draw.
Not much reward for the work.
Yeah, but a master...
He erred, incidentally, on about move six.-a But I had not memorized
how to take advantage of that error, so I just transposed back to the
main line.-a No matter how much you memorize, it is never enough.
That must have been frustrating.
My question is this: For how many moves do you find openings invaluable? Some of them go on for as long as twenty moves I've seen, but I have limits on time to study new openings.
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move twenty two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a master in a speed
game. At move twenty three he'd used most of his time, I'd used
fifteen seconds. With my extra time I managed to hang on for the draw. Not much reward for the work.
He erred, incidentally, on about move six. But I had not memorized how to take advantage of that error, so I just transposed back to the main line. No
matter how much you memorize, it is never enough.
William Hyde
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move
twenty two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a
master in a speed
22!? What are the odds that he did not deviate prior to that? Fascinating!
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the "general" >kind of books such as the two Laskers.
For me, since I don't play professionally, and since my chess mood comes
and goes, it feels that I can easily read them a couple of times over and >pick up something here and there.
Usually I have an intense period of focus, then I might not touch a chess >board for 5-6 months, then the mood hits me again, and I might read or
play intensely for a month or two.
On and off it goes.
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying. Studying openings without the games
is a dry business.
I never found openings invaluable, except in postal chess. Opening
ideas are far more important for those of use who are not playing at a
2400 level.
One exception would be with risky openings like the Modern. While it is >perfectly sound, a small error can get you crushed. So I once knew that >fairly well.
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move twenty
two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a master in
a speed game. At move twenty three he'd used most of his time, I'd used >fifteen seconds. With my extra time I managed to hang on for the draw.
Not much reward for the work.
He erred, incidentally, on about move six. But I had not memorized how
to take advantage of that error, so I just transposed back to the main
line. No matter how much you memorize, it is never enough.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:24:44 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying. Studying openings without the games
is a dry business.
This is why I don't recommend Lasker's Manual - it's an excellent book
but how one trains for events is now entirely different than 100 years
ago when Lasker wrote his Manual.
I never found openings invaluable, except in postal chess. Opening
ideas are far more important for those of use who are not playing at a
2400 level.
I've always felt openings were about getting to the middle game with a comfortable position. For me part of that means learning the basic
opening traps with an eye to avoiding them.
One exception would be with risky openings like the Modern. While it is
perfectly sound, a small error can get you crushed. So I once knew that
fairly well.
I've never considered the Modern all that risky
Vancouver in the early 70s when Duncan Suttles ruled the roost.
haven't seen him in 25 years when he visited one of my tournaments
(Lesiege and Spraggett were competing so I presume Duncan wanted to
see him). I just looked him up on Google and they listed him as now
age 79 so I am pleasantly surprised he's still living
D wrote:
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move twenty >>> two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a master in a >>> speed
22!? What are the odds that he did not deviate prior to that? Fascinating!
Well, the main line is just that for a reason. And he was a very good player. No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea of what kind of moves worked. Still, there were points at which he could have deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton of money because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many thought they did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
William Hyde
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:48:59 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the "general"
kind of books such as the two Laskers.
For me, since I don't play professionally, and since my chess mood comes
and goes, it feels that I can easily read them a couple of times over and
pick up something here and there.
Usually I have an intense period of focus, then I might not touch a chess
board for 5-6 months, then the mood hits me again, and I might read or
play intensely for a month or two.
On and off it goes.
I haven't played in an event in 20 years (basically since I got my International Arbiter title) though I have a large chess library.
These days I mostly read two types of books: I'm reading one by Susan
Polgar mostly for the questions (positions) at the end of each chapter
as more advanced books like the new Shereshevsky book and the Keres
1948 Match/Tournament book. Those I read to keep my analytical skills
up and to admire the 5 GMs who played in the match/tournament.
My last games were at the low A level - I'd probably be low B now with
all my rust. Trouble is in the city I live in most of the events are
an hour's drive from home. Have played online but can't concentrate
beyond the speed chess level. Am still quite active with my national
federation but that's more organizational and administrative than
actually playing.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:24:44 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying. Studying openings without the games
is a dry business.
This is why I don't recommend Lasker's Manual - it's an excellent book
but how one trains for events is now entirely different than 100 years
ago when Lasker wrote his Manual.
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with great success. Nobody knew much about it.
William Hyde
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
As a C player I once memorized a line in the Nimzoindian to move
twenty two. The only benefit I ever got from this was a draw with a
master in a speed
22!? What are the odds that he did not deviate prior to that?
Fascinating!
Well, the main line is just that for a reason.-a And he was a very good
player.-a No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea of
what kind of moves worked.-a Still, there were points at which he could
have deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton of
money because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many
thought they did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and counting.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with
great success.-a Nobody knew much about it.
Oh, you are not american?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:24:44 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying.-a Studying openings without the games >>> is a dry business.
This is why I don't recommend Lasker's Manual - it's an excellent book
but how one trains for events is now entirely different than 100 years
ago when Lasker wrote his Manual.
How does one train for events? What would you say is not good with the Lasker
manual? Remember, I only play friendly games, and no tournaments, so I am interested in if I should train in some other way?
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:48:59 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Another question on the book front. How long do you feel that you can
learn something from one and the same book? And I'm talking the
"general"
kind of books such as the two Laskers.
For me, since I don't play professionally, and since my chess mood comes >>> and goes, it feels that I can easily read them a couple of times over
and
pick up something here and there.
Usually I have an intense period of focus, then I might not touch a
chess
board for 5-6 months, then the mood hits me again, and I might read or
play intensely for a month or two.
On and off it goes.
I haven't played in an event in 20 years (basically since I got my
International Arbiter title) though I have a large chess library.
These days I mostly read two types of books: I'm reading one by Susan
Polgar mostly for the questions (positions) at the end of each chapter
as more advanced books like the new Shereshevsky book and the Keres
1948 Match/Tournament book. Those I read to keep my analytical skills
up and to admire the 5 GMs who played in the match/tournament.
Was it Karpov that said that chess is beauty?
My last games were at the low A level - I'd probably be low B now with
It would be fun to see you and William battle to the death! I wonder who would win? Would you be able to deal with someone playing a good modern opening?
all my rust. Trouble is in the city I live in most of the events are
an hour's drive from home. Have played online but can't concentrate
beyond the speed chess level. Am still quite active with my national
I can not play speed chess at all. I have a perfectionist streak, so
moving a piece without knowing (or think that I know, that is) exactly
why gives me enormous psychological pain.
I try to stay as far away from speed chess as humanly possible. Chess--
games that last between 1-3 hours, that's my game! =D
federation but that's more organizational and administrative than
actually playing.
It sounds as if you have a healthy relationship to the game. My IM acquaintance quit, because he thought in the end, it took too much time
from his life to stay at the level he wanted to be at.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and counting.
It's much more than that. The game was changed fundamentally by the introduction of the cube in the 1920s and, as I implied above, the best players in the world still didn't understand the consequences fifty years later.
Even in my time theory has changed. People who used an opening 6-4 to make the two point used to be laughed at. Not any more.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
Even if that were true, the difference between making 10k a year with all the hard work of putting out a chess magazine and 30k playing a few evenings a week in bars and nightclubs would make up for a lot.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with
great success.-a Nobody knew much about it.
Oh, you are not american?
Nein.
William Hyde
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:24:44 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
If you play over master games you will come to know a certain amount
about the openings without trying.-a Studying openings without the games >>>> is a dry business.
This is why I don't recommend Lasker's Manual - it's an excellent book
but how one trains for events is now entirely different than 100 years
ago when Lasker wrote his Manual.
How does one train for events? What would you say is not good with the
Lasker
manual? Remember, I only play friendly games, and no tournaments, so I am
interested in if I should train in some other way?
The Soviet method is the best.
Before a big event, take a cabin in the woods by a lake. Play a few practice
games with your GM second, hike, swim, look at the games of your future opponents come up with a few opening innovations. Give yourself a week entirely free from chess at the end, and be sure to arrive, rested and fit, several days before the event begins, to accustom yourself to the place, overcome jet lag if any, discover which restaurants won't give you a stomach ache, and so forth.
The western method as applied by Reshevesky is rather different.
Work at your job right up until you leave, work extra hard because you're going to be gone a month and you only have two weeks of vacation, do a little
chess study at the expense of sleep. Leave at the last possible minute, play
the first round while jet lagged. Go hungry if you haven't had time to find a kosher restaurant.
Worked for Sammy, but me, I'll take the cabin by the lake.
William Hyde
I can not play speed chess at all. I have a perfectionist streak, so moving >> a piece without knowing (or think that I know, that is) exactly why gives >> me enormous psychological pain.
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm pretty darn
good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost one or two games.
I try to stay as far away from speed chess as humanly possible. Chess games >> that last between 1-3 hours, that's my game! =D
federation but that's more organizational and administrative than
actually playing.
It sounds as if you have a healthy relationship to the game. My IM
acquaintance quit, because he thought in the end, it took too much time
from his life to stay at the level he wanted to be at.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and
with great success.-a Nobody knew much about it.
Oh, you are not american?
Nein.
Sind sie ein berliner?
I can not play speed chess at all. I have a perfectionist streak, so
moving a piece without knowing (or think that I know, that is)
exactly why gives me enormous psychological pain.
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side).-a I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in.-a Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess.-a On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
Hmm, interesting! Maybe I should try and find out if there's an optimal timing
for me? Now I am curious. Maybe I'll try a 15 and 30 game to see how it goes.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with
great success. Nobody knew much about it.
Well, the main line is just that for a reason. And he was a very good
player. No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea of what >> kind of moves worked. Still, there were points at which he could have
deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton of money
because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many thought they >> did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and counting.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm >pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 15:08:57 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and withOne of the attractions of the Rat was that it could be used against
great success. Nobody knew much about it.
either 1e4 or 1d4.
Since Suttles was/is local to me, a lot of local players adopted it -
I didn't as I was more of an attacking player and hated facing it due
to the need for slow build-up though I usually played the sort of
attack associated with the Sicilian Yugoslav attack usually with
decent results (at least decent for a borderline A/B player)
"How can I swindle him?", became the first question I asked after I'd >blundered. Along with "Can I make his win more difficult?". I was
quite surprised at how often it was possible to win lost games.
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively against 1e4 and with >>>>> great success.-a Nobody knew much about it.
Oh, you are not american?
Nein.
Sind sie ein berliner?
I am not Bernard Samson.
Nor do I play him on TV.
William Hyde
D wrote:
I can not play speed chess at all. I have a perfectionist streak, so
moving a piece without knowing (or think that I know, that is) exactly >>>> why gives me enormous psychological pain.
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side).-a I would just
make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in.-a Then I found out I'm pretty >>> darn good at 10 min speed chess.-a On lichess.org I've only lost one or two
games.
Hmm, interesting! Maybe I should try and find out if there's an optimal
timing
for me? Now I am curious. Maybe I'll try a 15 and 30 game to see how it
goes.
It's not so much time as attitude. I was better at g/15 than g/5,
but in the latter I raised my rating 900 points over three months, from
a hideous 500 points below my OTB to 300 above.
I did it largely by not caring about blunders. I finally realized that in speed you have no time to lament your errors. Every move is a new position and it must be dealt with as is, never mind if you were winning last move.
Previously, after blundering a piece I would inevitably lose the game. But I noticed that other people didn't always lose when they dropped a piece against me. Something was wrong here.
"How can I swindle him?", became the first question I asked after I'd blundered. Along with "Can I make his win more difficult?". I was quite surprised at how often it was possible to win lost games.
And I won a lot of class prizes along the way. Sometimes as much as $2.50!
William Hyde
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:04:32 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
The point of course is that backgammon is often played for money andWell, the main line is just that for a reason. And he was a very good
player. No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea of what >>> kind of moves worked. Still, there were points at which he could have
deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton of money
because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many thought they >>> did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and counting.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
being a faster game means you have the potential for more wins :)
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:08:26 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
I love speed chess but could never get used to playing it on a server.
Somehow when it's just me and the monitor my attention doesn't hold
well...
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
D wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, William Hyde wrote:
Glad to hear it.
When I was in the US I played the Rat exclusively
against 1e4 and with great success.-a Nobody knew much
about it.
Oh, you are not american?
Nein.
Sind sie ein berliner?
I am not Bernard Samson.
Nor do I play him on TV.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:04:32 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
The point of course is that backgammon is often played for money andWell, the main line is just that for a reason.-a And he was a very good >>>> player.-a No doubt he'd studied many Nimzo games and had a good idea
of what
kind of moves worked.-a Still, there were points at which he could have >>>> deviated so I was lucky.
He later gave up chess for backgammon, at which he could make a ton
of money
because in the 70s nobody knew how to play the game, but many
thought they
did.
Never study any backgammon book written before 1980.
Switching chess for backgammon? I mean, what's the point? You have two
dice, and as far as I can tell it is just about probability and
counting.
Granted, I'm no backgammon master, but it seems to me that game is
exhausted pretty quick.
being a faster game means you have the potential for more wins :)
Makes excellent sense! Is there a culture somewhere of playing chess for money (apart from modern tournaments that is)? Or has it always been too much of a gentlemans game?
I have heard that in bridge, originally, it was frowned upon to play for money.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:08:26 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
I love speed chess but could never get used to playing it on a server.
Somehow when it's just me and the monitor my attention doesn't hold
well...
The same man who will lose $50 against you at chess before giving up
will lose $500 at backgammon, convinced that only the dice are making
him lose.-a And he'll come back the next day.
William Hyde wrote:
The same man who will lose $50 against you at chess before giving up
will lose $500 at backgammon, convinced that only the dice are making
him lose.-a And he'll come back the next day.
You're a technician.-a I've seen people lose $50 a game five games in a
row but by that time everybody is getting up to go out.-a He wants to
keep playing but there's more to life than chess.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:08:26 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...I have exactly the same feeling.
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm
pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost
one or two games.
I love speed chess but could never get used to playing it on a server.
Somehow when it's just me and the monitor my attention doesn't hold
well...
Plus with my hand I could move a piece in a second or less. Not with a >mouse.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:47:19 -0400, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 23:08:26 -0500, .../v]andrak|?...I have exactly the same feeling.
<jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the same thing about blitz chess (5 min per side). I would
just make a terrible blunder about 3 minutes in. Then I found out I'm >>>> pretty darn good at 10 min speed chess. On lichess.org I've only lost >>>> one or two games.
I love speed chess but could never get used to playing it on a server.
Somehow when it's just me and the monitor my attention doesn't hold
well...
Plus with my hand I could move a piece in a second or less. Not with a
mouse.
Would probably work fairly well with a touchscreen (iPad or
equivalent). Not that I know any regular chess player (e.g. someone
you and I would consider a 'real chessplayer') who plays on a tablet.
Makes excellent sense! Is there a culture somewhere of playing chess for
money (apart from modern tournaments that is)? Or has it always been too
much of a gentlemans game?
Chess has always been played for money. Emanuel Lasker and his brother got their start at the Cafe Kaiserhof in Berlin, playing for the cash they needed
for tuition and food. Their income was limited for a while as between them they only had one pair of trousers respectable enough for the cafe.
Chess propositions were common hundreds of years ago. People would create chess positions, study them thoroughly, then offer to play anybody for money,
taking either side. I don't think this is common any longer, but bets on backgammon propositions are. A friend made a nice pile of money after getting 9-1 odds on a prop which he had deduced to be somewhat under 8-1.
The best games to play for money are those in which skill is less obvious. The more obvious skill is, the quicker people stop playing you.
The same man who will lose $50 against you at chess before giving up will lose $500 at backgammon, convinced that only the dice are making him lose. And he'll come back the next day.
A friend fondly recalls one "Jack the Armenian" who was good for a thousand dollars an hour at backgammon. He went away for a year and studied and was only good for $600 an hour. Then his wife intervened and he was never seen again.
Poker, of course, is better yet. My friends who were making a decent living at backgammon made far more when casinos opened up hereabouts. One is in fact
rich now.
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it look like your wins were accidental. But that's not easy and eventually the mark catches on.
I have heard that in bridge, originally, it was frowned upon to play for
money.
Bridge originates with whist, which was always a money game.
William Hyde
Fascinating, thank you for sharing! You are a fountain of chess history.
You should write a book. I would buy it!
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it
look like your wins were accidental. But that's not easy and eventually
the
mark catches on.
I watched a youtube series about a guy who learned to become a
professional black jack player. It seems very boring, but at the same
time, it was
fascinating to see all the tricks, disguising, suboptimal playing etc.
they utilized to trick the casinos.
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 10:02:16 +0000, D wrote:
Fascinating, thank you for sharing! You are a fountain of chess history.
You should write a book. I would buy it!
Or just write it chapter by chapter and post it here !
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it
look like your wins were accidental. But that's not easy and eventually >>> the
mark catches on.
I watched a youtube series about a guy who learned to become a
professional black jack player. It seems very boring, but at the same
time, it was
fascinating to see all the tricks, disguising, suboptimal playing etc.
they utilized to trick the casinos.
True story: I was once asked to leave a casino as I was doing well at
the Blackjack table. And I wasn't even cheating. I had a reasonably good memory at the time and was getting a bit of luck too. After giving me
some free drinks they basically said would you mind taking your business elsewhere. They also gave me two decks of their house cards - that had
been cancelled - as a souvenir. I don't know how professional Blackjack players that ARE counting cards get away with it for any length of time
as the casinos don't like to see anyone win and not give it all back to
them thirty minutes later, as is usually the case when you get lucky.
On Sat, 5 Apr 2025, Silver Skull wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 10:02:16 +0000, D wrote:
Fascinating, thank you for sharing! You are a fountain of chess history. >>> You should write a book. I would buy it!
Or just write it chapter by chapter and post it here !
This is the truth!
To make maximum cash at chess you should throw a few games, and make it >>>> look like your wins were accidental.-a But that's not easy and
eventually
the
mark catches on.
I watched a youtube series about a guy who learned to become a
professional black jack player. It seems very boring, but at the same
time, it was
fascinating to see all the tricks, disguising, suboptimal playing etc.
they utilized to trick the casinos.
True story: I was once asked to leave a casino as I was doing well at
the Blackjack table. And I wasn't even cheating. I had a reasonably good
memory at the time and was getting a bit of luck too. After giving me
some free drinks they basically said would you mind taking your business
elsewhere. They also gave me two decks of their house cards - that had
This is sad, but the rules of the game. I only play poker on the very
few instances that I have visited Las Vegas. 3 or 4 times I think in
total. I think I'm break even counting all trips.
been cancelled - as a souvenir. I don't know how professional Blackjack
players that ARE counting cards get away with it for any length of time
as the casinos don't like to see anyone win and not give it all back to
them thirty minutes later, as is usually the case when you get lucky.
According to that documentary they use disguises, they rotate through several different casinos, they play as teams. Those are some of the strategies I remember from the documentary. On a meta-level, they charge
for teaching others how to play, they bankroll teams, taking a
percentage, or they coach teams.
However, I'm of the mind that given enough time to figure out what's going to
be a high hand, I'm good enough to win even if they cheat. I've read books, etc., played often, and fleeced my grandma at nickel point Buck Euchre before
she passed away.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:57:55 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,321 |