Chess Forum
[ mod this thread ] << - < - > - >>
| From | Message |
| wschmidt 1/19/2006 19:45:37 [ report this post ] |
 Subject: Novice Nook discussion forumMessage: I�ve often thought that I would benefit from systematically reading them straight through, like short chapters in a book. I�ve decided to start from the beginning of his columns and read one a week, starting this weekend (January 21-22, 2006). I�ve started this thread to invite folks who would like to join me to read along. We�ll use it as a very informal forum for discussing the articles. If it takes off, that�s great. If not, well then it wasn�t meant to be. You can find the articles at www.chesscafe.com. Look for the Archives link and scroll down to Novice Nook. The first article, introducing the series, is from February, 2001, called �Helping You Through the Jungle�. I hope some of you�ll will join me! Walter |
| thunker 1/19/2006 21:07:42 [ report this post ] | Simple comments.... Message: I like the way/style he writes. Everybody has his or her favorite/preferred way of learning/playing chess I suppose. However, my teacher has always abhorred fast chess - he calls it speed chess, blitz, whatever. He has even gone so far to state that it can harm one's chess playing ability! To him, it's either OTB or correspondence. And one is completely different than the other. If you want really GOOD chess - then play CC! Which is what we do here at GK for the most part. Heisman�s piece "evaluation" is interesting. As he pointed however, position can greatly affect simple "piece" evaluation in my humble opinion. I mean a connected pawn-pair on the 7th rank... Watch out. His big deal about "points" is simply semantics. Everyone knows we amateurs use the term "point" and "pawn" interchangeably regarding a board evaluation.... I sure appreciated Kaufman's approach of simply crunching the database numbers to "calculate" an average piece evaluation. Such information is really good as long as the people using it realize just where it comes from and doesn't try to just do "basic counting" in a chess position. Counting pieces without position can prove to be quite fatal! Statistical analysis and tools can be great a great blessing or curse - depending upon how you use them and upon how you interpret the results.... :-) I also appreciated his comments regarding post-game analysis with his chess engine, and how he played "his move" to develop his piece (rook) rather than what the engine showed was "better" after the fact. This reinforces what my teacher has repeatedly shown me regarding chess engines - they just can't "see" the whole scope of the game. They can do really well, but there are still ways to "thwart" them in certain type positions. I don't know how many games I've played him over the past 35 years, but I've *never* won a single game with him. And many of those more recent games he *asked* me to use a chess engine against him! I have *one* draw! But that hardly counts as he was recovering from a major heart attack and was not at his best level... |
| yanm 1/19/2006 23:18:56 [ report this post ] | direct link to Heisman's column Message: |
| ruzina 1/20/2006 00:27:54 [ report this post ] | Nice idea Message: |
| deejie 1/20/2006 00:35:46 [ report this post ] | Accessible & Helpful Message: Great idea, Walter - a read/discussion of Dan Heisman�s Novice Nook. Have to admit to reading ahead already! These articles begin with a fairly general overview of necessary approach and attitude towards chess. If nothing else, they present reassurance to the avid player that thier work is correctly focussed and progress, although often imperceptible, is taking place. Heisman's writing seems somehow fresh to me, despite familiarity with most of the topics covered. He's already successfully inspired me to adjust my approach to lost game analysis. I look forward to further responses to the articles & would personally benefit from comments by stronger players. Regards Daniel |
| alice02 1/20/2006 02:09:04 [ report this post ] | Kaufman points Message: |
| ras11 1/20/2006 10:08:10 [ report this post ] | Kaufman Values Message: I am finding it tough to understand the point of calculating the Kaufman values rather than using Reinfeld values. I understand the theory, and the fact that statistically Bishops & Knights are worth more than 3 pawns. But for players at my level, and even well above, does it really matter that much? I can see how in the heat of battle over the world championship it may make or break the game, but in reality, I cant see myself pulling out my calculator every time I contemplate an exchange. I guess my question is then, is it still OK to do it the Reinfeld way? Thanks |
| mattdw 1/20/2006 13:44:27 [ report this post ] | Message: I think I'd personally rearrange all the values to be whole numbers with a pawn worth 4, a Bishop/Knight worth 13, a Rook worth 20 and the Queen worth 39 to allow for quicker calculation. I understand that many people will think I mad for doing that! but at the end of the day, they are just numerical values. I'll give my full opinion on the rest of the article later, I'm a bit bogged down with work at the minute. |
| ionadowman 1/20/2006 23:19:28 [ report this post ] | I had a look at the Novice Nook... Message: Cheers, Ion |
| deejie 1/20/2006 23:48:35 [ report this post ] | Kaufman values Message: we need to evaluate the force advantage (or occasionally disadvantage) with consideration to such elements as development, mobility, the state of the centre of the board and the location & safety of our opponent's king. Personally, I appreciate the academic, perhaps scientific, approach to such subjects but have found tools like Fritz's analysis to 100th of a pawn a little like overkill. Then again, I'm floundering around the high 1400s for ever ;) Daniel deejie |
| ionadowman 1/21/2006 01:48:18 [ report this post ] | Piece values... Message: |
| happinessisawarmgun 1/21/2006 03:23:10 [ report this post ] | IMHO... Message: Personally speaking I have found that my play is at its best when my brain is switched on tactically and my biggest improvement has come from doing puzzles etc . Between now and the discussion on the next column I will be memorizing 100 or so 'removing the guard ' puzzles as Mr. Heisman suggests |
| ccmcacollister 1/21/2006 03:28:32 [ report this post ] | I find it ... Message: *** But in a program, not only Pieces but formations and positional factors would need to be numerically expressed as well. I imagine that there are now those player-programmers who could really shed some light upon the value of various features, if inclined to. *** I've used 'the numbers' sometimes as an estimation in some gambits that I've played. And came to believe that a pawn is worth about 2.5 tempii in an opening. What's a 1/2 tempo?! Well that would mean that just getting two tempii in not enough, but getting 3 should more than compensate for the pawn. In most decent gambits, you will get 2 tempii for your pawn. (Also important to consider, are they Developing Tempii? or Significant Tempii) And then you start looking around at other positional/dynamic factors to try to find the remaining 1/2 to full tempo of compensation. EG. A half-open file invariably accompanies a pawn gambit, and makes part of the tempo value needed. So you look to see how significant that file is. And usually ends up worth 1/4 to 2/3 tempo, perhaps, as an estimation. Bishop has a great diagonal? Add that in! A permanent weakness in the defenders camp? That can yield BIG fractions or more!! (Like in a Goring Gambit where BL has played ...c5 to try to hold his d4 pawn, making that Huge hole on d5 ... puts the Goring WELL OVER the 2.5 mark for compensation!) **** But that's all approximations to me, as I play. And seems pretty finickity for a human player. Yet it could go much more detailed, and must, if we wanted to play the game in a truly mathmatically calculated manner. Like if we each have a 1/2 open file, generally the one is better that: 1.Has a significant target, or 2.infiltration potential, 3.more central file 4.is closer to the king's than the others guys file. 5.has the greater distance between rook and target. All of which can go out the window if one file should happen to be an h-file that is mating the other king ... I've seen the Bishop pair valued as worth an extra 1/2 pawn together ... in certain positions anyway. A Knight equalling a Rook in value. The Soviet School is apparently quite adept at teaching hit matter of when to sac The Exchange with advantage to the minor piece. The games of Tal, in particular show a keen insight in this regard. All the different ways of valuation end up being approximations to us as humans. Few can/will or would calculate up all of this, even if possessed of an unerringly accurate system of values. (Of course computers dont mind doing it :) Fortunately we have our intuition, judgement and experience to guide us instead of rote formula. But adding in a little bit of System seems fine to me, if it provides any bit more of insight, or simply confidence in your own play is a gain worth having. And might be attained this way. If so, great. Like having a bad plan is better than no plan; it has been said. Sometimes being wrongly confident can be better than being correctly terrified to move! }8-)) *** I found the "clumps" thread, that came to the forum in this last month, to be very interesting. Pertaining to the valuations used by Corr Chess WC Berliner (and Chess programmer as well) , you might want to see that one as well. Regards, Craig |
| cascadejames 1/21/2006 09:47:55 [ report this post ] | Good idea Walter! Message: case nearly 40 years. The first article is good. Instinctively I always knew that the Reinfeld points were an oversimplification, but had not seen such a quantitative analysis. I would add that for me, the advantage of two Bishops over a Knight and Bishop seems more than 1/2 a pawn. Unless the position is very cramped, the higher mobility of the Bishops seems very powerful, particularly because with two bishops it is possible to switch from an attack on one side, to an attack or defense on the other more quickly. James |
| wschmidt 1/21/2006 11:34:17 [ report this post ] | Wow! Message: * I'd like to suggest some very general guidelines for this discussion to keep it orderly. * (1) For consistency, let's start our discussion of the new weekly article on Friday of each week. That way everyone will have full weekend to look it over and weigh in if they wish. * (2) If the thread is closed because of the 50 message limit and you want to post, start a new thread with a title like "Novice Nook #2" or something clearly indicating continuity. * (3) As we progress, we'll probably be referring to past and future columns; let's refer to them by the month and year they were published, rather than by "#13" or "week 7". * Again, thanks to all! It's great to see so many folks getting into this idea! Walter |
| wschmidt 1/21/2006 11:41:48 [ report this post ] | Mattdw. Message: |
| thunker 1/21/2006 12:39:18 [ report this post ] | Craig Message: I, too, didn't quite follow the "dividing 1.75 by 3.75" issue that Alice02 mentioned. To me, using Heisman's values (I still prefer Berliner's though) trading the minor piece for a rook and I would be simply 5 - 3.25 = 1.75 *points* (haha) to the better. Of course, this doesn't take into account the board position.... Doug |
| mattdw 1/21/2006 14:06:27 [ report this post ] | Message: worth 1� divided by 3� or about half a piece, not 2/3 of a piece." If we consider an exchange of a knight for a rook under the Reinfeld system, in terms of pawns we get: 5 - 3 = 2 ...giving us the advantage of 2 pawns. Now if divide that number by the value of a knight or bishop we can work out how much that is worth relative to a minor piece: (2 � 3 = 2/3) ...so we get that our 2 pawn advantage is worth 2/3 of a piece (either knight or bishop). So in the exchange of a minor piece for a rook under the Reinfeld system we are up the exchange by 2/3rds of a minor piece. Now if we do the same for the Kaufman values. Firstly find the advantage in pawns after an exchange of a minor piece for a rook: 5 - 3� = 1� or in decimals... 5 - 3.25 = 1.75 Now if we calculate how much this advantage is worth in terms of a minor piece: 1� � 3� = 7/13 or in decimals... 1.75 � 3.25 = 0.54.. As we can see from the final answer, an exchange of either a knight or bishop for a rook leaves us up the exchange by about half a minor peice (0.54.. or 7/13). The reason why this is less under the Kaufman system is because the minor pieces are valued slightly higher than under the Reinfeld system. I hope this clarifies it a bit, if any of that is still not clear then please ask. Alternately I apologise if any of it is too simple! Matt |
| thunker 1/21/2006 14:22:08 [ report this post ] | Oh! I see! Message: Still though, I tend to think in raw "advantage" rather than the ratio to a minor piece. Guess it's all in how one prefers to think..... |
| wschmidt 1/21/2006 14:49:26 [ report this post ] | A couple of thoughts.... Message: * One of the items that has been just barely mentioned in the thread is the paragraph about tactics towards the end of the article. I�m not familiar with the book that he�s recommending. I do know, however, that tactics underlies everything on the chessboard and if you haven�t worked your way through some form of introduction to tactics and elementary checkmates, - a book, software or website - your progress will be limited. * I speak as one who spent a lot of time reading stuff like �How to Think Like a Grandmaster� or �How to Reassess Your Chess� while still missing elementary combinations on the board. I�m now a big believer in starting simple and doing a lot of reviewing of those simple things before moving on to more advanced stuff. While positional considerations become increasingly important as one�s level of play improves, tactical considerations always lie beneath the surface. Accordingly, if you're a beginner or intermediate player who hasn't methodically worked through a book, a website, or a software program on tactics and elementary mates, that is definitely the next thing you should be doing. |
| wschmidt 1/21/2006 22:12:46 [ report this post ] | Synchronicity? Serendipity? Message: " The first authority to claim scientific analysis of pice values appears to have ben Howard Staunton, the nineteenth-century Englishman who was unofficial world champion before 1850. Staunton wrote a hugely popular book, 'Chess Players Handbook', and in it he said the true numerical worth of the pieces could be worked out to two(!) decimal places: * Pawn:1.00 Knight: 3.05 Bishop: 3.50 Rook: 5.48 Queen: 9.94" * Soltis then says that Staunton was, in fact, cribbing from an 1817 (!) edition of a book ascribed to the long-dead Philidor, but probably written by one William Lewis a leading chess author of the day. Soltis. writing in 1991, goes on to discuss a couple of other approaches to valuing the pieces, and then says, "One approach that hasn't been tried yet is to load up a high-speed computer with master games. There's plenty of raw data, since there are so many games these days." Voila, 15 years years later, we have the Kaufman values, remarkably close to Staunton/Lewis in several respects. Draw your own conclusions. Soltis also notes that Siegbert Tarrasch, another early great, discussed piece values in his book, "The Game of Chess" and then went on to say, "The estimates I gave are completely false for most advanced players." |
| alice02 1/22/2006 01:55:06 [ report this post ] | My Rule (LOL) Message: |
| ketchuplover 1/23/2006 07:01:16 [ report this post ] | Message: |
| yanm 1/23/2006 07:56:01 [ report this post ] | its the last one Message: |
| ketchuplover 1/23/2006 09:50:29 [ report this post ] | Message: |
| yanm 1/23/2006 23:17:27 [ report this post ] | I second alice02 on piece's values Message: On the other hand, the Kaufman's system seems needlessly precise to me: not only are the piece values tightly connected to the position, but they are also dependant on one's playing style! My two cents, --Yannick |
| alice02 1/26/2006 06:38:40 [ report this post ] | http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman02.pdf Message: With respect to point 5. Do chess engines, when they spot a combination that was missed, now also identify a pattern of error over a number of missed combinations? |
| wschmidt 1/27/2006 08:56:07 [ report this post ] | OK, folks, it's Friday, Message: I'll start by answering the question Alice02 raised - no, you have to discern for yourself from the chess engine analysis what sort of pattern of errors you have. If, over several games you see you are continually missing a certain type of pattern, then it's helpful to put in some time practicing those. I'll also mention that those three diagrams at the end of the article are worth spending some time on. Last year I won an endgame in an OTB tournament because I was familiar the first diagram - the Reti problem. The set-up wasn't the same, but the principle was - there were two places where my king could head for to be effective. Using the diagonal move instead of a file or rank move got me closer to both and, when my opponent commited in one area, I headed to the other. My opponent was clearly shocked when he realized what had happened. I can't tell you how satisfying it felt! I'll have a few other comments on the text of this week's article this weekend, but I'm at work and can't take any more time for now. ws |
| ras11 1/27/2006 15:13:20 [ report this post ] | Heisman 2 Message: I have not analyzed past games though with a cpu program, and I think I may start doing that so I can try to identify where my lost games eventually went South. I think the problem with that is, the last time I tried to use Chessmaster for analyzing, it didn't like any of my moves. LOL. |
| ruzina 1/29/2006 02:22:45 [ report this post ] | Heisman 2 Message: This �ability to tolerate losing just right� is a good advice. One of the most important things I learned about chess was when I was not angry anymore after losing a game. I still see these people who throw pieces to floor or start cursing when they lose a game, even if it was their own blunder. This happens usually in blitz-games at my chessclub and it�s almost always happening in lower groups. The players in A-group have already learned how to take a loss. Identifying weaknesses is something I have never tried, maybe because like ras11 said, it is so hard to do without a trainer. |
| ionadowman 1/29/2006 19:10:04 [ report this post ] | Recognizing tactical motifs... Message: It must be said, though, that this intuitive feel can come only from experience (which means practice!) and is the first thing to go if you stop playing for any length of time (as Adolf Anderssen found out against Morphy!). A pity. |
| mattdw 1/30/2006 08:55:28 [ report this post ] | Message: Concerning the seven points which he says are important for an improvment in playing strength, I am in the process of addressing no.1 , but I have so many weakness' at this stage that pretty much anything would be benificial! wschmidt pointed me in the direction of tactical work and endgame study and it has been highly benificial and most of all enjoyable (which Dan also says is important). no.2 - I have actually made a list of things that I need to remember to consider with every move which, as I have got used to using, has helped my significantly reduce gross blunders & to stop tactical opportunities. I will need to refine this over time as my style changes and I learn new things. Does anyone else done this? If so, care to share any thoughts on the matter? I think 3/4/5 are all taken care of at the moment. I think I'm ok with no.6 at the moment, but number seven might be my most problematic area but that is just because I am naturally competitive and ambitious. I've been working on trying to detach myself from my rating and to let my playing strength be the only factor involved in my performance, but it's proving quite difficult so far! I bought a folder today, made notes on the first and second articles and then filed them. I plan on reviewing the basic points of each article before moving on to the next one every week. Hopefully this will really fix the messages in my memory. |
| happinessisawarmgun 1/30/2006 12:26:39 [ report this post ] | tactics... Message: |
| wschmidt 1/30/2006 19:29:06 [ report this post ] | my two bits on the second article... Message: * First, I made a note in the margin next to "2. Learn a competent thinking method." The note was, "Something very possible in GK chess." One thing about correspondence chess, you don't have to move the first time you look at the board. Whatever method you come up with, whether you write it down and check yourself everytime to make you've completed the list, or have three step mental process, etc., etc., it's doable in a way that isn't possible in OTB play. When the clock is literally ticking next to you and people are standing around and you had to get up at 6 in the morning and drive across two counties to get to the tournament - you can easily slip up and not use that method that you so carefully worked out. But in correspondence, you not only get to practice the method slowly and carefully, you'll regularly take points from folks who don't! (And the habits practiced while playing on GK will carry over into OTB play.) Second, I made a note next to "4. Practice and play as much as you can." And the note was "doesn't mean lots of GK games - but as many as possible fully using the thinking method and having fun." This is gonna mean different things to different people. Right now, for me, factoring in my work, chess study, personal life, etc., that means a handful of non-rated games and 2-4 rated games at a time. And those rated games can get several looks in 3 days before I make a move. I know some of the highest rated players on GK spend hours on a position. Doing that is not fun for me, but neither is moving like I'm playing blitz and lsoing because of blunders. Finally, in another little bit of synchronicity, I read the bit about "6. Tactics flow from imbalances...." not long after looking over a line in a opening book for White that concluded with a discussion of whether a recapture should be made with a center pawn or a piece in a particular position. Taking with the piece would have left the pawns lined up 4 and 3 against 4 and 3. Everything else being equal, the author suggested taking with the pawn, leaving 4 vs 3 and 3 vs 4 - the reason, of course, was the imbalance created. Otherwise the position would be drawish. We all find our own way.....ws |
| ionadowman 1/31/2006 01:32:39 [ report this post ] | Sometimes... Message: By the way, one ought not cease to be on the alert for tactical possibilities even in quite simple endgames. Remember the 'eternal vigilance' gag. Against one opponent a win and a draw became a draw and a loss owing forgetting this ... twice. :-( :-( Ion |
| wschmidt 2/03/2006 07:03:55 [ report this post ] | It's Friday, Message: -> www.chesscafe.com. |
| yanm 2/03/2006 09:06:02 [ report this post ] | Hesiman 3 Message: My two cents, --Yannick |
| ionadowman 2/03/2006 11:24:22 [ report this post ] | A fine article... Message: Cheers, Ion |
| ruzina 2/03/2006 12:42:12 [ report this post ] | Heisman 3 Message: |
| alice02 2/04/2006 05:15:15 [ report this post ] | 2ND LAST EXERCISE Message: Couldn't some of the pawns keep the king busy while one of them gets to 8? |
| alice02 2/04/2006 05:33:02 [ report this post ] | on screen miniature chessboard Message: I thought CT ART had one but I tried experimenting with ionadowman's moves and it wouldnt allow that. I had to play against crafty and also I couldnt get GK and CT ART to stay on the screen at the same time. |
| mattdw 2/04/2006 07:10:18 [ report this post ] | Message: As for a minature chess board, I just open one of my games from GK and reset an analysis board! It wont stay at the front if you start using the forum but I haven't found a way to get one to stay at the front regardless of what other windows I'm using. |
| alice02 2/04/2006 09:13:23 [ report this post ] | Now I know Message: |
| mattdw 2/04/2006 16:35:31 [ report this post ] | Message: |
| alice02 2/04/2006 20:32:09 [ report this post ] | THANKS mattdw Message: And the advice about using analyse the board is very helpful. But I don't know what that situation is called. I know it is not called a pin or a fork. Can soemone please tel me if there is a specific name for it- apart from clever:) |
| wschmidt 2/05/2006 20:32:01 [ report this post ] | I have a question for the readers of this thread, Message: "i'M WONDERING WHETHER EACH WEEK SHOULD START A NEW THREAD WITH THE DATE AND SOMETHING LIKE 'this weks discussion of the next Heisman article dated ****". Many people skim read and would have missed that it was a continuous thread. Some may not realise the next aticle is up for discussion." What do you folks think of this? Shall we start doing a new thread each week?ws |
| cascadejames 2/05/2006 22:01:10 [ report this post ] | Yes for new threads Message: Good idea. And thanks again for organizing this project. I am finding it very helpful already. |
| alberlie 2/06/2006 12:00:07 [ report this post ] | One thing... Message: For, in this case he's mixing the "play it safe and immobilize your opponent" - theme with the "deliver mate quick" theme. If I want to really Go To Sleep in that particular endgame, I'd surely play Bc3 protecting my own pawn and then follow up with Ke5, Kxd5, xc4, xb3, xa2. Then go back and queen the pawn. At least that's the way I'd play if I had only 20 sec. on the clock and wouldn't want to spoil it. |
Post a reply to this message: |
