PDA

View Full Version : is it safe?


ifearviruses
24th April 2009, 05:25 PM
Ok, so let me explain. I am a huge fan of Harvest Moon 64. I want to use an emulator, but I just got my new computer after losing my old one to a cataclysm of viruses and worms acquired through letting inebriated friends use my computer (I learned my lesson). So here is my question to you: has anyone had a problem with viruses using P64 and does anyone know where I can safely download the ROM?

CA5
24th April 2009, 07:15 PM
Project 64, the emulator itself, is fine. As long as you download it from the official site, you're not going to get any viruses.

As for the roms, well, as long as you d/l 'em from the right sites, you won't get viruses. Google is your friend ;)

ifearviruses
24th April 2009, 07:48 PM
Do you have any well trusted sites you use? I guess I'm more concerned about the ROM than anything else.

Mdkcheatz
25th April 2009, 01:21 AM
This Applies to EVERYONE!

For reasons of "facilitating help with illegal activities," links to roms cannot be distributed in PJ64 Forums. Please search Google or look elsewhere to answer your question.

Have a nice day.:)

magmarock64
25th April 2009, 08:06 AM
So sorry didn't mean to brake the rules!!! it wont happen again!!!

CA5
25th April 2009, 08:08 AM
So sorry didn't mean to brake the rules!!! it wont happen again!!!

Fear not, Mdkcheatz's just a mod-wannabe. We all know you were trying to help :)

HatCat
26th April 2009, 07:13 PM
For reasons of "facilitating help with illegal activities"...

What the hell does that even mean anyway?

squall_leonhart
27th April 2009, 01:27 PM
it means you're English capability is lacking.

Mdkcheatz
27th April 2009, 01:43 PM
So sorry didn't mean to brake the rules!!! it wont happen again!!!

It's okay really, It's just that people should understand the reasoning not posting links to roms. But you were sincere so you get a slide :P

What the hell does that even mean anyway?

It means exactly as I wrote it. Pretty self explanatory. I wouldn't expect someone of your intellectual comprehensive ability to be questioning it's meaning.

But fyi if you must be explained it to a greater depth you can msn me and I'd be happy to explain it for you :D

CA5
27th April 2009, 01:45 PM
It's okay really, It's just that people should understand the reasoning not posting links to roms. But you were sincere so you get a slide :P



It means exactly as I wrote it. Pretty self explanatory. I wouldn't expect someone of your intellectual comprehensive ability to be questioning it's meaning.

But fyi if you must be explained it to a greater depth you can msn me and I'd be happy to explain it for you :D

I think you've missed the point. At least, perhaps. I think RJ intended it to be a sarcastic-jokey-type-thing as oppose to actual question. Of course, he may not have, but still.

Mdkcheatz
27th April 2009, 01:53 PM
I think you've missed the point. At least, perhaps. I think RJ intended it to be a sarcastic-jokey-type-thing as oppose to actual question. Of course, he may not have, but still.

I'm sure he was too :P

And I worded it just right so that maybe I am too, or if he happens to be serious, then what I say holds true as well :)

CA5
27th April 2009, 01:55 PM
I'm sure he was too :P

And I worded it just right so that maybe I am too, or if he happens to be serious, then what I say holds true as well :)

:p It's hard to distinguish that jibberish from your usual displays of bad grammar.

Mdkcheatz
27th April 2009, 02:01 PM
:p It's hard to distinguish that jibberish from your usual displays of bad grammar.

grammar and wording are two different things, but serious matters call for more attention in how I phrase things... but honestly my grammar and spelling mistakes are due to laziness rather than a portrayal of my English skills..

CA5
27th April 2009, 02:07 PM
grammar and wording are two different things, but serious matters call for more attention in how I phrase things... but honestly my grammar and spelling mistakes are due to laziness rather than a portrayal of my English skills..

Aye, and I'm sure the lowercase beginning just shows that you're not fussed, eh? 'cos our little tete-a-tete over MSN lets us all know that you're above such petty discussions ;)

Mdkcheatz
27th April 2009, 08:15 PM
Aye, and I'm sure the lowercase beginning just shows that you're not fussed, eh? 'cos our little tete-a-tete over MSN lets us all know that you're above such petty discussions ;)

Hole in one :)

HatCat
28th April 2009, 12:42 AM
it means you're English capability is lacking.
No that'd mean he was innocent when he wrote that.

and yea basically he said concerning the illegal activities involved, incomplete phrasing, don't link to games, which kinda leaves us to take he meant to encourage that kinda stuff right? :O

Mdkcheatz
28th April 2009, 12:47 AM
No that'd mean he was innocent when he wrote that.

Yes he was, but innocent or not, if you go and steal something buy "accident" (like slippin it in your pocket without thinking) they wont let you slide by because you are innocent... They are likely to pull you off to the side and assess the situation and tell you not to do it again. I never said magmarock64 wasn't innocent, but he was sincere about it and now realises that it isn't accepted and why... So he's off the hook as far every everyone is concerned :P

HatCat
28th April 2009, 03:02 AM
Chess Titans as White, lvl. 10
1.c4 g6 2.d4 c5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.dxc5 O-O 6.e4 Na6 7.e5 Ne8 8.Be3 Qa5 9.Qa4 Qxa4 10.Nxa4 Nb4 11.Kd1 Nc6 12.Bf4 Nd8 13.Kc1 Ne6 14.Be3 N8c7 15.Nc3 Na6 16.Nd5 Re8 17.b4 Nb8 18.Bd2 a5 19.bxa5 Nc6 20.Nb6 Ra6 21.Nxc8 Rxc8 22.Be2 Nxe5 23.Nxe5 Bxe5 24.Rb1 Nxc5 25.f4 Bc7 26.g3 Bxa5 27.Be3 Bb6 28.Kd1 Na4 29.Bd2 Be3 30.Bxe3 Nc3+ 31.Kd2 Nxb1+ 32.Rxb1 Rxa2+ 33.Kd1 Rca8 34.Rxb7 Ra1+ 35.Kd2 R8a2+ 36.Kd3 Ra3+ 37.Kd4 R1a2 38.Rb8+ Kg7 39.Bc1 Ra6 40.Bb2 Rd6+ 41.Ke4+ f6 42.Bd3 Re6+ 43.Kf3 Re1 44.Kf2 Rh1 45.Kg2 Rd1 46.Be2 Rd2 47.Kf1 Raxb2 48.Rxb2 Rxb2 49.h4 Kf7 50.h5 Ke6 51.hxg6 hxg6 52.Bg4+ Kd6 53.Bf3 Kc5 54.Be4 f5 55.Bd3 Kd4 56.Be2 Rxe2 57.Kxe2 Kxc4 58.g4 Kc3 59.g5 d5 60.Ke3 d4+ 61.Ke2 Kc2

Tell you what, tonight I lose on time, but I have the game saved for later.
Summary: Every pawn move creates a permanent weakness. This is one of the more magical games I've ever played.

Topken
28th April 2009, 06:50 AM
i would assume your talking bout virtual chess for n64 there rswedlow

Mdkcheatz
28th April 2009, 02:55 PM
Tell you what, tonight I lose on time, but I have the game saved for later.
Summary: Every pawn move creates a permanent weakness. This is one of the more magical games I've ever played.

This is true, you can use any word I say against me if you knew how :P

Knowing you, you'll think of something clever...

i would assume your talking bout virtual chess for n64 there rswedlow

Not sure if he was, but rswedlow is a master of chess in general. (although he did play virtual chess 64 a lot from what i here)

CA5
28th April 2009, 05:33 PM
Yes he was, but innocent or not, if you go and steal something buy "accident" (like slippin it in your pocket without thinking) they wont let you slide by because you are innocent... They are likely to pull you off to the side and assess the situation and tell you not to do it again. I never said magmarock64 wasn't innocent, but he was sincere about it and now realises that it isn't accepted and why... So he's off the hook as far every everyone is concerned :P

So, pmming people concerning roms and where to find them was either deliberate, making you guilty... or accidental and you're going to apologise, right :S

HatCat
29th April 2009, 03:04 AM
Not to mention, 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Nb8 3.e4 e5 4.Be3 d6 5.Nc3 f5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.Bd3 cxd5 8.exf5 d4 9.Qh5+ Kd7 10.Qf7+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Bxe7 12.f6 gxf6 13.Bf5+ Kd8 14.Bxc8 Kxc8 15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Nce2 Nc6 17.O-O-O Nh6 18.Nxd4 Rg8 19.g3 Ng4 20.f4 Nf2 21.Ngf3 Nxd1 22.Rxd1 Kd7 23.Nf5 Rac8 24.Rd2 b5 25.N3d4 Nxd4 26.Nxd4 b4 27.a4 bxa3ep 28.bxa3 Rc7 29.Nb5 Rb7 30.Nc3 Rgb8 31.a4 f5 32.Rd5 Rc8 33.Nb5 a6 34.Nd4 Rbc7 35.Rxf5 Rc4 36.Nf3 Rxc2+ 37.Kd1 Rf2 38.Nd4 Rb8 39.Kc1 Rb4 40.Rd5 Rxa4 41.Nc2 Ra2 42.Rd2 Rxc2+ 43.Kxc2 Rxd2 44.Kxd2 a5 45.Kd3 a4 46.f5 a3 47.Kc3 d5 48.g4 d4+ 49.Kb3 d3 50.h3 d2 51.Kc2 a2 52.Kxd2 a1=Q 53.Kd3 Bf6 54.Ke3 Qd4+ 55.Kf3 Qd3+ 58.Kf2 Bh4+ 59.Kg2 Qe2+ 60.Kg1 Qf2+ 61.Kh1 Bg3 62.g5 Qf1#

and no not really

Mdkcheatz
29th April 2009, 06:17 AM
So, pmming people concerning roms and where to find them was either deliberate, making you guilty... or accidental and you're going to apologise, right :S

Not following you... please elaborate...:)

omegadox
29th April 2009, 12:35 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm, no need to PM people, check here for the best ROMs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4)

CA5
29th April 2009, 03:51 PM
Not following you... please elaborate...:)

Not following me? Or not wanting to follow me? Please elaborate :)

HatCat
30th April 2009, 12:50 AM
1.d4 Nc6 2.e4 e5 3.Nf3 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Qd3 Nf6 7.Nxc6 dxc6 8.e5 Ng4 9.Qd4 Qe7 10.f4 Bc5 11.Qa4 Nf2 12.Rg1 Ne4 13.Nd5 Qh4+ 14.g3 Bf2+ 15.Kd1 Bg4+ 16.Be2 Bxe2+ 17.Kxe2 Qg4+ 18.Kf1 Qd1+ 19.Kg2 Qxg1+ 20.Kf3 Qd1+ 21.Kxe4 Qxd5+ 22.Kf5 h5 23.Qb4 g6+ 24.Kf6 Qe6+ 25.Kg7 O-O-O 26.Qxb7+ Kxb7 27.Bd2 Rdg8#

I never had respect for the Scotch Game, simply trading off the most powerful of the eight pawns for Black's King's pawn on E5, which is destined to be by some means moved to a different file or sacrificed for major initiative attacks anyway. In addition, white foolishly moved the knight from the King's bishop's third square--the most critical element in the safety of your King and fundamental key behind flexible manouvering and love in chess--just reclaiming the pawn.

Material-based chess engines would continue after searching into deep Ply to find the guarantee in that White will reclaim the pawn play as such: 5.Nb5 Bb4+ 6.c3 Qxe4+ {more known is 6...Ba5, pessimistically assuming ...Qxe4 loses to Nd2} 7.Be3 Ba5 8.Nd2 Qg6! 9.Nc4 a6 10.Nd4 Nge7 11.Nxc6 Nxc6 12.b4 Nxb4 -+

The rival engine to Virtual Chess 64 JESTER, a Java chess engine that seems to have more contrasting disagreements with this one than any other combination in all three phases, has good play to demonstrate the "Pulling Counter-attack" once the opening book is removed. Opening books are just silly masks to hide the nature of the chess engine's real play, a symbol of failure to really try properly emulating chess.

i would assume your talking bout virtual chess for n64 there rswedlow

Someone besides me actually knows an N64 chess game exists? I'm impressed.
I was actually playing Chess Titans.

Ironically for some reason VC64 is the chess engine I have played the least. I did try out Virtual Kasparov for the GBA and that sorry game for the NES, but mostly of else I've played JESTER, Jchess, and Chess Titans for Windows Vista.

Over the course of 1700 years all of its lifespan has chess never had a master. It originated as a device of military tactics to respond to those who unwisely challenged kings.

Not following you... please elaborate...:)

Brandon, you're in college, solve this.
log base x of x = -1.0

Topken
30th April 2009, 12:56 AM
meh i was never any good at chess go figure. im not ot good at any of the board games to be honest with you.

HatCat
30th April 2009, 01:03 AM
A reason I talk minimally about myself as a researcher of chess in real life, is because people seem to enjoy bringing up the opportunity to mention "Go".

I so don't care. I don't play chess because I think it's better than Go, and I refuse to express pride for either.

I never yet learned to play Go because at a quick glance although it is a fascinating study for the capabilities of complex problem-solving by machines to emulate, it has by comparison virtually no sociological value or philosophical meaning to growing life. Also I'm shy, but that's a lesson for another time.

omegadox
30th April 2009, 01:31 AM
Hmm, my dad is interested in all that stuff chess, go, etc. He once got a real Go board, I think it was expensive, and yet, we have barley touched it. I myself, I like reversi.

HatCat
30th April 2009, 01:55 AM
I got my ass kicked at Reversi. I tried to learn how to play just by making experimental moves on software like I did chess and maybe play some human opponents, but even for those few times I won on beginner software levels I don't even remember how nasty I felt looking into that game. :( I don't remember a damn bit about how to play .... I learned how to play both in Sixth Grade 2002?.

In my past lifetime minus my dark beginning that year, I have played 0 serious games with another human player. 99.9% of my correspondence-level education on chess comes from playing a computer. The battle between human and machine intellect that would revolve about chess lasted only in their beginning days.

One reason I don't play humans, is because I actually do, just note for my quote those "serious games" over the board. I haven't found anyone who can beat me these years...except today's club owner, who has a terrible opening theory, but my high anxiety, pressure, and inexperience with timing imbalances can sometimes over-boost my confidence beyond my sorrowful style of playing and make a highly losing move. Generally I started out winning both games against the owner and several times threatened mate to his surprise--but cannot maintain myself always.
His opening theory sucks. All humans suck at the opening phase of chess, dang. Relaxed in my chair testing machines, no I'm not really that anxious.

Mdkcheatz
30th April 2009, 04:12 AM
Brandon, you're in college, solve this. log base x of x = -1.0

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp358/Mdkcheatz/logshit_rjballz.png

omegadox
30th April 2009, 04:34 AM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
X = LOLz

Mdkcheatz
30th April 2009, 04:48 AM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
X = LOLz

And LOLz = EmuCraze when it finally is mostly done....

Mdkcheatz
30th April 2009, 06:58 AM
So, pmming people concerning roms and where to find them was either deliberate, making you guilty... or accidental and you're going to apologise, right :S

Let's try this again :)

Basically I am a tad confused on your comment regarding private messages concerning queries on where to establish download sources for roms under the implication that I was a culprit?

Honestly, in regards to private messaging in general, no one has control over it nor is it available to the public. So what goes on tour stays on tour and does not really conjure any immediate threat to PJ64 Forums...:)

CA5
30th April 2009, 04:35 PM
Let's try this again :)

Basically I am a tad confused on your comment regarding private messages concerning queries on where to establish download sources for roms under the implication that I was a culprit?

Yeah, doesn't take much to confuse you, really.

Honestly, in regards to private messaging in general, no one has control over it nor is it available to the public. So what goes on tour stays on tour and does not really conjure any immediate threat to PJ64 Forums...:)

Sure it doesn't. Unless you're sharing download links with a 'snoop' who's only signed up to see if you would, similar to what has happened on other forums :)

HatCat
30th April 2009, 11:06 PM
x ~= .567
X = LOLz
LOLz = EmuCraze when it finally is ... done

Some skill with honesty I guess but I'd have to say nah.
Brandon if you want to try again, I'll give a hint: Find the real answer, and shove it up your ass.
None of those answers are compatible with that clue right? At least not yet

Yeah sorry if that was confusing how about...
Evaluate x when the logarithm of x whose base is x evaluates to -1. I doubt you have access to a calculator that can physically evaluate unatural bases.

Come on! I gave you like, a high school pre-algebra form of problem, and you couldn't even solve that. So I'm going easier. Dang stick to your game man.

Mdkcheatz
1st May 2009, 02:34 AM
Yeah sorry if that was confusing how about...
Evaluate x when the logarithm of x whose base is x evaluates to -1. I doubt you have access to a calculator that can physically evaluate unatural bases.

Come on! I gave you like, a high school pre-algebra form of problem, and you couldn't even solve that. So I'm going easier. Dang stick to your game man.

logarithms are not pre-algebra lol, more like college basic algebra, now don't try and degrade me with a false comparison :P

And hm, guess I calculated it wrong :S what is the answer?

omegadox
1st May 2009, 02:49 AM
Leave it to the TI

HatCat
1st May 2009, 03:03 AM
TI-83 to 84+ ain't going to help, nor is direct evaluation like a handheld calculator of any practical sort going to spit out both answers.

My bad I forgot about Virtual Chess there is a game once...

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.b3 Nc6 7.bxc4 b4 8.d4 a5 9.d5 Nb8 10.c5 Nd7 11.Bb5 Qc7 12.Qc2 Nf6 13.Qc4 g6 14.e4 Bg7 15.O-O Nxe4 16.Qxe4 f5 17.Qe6 Bxa1 18.Re1 Qd8 19.Bg5 Ra6 20.d6 Rxd6 21.cxd6 Be5 22.Nxe5 Rf8 23.dxe7 Rf6 24.Qf7+ Rxf7 25.exd8=Q#

I just today played against the Vista engine as white..

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Qb3 e6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.Ne5 Qc7 10.d4 Bd6 11.Nb5 Qe7 12.Nxd6+ Kf8 13.Ndxf7 Rg8 14.Bd2 Nc6 15.Rc1 Rg7 16.Rxc6 bxc6 17.Bb4 c5 18.Bxc5 Qxc5 19.dxc5 Re8 20.c6 Rxf7 21.Nxf7 Kxf7 22.Qb7+ Kg8 23.c7 Nd7 24.c8=R Rxc8 25.Qxc8+ Nf8 26.Kd2 g5 27.Rc1 g4 28.Qe8 d4 29.Rc8 Kh8 30.Qxf8#

Better opening play includes 2...d4 3.b4 a5 = or 2...e6 {3.d4?! dxc4 4.e4 c5 =} 3.e3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.d4 Be7 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Nc3 O-O =. Alternatives for White include 2.e3 c5 3.b3 Nc6 4.Bb2 Nf6 5.Bb5 a6 = and 2.g3.

logarithms are not pre-algebra lol, more like college basic algebra, now don't try and degrade me with a false comparison :P

And hm, guess I calculated it wrong :S what is the answer?

I know your image was crap, though, in case you were joking.

Logarithms aren't algebra period. In fact well technically, as far as measuring, algebra doesn't really exist, nor does arithmetic or Calculus, it's all language, just boils down to pure quantitatives and our human inability to interact with them without creating symbols and designing a whole language for it.

Judging by your wording, you obviously vaguely have heard of a logarithm. If you're going to guess, make that an answer lol.

You want another hint? This is fun lol. Seeing as you barely knew how to solve for a monomial function albeit harder in algebra, I'll make some add-on: what's an inverse?

Find x when its inverse is x itself.

CA5
1st May 2009, 06:54 PM
I know your image was crap, though, in case you were joking.

XD, that's so damn cruel, it's funny.

HatCat
2nd May 2009, 03:32 AM
XD, that's so damn cruel, it's funny.

Yep it very nice it reminds me of
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.e5 Qe7 7.O-O Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxe5 9.Re1 Bxc3 10.Rxe5+ Bxe5 11.Qe1 Ng4 12.d4 d5 13.Bd3 g5 14.h3 Be6 15.dxe5 Nh6 16.h4 Bf5 17.hxg5 Bxd3 18.cxd3 Nf5 19.Qa5 Ng3 20.Qxc7 Ne2+ 21.Kf2 Nxc1 22.Rxc1 O-O 23.Rh1 b6 24.g6 hxg6 25.Qd7 Rac8 26.Qh3 Rc2+ 27.Kf3 Rxb2 28.Qh7#
{4...Qh4+ 5.Kf1 threatens Ng1-f3-e5-f7 or Nf3, Bxf7+ Qxf7 Ne5 Qe7 Qh5+ if no knight is on F6. Statistics show better for White in these games, although it isn't that frequently played. After the Queen had moved White has the information to not waste time getting a rook on F1 all for domination by counter initiative.}
{6...Ng4 see game http://www.365chess.com/view_mygame.php?g=10523.}

The significantly more common variation of the King's Gambit is 2.Nf3. Long story short, there is the intermediate defense to this 2...d6, but the Allgaier "Gambit" is as solid as White gets. Some players say that computer chess has destroyed the King's Gambit.

I speak for myself, that I have disproven these concerns, except in continuations like 2...g5 3.h4 g4 4.Ne5? Qe7! or any of the gambits related to the Muzio Gambit / Double Muzio Gambit, which are entirely based on potential insights while well-justified ones, while the Fegatello Attack, is a strong net that is very controversial in its continuations and is not a gambit.
However there is still great underknowledge and presumption to the linear power in a chess engine.

Mdkcheatz
2nd May 2009, 05:45 AM
Yep it very nice it reminds me of
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.e5 Qe7 7.O-O Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxe5 9.Re1 Bxc3 10.Rxe5+ Bxe5 11.Qe1 Ng4 12.d4 d5 13.Bd3 g5 14.h3 Be6 15.dxe5 Nh6 16.h4 Bf5 17.hxg5 Bxd3 18.cxd3 Nf5 19.Qa5 Ng3 20.Qxc7 Ne2+ 21.Kf2 Nxc1 22.Rxc1 O-O 23.Rh1 b6 24.g6 hxg6 25.Qd7 Rac8 26.Qh3 Rc2+ 27.Kf3 Rxb2 28.Qh7#
{4...Qh4+ 5.Kf1 threatens Ng1-f3-e5-f7 or Nf3, Bxf7+ Qxf7 Ne5 Qe7 Qh5+ if no knight is on F6. Statistics show better for White in these games, although it isn't that frequently played. After the Queen had moved White has the information to not waste time getting a rook on F1 all for domination by counter initiative.}
{6...Ng4 see game http://www.365chess.com/view_mygame.php?g=10523.}

The significantly more common variation of the King's Gambit is 2.Nf3. Long story short, there is the intermediate defense to this 2...d6, but the Allgaier "Gambit" is as solid as White gets. Some players say that computer chess has destroyed the King's Gambit.

I speak for myself, that I have disproven these concerns, except in continuations like 2...g5 3.h4 g4 4.Ne5? Qe7! or any of the gambits related to the Muzio Gambit / Double Muzio Gambit, which are entirely based on potential insights while well-justified ones, while the Fegatello Attack, is a strong net that is very controversial in its continuations and is not a gambit.
However there is still great underknowledge and presumption to the linear power in a chess engine.

:)

Kasparov's use of the term evolution comes closest to reflecting a Darwinian paradigm of any chess writer, but it also still subscribes to some older and limiting notions of descent. After all, in Kasparov's view, change in chess still happens exclusively in tree-like fashion, descending vertically to the present generation of players from "Great Predecessors." Change is the result of individual genius, not the collective workings of many players who creatively adapt both old and new ideas to novel contexts. Furthermore, in Kasparov's view, evolution happens only through combat and not cooperation. He is, after all, the author of Attacker's Advantage.

A more recent and still emerging paradigm of evolution (supported by genome studies) stresses instead the ways that horizontal gene transfer (especially through viruses, by the same means we use for gene therapy) within populations has a powerful effect on biological change through time, and that evolution is as much driven by cooperation as it is by conflict. Though Kasparov's more traditional notion makes for a good story, it does not present the whole picture.

I am still compiling examples of the phenomenon, but several instances of lateral transfer of chess ideas can be readily observed. The obvious relationship between the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3) and the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3) is a simple example which can explain what I mean. Basically, a method or pattern that is shown to be useful in one opening line is adapted to another line by way of analogy. Even Black modes of defense (such as declining either gambit with an early ...d5 or ...Nf6) transfer readily between the two openings and almost certainly had some effect on their initial development.

There is a growing literature on lateral transfer, which offers a powerful explanatory system for understanding the speed with which genes (or, by analogy, ideas or "memes") develop and spread. It is therefore a valuable addition to our understanding of changes in chess theory, especially in this age of the internet with its incredible escalation in our ability to communicate and transfer knowledge "peer-to-peer" rather than waiting upon our forefathers....

In other words, chess ideas do not descend from founding fathers (whose names become associated with the lines they are imagined to have originated) along specific lines (such as within "the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined") but are inspired through a process of cross-fertilization between players and between opening "lineages."

In his wonderful chronological collection, The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory, Raymond Keene notes several examples where developments in one opening helped originate others. He writes, for example, that "Alekhine's Defense, with its deep insight that the avalanche of White centre pawns is, perhaps, not so deadly afer all ... was the precursor of such provocative defences, now commonplace, as the Pirc and first move fianchetto, although, ironically, Alekhine himself disapproved of 1.e4 g6" (75). He also notes that while Frank Marshall adopted the Modern Benoni during New York 1927, the opening "really came into its own as a by-product of the greater understanding of the King's Indian Defense during the 1950s, and in the dynamic hands of Mikhail Tal it was elevated into a fearsome tactical bludgeon" (Keene 171).

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/images/diagrams/evolution-game.gif
Position after 6...h5!?

One good example I have found of lateral transfer involves an early ...h5 advance by Black against White's g3 fianchetto, which I illustrate in "Chess and Evolution: An Example of Lateral Transfer." The examples I show come from various openings -- including the Vienna, the English, and a line of the Sicilian which is essentially the reverse of the English line. What I think you will see if you look through these games is that the essential patterns and ideas -- analogous to genes (or what some theorists call "memes") -- are what transfer, and they do not arise either through descent nor solely through closer consideration of the line itself. Instead, these ideas seem to be transferred from one line to the next.

The idea of lateral transfer (which seems implicit in the writings of John Watson, from whom my main example derives) is very different from the story of evolution in opening theory as told by, say, Imre König's Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik, where the development of theory in the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined descends in stages as various great players attempt to solve the problem of the Bishop at c8. For König, the story is of one of struggle between succeeding rivals, from Anderssen vs. Steinitz to Capablanca vs. Alekhine (pp. 74-96), with historically successive contributors to the theory along the way. That story is straightforward and fits well with traditional notions of evolution, as I indicate above. But it is neither fully accurate to how chess theory changes (since it leaves out the population of players as a whole) nor is it especially helpful to undestanding the rapidity of change in our own hyper-connected age, where information is exchanged with ever increasing speed. It is also a little different from the views presented by Joăo Dinis de Sousa in his excellent "Chess moves and their memomics: a framework for the evolutionary processes of chess openings," which develops a theory of meme transfer that is more fully theorized than my own simple analogies yet remains confined to specific opening lineages (on the König model) with no accounting for lateral transfer between lines.

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/exadr03.gif


The most important new source of chess ideas is the computer chess program, which inspires with analysis and even with ideas (such as its surprising Rook lift against Kramnik). Often, multiple analysts arrive at the same idea at the same time because they are using the same program. This is a bit different than lateral transfer but achieves the same effect.

http://fun.varadinum.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/funny-chess-game.jpg

CA5
2nd May 2009, 05:18 PM
:)

Kasparov's use of the term evolution comes closest to reflecting a Darwinian paradigm of any chess writer, but it also still subscribes to some older and limiting notions of descent. After all, in Kasparov's view, change in chess still happens exclusively in tree-like fashion, descending vertically to the present generation of players from "Great Predecessors." Change is the result of individual genius, not the collective workings of many players who creatively adapt both old and new ideas to novel contexts. Furthermore, in Kasparov's view, evolution happens only through combat and not cooperation. He is, after all, the author of Attacker's Advantage.

A more recent and still emerging paradigm of evolution (supported by genome studies) stresses instead the ways that horizontal gene transfer (especially through viruses, by the same means we use for gene therapy) within populations has a powerful effect on biological change through time, and that evolution is as much driven by cooperation as it is by conflict. Though Kasparov's more traditional notion makes for a good story, it does not present the whole picture.

I am still compiling examples of the phenomenon, but several instances of lateral transfer of chess ideas can be readily observed. The obvious relationship between the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3) and the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3) is a simple example which can explain what I mean. Basically, a method or pattern that is shown to be useful in one opening line is adapted to another line by way of analogy. Even Black modes of defense (such as declining either gambit with an early ...d5 or ...Nf6) transfer readily between the two openings and almost certainly had some effect on their initial development.

There is a growing literature on lateral transfer, which offers a powerful explanatory system for understanding the speed with which genes (or, by analogy, ideas or "memes") develop and spread. It is therefore a valuable addition to our understanding of changes in chess theory, especially in this age of the internet with its incredible escalation in our ability to communicate and transfer knowledge "peer-to-peer" rather than waiting upon our forefathers....

In other words, chess ideas do not descend from founding fathers (whose names become associated with the lines they are imagined to have originated) along specific lines (such as within "the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined") but are inspired through a process of cross-fertilization between players and between opening "lineages."

In his wonderful chronological collection, The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory, Raymond Keene notes several examples where developments in one opening helped originate others. He writes, for example, that "Alekhine's Defense, with its deep insight that the avalanche of White centre pawns is, perhaps, not so deadly afer all ... was the precursor of such provocative defences, now commonplace, as the Pirc and first move fianchetto, although, ironically, Alekhine himself disapproved of 1.e4 g6" (75). He also notes that while Frank Marshall adopted the Modern Benoni during New York 1927, the opening "really came into its own as a by-product of the greater understanding of the King's Indian Defense during the 1950s, and in the dynamic hands of Mikhail Tal it was elevated into a fearsome tactical bludgeon" (Keene 171).

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/images/diagrams/evolution-game.gif
Position after 6...h5!?

One good example I have found of lateral transfer involves an early ...h5 advance by Black against White's g3 fianchetto, which I illustrate in "Chess and Evolution: An Example of Lateral Transfer." The examples I show come from various openings -- including the Vienna, the English, and a line of the Sicilian which is essentially the reverse of the English line. What I think you will see if you look through these games is that the essential patterns and ideas -- analogous to genes (or what some theorists call "memes") -- are what transfer, and they do not arise either through descent nor solely through closer consideration of the line itself. Instead, these ideas seem to be transferred from one line to the next.

The idea of lateral transfer (which seems implicit in the writings of John Watson, from whom my main example derives) is very different from the story of evolution in opening theory as told by, say, Imre König's Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik, where the development of theory in the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined descends in stages as various great players attempt to solve the problem of the Bishop at c8. For König, the story is of one of struggle between succeeding rivals, from Anderssen vs. Steinitz to Capablanca vs. Alekhine (pp. 74-96), with historically successive contributors to the theory along the way. That story is straightforward and fits well with traditional notions of evolution, as I indicate above. But it is neither fully accurate to how chess theory changes (since it leaves out the population of players as a whole) nor is it especially helpful to undestanding the rapidity of change in our own hyper-connected age, where information is exchanged with ever increasing speed. It is also a little different from the views presented by Joăo Dinis de Sousa in his excellent "Chess moves and their memomics: a framework for the evolutionary processes of chess openings," which develops a theory of meme transfer that is more fully theorized than my own simple analogies yet remains confined to specific opening lineages (on the König model) with no accounting for lateral transfer between lines.

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/exadr03.gif


The most important new source of chess ideas is the computer chess program, which inspires with analysis and even with ideas (such as its surprising Rook lift against Kramnik). Often, multiple analysts arrive at the same idea at the same time because they are using the same program. This is a bit different than lateral transfer but achieves the same effect.

http://fun.varadinum.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/funny-chess-game.jpg

Kenilworth Chess Club?

omegadox
2nd May 2009, 05:24 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOL
I know you had to copy pasta that.

CA5
2nd May 2009, 05:31 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOL
I know you had to copy pasta that.

Well from a quick Google Ctrl C & V, Most of the stuff he's put is featured on other sites. Kenilworth chess club seems to be the most prime example.

If you right click the first image in "his speech", and click on 'Copy Image Location', it even points to:

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/images/diagrams/evolution-game.gif

Tut. Tut. Tut :D

HatCat
2nd May 2009, 06:09 PM
Kasparov was not famous for his opening theory. In fact, this is one modification the supercomputer "Deep Blue" by IBM made in challenging him. Although there were suspicions, IBM claimed only intervention between games.
Most computers have an opening book, though I would avoid them to an extent. These are human pre-defined moves from the beginning position to start off because machines, in the past, have been famous for making insensitive opening moves and moreso nonconformist responses that are not documented in theory. Although most humans deem this bad, there have been cases in which trying to get the machine opponent "out of book" early on is a fatal decision to an apprentice.
Judging by the early development of both knights and non-complementary lines against an English system, at the very least, Deep Blue's opening book did not last very long after Kasparov's shot to destroy it: 1.d3. This game, followed up by a natural King's Indian system and secure natural development, Kasparov had actually won.
I am still compiling examples of the phenomenon, but several instances of lateral transfer of chess ideas can be readily observed. The obvious relationship between the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3) and the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3) is a simple example which can explain what I mean. Basically, a method or pattern that is shown to be useful in one opening line is adapted to another line by way of analogy. Even Black modes of defense (such as declining either gambit with an early ...d5 or ...Nf6) transfer readily between the two openings and almost certainly had some effect on their initial development.
One reason for this is because of transpositions in openings.
The Smith-Morra Gambit is so the same after 1.d4 c5 2.e4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 {4.Nf3 e5 5.Bc4 gains more pressure. I had a list of continuations based on human adaptations of the Morphy Gambit and against machine counterplay that proved the superiority in moving 5.Bc4.}
There is also a game I played there. Without a doubt many of you will suspect in that some of my moves match that of a machine in cases. I always refine and review my games for accurate contribution and learning.
http://www.365chess.com/view_mygame.php?g=6691
Another reason is our psychological motives and specializations in analysis that group us to raise an opening concept based on our styles. As the Queen's pawn, being the base of every solid pawn structure in any natural game, is the most powerful of the eight, (The King's pawn is often traded or sacrificed for initiative.) Black should immediately challenge it for moving early. Another way is 1.d4 e5, which is one system I just haven't finished studying since in many cases endgame concepts tie into solidity considerations.
In other words, chess ideas do not descend from founding fathers (whose names become associated with the lines they are imagined to have originated) along specific lines (such as within "the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined") but are inspired through a process of cross-fertilization between players and between opening "lineages."
Sometimes openings are named after their national origin. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 was confronted in Russia between two interested researchists, one of them met the other, who destroyed the theory to him. He surrendered the name to him, Petrov, who did not like this opening. However I would rather go by the published main alternate "Russian Game", since a whole subset of communism is to strive for equality. Few computers play 2...Nf6 out of book, but none of them I see dare to oppose it, either.
c2-c4 assosciated with "English" or some Anglo-Indian variations, f2-f4 (or more in the table entered as 1...f5 by black) "Dutch", and others. Of all its tens of names, 1.Nc3 includes "Romanian Opening".
I say there are three ways to react to openings in chess.
Counterplay and disagreement. The basic concept lies in reflecting moves with their diagonal inverses such as reacting to 1.c4 with 1...f5 or 1.d4 with 1...e5, but not in all cases are these moves the best. Analyzing 1.c4, if we're going to counterattack, we imagine moving a pawn rather than a knight and to move it two squares possibly for assertion, so in this case we look for which pawn move ends up on the same color square as the C4 pawn that could after imaginary translating across diagonals come in threatening contact with it (1.c4 ... choosing 1...b5, 1...d5, 1...f5, and 1...g5). There are still moves like 1...g6, noting that white cannot move c4-c3.
Mimic the move if this draws or wins for Black. 1.a3 a6, 1.h4 h5, 1.c4 c5 notably, and etcetera. Since this always results in the opposite color landing square on an 8x8 even chess board, this is agreeing with your opponent.
Move 1...Nf6 or, theoretically, consider 1...Nc6. The Queen's knight is the Knight of Hatred (not just because it can check the enemy King sooner) and, in its initial opening form of 1.Nb1-c3 as White, is an evil and skeptical opening to chess, the most self-neutralizing and balancing opening for White that does not create permanent weaknesses. 1...Nf6 is known to draw against all openings except 1.e4 (and spiritually 1.Nf3, just not theoretically). Continuing by developing naturally without directly addressing White's ideas with 2...g6 and 3...Bg7 is the idea.
The "Orthodox Variation" ties towards 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O, drawing by the third concept.

HatCat
2nd May 2009, 06:10 PM
In his wonderful chronological collection, The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory, Raymond Keene notes several examples where developments in one opening helped originate others. He writes, for example, that "Alekhine's Defense, with its deep insight that the avalanche of White centre pawns is, perhaps, not so deadly afer all ... was the precursor of such provocative defences, now commonplace, as the Pirc and first move fianchetto, although, ironically, Alekhine himself disapproved of 1.e4 g6" (75). He also notes that while Frank Marshall adopted the Modern Benoni during New York 1927, the opening "really came into its own as a by-product of the greater understanding of the King's Indian Defense during the 1950s, and in the dynamic hands of Mikhail Tal it was elevated into a fearsome tactical bludgeon" (Keene 171).

Well, how many people on this planet know 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 c5! 4.c4? Nb4 draws? It is more known that 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d5 draws, where 4...d5 is not available in 3.d4 d6 4.c4 [Nb6].

However I did win the game after 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.e4 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 d6 5.c4 Nb6 6.e6 fxe6 7.Nc3 g6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.h4 against Jchess, and in a game like 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4, Black can't take the E pawn, which is still defended by the D4 pawn in case White moves f4-f5 against g7-g6 for a kingside exploit, so there is hope. There is also hope in 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 c5 4.Nc3, forcing 4...Nxc3 5.bxc3 for center defense, and 4.c3 (Nc3 later) so C2 is available for a retreat via Bd3-b1, a3 if ...Nc6-b4.

1.e4 g6 (Robatsch "Modern" Defense") might not draw because...

That would mean 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 draws and that black can follow the A1 square origin concept and draw with 1...G7-G6 over 1...G8-F6 and then 2...G7-G6 sometimes. A similar question applies to the Sicilian Defense, (1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 transposes.) which I always hated until I realized it is flexible and loving. Hasty people tend to move 1.Nf3 g6 and oppose symmetry in consistent limitation to time and lose.
White hasn't moved pawn from C2 to C4 and can still move it to C3 if ...c7-c5, which is destined to attack the center base in many classic games.
This is sort of inferior to 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O, where black did not have to move 4...d6 (5.e5) first due to countering 5...Ne8 (sometimes 6...d7-d6) in which White is in no position of time to assault Black's kingside here and then for not having the knight constantly on F6.
The idea of lateral transfer (which seems implicit in the writings of John Watson, from whom my main example derives) is very different from the story of evolution in opening theory as told by, say, Imre König's Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik, where the development of theory in the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined descends in stages as various great players attempt to solve the problem of the Bishop at c8. For König, the story is of one of struggle between succeeding rivals, from Anderssen vs. Steinitz to Capablanca vs. Alekhine (pp. 74-96), with historically successive contributors to the theory along the way.[...]

The Queen's Gambit (of course not really a gambit) is inferior to the Ben-oni Counter-attack (degradedly named by humans "Benoni Defense"). Wikipedia currently is savaged under this theory as if 1.d4 c5 2.d5 is conclusively, without further evaluation, won to White. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3, most humans gave up because of the hidden 3...c5 move that isn't talked a lot about, 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4...c5 look where we end up. Still, people admit this is drawn. Many people like to decline the "Queen's Gambit" with ...e6, but I think that's passive. In an attack by Queen on C2 and Bishop on D3 against H7, if ...h6 black is permanently susceptible to Qc2-c1, Bd2/e3/f4/g5-h6 (or takes if the pawn didn't move again), Qc1-g5, but ...g7-g6 is fine if Black didn't already move ...e7-e6, weakening the F6 square normally held by the King's knight. Thus, in a dominant Queen's pawn game or variation of Alekhine's Defense, patient play many times forces White the win. Additionally the King's knight may attack Black's kingside after Ng1-f3-g5 or Ng1-h3-f4-g5, or Nb1-d2-f1-g3-h5. Through teamwork, eventually Black will be rendered helpless due to past mistakes in the opening phase.

The most important new source of chess ideas is the computer chess program, which inspires with analysis and even with ideas (such as its surprising Rook lift against Kramnik). Often, multiple analysts arrive at the same idea at the same time because they are using the same program. This is a bit different than lateral transfer but achieves the same effect.

Few chess championship scenes are equipped with chess calculation technology, so grandmasters don't frequenly play machines if ever the chance might come. Without understanding their processes, humans cannot understand each other's mental functioning processes, and a world champion of OTB chess is so only by book and inherance from ascendants.

Evidently after genealogical research of the last names of Kasparov and my last name and the blood facts, it is well possible I am tied to him by my blood, but that does not mean either of us started out so well.

HatCat
2nd May 2009, 06:31 PM
BENONI COUNTER GAMBIT
This defence against 1. P-Q4 (1. d2-d4) is characterised by an early ... P-QB4 (... c7-c5) normally combined with a Kings side fianchetto. It is believed to have been played for the first time in a tournament by Von der Lasa against Hannstein in 1841. In 1843, Saint Amant adopted this defence against Staunton and it became known for some time as the Staunton Defence.
There are various versions of the origin of the name Benoni. In the preface to his book Ben-Oni, oder die Verteidgungen gegen die Gambitzuge im Schache, published in Frankfurt in 1825, Aron Reinganum writes:

Whenever I felt in a sorrowful mood and wanted to take refuge from melancholy, I sat over a chess board, for one or two hours according to circumstances. Thus this book came into being, and its name, Ben-Oni, 'Son of Sadness', should indicate its origin. The oriental name is not, I hope, too outlandish, for it is generallly known that the game originates in the East.
In his book on Petrosian (Pergamon Press, 1965), O'Kelly states:
This Hebrew name is to be found in the Bible; when Jacob lost his wife following the birth of their son, he named the latter 'Son born of my tears'. During a stay in South Africa I was surprised to find on the outskirts of Johannesburg a town called Benoni. It was about 1830 that the Benoni brothers regularly played this opening and that is how it got its name.
------------
Thus Wikipedia is also misinformed on the history of the opening, overly focused on bigoted instincts on the center. It's not even a defense; it's a counter-attack.

Mdkcheatz
2nd May 2009, 07:35 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOL
I know you had to copy pasta that.

Yep, Xcdjy was right, Kenilworth Chess Club...

I did it for RJ's entertainment mostly, I kind've get the impression that he's been giving up on me...

KCC Source: Here (http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2007/02/chess-and-evolutionary-theory_12.html)

HatCat
11th May 2009, 01:16 AM
:)

Kasparov's use of the term evolution comes closest to reflecting a Darwinian paradigm of any chess writer, but it also still subscribes to some older and limiting notions of descent. After all, in Kasparov's view, change in chess still happens exclusively in tree-like fashion, descending vertically to the present generation of players from "Great Predecessors." Change is the result of individual genius, not the collective workings of many players who creatively adapt both old and new ideas to novel contexts. Furthermore, in Kasparov's view, evolution happens only through combat and not cooperation. He is, after all, the author of Attacker's Advantage.

A more recent and still emerging paradigm of evolution (supported by genome studies) stresses instead the ways that horizontal gene transfer (especially through viruses, by the same means we use for gene therapy) within populations has a powerful effect on biological change through time, and that evolution is as much driven by cooperation as it is by conflict. Though Kasparov's more traditional notion makes for a good story, it does not present the whole picture.

I am still compiling examples of the phenomenon, but several instances of lateral transfer of chess ideas can be readily observed. The obvious relationship between the Goring Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 dxc3 5.Nxc3) and the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3) is a simple example which can explain what I mean. Basically, a method or pattern that is shown to be useful in one opening line is adapted to another line by way of analogy. Even Black modes of defense (such as declining either gambit with an early ...d5 or ...Nf6) transfer readily between the two openings and almost certainly had some effect on their initial development.

There is a growing literature on lateral transfer, which offers a powerful explanatory system for understanding the speed with which genes (or, by analogy, ideas or "memes") develop and spread. It is therefore a valuable addition to our understanding of changes in chess theory, especially in this age of the internet with its incredible escalation in our ability to communicate and transfer knowledge "peer-to-peer" rather than waiting upon our forefathers....

In other words, chess ideas do not descend from founding fathers (whose names become associated with the lines they are imagined to have originated) along specific lines (such as within "the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined") but are inspired through a process of cross-fertilization between players and between opening "lineages."

In his wonderful chronological collection, The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory, Raymond Keene notes several examples where developments in one opening helped originate others. He writes, for example, that "Alekhine's Defense, with its deep insight that the avalanche of White centre pawns is, perhaps, not so deadly afer all ... was the precursor of such provocative defences, now commonplace, as the Pirc and first move fianchetto, although, ironically, Alekhine himself disapproved of 1.e4 g6" (75). He also notes that while Frank Marshall adopted the Modern Benoni during New York 1927, the opening "really came into its own as a by-product of the greater understanding of the King's Indian Defense during the 1950s, and in the dynamic hands of Mikhail Tal it was elevated into a fearsome tactical bludgeon" (Keene 171).

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/images/diagrams/evolution-game.gif
Position after 6...h5!?

One good example I have found of lateral transfer involves an early ...h5 advance by Black against White's g3 fianchetto, which I illustrate in "Chess and Evolution: An Example of Lateral Transfer." The examples I show come from various openings -- including the Vienna, the English, and a line of the Sicilian which is essentially the reverse of the English line. What I think you will see if you look through these games is that the essential patterns and ideas -- analogous to genes (or what some theorists call "memes") -- are what transfer, and they do not arise either through descent nor solely through closer consideration of the line itself. Instead, these ideas seem to be transferred from one line to the next.

The idea of lateral transfer (which seems implicit in the writings of John Watson, from whom my main example derives) is very different from the story of evolution in opening theory as told by, say, Imre König's Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik, where the development of theory in the Orthodox Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined descends in stages as various great players attempt to solve the problem of the Bishop at c8. For König, the story is of one of struggle between succeeding rivals, from Anderssen vs. Steinitz to Capablanca vs. Alekhine (pp. 74-96), with historically successive contributors to the theory along the way. That story is straightforward and fits well with traditional notions of evolution, as I indicate above. But it is neither fully accurate to how chess theory changes (since it leaves out the population of players as a whole) nor is it especially helpful to undestanding the rapidity of change in our own hyper-connected age, where information is exchanged with ever increasing speed. It is also a little different from the views presented by Joăo Dinis de Sousa in his excellent "Chess moves and their memomics: a framework for the evolutionary processes of chess openings," which develops a theory of meme transfer that is more fully theorized than my own simple analogies yet remains confined to specific opening lineages (on the König model) with no accounting for lateral transfer between lines.

http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/exadr03.gif


The most important new source of chess ideas is the computer chess program, which inspires with analysis and even with ideas (such as its surprising Rook lift against Kramnik). Often, multiple analysts arrive at the same idea at the same time because they are using the same program. This is a bit different than lateral transfer but achieves the same effect.

http://fun.varadinum.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/funny-chess-game.jpg

Kenilworth Chess Club?

Hum-m...I wonder if you may be right.
Also, good job on quoting the whole post! Brandon will never make it through. Actually I could be wrong about that since it would seem those words were taken from somewhere else.

The answer back there...find x when its inverse is x itself, see Brandon if you make it this far, xcdjy was trying to teach you ... in Japanese ... the following.

-1. ^ -1. = -1., so x = x^-1.
+1. ^ -1. = +1., so x = x^-1.

Also, rational / multiplicative inverses are not alone. :O Additive inverses, just multiply by negative one, to retrieve the opposite quantity.
0 * -1 = 0, so the "inverse" of x is still x itself.

So actually with the hint there were three real number solutions.
Solutions in general...well there's an infinite number of those! You could more-or-less "invent" an unreal / imaginary number of any sort defining it to be indeterminate yet still have this property. As humans, we just presume numbers are real.

And that screenshot you gave me, how's about moving that pawn to the lower-left? You should give something more challenging.

HatCat
13th May 2009, 01:23 AM
Yep, Xcdjy was right, Kenilworth Chess Club...

I did it for RJ's entertainment mostly, I kind've get the impression that he's been giving up on me...

KCC Source: Here (http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2007/02/chess-and-evolutionary-theory_12.html)

Hey little lady, what's for dinner?
Stick a finger up your nose, and pick a winner.

Here you know how to play. What do you think White should do in this game?
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j112/rswedlo/chess/VirtualChess64UM3snap0058.jpg

Mdkcheatz
13th May 2009, 08:20 PM
Here you know how to play. What do you think White should do in this game?


I'm not quite as skilled as you mistro...

erm sacrifice the bishop?:)

HatCat
14th May 2009, 12:43 AM
mistro...

wut in da hell? :D

Ah that's not even trying, at least not until you name exactly how best to sacrifice the bishop? Which would be better to sacrifice?

"surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim"
So in addition, what would you gain from that? If it's not a sacrifice, maybe there is something else?

HatCat
14th May 2009, 01:18 AM
Wait....

mistro

I believe I have heard "mice, tro", but for a maestro, I guess I haven't smashed enough violins on the chess board.

You were doing alright before. You used to copy the string as it exactly was, like "your mom" condition here, ":O", and "yer". Now it seems you have fixed the meaning to call by the word itself.

So why don't you merge those two findings together somehow and pound them into your puny little brain? :eek: LOL!! Oh lighten up; it'll fit somewhere.

zilmar needs the original spelling to distort properly.

Mdkcheatz
14th May 2009, 11:34 AM
wut in da hell? :D

Ah that's not even trying, at least not until you name exactly how best to sacrifice the bishop? Which would be better to sacrifice?

"surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim"
So in addition, what would you gain from that? If it's not a sacrifice, maybe there is something else?

I say the left butt cheek is a more desirable tool of forced deception. They say in chess you've got to kill the queen and then you mate it. Oh I, do you. A funny thing, the king who gets himself assassinated. Hey now, every time I lose Altitude.


I believe I have heard "mice, tro", but for a maestro, I guess I haven't smashed enough violins on the chess board.

Yes yes rub it in, I made a spelling mistake :D

As long as it's not a sure implication of the end of the universe I'd say Hi Ho, Hi Hoe, it's off to work we go!

omegadox
14th May 2009, 12:00 PM
Quite LOL, how this topic when offtopic :P

Topken
14th May 2009, 04:09 PM
lol it got offtopic when rswedlow started talkling bbout chess

HatCat
15th May 2009, 02:51 AM
Yes yes rub it in, I made a spelling mistake :D

Well you know what they say about spelling mistakes.
An axe in the head keeps the local psychologist ahead. :eek:

1.Nc3 is evil...chess opening books hate it.
1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 3.Nb1 e5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.O-O O-O 7.c3 dxc3 8.dxc3 Nxe4 9.Qe2 Nf6 10.Nxe5 Nbd7 11.Nf3 Re8 12.Qc2 Nb6 13.Bd3 h6 14.Nbd2 Be6 15.Ne4 = {8.Nxc3 h6 =}
1.Nc3 c5 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.O-O e5 6.Nb1 =
1.Nc3 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 = {2.a3 =}
1.Nc3 e6 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.Nf3 =
1.Nc3 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.d3 exd3 4.Bxd3 Nf6 5.Bg5 e6 6.Ne4 Be7 =
1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e4 e5 = {4.d4 Bb4 -+, 4.Bb5 Nd4 =, 4.Be2 Bb4 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Nxe5 =}
1.Nc3 Nf6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bf5 7.O-O =

HatCat
17th May 2009, 04:03 AM
The French Defense is to the King's pawn opening the responsive system surging most with counterplay.

The more popular Sicilian Defense is derived from several concepts.
1.e4 c5 {
2.c3 d5 3.e5 d4
2.d3 d6 3.Nf3 Nf6
2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 a6 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nf3 Nf6
2.e5 d5 3.c3 Bf5
2.f4 d6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Be2 g6 6.O-O Bg7 7.d3 O-O
}

Other concepts include the flexibility of moving the pawn of the Queen's bishop to its fourth square, as this does nothing to develop the King's side while it is a pawn move that has no counterplay against it except the King's fianchetto (the Indian games involving ...g7-g6, ...Bf8-g7, and ...Ng8-f6). Thus, 1.e4 c5 is not so much indirect lightheadedness as it is a battle between initiative and opening flexibility.

When white moves 2.Nf3, white not only adopts this manouverability between openings by developing the King's side but patronizes Black to give more information before attacking the Sicilian. There is another "chess style proof" I have developed encouraging this answer.

1.Nf3 c5 {
2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qb6
2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 d6 4.O-O Nf6 5.d3 g6
}

Neither of these concepts justify anything superior to 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3, so this proves understanding the Sicilian Defense is important.

It is quite possible that the French Defense is much stronger because it has more strength counter-attack.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 b5 8.Nf3 Qb6 9.a3 a5 10.Be3 Bb7 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Bxc5 Nxc5 13.Ned4 b4 14.axb4 axb4 15.Rxa8+ Bxa8 16.Bb5 O-O 17.Bxc6 Bxc6 18.Nxc6 Qxc6 19.cxb4 Na4 20.O-O Rb8 -+

Since Virtual Chess 64, Titus Software changed the opening finality to this in making Virtual Kasparov.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Bd3 {Book answer...8.Qd2 b5 9.a3 Qb6 10.Ne2 Bb7 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Ned4 Rc8 13.b4 Bxd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Rxc2 -+}

Classical variation
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7
{The benefit from exchanging the bishops is obvious due to diagonal access from the decisions of the pawn structure formation, but without sufficient initiative, White falls to Black's center destruction.}

Tarrasch variation, open counterplay
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Ngf3 cxd4 6.Bc4
{Although Black still has much resistance, this is probably the better way to pressure albeit maybe into a draw all the same.}

It is obvious from these studies that the French Defense, instead of immediately halting d2-d4, develops openly until white moves 2.d4 or ?.d4 so that this pawn can immediately be attacked.

The Queen's pawn is the most powerful of the eight pawns on the board because it is the center base.
The King's pawn after 1.e4 has the two best squares above it and to the left. (Imagine 1...h6 2.d4 Nf6 3.e5. Unless Black wants to castle long insted of on the King's side, no knight on F6 is extremely dangerous in this game.) However, the King's pawn is more often traded or even sacrificed for extreme initiative--the force by which usually White wins due to extreme development in the power of time beforehand for positional tension. If the Queen's pawn is removed, there is virtually no center structure.

(This is another reason why 1.d4 is stupid in reality :P, but humanity has apparently adopted it as a social standard.)

Tomorrow I am researching how White can best play without moving 1.e4 e6 2.d4, as in these games the pawn on E6 rather anticipated d2-d4. Now it is a technical weakness.

HatCat
17th May 2009, 11:37 PM
I forgot about Chessmaster Live! for Xbox 360. I played some games against the demo version...I want my license back, dammit.


1.h4 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Rg1 exf3 4.e3 fxg2 5.Qf3 gxf1=B 6.Qxf7+ Kxf7 7.d4 Bh3 8.Rf1 Bxf1 9.e4 Qf6!? 10.d5 Qf3 11.Nc3 Bb4 12.Kxf1 d6 13.a3 Bg4 14.Kg1 Bh3 15.axb4 Qg2#
{10.Kxf1 Qf3 11.Nd2 Qd1+ 12.Kg2 d5 -+}

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g4 Nxg4 3.Na3 e5 4.b3 e4 5.Bg2 Qf6 6.c3 g5?! 7.Nc4 exf3 8.O-O Qf4 9.Nd6+ cxd6 10.Re1 Qxh2+ 11.Kf1 fxg2#
{4.h3 Nxf2! 5.Kxf2 e4 6.Nd4 Qf6+ 7.Ke3? c5! -+}
{7.Bh3 Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Rg8 9.Rg1 h5 10.Nb5 Kd8 -+}

1.d4 e5 2.c4 exd4 3.Kd2 d5 4.Kc2 Bf5+ 5.Kb3 dxc4+ 6.Kxc4 b5+ 7.Kxb5 Qd5+ 8.Ka4 Bd7#

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 4.c3 exd4 5.Bf4 Bg4 6.Rg1 dxe4 7.Nxd4 Bxd1 8.Kxd1 c5 9.c4 Qxd4+ 10.Bd2 Qxf2 11.Bh6 Qxg1 12.Ke2 Ng4 13.Ke1 Na6 14.b4 Nxb4 15.Bg5 Qf2+ 16.Kd1 Qxf1+ 17.Kd2 Qd3+ 18.Kc1 Qc2#


The following alternative variations after 1.e4 e6 known...

Pelikan
2.Nc3 d5 3.f4 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 =

Spielmann
2.b3 d5 =

Steiner
2.c4 d5 =
Unless white eventually moves d2-d4 this results in a hole, so this is inferior to just moving d4.

Chigorin
2.Qe2
Man Chigorin was the shiz. For my study, his opening ideas were unique. He was the Russian savage by which Steinitz became world champion in a match. Even I didn't know about this continuation before checking the FIDE table of documented openings from history; I feel guilty for not considering it.
This is still an important concept to understand, although it forces nothing. It continues the initiative favor behind 1.e4 games. In abandoning or at least delaying trying to maintain a pawn center with the pawn on E5, White plans on exhanging the pawn for the enemy's Queen's pawn (...Qxd5). After 2...Be7 there still isn't much for White to force, and the Tarrasch variation (2.d4 d5 3.Nd2) is perhaps a better way to exhange.
There is also 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qd8 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.g3 b6 7.Bg2 Bb7 with better statistics for Black.

Steinitz Attack
2.e5 d6 {3.f4? fxe5 4.fxe5 Qh4+ -+}
"I have never in my life played the French--which is the dullest of all chess openings."
--W. Steinitz, 1st FIDE world champion of chess
This continuation wasn't adopted until later, but Steinitz played many other options besides the new 2.e5 in his games against the opening.

Labourdonnais
2.f4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 =

Two Knights
2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 =
But 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 a6 draws as well.

Wing Gambit
2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cxb4 5.a3
See also "Benko Gambit". Other than that, P-QN4 (b2-b4 or b7-b5) in opening theory has often been associated with the term "wing" in the names and the naming. There is a similar "Wing Gambit" in the Sicilian Defense. Normally a King's fianchetto (...Bf8-g7) avoids a thread like after Bc1xa3, but even 1...e6 creates a weakness. To be honest, these kinds of gambits are more based on style, and there is no win forced in these open games. In these games, machines play very differently than do humans.

Last but not least is the King's Indian Attack, which can also be reached after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c5 3.O-O e6. {3...Nc6 forces 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4...e5?! 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.c4.} This is a fascinating study to win against a machine, which loves only the counterplay for Black in these games. There was a game I played Nf6+ and eventually mated Titus on the kingside, so they're not invincible. This means, more time! For now just noting this, d2-d3 instead against the Sicilian in a game like 1.e4 c5 2.d3 e6 is inferior to 2...d6.

HatCat
19th May 2009, 03:01 AM
Quite LOL, how this topic when offtopic :P

And now for this special offer not sold in any stores!
Mind my French please...I mean to share my research on the Sicilian strategy. :)

lol it got offtopic when rswedlow started talkling bbout chess

Nah check back to page one. This is my garage now LOL!

So without further ado, as you guys can see I'm a lonely guy...I have no one to teach. I take no offense if my information in this thread results in moderation (or a ban) in application to me just to clarify. I mean I'm not going to get x banned for posting all this until Oblivion happens, so you folks can cross that off my list of intentions.

Today I looked at the O'Kelly variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6.

First understand the following.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 {
2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bb5+ Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bxc6+ +- {If 4.Bb5+ then 4...Nc6. Thus 5.Bb5+ calls exchange of bishops leading to maybe 5...Bd7 6.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 7.Nc3 Nc5 8.f3 e5 9.Nf5 g6 10.Ng3 +-}
2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.e5 +- {Jchess lost after a counterplay Queen trap in the game after playing 6...Qc7.}
2...Nc6 3.Bb5 {But little known is my finding of 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6!, which has good statistics for Black but very few games compared to the orthodox 4...Nf6 continuation.}}

2...a6 3.c4? {3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nf5? d5 -+} e6 4.Nc3 Qc7 does not prove victorious to White. Although this is documented in some OTB theory and also adopted by Virtual Chess, Black cannot be destroyed. The rival to Virtual Chess' powers, JESTER 1.10e, considered at preliminary notion 3.Bc4, 3.d4 with the annotated line immediately understood but, stubborn as the guy is, persisted, and after an hour of analysis 3.Nb1-c3. In computer chess, this is one scenario in which 3...Nc6xd4 is more considered than any of the normal development sequences, and the computers seem to solve growing evidence against such lines as middle-game error after 3.Nc3. More on these experiment notes later...

None of this "disproves" the Sicilian. (Nor are they well-known opening lines.) These are simply notes to justify that, after the Sicilian, both sides must fight and face many questions.

I think the "sacrificial" concern over the French Defense however is human error to say. Most humans say that 1.e4 c6 (the Caro-Kann research project) has an advantage over this system in that the Queen's bishop is still open.
I admit the Queen's bishop "Bishop of Power" on C8 is probably the piece of the sixteen I fail to spot the most in my opening analysis. However after 1...c6, the pawn structure favors the King's bishop. 1...c6 proposes the pawn structure of love (...d5, ...Nf6, etc.), in which Black should play patiently and naturally before venturing into goals like attacking White's kingside. In these games, the B7 pawn is weak if the C8 bishop is moved. The Queen's bishop is probably kept for backing up by the Queen (maybe on C8 with the bishop moved to D7) so that it can be sacrificed for the H3 pawn of White, if White castled kingside. Normally it is best reserved for tension build on G4 to pin the F3 knight for attack, but this form of knight-and-bishop counterplay is often more feasible in the 1...e5 games. So basically, the Queen's bishop is useless, and I'm sick of seeing "master"-level games in which players play QB-KN5 in the exchange variation games of the French Defense system...and statistically being unjustified in the game result.

The French Defense not only jams the bishop to its best square for this new nature but suggest ...d5 in a better fashion. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 is for White worse than 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 (which is more contradictory to having played 1.e4 in the first place, since White just compromised).

Forgot another game against the Xbox 360 engine.
1.e3 e5 2.Na3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nf3 e4 6.Ke2 exf3+ 7.Kxf3 Nf6 8.Be2 Bg4+ 9.Kg3 Bd6+ 10.f4 Ne4+ 11.Kxg4 Nf2+ 12.Kg3 Nxd1 13.Bb5+ Nc6 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.d3 Qg5+ 16.Kf3 Qh5+ 17.g4 Qh3+ 18.Ke2 Qg2+ 19.Kxd1 Bb4 20.Rg1 Qf3+ 21.Kc2 Qe2+ 22.Kb3 Rb8 23.Bd2 Qxd2 24.Ka4 Qxb2 25.d4 Qxa3#

1...g6 is probably a better opposition, but 1...e5 is probably the next best thing because, even in this reversed French type game, White had best not assume Black will play ...d7-d5. After 1.e3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.exd4 Black may have compromised but is ahead in initiative...just a small tidbit.

Topken
19th May 2009, 03:09 AM
lol you only posted one thing ont he first page and you started talking about tird on your 3rd or 4th post which is on the 2nd page so it started with you spitting out chess moves

HatCat
21st May 2009, 02:48 AM
What, does it bother you if I don't convert those to correspondence notation?

1.5254 5755 2.7163 7866 3.4244 4745 4.5445 5544 6.6125 3736 7.4152 4857 8.4536 2736 9.2534 5752 10.3452 6824
But you know, adults are stubborn...one potential accomplishment that chess has not fulfilled as well as else, is to punish decline from humanity. It's a strange concept yes? Humans playing each other, of course it doesn't happen.

Bah, algebraic, mechanical coordinate...anything's better than inaccurate "descriptive notation". Black, as the teacher and punisher of he who challenges and must move first, should adhere to square A1 as the origin. Emulating descriptive, A8 is instead the origin for Black. The two sides are not equal, or else there would be no aroused challenge in the initial game.

Actually, I think I was able to comprehend that, but in case you feel this way, I didn't kill this thread yo. Brandon was getting all personal and screaming at Zach for where to find a shrink or whatever the hell he fancies these days, and Zach, being 6 years younger, was probably the life of this thread.

If my shit is bad yo, this thread could have been closed straight after Brandon replied first. Maybe this hasn't ever been clear, but if anyone wants me to stop I have no reason to keep going right? So yeah, give the word. I'm prepared well to shun myself to confining this knowledge as I have been for years.

Mdkcheatz
3rd June 2009, 11:55 PM
There is nothing wrong with moving off topic under threads which have been resolved or are seemingly irrelevant. And besides, Chess = 99.9% pure skill, honorable from any valid point of view.

HatCat
4th June 2009, 03:05 AM
Honor me? Man that's nasty. I was gonna say shaddup for dragging this back otherwise but hm thanks for simply implying such an offer.

1.c4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 d6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.e4 Bg4 7.d3 Nd4 8.O-O h5 9.Bd2 h4 10.gxh4 Qc8 11.Qa4+ Kf8 12.Nxd4 Bh3 13.Bxh3 Qxh3 14.Be3 Rxh4 15.Bf4 Rxf4 16.Nde2 Ng4 17.Nxf4 Qxh2#

After reviewing with debug notes from VC64 it seems my mistake was giving up the knight with 11...Kf8, but at the very least my 12...Bh3 is very dangerous against anything White does on move thirteen. Otherwise my positional maneuvering stands solid. I could have dissolved the whole matter with 10...Qd7 though.

Chess can be skill, but it takes heart to play spiritually. Skill is more for machines...that have no heart. :P

squall_leonhart
4th June 2009, 10:05 AM
Queens porn.

i win.

HatCat
4th June 2009, 11:10 AM
Hm back to my own hope, sorry to mislead.

1.c4 g6 2.g3 Bg7 3.Bg2 Nc6 4.Nc3 d6 5.e3 Bd7 6.b3 Qc8 7.d4 a6 8.Nf3 Nf6 9.O-O O-O 10.Bb2 Rb8 11.d5 Nd8 12.a4 c5 13.Nd2 Ne8 14.f4 b5 15.axb5 axb5 16.Qc2 b4 17.Nce4 Qc7 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Rfd1 Bc8 20.Nf3 Bb7 21.g4 e6 22.dxe6 Nxe6 23.f5 Nd8 24.Qd3 Qe7 25.Nxd6 Bxf3 26.Nxe8+ Rxe8 27.Bxf3 Qxe3+ 28.Qxe3 Rxe3 29.Ra8 Rxa8 30.Bxa8 Re8 31.Bd5 Kf6 32.fxg6 hxg6 33.h4 Re3 34.g5+ Kf5 35.Bg2 Ne6 36.Rd7 Kg4 37.Rxf7 Kxh4 38.Bd5 Nxg5 39.Rf6 Rxb3 40.Rxg6 Rg3+ 41.Kf1 Nf3 42.Rxg3 Kxg3 43.Ke2 Nd4+ 44.Kd2 b3 45.Kc3 Kf4 46.Bf7 Ke3 47.Be8 Ke2 48.Ba4 Kd1 49.Bxb3+ Nxb3 50.Kxb3 Kd2 51.Ka4 Kc3 52.Kb5 Kd4 53.Kb6 Kxc4 54.Kc6 Kd4 55.Kb5 c4 56.Ka4 c3 57.Kb3 Kd3 58.Ka3 c2 59.Kb2 Kd2 60.Kb3 c1=Q 61.Kb4 Qc6 62.Ka5 Kc3 =
GAH that was dumb as hell. It is now 6 PM...err I mean AM, and after wasting all that patience on a stalemated game, I still have that assignment.
Really I stood up to check over school work, which today is when the book's closed so, hm. Not for me I guess. :D
"stalemate: the chess god's way of punishing arrogance", dammit when's the last time I even made it to the endgame phase with a machine anyway

Yay to me though, since I'm so damned, well staying up kinda doesn't get you all excited, all that slipped out at the game drawn message was Aw crap.

mew21
9th November 2012, 03:50 PM
Queens porn.

i win. wat does that mean and i have cc cleaner (laptop) is that k:confused:

mew21
9th November 2012, 03:53 PM
Queens porn.

i win.

Ok, so let me explain. I am a huge fan of Harvest Moon 64. I want to use an emulator, but I just got my new computer after losing my old one to a cataclysm of viruses and worms acquired through letting inebriated friends use my computer (I learned my lesson). So here is my question to you: has anyone had a problem with viruses using P64 and does anyone know where I can safely download the ROM?
you can go to cool rom.com they have safe 1s :D

HatCat
9th November 2012, 08:52 PM
wat does that mean and i have cc cleaner (laptop) is that k:confused:

Are you actually 21, or 12?

you can go to--

Wait, what?

Your post cut off. :D

Dr. Schnellinger
10th November 2012, 05:32 PM
And now for this special offer not sold in any stores!
Mind my French please...I mean to share my research on the Sicilian strategy. :)



Nah check back to page one. This is my garage now LOL!

So without further ado, as you guys can see I'm a lonely guy...I have no one to teach. I take no offense if my information in this thread results in moderation (or a ban) in application to me just to clarify. I mean I'm not going to get x banned for posting all this until Oblivion happens, so you folks can cross that off my list of intentions.

Today I looked at the O'Kelly variation 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 a6.

First understand the following.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 {
2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bb5+ Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bxc6+ +- {If 4.Bb5+ then 4...Nc6. Thus 5.Bb5+ calls exchange of bishops leading to maybe 5...Bd7 6.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 7.Nc3 Nc5 8.f3 e5 9.Nf5 g6 10.Ng3 +-}
2...e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.e5 +- {Jchess lost after a counterplay Queen trap in the game after playing 6...Qc7.}
2...Nc6 3.Bb5 {But little known is my finding of 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6!, which has good statistics for Black but very few games compared to the orthodox 4...Nf6 continuation.}}

2...a6 3.c4? {3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nf5? d5 -+} e6 4.Nc3 Qc7 does not prove victorious to White. Although this is documented in some OTB theory and also adopted by Virtual Chess, Black cannot be destroyed. The rival to Virtual Chess' powers, JESTER 1.10e, considered at preliminary notion 3.Bc4, 3.d4 with the annotated line immediately understood but, stubborn as the guy is, persisted, and after an hour of analysis 3.Nb1-c3. In computer chess, this is one scenario in which 3...Nc6xd4 is more considered than any of the normal development sequences, and the computers seem to solve growing evidence against such lines as middle-game error after 3.Nc3. More on these experiment notes later...

None of this "disproves" the Sicilian. (Nor are they well-known opening lines.) These are simply notes to justify that, after the Sicilian, both sides must fight and face many questions.

I think the "sacrificial" concern over the French Defense however is human error to say. Most humans say that 1.e4 c6 (the Caro-Kann research project) has an advantage over this system in that the Queen's bishop is still open.
I admit the Queen's bishop "Bishop of Power" on C8 is probably the piece of the sixteen I fail to spot the most in my opening analysis. However after 1...c6, the pawn structure favors the King's bishop. 1...c6 proposes the pawn structure of love (...d5, ...Nf6, etc.), in which Black should play patiently and naturally before venturing into goals like attacking White's kingside. In these games, the B7 pawn is weak if the C8 bishop is moved. The Queen's bishop is probably kept for backing up by the Queen (maybe on C8 with the bishop moved to D7) so that it can be sacrificed for the H3 pawn of White, if White castled kingside. Normally it is best reserved for tension build on G4 to pin the F3 knight for attack, but this form of knight-and-bishop counterplay is often more feasible in the 1...e5 games. So basically, the Queen's bishop is useless, and I'm sick of seeing "master"-level games in which players play QB-KN5 in the exchange variation games of the French Defense system...and statistically being unjustified in the game result.

The French Defense not only jams the bishop to its best square for this new nature but suggest ...d5 in a better fashion. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 is for White worse than 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 (which is more contradictory to having played 1.e4 in the first place, since White just compromised).

Forgot another game against the Xbox 360 engine.
1.e3 e5 2.Na3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Nf3 e4 6.Ke2 exf3+ 7.Kxf3 Nf6 8.Be2 Bg4+ 9.Kg3 Bd6+ 10.f4 Ne4+ 11.Kxg4 Nf2+ 12.Kg3 Nxd1 13.Bb5+ Nc6 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.d3 Qg5+ 16.Kf3 Qh5+ 17.g4 Qh3+ 18.Ke2 Qg2+ 19.Kxd1 Bb4 20.Rg1 Qf3+ 21.Kc2 Qe2+ 22.Kb3 Rb8 23.Bd2 Qxd2 24.Ka4 Qxb2 25.d4 Qxa3#

1...g6 is probably a better opposition, but 1...e5 is probably the next best thing because, even in this reversed French type game, White had best not assume Black will play ...d7-d5. After 1.e3 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.exd4 Black may have compromised but is ahead in initiative...just a small tidbit.

HHmmmm..... d*mn...!! :cool:

HatCat
11th November 2012, 12:05 AM
French Defense still pwnz.

</topic>