#41  
Old 2nd May 2009, 03:32 AM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xcdjy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 2nd May 2009, 05:45 AM
Mdkcheatz's Avatar
Mdkcheatz Mdkcheatz is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Mr. Syrup
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: the Milky Way, I think...
Posts: 763
Talking The rap-ed Gamit of Spaataa

Quote:
Originally Posted by rswedlow View Post
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).


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.



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.

__________________
The World is burning...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 2nd May 2009, 05:18 PM
CA5 CA5 is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdkcheatz View Post

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).


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.



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.

Kenilworth Chess Club?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 2nd May 2009, 05:24 PM
omegadox omegadox is offline
Project Supporter
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: I dunno
Posts: 54
Default

LOOOOOOOOOOL
I know you had to copy pasta that.
__________________
Emulation is my hobby.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 2nd May 2009, 05:31 PM
CA5 CA5 is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegadox View Post
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/i...ution-game.gif

Tut. Tut. Tut
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 2nd May 2009, 06:09 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,236
Default

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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 2nd May 2009, 06:10 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,236
Default

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 2nd May 2009, 06:31 PM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,236
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 2nd May 2009, 07:35 PM
Mdkcheatz's Avatar
Mdkcheatz Mdkcheatz is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Mr. Syrup
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: the Milky Way, I think...
Posts: 763
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegadox View Post
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
__________________
The World is burning...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11th May 2009, 01:16 AM
HatCat's Avatar
HatCat HatCat is offline
Alpha Tester
Project Supporter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In my hat.
Posts: 16,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xcdjy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mdkcheatz View Post

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).


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.



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.

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.

Last edited by HatCat; 11th May 2009 at 01:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
download, harvest moon 64, is it safe, now_please_remeber_the_, project64istrojanhonest, titans_they_are_so_go, viruses

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.