AbigailII: hehe, apologies ... I'm was lazy the day i read the posts. ;)

AbigailII: english descriptive notation was scrapped because it leads to ambiguity errors far too frequently ... modern algebraic notation was adopted by the international chess federation and most national federations.

ketchuplover: I like that link ... capablanca always does better than expected in these kinds of rankings.

435152: you're still on this topic? It's four months old ... find something else to talk about ... perhaps a topic more suited to your talents.

panzerschiff: That's a good point regarding the difference of chess engines and computer selected moves. I'm glad to see a more logical approach to the problem (as compared to 435152). thanks, JV.

lukulus: I was going to say that - but then some other people (who will remain nameless) might figure out they can cheat that way ... because the way to detect a computer cheater is the exact same way to cheat.

435152: "you said i know nothing about chess, i know more than you know."

I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion. We've never played that I can remember. I have several open game slots if you'd like to put all your cards on the table. This discussion is over from my end (because when facts and logic are ignored discussion is pointless).

435152: 1) if a 1900 can't know if he's playing a computer ... what chance does a 1400 have? none.

2) Kasarov is most famous for publicly admitting to anonymously playing chess on the internet. big names like Karpov and Polgar have also done it.

You said: "computer won all the matches against human, not just by winning one single game" This is only a half truth. It is true that humans have been beaten in matches in the last several years. However, matches between computers and world champions have had by far more drawn games and are usually decided by one or two games.

It's becoming obvious to me that you are someone who knows quite a bit about Chinese Chess but almost nothing about Chess.

Walter Montego: I agree. I also think that what is true of dark chess is true of jungle ... under the radar.

435152: I never said I could tell the difference between a person's good move and a computer's ... just that you couldn't.

You said "no world champion will come to this site, no GM , even a good player won't play here." ... this is plainly wrong ... masters play on any number of sites. Why wouldn't they play here?

lastly, computers don't beat humans consistently in chess. Winning a single game is not the same as beating an entire species. Any computer can beat my grandmother ... does that mean computers are better? The last organized matches between GMs and computers were gross mismatches (GM Jaan and GM Milov got their heads handed to them ... neither has been active in top chess)

Clandestine 1: "it speaks to their character." most definitely agreed!

One game which is so far impossible to cheat at is Jungle and the variant I co-created - Big Jungle. All computers play the game poorly and lose quickly to the best humans (as the best I can say that with confidence).

435152: firstly, a 1400 rated chessplayer could not possibly know whether an opponent was making computer level moves.

secondly, how would computer cheaters be caught? by making good moves? What if the player you're playing is a world champion? How do you KNOW he's cheating?

I understand the frustration but humans still stand a chance against computers.

Chessvine.com is having a contest specifically for chess bloggers/writers ... check it out ...

http://chessvine.com/archives/31-Chessvine-Blogger-Contest.html

panzerschiff: you're right of course, I was beating my friends and even performing simul exhibitions before I even played in tournaments and my first rating was a whopping 1068. Today it is much higher just as yours (although admittedly lower than yours, panzerschiff). It is difficult to state simply what is the difference between the master and the amateur, I still consider myself an amateur just because I don't have any Title other than "High Class B" which isn't brag-able like "master" or even "expert". judging by recent successes and failures my hard work is paying off (I train about an hour a day on average). I can't wait for that day when I can say, "I'm a Chess Master". I'm still going to lose an unprecedented number of games but I'll be losing to Titled players and not feel so bad. ;)

Check it out! . . .

http://www.writingup.com/blog/colonelcrockett

rabbitoid: lol . . . very cheery

redsales: neat . . . I'll have to look it up!

redsales: what's the books premise?

votacommunista: Shirov has also used it . . . however, I think most Nimzo enthusiasts haven't studied the f3 line (instead voting for the Nf3 stuff) and so you may catch even a seasoned Nimzo-indian player off guard with f3.

it was only there because f3 has novelty value. :)

I have read a little bit about this interesting opening line . . .
1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e6
3.Nc3 Bb4
4.f3?!

I was wondering what others thought of it.

votacommunista: Kaidanov had a copy in Russian . . . it was very worn . . . he must have read it alot.

mctrivia: GM Gregory Kaidanov recommeded to me . . . "Think Like A Grandmaster" by Alexander Kotov . . . the book is an excellent work!

Groucho: I don't like Fischer. His comments aside, I don't like his play . . . His games are difficult for the beginner to look at and comprehend, very few of his moves are straightforward. Therefore with that viewpoint I don't think Fischer contributed anything useful to the average player's chess. He doesn't belong on my list . . .

Socrates:

1.Botvinnik
2.Alekhine
3.Morphy
4.Nimzowit
sch
5.Tarrasch

Note: this list was compiled with the idea of the "best contributor" to the game not necessarily the strongest.

bengood24: he "sacked" a pawn on me at the MSU open and nearly lost (if he had Class A money would have split and I would have likely not got Class B prize).

bengood24: especially if your last name is Baker, eh, Ben?

Matarilevich: exactly!

Groucho: and the repeats don't have to be consecutive (i.e. it isn't a repetition of moves, it is a repetition of a board position).

Fencer: I'll have to remember that, it might come in handy, "asi je to remiza". :)

jfa: unfortunately you are correct. I expect to occassionally come across a cheater but as of yet I have never accussed anyone. I don't make such allogations, what would be the point?

pawnme: I would agree except I would exclude extinction, anti, and knight relay. I don't think these variants have anything to do with chess skill. I however think that performance at other games of skill (like Jungle) can be a good indicator of critical thinking skills (and as far as I know there is no jungle engine, if there is one someone please correct me).

Stormerne: I was simply pointing out that he made no unfounded accussations, he simply pointed out that some top players are using computer assistance (which would be the point of such cheating, to get a high rating). It has nothing to do with cultural difference, in fact I have been accused on other sites of cheating but my brainking rating and my over-the-board rating proves otherwise.

WhisperzQ: I always kinda thought if I ever played against someone using a program I'd just try to beat it. (and I hope one day I will, but that seems unrealistic)

Stormerne: why get so bent out of shape? He didn't accuse you did he?

Grim Reaper: I think this is a very insightful comment. however, I think confining the Bishop to g2 or e2 seems less desireable that c4 (which is just a matter of personal taste, not that there is anything wrong with your idea).

jfa: If wonder if some GM will one day show us all just exactly why Nc3 isn't played. my guess is Nc3 has the same fate as the Colle, everyone says it's passive-so it must be. :)

jfa: you have a point here, it does allow for "free" development. but the freedom I think is mutual. The main point of the variation is that standard maneuvers for advantage by black just don't work. (i.e. e6-d5 is prevented, at least early, and the a6-b5 plan doesn't yield much, even against a queenside castle). It is also good since most Sicilian-ers are looking for the early d4 for white to avoid this line completely, I have never had any luck with d4 anyway. I'm certainly not saying that Nc3 is superior to Nf3 or that the d4 plan is bad, I'm just looking for the weak spots in Nc3 (as it is hard to find written materials on it, not like the ultra-popular Nf3).

jfa: do you think 2.Nf3 is any more "attacking" than Nc3? There is no direct threat early in the game with either move. I just don't like playing Nf3 because it gives Bg4 strength. Whereas Nc3 allows for a possible queenside castle with a pawnstorm if black castle kingside. isn't that a plan of attack?

jfa: but reverse reverse psychology works even in home analysis. :) ROFL

Stormerne: I heard of it but never read it. I play mostly psychology which is why I'm so much more dangerous in person than here. I'd be a master if it wasn't for that rating requirement. LOL :)

Stormerne: The reason I asked was to see how many players would try the move e6. This is inferior in my view because I want to play Bc4 and d3 anyway. I too believe in the "play the man" philosophy. I have won many games by not necessarily playing my best chess but by using psychological factors.

in the opinions of this board what is the best options black has against (1.e4 c5 2.Nc3)?

Is any rating system really worth that much? I have been playing tournament chess in the US for a number of years now and I've gotten to the point where I beat 1800s pretty regularly and I'm still only a class B. The USCF system is known for its ability to inflate sporadically (at both ends) and this site is under the same problems. The system is also padded at the bottom so that the difference between the 1300-1700 range is relatively small. I don't put much faith in any rating system so whatever Fencer desides to do to alter the BK system it doesn't really matter.

rabbitoid: hmmm . . . I don't know Mely, maybe I'll look him up . . . seems ridiculously high rated though . . .

lukulus: interesting post that came out of nowhere . . . and probably correct . . .

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 Nd7 6. O-O c5 7. c4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 cxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Qf4 Ne7 11. Qg3 Be4 12. Nbd2 Nf5 13. Qg4 Bc6 14. Bd3 h5 15. Qf4 g5 16. Nxg5 Rg8 17. Ndf3 Bxf3 18. Nxf3 Rg4 19. Qd2 Nh4 20. Nxh4 Qxh4 21. Be2 Rg8 22. Qf4 Qh3 23. Bf3 O-O-O 24. Qe4
I am curious about the sac on my 15th . . . what do some other people think of it? I saw the position stagnating and thought that against a 2300+ I'd better mix things up before I lost in a "quiet" game. I think the pawn sac was the right idea but I think subsequent moves like 21. ... Rg8 are very suspect.

WhisperzQ: chess is an even contest (although I swear some people have an extra queen) LOL!!

chessmec: This is indeed correct. The difference between a better player and a worse player is not so much in the ability to think ahead as it is in the ability to formulate a plan. The real difference is that the amateur formulates a bad one or doesn't formulate one at all. (I say all this of course knowing that I have not yet reached what I consider "good" so anything I say is subject to scrutiny) (p.s. I should rant about losing a single game to a master player and ending up with a provisional BKR of 1616!)

WhisperzQ: perhaps you might find it easier for correspondence games if you write down the variations you considered. I have been known to write down moves on a scrap piece of paper and scribble over the entire sheet in frustration when a single missed variation leads to a mess! As far as thinking ahead (which is actually more critical in OTB tournaments) I think it really depends on the position as to whether three moves is superior to seven. as a side note, how did you get to 2100 without thinking further than three moves, you must mean you can only think (more) accurately in a three move analysis tree?

Lone star: well, mostly just the sky . . . and you?