I have some (weak) documentation about Morphy having actually played Steinitz. That is currently being discussed there as well. From some scrap of paper found in a chess book written by Lionel Kieseritzsky years ago, it appears we have a "signpost" indicating they did play, although the game itself is not yet found.

Chessmaster1000: Kasparov was the first champion who was entirely professional, both politically, preparation-wise and socially. The others were a bit quirky and did not present themselves well to the public at large. Kasparov's rock and roll blitx in 1987 at St. Johns with Short was a great example of orchestrating popular chess for the masses.

BUT..best of all time..Capa and Morphy lost so few against their contemporaries. Alekhine was possessed of something special too...i'll work on resurrecting them. I'd rather see them play fischer chess, that would be something.

I'm a member in 85 forums NOT including these at Brainking. I'm a daily-active-posting member in around 30, a daily-active-reader-only in about 30 and i just look from time to time the other....
So adding a new one would not be a big problem, but it is already difficult to handle.....

You should post your comments there George, they would be very much welcome.

Ed Trice in another forum wrote:
I was wondering what some of our chess enthusiasts would consider the best "Dream Match" of all time? Who would you like to see play chess across the decades, or centuries?

My own favorites (not in any order)

1. Morphy vs. Fischer
2. Tal vs. Capablanca
3. Steintz vs. Morphy
4. Lasker vs. Kasparov
5. Karpov vs. Alekhine

Any predictions on how your matches would turn out?

1. Morphy vs. Fischer = 0-1
2. Tal vs. Capablanca = 0-1
3. Steintz vs. Morphy = 0-1
4. Lasker vs. Kasparov = 0-1
5. Karpov vs. Alekhine = 1-0

But the best matches would be the amazing Capablanca versus Kasparov of Fischer. My belief is that Capablanca was the best Chess-brain ever and he could not lose if he wanted.......Kasparov is incredible of cource but this is caused on a big degree due to his amazing preparation......
Fischer is just the top of brilliance but he was not so "normal" to become the best of the best, as he didn't last long enough......

Yep, and i suggest you to see it's game against Junior. A strong game. If you have Chessbase GUI you should see its evaluations. At move 33.Nd5 most top programs show a small or good score for white but not a clear win that Zappa 2.0 shown. It's attack was fantastic........! Of cource the fact that Zappa used a quad computer was a strong help but we should not overestimate this......

Chessmaster1000: you mean this one
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/acozzie2/www/zappa/

And the draw was against a program that finished last and scored only 1.5 points......

Also to correct ChessCarpenter that said "This site is very informative about ZAPPA and included on the site is a FREE download of the program which I think everyone here might be interested in!!",
i have to say that the version of Zappa that is available for free download is 1.1 while the one that played at WCCC-2005 was the 2.0 and it will become commercial.......Acccording to its author Zappa 1.1 is much weaker than top commercials while 2.0 is almost like them.....

Also in such a short tournament the result of Zappa maybe lucky and if instead 110 games were played, it may had much worse results.....We will see sometime at September when it will become available to buy.......

Interesting talk of the new Zappa chess program, which went 10.5 out of 11, beating Shredder and all other programs except 1 draw to become the Computer World Champion, is now going on at:

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Free_FICS_Forum/

For those like me, that like chess, but aren't very good :o)

Or perhaps you would like to try playing a few games you haven't tried before.

BKR up to 1000, unrated players allowed if not too good a player

http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=9822

Thanks

Jo

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).

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 gives Black several ways to get a comfortable game. As white in the Sicilian, you want to drive the play as often as you can, not limit yourself by giving the opponent a "trampoline bounce" in the early middlegame.

After 1. e4 c5 as white, I would smile and let the game proceed 2. Nf3 d6 (the most usual reply) at which time 3. d4 is expected. I just reply 3. d3 and watch my opponents' expressions change from happiness over heading into a well-known Sicilian system to one of mild concern, as white now has even more options at his disposal.

You can get into a very nice King's Indian Attack formation using 3. d3, and that opening is one that is "fluent" and very easy to understand, even better, it almost plays by itself, and white's attacks unfold almost without effort.

ColonelCrockett: Again, 2.Nc3 is perfectly acceptable no matter what level of play.

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. :)

ColonelCrockett: I think I can say with confidence that there is absolutely nothing wrong with 2.Nc3 and if you ever want to try it with 3.g3 you should be able to find some good books. Spassky was a specialist in the Closed Sicilian and collected many scalps! The Grand-Prix Attack following 3.f4 is also well covered. As for the system with Bc4 and d3, you're right, I haven't seen much on it. Probably because, while somewhat popular at the club level, it is practically never seen in grandmaster games.

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).

ColonelCrockett: sorry for not making myself more clear. I see absolutely nothing wrong with 2.Nc3, or Bc4 followed by d3 for that matter. I was just wondering what the attraction to this set-up might be as I have never played the White side. As Black it seems to allow me a rather free development. Thanks for explaining some of the thinking behind it.

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?

ColonelCrockett: I have a serious question now, why do you play the Sicilian with Bc4 and d3. I never understood this much. I see it often online and have never lost to it. I supposed most players who choose 1.e4 are attacking style and should be looking forward to Sicilians in which they can maintain more of an advantage and have a more direct plan attack.

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

ColonelCrockett: I think playing in person is great, I just don't want to be there when it happens. p.s. Beware of reverse psychology! I tried it in my home analysis and wound up in a horrible position. :-)

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 :)

ColonelCrockett: In which case you will like Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb, ostensibly a children's book but most adults benefit from reading it.

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.

ColonelCrockett: In my opinion, it depends on who you're playing. I'm a firm believer in playing the man not the board and over the board in matches (rather than here) that can be very effective.

I like to play 2...a6. That's partly because I used to play the 2...a6 O'Kelly variation in reply to 2.Nf3 throughout the 70s and 80s, even against people like James Plaskett, transposing into a Kan if white played c4. An early a6 is often effect as it often gets White out of his normal thinking. That can be good against bookish players or players stronger than you. Against a weaker player you might keep to more classical lines. Whatever you do, don't end up playing against yourself - always a danger with very tactical lines against a weak player when a simpler alternative would have done.

I'm pleased to see that 2...a6 still gets good stats here:
>http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=33281&move=2.5&moves=e4.c5.Nc3&nodes=21720.32033.33281

though the sample is rather small. In any case it is NOT a refutation of 2.Nc3. I doubt there is one.

ColonelCrockett: If you play Classical and/or Dragon variations then 2...Nc6 is good when white may avoid 3.g3, 3.f4, etc. and play an open Sicilian with 3.Nf3 followed by 4.d4 etc. Najdorf players often play 2...d6 for this reason. I consider 2...Nc6 as maybe best, but not a "refutation".

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

ChessCarpenter has drawn Game 1 in the World Open this evening in Philadelphia. He was up a pawn as Black in the Sicilian, but his opponent forced a repetition draw in less than 20 moves, a true rarity for that opening.

we had spotted all edges of imaginable systems exhaustingly - furthermore there was
not too much to add anyway. After our dear comrade from a twig on the branche of the
lost tribes acchieved that very nicely as I bet, we may return to the real game in peace. ~*~

Grim Reaper: Thats the best suggestion I've seen on the rating system . Now all that needs to be done is to convince Fencer.

There is one problem with the "falling" system, and that is regarding multiple win matches. A 10 wins match counts as 1 game, and it could take a very, very long time to complete. If this is the only thing you have going, you could still be active and lose points.

In my own case, a good % of my tournament games end up in 3-wins matches. So many games are not even applied to my rating. I have 15 won tournaments, and most were 3-0 situations, so I have up to 30 games unaccounted for that look like inactivity. That is about 11% of all of my games dropping through the cracks.

What should happen is, after X days of no results for a particular game type, you just don't show on the "active" list. You are still there, no diminished rating, just not visible until you play again.

That way:

1. "Rating mongers" who just win a few games to get an inflated rating fall off the list.

2. Those who disappear due to a temporary leave of absence can re-appear when they start playing.

3. Those coddled into playing who are truly over-rated will rebalance the system by losing points once they become active again.

Bluefin: hehehe now that you mention - indeed ...
well unlike the 10x8 variation board it is still serious after all ... ~*~ .

Although I rarely participate, I enjoy reading the discussion boards, especially the chess board. I was a little confused to day, This board is very similar to the Brain King board. Still interesting, and I think you have some good points. LOL

danoschek: at any rate, the creation of pawn accounts will spread enough chaff to blur any countermeasures we may take for those who are determined to see their numbers up.

redsales: it may be that you play 30 games but won't finish a single one
within a month ... the "taxes system" mustn't get effective without delay thus ... ~*~

when you say inactivity, i hope you mean moving rather than finishing games?

WhisperzQ: What I was proposing is already an exponential system since the amount varies according to your level. Actually increasing the slope over time I hadn't planned for and I'm not convinced it would work, But there's an alternative: have a fixed drop per month. That means that the percentage increases over time. Perhaps 2 BKR per day?

It would start only when you have a rating, i.e. have completed at least one game in game type. You could also bottom it out at 1300 and not subtract points below that since that is the hidden starting BKR.

WhisperzQ: Thanks, I often refer to this anyway!

My preference is for the falling system, rather than removal. Although more complicated, it could be expedential ... 0% for the first month, 1/2% for next month, then 1% for third, and so on. The other question is what you would need to do to start on the slippery slid ... just make a move? start a game? finish a game? hmmm

jfa: With regard to not knowing potentially how good someone is, well there is the graph which gives you an idea of how high a person may have risen at one stage, so long as you are a paying member. Even pawns have graphs, just they can't see them.

jfa: Ha ha! It may happen. My history is of playing for 2 years then not playing at all for another 5 years! And then the cycle repeats. But don't hold your breath. :)

(By the way 0.3% per week is about 0.07% per non-vacation-non-weekend day)

Stormerne: Well then, I hope you quit playing chess for a few years! May be the only way for me to get closer...

only penalty rating is debatable if we wish to stay serious. ~*~

jfa: The reason I prefer the falling rating system over the removal system is that there are many players who, like me, like to concentrate on just one or two games at a time. So I might spend a year on chess and tablut and then another on another combination of games like tablut and backgammon (or more likely Go or Xiangqi if they ever appear). That's the way I play because that's how my mind works. I prefer obsession to diversity! :) I wouldn't want my ratings removed just because I'm having a sabbatical on one game to concentrate on another, but I'd be willing to take the hit from a falling rating.

Stormerne: fair enough... still I prefer removal system :-)

Stormerne: right - no contradiction.
I just meant the idea of additional vacancy days
as demanded to be buyable on another board by stallers ... ~*~

danoschek: Yes, deductions should be stopped on a vacation day. But I would do that unconditionally, whether or not it is an autovacation. That is because you buy your vacation limit with the membership fee and it doesn't matter whether that's planned or auto.

jfa: That's why I say we should keep the existing system too. That would tell you your relativity. But the RANKING system would be based on these falling ratings.

Stormerne: sounds like a very good idea to me ... vacancy should halt
it though - and if the silliness of buyable vacancy days for stallers is put into
trash where it belongs instead on discussion boards I second unconditionally ... ~*~

Stormerne: Thing is, it loses relativity. Unless I investigate/calculate, I would'nt know if a player is 100 points below me or 100 points above me but just hasn't played in awhile. There was talk of removing inactive players from the list. I personally prefer that solution.

Actually, I'd be in favour of introducing a "falling rating" system, not necessarily instead of the existing system but maybe as an addition to it. It would work like this. Existing BKR would calculated just like now from the outcome of games. However, additionally an amount would be DEDUCTED regularly from ALL BKRs. This could be a percentage like 0.3% per week.

This would mean that you have to keep playing and keep winning in order to keep a high rating. If you don't keep playing then people pass you and your 2700 rating will fall to 2300 over the course of year and down to 2000 over two years.

This is like negative interest in a bank account! The interest rate could be adjusted of course - 0.3%/week is only a suggestion - and the time it's applied could be daily instead (by a smaller amount). But the principle is still there that you couldn't rest on your laurels once you got to the top.

What does everyone think?