TalJechin wrote on 07/11/09 at 14:16:58:


The little fish is indeed a monster. I've seen on several websites the rating fluctuate between 3000 and 3200 so we can safely say that it is somewhere above 3000. 2300 players (as myself) shouldn't pretend that they can add much above the evaluations of Rybka. I said it before 90 - 95% of my analysis is coming from Rybka because I realise that I can't improve on the large majority of her moves.

Quite some autors insufficiently check their analysis with a strong engine. You would imagine this is standard policy but I've seen too many times differently.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/11/09 at 16:27:11:


Sometimes I am inclined to think that computer engines are doing darn good moves ... not to understand chess, I mean.

rossia wrote on 07/11/09 at 13:39:15:


You forget that authors these days use rybka too, so e.g. Rowson would then have an elo of 2591+3100=5691 

Of course, comparing "elo" between machine and man has no significance as these ratings are earned under completely different circumstances...

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/11/09 at 12:51:16:


You still don't get it. References are nice but concrete analysis is the only truth. B.t.w are in the examples of Rowson, Watson and Cox still the queens on the board? Does black possess a double e-pawn? I've not seen the books but I strongly doubt. On top just play the position out against Rybka and you will see how difficult if not impossible it is to make a draw.

Weren't you yesterday claiming that 17.., Rc8 was worth an exclamation mark? Today you claim 17.., Qe7 is the move. Tomorrow it will be 17.., Rd8? By changing every post, you just show that things aren't that easy for black. If you can be serious then you will admit that but I am still waiting for such admission.

There is a lot more going on than some exchanges on the d-file. Chess is almost always more complicated.

I like the books' recommendation vs 2.Nc3, i.e 2...Nf6 3.Bg5 d5 4.Bxf6 exf6 5.e3 c6!? with idea of Na6-c7-e6-g5-e4 - not that there's anything wrong with Kindermann's recommendation of 5...Be6, Qd7, Nc6 etc but it's nice with some variety.

However, one nifty thing with the K-mann's set-up is that it's easy to play when white tries to move-order you. Instead of 4.Bxf6 white often keeps that as an option (especially in blitz it's almost the main line at least in my experience) and makes the other usual moves first, e.g: 4.e3 Be6 and Qd7, Nc6 and white usually ends up playing Bxf6 eventually.

But how do you reach the book's set-up with ...c6, ...Na6 after 4.e3 and white delaying Bd3 (so it can take Na6 in one go) with moves like h4/h3/Qf3/Nh3-f4 etc? Is this 4.e3-approach covered somewhere in the book? (I can't find it, but I might have missed some "Exercise" or "Theory section" somewhere...)

After e.g: 4.e3 c6 5.Qf3 Qb6 6.0-0-0 white seems to benefit from not having 'developed' Bf8 with Bxf6 exf6, as b2 is conveniently defended.

I suppose the authors all play 1...e6 and not 1...f5!

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

I had a different interpretation of your statement. Your statements are sometimes so vague that it is very difficult to understand what you exactly mean. To avoid that I propose you explain your idea with 1 line played against the mainchoice of Rybka 3.0. If afterwards I still come up with an improvement over Rybka 3.0 then this would automatically prove that the engine isn't doing solely the analysis that I post.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

This forum is too open to elaborate on this point.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

I fully agree.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

Getting help from someone can't be considered personal hard work either.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

I am following Kotronias work for quite some years already because he always gives a very good impression concerning his openingplay. If his tactical skills would be a bit better then I believe that he would be a +2700 player. I recommend you also try to follow Volotikin. He is much younger,also very theoretical player and has still some margin to improve further. Unfortunately lately I've the feeling he somewhat stagnated. I am diverting from the subject but one more funny anecdote. End of 2007 I published:  

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1186744450/15 in which I gave a couple of variations revealing the weakness of at that time very fashionable idea. Only hours later Kotronias played exactly how I recommended against Mastrovasilis in a Greece championship and won a nice game. I am pretty sure that he didn't see my post earlier that day but it was quite funny to see different people coming at approximately the same time independently to the same conlcusions.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

I don't blame you for that at contrary I find it very good. 

However I don't like it that you call others work lazy while you don't bother yourself to carefully check your analysis with a computerprogram and claim you are right while the PC is showing a different evalualtion. As you said yourself, it is no hard work to let the PC run. You have a PC with Rybka 3 so not using it is to check your own idea I can also call laziness.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

Rybka sees 12...Bxe5. Not as first choice but as fourth choice within 5 hundreds of a pawn from his mainchoice (depending on the hardware and time used of course). As experienced correspondence player this automatically means for me that I have to analyse the move which I did. My conclusion was the move is interesting but there is no real proof that it is better than the alternatives. I can't publish all the sidevariations on this forum. I offered in my initial post to the ones interested that they could contact me for extra information. Some already did.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

Not using extensively a PC will not give as good results as somebody who does.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:


1. d4, f5 2.g3, Nf6 3. Bg2, e6 4. Nf3, d5 5. 0-0, Bd6 6. c4, c6 7. Qc2, 0-0 8. Nc3, Ne4 9. Ne4:, de4: 10. Bg5, Qe8 11. Ne5, c5 12. Be3, Be5: 13. de5:, b6 14. f3, ef3: 15. Bf3:, Nc6 16. Qc3, Bb7 17. Rad1, Rc8 18. Rd2, Na5 19. Rfd1, Bf3: 20. ef3:, Nb7 21. a3, Qc6 22. Kg2, Rfd8 23. b4 and white still keeps some pressure. This position is still extremely complicated with lots of hidden sacrifices.

Ametanoitos wrote on 07/10/09 at 14:57:37:

1. d4, f5 2.g3, Nf6 3. Bg2, e6 4. Nf3, d5 5. 0-0, Bd6 6. c4, c6 7. Qc2, 0-0 8. Nc3, Ne4 9. Ne4:, de4: 10. Bg5, Qe8 11. Ne5, c5 12. Be3, Be5: 13. de5:, b6 14. Qc3 (I still prefer slightly 14. f3 so normally I shouldn't look at this but I just want to point out that some of your analysis isn't fully correct because you stop too early with the analysis.), Nc6 15. Rad1 (In this line a bit stronger I believe is 15. Rfd1 but I won't elaborate on that because we are just treating a subline.), Qe7 and now you give 3 lines:

A) 16. f3, ef3: 17. Bf3:, Bb7 18. Rd6, Nd8 19. Rfd1, Bf3: 20. ef3:, Qe8 is equal however black needs to avoid 21. Rd7, Nf7 22. f4 with a solid advantage for white
B) 16. Rd6, Bb7 17. a3, Rad8 18. Rfd1, Nd4 and you stop but after 19. Bd4:, Rd6: 20. ed6:, Qd6: 21. Rd2, cd4: 22. Rd4: gives white still some chances thanks to the flexible pawnmajority on the queenside.
C) 16. a3, Rd8 17. Rd8:, Qd8: 18. b4, Qc7 and you stop and say it is nice and equal but after 19. Rd1 white still has the initiative.
 
So Qc3 stays the critical path.

brabo wrote on 07/09/09 at 19:48:18:


a reader has that right. Or are you going to ridicule every positive comment in this thread about the book?

And how much work has gone into a book isn't of any concern to a reader, just the quality of the book. 

Anyway carry on your little crusade.