Wow, this thread has been busy today!

I don't know who Gambit means when he repeatedly says "you" rely on computers; you will struggle [in over-the-board matches] computer-lover!

If Gambit refers to me, I admit, I am not a complete luddite.  I use this site regularly.  I love using this site.  I am a computer-lover.  Computers make my work-related tasks and chess related tasks so much easier that I would hate to go back to pen and paper to keep my analysis and gradebook.

I didn't see any other Mr. Gambits here.  I don't see anyone making dogmatic statements that using certain techniques to research is cowardly.  Perhaps the lens I am looking through should be a mirror, but even my own sharp comments about sloth were meant to switch the topic away from cowardice and on to ways of becoming more productive.

Yes, I agree there are many, many reasons to play chess.  Not all reasons involve getting any better.  But the people who post here generally want to share ideas and hone their opening skills.  Whatever their reasons for that, I do not begrudge them using whatever means they may use.

David Bronstein (and others) have dreamed beautiful continuations.  Korchnoi played Maroczy through a medium.  Practical play can be extremely rewarding.  But it can also be sickening, especially when distractions in a tournament hall lead to a loss of concentration which then lead to a loss.

Correspondence chess appeals to some as a way of gaining a deeper truth.  That's too much work for me.  I enjoy the quick version of correspondence chess, but I also play 3-minute chess and 45 45 chess regularly.  Each has its own charms that may appeal to different people.

I tried to show that even dogmatism has its place in chess theory. But that dogmatism, to be interesting (nevermind fruitful) should not be repeated ad nauseum without revision, especially when the particular dogmatism has been defeated in the eyes of all but the author.

Whereas others use the second person when writing, I try to use first person singular.  If I decide to discuss someone's idea, I will usually refer to that person.  The anonymous "you" is cowering in some corner.

Göran wrote on 07/14/09 at 19:13:05:


Yes, the above highlights one of the reasons why I post in these threads.  I regularly get a sense of "do it my way or you waste your talent", primarily from players who are much higher-rated than I- the idea being that the only correct way to play is to play for results, and that anything else results in a waste of talent (in the sense of getting lesser results than one is capable of).

However the difference with Gambit is that he is (IMHO) rather less civilised about promoting his approach.  Unfortunately, it helps to give anything along the lines of his approach a bad name, and plays into the hands of the idea that the "results are the be-all and end-all" is the right approach.

The question of whether or not you accept gambits is more a matter of taste than a matter of "cowardice", IMHO.  Personally I tend to accept most gambits, because I find the resulting positions more fun to play, and more conducive to winning chances, than those that result from the declined variations.  But Markovich's argument for declining the Goring Gambit with 4...d5 (just to take one example) is also perfectly valid.

Re. Gambit posting games about 3...Nge7 4.Nc3, he seems to keep missing an important point.  The assessment of the objective merits of a system is better found through analysis (for which computers can provide valuable assistance).  Games only show its practical value.  I could post a load of Black wins with the Fred Defence (1.e4 f5) and they would tell us nothing about the objective merits of the system.

Lev, regarding your last post, there is no one here who is not perfectly capable of pulling off good moves over the board -- some more than others, I admit.  So all this talk about computers and supposed computer-worshiping is a way of changing the subject, isn't it?

Do you really think the Englund Gambit is as good as the Nimzo or the Slav?  For play in open sections or U2400 sections, for example? 

If you're preparing for a U2400 section, is it cowardice to prepare not the Englund, but the Slav?  If I sit down with the black pieces in such a section and encounter the Goering, I'm almost certainly going to play 4...d5.  Is that cowardice, or good sense?  Why should I play straight into my opponent's preparation?  My usual attitude with the black pieces is, "Well, come and beat me if you think you can," not, "I'm going to show you up in your own preparation."  I modestly submit that the former attitude is more conducive to producing a good score. 

By the same token I like fighting chess, so I'm more likely to play the KID than the QGD, but in no case would I play the Englund.  Is that cowardice?

1. Cowardice 2 Romantic style then. Still it won't help the case talking over somebody's head.

No actually, this is not a discussion about 1.d4 e5.

But the question is not just about whether his results would improve, it's also about whether he would derive as much enjoyment from it, in particular the "hard work" aspect.  That aspect is the main reason why I do not have personal aspirations to become a grandmaster (although I'm quite happy to keep improving from my current club standard).

Quote:

Yes, that's kind of what I meant by "sense of objectivity"- well said.

Although I was talking mainly about football fans, the analogy can be extended to teams/players- a team can choose to set itself up primarily to win, or primarily to produce a goal-fest, and sometimes the two can conflict with each other.  It can be argued that a team that aims to win every game 4-3 is missing out on the defensive and tactical side of football.

However there are also different degrees of it, and I certainly think Gambit's approach is an extreme case of "gambit psychosis" and that he probably would get more out of the game if he broadened a little.  Whether he'd get more out of it if he adopted a "universal" style, played main lines and put in a lot of serious study is open to question though.  If not, then he might lose interest and enthusiasm, and in that case it could be argued that the talent is better used elsewhere rather than notching up maximum results.

Where I'd completely agree is that it's a shame that he allows his gambit psychosis to cloud his sense of objectivity.  I'd have a lot more respect for his views if he was prepared to accept that his lines are mostly unsound but argue that they have their place at lower levels, fast time limits and analysis of wacky lines for the sheer fun of it.  For instance Stefan Buecker prefers a lot of odd sidelines but he isn't afraid to admit when they objectively look dubious (e.g. the Englund Gambit).

Quote:


Unfortunately I reckon he prefers not to answer it because he has no answer.  Many of the recent games at Sofia, Bulgaria were cases in point.

I think there is something to be said for Gambit's approach, in the sense that if he enjoys playing chess in the way he plays it, and isn't too bothered about the fact that his openings will handicap him if he exceeds a certain level of play, then surely that's fine.  If he focuses on a narrow area of chess he is missing out on the various other aspects of chess- but is he actually missing out on aspects that would increase his enjoyment of chess?

But I certainly don't like his attitude- which basically amounts to ramming his opinions down other people's throats.

Markovich sees the object of chess as being to score, and that's a perfectly valid viewpoint as well.  But I see this debate as being akin to football fans arguing over whether it's better for a team to aim to win in the most efficient possible way (as per Jose Mourinho's Chelsea, or Arsenal in the "1-0 to the Arsenal" days) or to entertain without much regard for results, or to try and both win and entertain at the same time (as per Arsene Wenger's Arsenal).  There's also the issue that while most people find attacking styles the most entertaining, there are people who are more, or equally as, entertained by subtlety and good defensive play.

Perhaps one difference between chess and football is that football is played less "perfectly" than chess at the highest levels and so there is more room for individual styles to work at the highest levels.

I don't think calling people "cowards" is appropriate- for example for every accusation of "cowardice" you could have a counter-claim.  For instance someone who plays the Goring Gambit could call an opponent a coward for playing safe with 4...d5 instead of continuing with the more critical 4...dxc3.  But the same person could then be called a coward for sticking with a trappy but equal opening instead of playing the most critical continuation, the Ruy Lopez main line.

As an aside, 4.Nc3 against the Zilbermints Gambit is not cowardice in any shape or form, it's actually the most critical test of the line.  I am normally one for taking people on in complications, as I find that aspect of chess the most enjoyable, but if I found myself on the white side of that opening I wouldn't hesitate to choose 4.Nc3.