[CM9K] CM Vs. Josh Age 8

[Effenberg0x0]

I am a begginer at Chess, and I decided that maybe playing all CM9K AI personalities from lower to higher ratings, one by one, would be a good way to learn and have some fun.

Then I lost my first game to "Josh Age 8" (rating 1600). I was not really paying full atention to the game...and I lost a bishop on a fork, it was stupid. Great, so I decided to play him again, more seriously. And I lost again. And again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again :\ I am dying here, it's been 4 days now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ok, I understand that I am a begginer with no openings knowledge, of course I should study a lot more, or maybe I am not really capable of playing good chess, etc. I am aware of my limitations.

But then I decided to see how ChessMaster would play Josh. God, it took about 70 moves for ChessMaster to beat him. At a certain point I though CM would loose!

What's going on, was Josh *that* good when he was 8? He almost beat ChessMaster! Is that more-or-less what a player rated 1600 plays like in real life? I mean, is the difference between a 1600 player and a 2759 player that small? I thought ChessMaster would easily defeat Josh!

Geez, if this is realistic, Josh was genious as a kid... Or maybe CM is old and tired hehehe...

Effenberg

[Effenberg0x0]

I am a begginer at Chess, and I decided that maybe playing all CM9K AI personalities from lower to higher ratings, one by one, would be a good way to learn and have some fun.

Then I lost my first game to "Josh Age 8" (rating 1600). I was not really paying full atention to the game...and I lost a bishop on a fork, it was stupid. Great, so I decided to play him again, more seriously. And I lost again. And again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again :\ I am dying here, it's been 4 days now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ok, I understand that I am a begginer with no openings knowledge, of course I should study a lot more, or maybe I am not really capable of playing good chess, etc. I am aware of my limitations.

But then I decided to see how ChessMaster would play Josh. God, it took about 70 moves for ChessMaster to beat him. At a certain point I though CM would loose!

What's going on, was Josh *that* good when he was 8? He almost beat ChessMaster! Is that more-or-less what a player rated 1600 plays like in real life? I mean, is the difference between a 1600 player and a 2759 player that small? I thought ChessMaster would easily defeat Josh!

Geez, if this is realistic, Josh was genious as a kid... Or maybe CM is old and tired hehehe...

Effenberg

[gevorgkhc]

when Josh was eight, he was 1 game away from winning the Nationals......

if you want to win people, go and listen to the josh games and play a little weaker players.

The priorities are:
1. End Game
2. Middle Game
3. Opening

End game is your first priority! The possibility of the rating seems normal, but not against a high rating like ChessMaster. It has a high chance to be correct. I know this cuz I have an official rating of my own. The ratings are somewhat inaccurate compared to human players.

[Grim_O]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The priorities are:
1. End Game
2. Middle Game
3. Opening
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This can be discussed (and has also on this forum, here http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=760105752&m=665102573 and here http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=760105752&m=657102943)

I would say that whatever you like to study the most, may it be rook endings, openings as white or tactical combinations should be the ones you also focus the most on. I hate training engames but love to train my openings. So naturally I also use most of my time training the opening. You should train what you like to train, then you'll get the most out of it.

[Fischer-The-2nd]

I'd say you should spend time on your attacking skills. First, if you can finish the game early then you don't need endgame skills. Second, winning a game with a beutiful attacking combination is so much better than to win a king + pawn vs king endgame.

Openings are improtant too of course, it all is. It should not be top priority to learn and understand all variations in the najdorf variation of the sicilian. You should just find a repetoire that suits your style of play. Learn the ideas behind it and the main lines. Starting to learn rare and difficult lines is a bad thing to do as a beginner. Most of the time playing chess your opponent never follows the book as long as you want him to, so you might as well forget about learning variations up to move 20 before you are a GM.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Fischer-The-2nd

Chess is 99 percent tactics. - Teichmann

Chess is really 99 percent calculation. - Soltis.

Modern chess is too much concerned with things like
pawn structure. Forget it - checkmate ends the game. - Short

[Groove75]

I think starting off as a beginner in chess by endgame study is a terrible idea. I'm sure many GM's would disagree, but let's face it, endgame study is just NOT fun for most people. Endgame study really only benefits a very solid player who can avoid his opponents tactics, make solid positional moves, and trade down to hopefully a favorable endgame territory where they have studied the particular nuances. Most new players simply don't have the opening knowledge or middlegame skills to be able to do this sort of thing, so what happens is that they start studying things like rook/King endings, and philidors, and then don't see their chess improve by much at all. They then ask themselves "Is this what chess is all about?", they then put their plastic chess set back on the shelf and grab trivial pursuit, never to return to the chess world. I realize I'm overexaggerating here, but I always recommend the same thing to people. Above all else, study what you find interesting, and you will improve.. You will improve the most quickly with opening study, and tactics study, but most are right in their suggestions that middlegame and endgame study is where your chess vision will gain the most improvement. Those areas are where you will gain the most long term improvement. Anyway, I'm not the strongest player myself, but I've seen much improvement in my play by studying nothing more than openings and tactics. Of course, it also depends on your style. I'm generally an aggressive player, though I'm trying very hard to learn more positional chess.

[Groove75]

Oh, and as far as Josh goes... I think he did some tweaking on his personality late at night while the other CM staff was asleep. ("I'll be damned if those chess newbies are going to beat me, even at age 8!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Effenberg0x0]

Hi everyone and thanks a lot for your answers.

It's really dificult for me, as a begginer, to choose a way to go when deciding how to approach chess study and improve my game.

I feel like I have reached a point in which it will be very hard to improve without starting to study seriously. Maybe that's the transition point between an advanced chess player and an amateur one, I don't know. Maybe I have reached my limitation.

Anyway, until now I would say that my prior interest would be the middlegame. Mostly I enjoy analizing how to get rid of attacks while not loosing time and still mantaining my plan. That is hard for me. Obviously, not screwing up everything in the opening would give me a better middlegame.

I'm trying not to be to agressive in the first moves, but instead, I'm taking some key positions and letting my opponent develop, in order to have a clearer view of his strategy and then I'm trying to mess with it, while slowly developing my pieces. However, the AI personalities seem to be very good in changing the focus of the game, at least they are better than me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess that is not a correct approach, I mean, if I am playing to win, maybe I should develop my plan without loosing any time instead of waiting to see what the opponent plan is. Correct me if I am wrong, that would take a lot of study on openings right?

Effenberg