chesswrit

Just another WordPress.com site

A New Stratagem?

leave a comment »

Different CC players play CC differently. Some of them use the latest database in the market, others, with the tools they prefer or can afford themselves , try to defeat their opponents from a position of force. Other group pay great attention to the different openings/defences so as to choose the one they considered best to make the task difficult for their opponents and their programs. All of them speak of  trying to get an opening advantage, increase it and win the game. A sort of unidirectional train of thought: I try to deliver blows / he must stop them till he is unable to withstand another one. O.K. Then you start playing at the ICCF and you suddenly realize the jungle (yes, remember that post where I spoke of a jungle??) you are in… Time honoured openings give nothing, solid defences do not withstand the pressure and moreover if your opponent  is stronger he seems to be a step ahead in theory or the lines you have always played lead to a sure draw, in the best of cases… 

Apart of doing nothing (Zen tradition not always adequate for CC I’m afraid) you can use a bit of “lateral thinking” so beginning a dangerous trip down your own mental balance (apart from your games, you can also lose your marbles…)  Yet that was what I did. The result of such heroical feat was that I realized that perhaps it was not a matter f “how I can beat my opponent”, but rather a subtler one of “how I can make him slip and stumble down”. According to this nightmare, it would be a matter of reaching positions (any normal opening/defence is liable to) with several possible “equal options”. Then the computer aided opponent will be unable to discern the very best option because there will be no “very best single option”. From my experience I know that, in these cases, the player gets somewhat “lost”, and has to play what the computer decides or risk playing against the computer option. In both cases games tend to drift in favour of the wily player who is able to pose such dilemma to his enemy. Or not. :)But I think the theory is worth a try. 

(Several years ago, I think it was the English GM. J. Speelman who proposed something similar for OTB Chess: to keep the game in leveled or nearly leveled positions so as keep the opponent moving in the unclear margin of similar elections forcing him to risk in search of victory or make a slip which would turn the tables in your favour. But always remember in OTB it exists the clock factor.)

There is no money -generally speaking- in CC. So your opponents want your points. The permanent changes in opening theory mean that some lines/end positions are abandoned but many others are accepted as “playable”. If you play with aspirations to getting norms, you must keep on studying, thinking about, trying not only moves and lines, but also new approaches to the game. 

Perhaps you would like to hve a look at what follows (if in the future the diagram “shrinks” as happened in other posts, simply click on it to enlarge): 

mate in 4

Pos. in Forsyth: 5n2 / 5npR / 8 / 8 / 8 / 7N / 5K1k : Mate in 4 by Fröberg and Hultberg.

QChess.

Advertisements

Written by QChess

November 29, 2013 at 8:41 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: