tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post5692658702014346861..comments2024-03-29T14:33:24.765+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: There are no categories of grand schemesTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-14368609130356714452012-10-03T23:03:54.910+02:002012-10-03T23:03:54.910+02:00I dont think its absolutly necessary to learn only...I dont think its absolutly necessary to learn only 100% best moves. You could see Polgars Middlegame as a collection of methods. "Which method is possible", or "which method is used by a master" might be a different question then "which method is the ultimate best". So Polgars Middlegame could be used as a collection of "Candidate moves/ideas". I agree, it seems to be better to learn "only" the ( estimatingly ) best. Still you could have simply learnd "only" those 25% = #1000 (!) and learn from the errors of the master at the other 75%. But i remember how frustrating it is to find so many "faults". At Chess-Mentor there had been so many "errors" that i did end my diamond membership at chess.com.<br /><br /><br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-85566112669667929122012-10-03T16:49:58.940+02:002012-10-03T16:49:58.940+02:00@BDK,
I might agree. If I knew what you are talkin...@BDK,<br />I might agree. If I knew what you are talking about.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-83021113759058560052012-10-03T14:46:40.719+02:002012-10-03T14:46:40.719+02:00In other words, Rowson is right.In other words, Rowson is right.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-71766459883534202232012-10-03T12:24:00.877+02:002012-10-03T12:24:00.877+02:00Yes, but your pet subject has nothing to do with t...Yes, but your pet subject has nothing to do with the essence of this post.<br /><br />I gave up the middlegame brick soon once I discovered that 25% of the analysis of the book was flawed by Rybka.<br />Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-38958254984633405092012-10-03T11:53:07.450+02:002012-10-03T11:53:07.450+02:00The sac at f7 is "only" interesting for ...The sac at f7 is "only" interesting for Bc4 player, less interesting for Bg2 or Bb5 player. At playchess.com i play from time to time against a player who play from the very beginning of his game against f7. We need to create situations where we can use such a knowledge <br /><br />I wonder if you still know/remember "the middlegame" of Polgar. I would expect that a player who "knows" polgars middlegame should be at least a 2000.<br /><br />"Most of us already know those these patterns well"<br /><br />How good is good enough? Susan Polgar is using parts of her brain which are responisble for face recognition to recognise chess pattern (this part is working in "hyperspeed"), Classplayer not.<br /><br />At school at break between classes some schoolmates and i where combating at collecting 4 leaf clover. Thats a very well known pattern. The average pupild did find non during a 20 min break, our little group did find 10+ each member. I did see 4 leave clover out of a corner of my eye when i was looking without focus at any specific clover.<br /><br /><br />AoxomoxoA wonderinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16058687381216896080noreply@blogger.com