Showing posts with label McLeod. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McLeod. Show all posts

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Not Yet the Sunday Book Review



Consistent with the theme of past Sunday Book Reviews (and references; see Catalog of Chess Mistakes, Why You Lose At Chess, Surprise in Chess, and Sense of Danger) a  trio of relevant quotes, pro, con and general:


One of the important ways of conducting a chess game is to develop in such a way that the opponent will slightly overrate his position, that he will feel obligated to attain something, that his expectations will be somewhat greater than justified. When such is the case, the opponent tends to omit in his calculations considerationf of any and all continuations which give results inferior to his expectations.
Grandmaster Larry Evans, Chess Life, 1961



When your opponent complicates things, there is a strong temptation to look for a refutation of his idea, to pick up the gaunlet, to rise to the challenge. Of course, this is exactly what he wants and why such distractions must be resisted. If you have already decided on a good strategy, why drop it for something that suits your opponent? This requires strong self control, as pressure to switch can be both internal and external. Your ego wants to prove you can beat him at his own game as well as to quiet your critics - actual or potential.
Gary Kasparov, How Life Imitates Chess, 2007 



Abstract
Expert chess players, specialized in different openings, recalled positions and solved problems within and outside their area of specialization. While their general expertise was at a similar level players performed better with stimuli from their area of specialization.* The effect of specialization on both recall and problem solving was strong enough to override general expertise – players remembering positions and solving problems from their area of specialization performed at around the level of players one standard deviation above them in general skill.** Their problem solving strategy also changed depending on whether the problem was within their area of specialization or not. When it was, they searched more in depth and less in breadth; with problems outside their area of specialization, the reverse. The knowledge that comes from familiarity with a problem area is more important than general purpose strategies in determining how an expert will tackle it...



[* I guess this is why we study our favorite chess openings, especially our "pet lines" as GM Alburt calls them RK]
 
[** After posting "A Slice of Jerome Gambit" I asked ChessBase8 to check, and it seems that when I play the Jerome Gambit online my performance rating is about 225 points above my actual (mostly-FICS) internet rating. I do not know how that translates into standard deviations for FICS (and elsewhere), but if the United States Chess Federation standard deviation is around 200 points, the 225 points of improvement seems to be about what Bilalić and Peter McLeod were suggesting.  RK]

Friday, May 22, 2009

Jerome Gambit for Dummies (4)


Question: When it comes to playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) what happens if I don't know the best lines for White, and my opponent doesn't play one of the best defenses, anyhow?

Answer: Ha, ha, ha, ha...

Playing the Jerome Gambit is very risky business, and a serious member of the Jerome Gambit Gemeinde learns enough about the opening (starting with this blog, of course) to at least understand the imbalances that favor him (e.g. lack of the enemy King's safety) and the strategic ideas (e.g. advancing the "extra" pawns, attacking the enemy King) that are most likely to lead him to victory.

One significant advantage that the Jerome player has is that often his opponent is unfamiliar with the opening. A recent paper by Merim Bilalić and Peter McLeod, "Specialization Effect and its influence on Memory and Problem Solving in Expert Chess Players" has some interesting conclusions regarding familiarity with a position.
Expert chess players both remembered and solved problems arising from their area of opening specialization better than problems out side their specialization. We were also able to quantify the specialization effect - players remembered and
solved the problem stimuli within their specialization roughly at the level of players one SD [standard deviation] above them in skill but who lacked the specialized knowledge...
Looking at the Elo rating system, one standard deviation is 200 points. The study showed that players solving problems related to an opening that they played regularly performed that much better than those whose opening repertoire (i.e. specialization) was not related to the problems.
Under those circumstances, the unfamiliar players searched wider for solutions, and thus less deep. Those players familiar with the problem formations (because they came from openings that they played) were able to focus their search for solutions narrowly, and thus searched deeper.
Thus, the advantage (200 Elo points) of playing and knowing your openings against one who does not.