Blind Faith

[John Upham]

Richard James has reviewed Blind Faith

by Chris Ross

for Steel City Press


https://britishchessnews.com/2022/08/24/blind-faith/

__________________41jE-Bv4ZZL.jpg

[Nick Ivell]

In my opinion, 'positionally winning' is a meaningless concept below GM level.

I haven't read the book, but I certainly don't agree that the position quoted against Mercs is positionally winning. Far from it, in fact.

[Matt Mackenzie]

In my opinion, 'positionally winning' is a meaningless concept below GM level.

I think that is overstating it a bit, but still get what you mean.

Like you, my impression of the quoted position is that Black maybe has an easier to play game - but "clearly winning"? Not sure.

[Nick Ivell]

For sure, it starts getting dodgy after g4. White's position isn't strong enough to sustain such a weakening.

[Roger de Coverly]

but I certainly don't agree that the position quoted against Mercs is positionally winning. Far from it, in fact.

stockfish scores it as only marginally better for Black at move 16, possibly because it spots the 18 Bxb5 desperado that wasn't played in the game. Like the reviewer, I don't think it's an especially difficult idea to see, particularly if the white player had previously analysed similar positions with engine assistance.

Event "Ch England (team) 2014/15 (3 div)"] [Site "England"] [Date "2014.11.16"] [Round "2"] [White "Mercs Peter J (ENG)"] [Black "Ross Chris (ENG)"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B49"] [WhiteElo "2087"] [BlackElo "2189"] [Annotator ""] [Source ""] [Remark ""] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 a6 7.O-O Nf6 8.Be3 Bb4 9.Bd3 O-O 10.h3 Be7 11.Qe2 b5 12.a3 Bb7 13.Nb3 d6 14.f4 e5 15.f5 Nb8 16.g4 d5 17.g5 dxe4 18.gxf6 exd3 19.Qg4 Bxf6 20.cxd3 Nd7 21.Ne4 Bd5 22.Rac1 Qd8 23.Nbc5 Nxc5 24.Nxf6+ Qxf6 25.Rxc5 Rfd8 26.Rfc1 h6 27.b4 Rd7 28.d4 Re8 29.dxe5 Qxe5 30.Bf2 Qe4 31.Qxe4 Bxe4 32.Re1 Rd3 33.a4 Rxh3 34.Be3 0-1

[Nick Ivell]

I didn't even check Stockfish; it's so obvious that the position is balanced, strategically speaking.

I won't be buying the book. I would rather study Karpov's games - but horses for courses.

[Chris Ross]

In my opinion, 'positionally winning' is a meaningless concept below GM level.

I haven't read the book, but I certainly don't agree that the position quoted against Mercs is positionally winning. Far from it, in fact.

Interesting. You slag off the book without a fair appraisal.

You have seemingly not fully appreciated one of the main objectives of the book.
Presumably, you have not read the introduction, which clearly outlines to the purpose of the journey from the start to the finish, spanning a 20-years period.

Like most players, your over-reliance on chess engines to validate a position, tactic or deeper appreciation of a position, clouds your overall judgment from an objective point of view.

The book was written specifically without computer engine assistance. Both publisher and editor strictly refused to amend the book and notes, as it contravened the main thread of the book. To “validate” or prove/disprove tactics with computer assistance, is categorically boring, non-constructive and defeats the whole meaning of the enjoyment and thought-process.

After all, in my opinion, I think Tal was a terrible chess player. Computer engine analysis demonstrates to us to how wreckless, unsound he was. By that judgment, should we disregard him as one of the greats?

As it were, the book has sold well. We have more than covered our costs for producing the book. My intension was never to make any profit by the book and indeed, any profit that I make from it, will be put back into circulation and for the betterment of chess improvement, especially so, for the development of visually impaired players. However, I am hopeful that it has given the broader community a better understanding of the journey of a VI player and how, in many ways, sighted, developing chess players, can, and do, improve their chess by using similar techniques.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Without wanting to derail the actual discussion about the book too much, isn't that "factoid" about Tal a bit of a myth?

In other words, computers have actually shown a lot of his sacrifices were "sounder" than generally thought - many were at least good enough for a draw with best play, and only a minority were downright bad.

Which maybe shows the silicon beasts have their uses, though I agree that slavish and uncritical use of them is not a good thing.

[Nick Ivell]

My post was nearly a year old so I'm finding it difficult to get into this groove.

Over-reliance on engines? I've never had one. Never used one for prep. In that sense, I am probably the biggest dinosaur on the forum.

Er, Tal a terrible player? That is, to say the least, a niche opinion - some might say nonsensical.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Tal did make the famous joke "there are two types of sacrifices - correct ones, and mine".

But that's the point, it was a *joke*. Not deadly serious.

[John Upham]

Er, Tal a terrible player? That is, to say the least, a niche opinion - some might say nonsensical.

Let us not forget that "terrible" has a range of meanings including

b
: formidable in nature : AWESOME
a terrible responsibility
c
: exciting extreme alarm or intense fear : TERRIFYING

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

[Chris Ross]

My post was nearly a year old so I'm finding it difficult to get into this groove.

Over-reliance on engines? I've never had one. Never used one for prep. In that sense, I am probably the biggest dinosaur on the forum.

Er, Tal a terrible player? That is, to say the least, a niche opinion - some might say nonsensical.

“A niche opinion” clearly demonstrates to how narrow-minded you are reflecting on things. That alone, shows to your limited appreciation of the wider picture. Your incosideration for “otherness” illustrates an innate bias or, politely put, inability to constructively perceive alternative perceptions. Some folk would call that direct discrimination. You may wish to Google, "unconscious bias training". Rest assured, you are not alone in these generic prejudice’s.

However, the main point of the post is to illustrate that you have successfully corrupted an authentic thread about a book review. With your judgmental and un-constructive criticism of the book, without evidenced and peer-supported review analysis, you have affectively derailed the discussion on this topic. Admittedly you have done this unwittingly, but upon reflection, best practice suggests that you ought to report your initial comments to the admin of the site and request that your un-qualified comments should be deleted from the thread.

[Nick Ivell]

I shall do nothing of the sort and I would be amazed if Carl or Jack thought anything inappropriate had been said (by me at least).

[John Upham]

I shall do nothing of the sort and I would be amazed if Carl or Jack thought anything inappropriate had been said (by me at least).

I'm sure many authors acquire some frustration when others comment on a book that they haven't read.

This is not a problem I suffered resulting from co-authored papers on quantum chemistry and Monte Carlo methods!

[Chris Ross]

I shall do nothing of the sort and I would be amazed if Carl or Jack thought anything inappropriate had been said (by me at least).

Yet again, a rather glib and uninspiring rejoinder, without due justification or consideration for the bigger picture, which clearly demonstrates a deeper deppreciation of the flagged concerns.

Please correct me if I am inaccurate in this assessment, but I fail to observe an overwhelming support for your stance or viewpoint by other contributers on this forum. Surely, that is indicative in itself? Are you not able to see that you stand alone in this regard, or are you "blinded" to such reality (pun intended).

If nothing else, please address the quintessential point that you have successfully corrupted an authentic thread of a book review by inconsequential and unqualified speculation? Or are you too cowardly, or lack the ability or eloquence to validate your position?
Please report accordingly to admin if you feel “belittled” by such introspection.