24 ( +1 | -1 )
The Beginner's Game by Pafu 
didn't want to let it die ;)
32 ( +1 | -1 )
what more is there to say?
clearly the beginner's system is an incredible inovatoin developed entirely by human thinking and has been proved time and time again on gameknot against nay sayers here who would believe otherwise..
if any of that's not true. plz correct me.. but i'm just assuming it all is from his rambunctious claims.
13 ( +1 | -1 )
Pafu now has two challenges: torre_tinorete and sodium attack. He has answered neither. Guess he's too busy writing another chess book.
4 ( +1 | -1 )
Let's see, I hope he will accept my challange :)
20 ( +1 | -1 )
the silence is deafening
Still no moves from Pafu! There's an old english saying: "The proof is in the pudding." Anyone can write recipes, but how will it taste after it is done? Pafu (wisely) stays out of the kitchen.
9 ( +1 | -1 )
PAFU is a chicken!
I too challanged him, and he refused. If he is afraid of me that says it all about his so called winning system.
23 ( +1 | -1 )
Your playingstrength is clearly not enough. It's ridiculous of you to think that a match against him would say anything. sodiumattack is a completely different thing though.
20 ( +1 | -1 )
I think you've missed coyotefan's point and insulted
him in the process. What he was trying to say is that if
Pafu was afraid to play a 1200 rated player
(coyotefan) then his system must not be so hot after
18 ( +1 | -1 )
Pafu is missing for more than 4 days.
Perhaps is on vacation, and he didn't want to accept a challange to postpone it a few days later.
I think we can talk after his return!
8 ( +1 | -1 )
Well said Honololou
I also feel Nils1981 perfectly valid point was treated poorly.
49 ( +1 | -1 )
If you think one step further and if you have read pafu's discussion in the other thread you will of course see that meeting a 1200 player is pointless for pafu. Is that to hard for you?
I replied to coyotefan's post, I got his point. So who are you to drag the discussion back to an already past stage and try to lecture me about it?
So, tripple again, if you wanted to proove something with such a system, would you base your results on games against 1200 rated players? Hardly.
14 ( +1 | -1 )
If an approximate 2000+ player meets a 1100+ player (ELO) do you in your life ever think that the game has any theoretical value at all?
16 ( +1 | -1 )
If an unrated player writes a book about a new chess opening do you in your life ever think that this book has any theoretical value at all ?
22 ( +1 | -1 )
That is not the discussed issue here. I don't think Pafu's book is worth anything for chess at all.
So your rethorical question was just nothing. Quit laying words in my mouth that aren't mine.
28 ( +1 | -1 )
Why are you so touched ? This threat started with the question if the book of Pafu has any value. I only made a statement on that in analogy with your statement of the value of a game of a low rated player. Sorry if you are offended by that. I shall keep my mouth in the future.
30 ( +1 | -1 )
Your post didn't contradict mine, so why did you write your post to me as if it would contradict my statement?
My answer to your first post should have been: But don't you think ever in your life that Saddam was an evil dictator? Following the logic lines given?
20 ( +1 | -1 )
Pafu is a 1200 rated player and his system is untested.
Why is it ludicrous to ask that it beat another 1200
rated player. For Christ's sake, its called "the
beginner's opening". Now--go ahead and insult me.
69 ( +1 | -1 )
The point is
One cant accept every single challenge one gets. Perhaps Pafu is busy? Perhaps he is playing correspondence games on other chess sites. Yes I agree his system is untested but it is ridiculous to say a player who declines a challenge is "afraid". This is something you meet often at internet chess sites, 1100 players challenging 2100 players and claiming they are "afraid" when they decline the challenge. Yeah brilliant, 2100 players are not afraid of, say, 1900-2300 players but they are afraid of 1100 players :-) Of course this is merely a general example because coyotefan is not 1100 player and we dont know how strong player Pafu is.
25 ( +1 | -1 )
admitted he was merely an interested amateur.
i don't think an amateur would know nearly enough about chess to propose "ground breaking.. world-of-chess changing ideas." not by a long shot.
personally.. i think the guy is a complete idiot.
7 ( +1 | -1 )
I'd like to see Pafu play anybody--regardless of rating. Just for the fun of it.
6 ( +1 | -1 )
I have challenged him!
Why don't we all challenge him - see what rating of opposition he finds acceptable ?
37 ( +1 | -1 )
'a complete idiot'. If he can get paid a few shekels for writing a book on a subject that he knows nothing about he must be smarter than most! Maybe I should publish my thoughts on advanced aeronautics. My premis is that it is only the combined belief of the passengers that enables airplanes to fly. Airplanes are obvoiusly to heavy to get airborne, I can't lift one and I am very strong.
32 ( +1 | -1 )
most of you are idiots. It is quite apparent that Pafu came here to answer criticisms about his book. Why would he wish to play against the people who have launched bitter and vindictive attacks against him - apparently to cover their lack of ability to adequately analyse and criticise his ideas?
26 ( +1 | -1 )
would he care to justify himself then? he certainly tried to do that.
that seems to go against your logic baby_pom*
*(someone who roams these forums like a troll only seeking to lash out with negative comments)
56 ( +1 | -1 )
i seem to recall a thread i started awhile back in the gameknot forum where i complained about a problem with the league rating points allocation.
90% of people responding agreed because they had experienced problems similar to my own.
you who have no experience in the matter said i was being negative and mike was all knowing and all good. but you provided no actual explanation for your point of view or reason why i was wrong.
i asked you to elaborate but you never touched the thread again. is this a habit of yours? in places other than gameknot as well?
341 ( +1 | -1 )
Let's be clear about this
Isn't it only fair to clarify the situation, by using words from Pafu's own pen?
THE BEGINNER'S GAME
The Easiest and Best Way to Play Chess Ever Found
There could not be a more surprising thing to happen! To what is probably the most researched question of all time: How best to play the game of Chess ? ... an answer has been found ! A brand new system has been discovered which is better than anything ever seen before!
This new system of playing chess is absolutely the simplest imaginable! Even a complete beginner can learn to play the basic opening in a few minutes! In a few hours he will be able to play well beyond the opening, and know a large number of strong variant lines. With this system any beginner develops unbelievably fast into a solid player, able to confront even expert opponents and offer them a tough game!
But this new system isn't just for beginners: it is certainly one of the strongest ever seen even for serious chess at championship level! Given the ease with which it can be learned, It is therefore the quickest way to improve for anyone who already plays, whatever his current level of expertise!
This system is totally new it has never been presented or described before by anyone. It is not an improvement or a development of any existing method, but a brand new, amazingly strong, and easy to play system, based on simple rules for playing the chess opening.
The basic opening is called The Beginner's Game and the set of related variants on the opening is called the B-system They all respect the same simple set of clear and easy to learn rules for opening play that distinguishes them from chess openings used before.
This new system has a number of remarkable properties, but one that makes it truly unique: In most games, with either white or black, openings can be carried out in standard form no matter what your opponent plays! He simply cannot stop you! This makes it easy for everyone, even beginners, to learn this system quickly and then to play it correctly.
If you play chess seriously, then take this announcement seriously because all of the current opening practice of chess is being challenged! This system is better than anything you have ever seen! Try it and you will see, and soon be convinced, it is absolutely the best ever found!
It is a certainly a great discovery in chess, one that is capable of revolutionizing chess ! In fact, it is capable of changing completely the entire practice of the game!
I feel dirty for having even quoted it. I'm surprised he didn't start it all off with, "Step right up, step right up, folks, and see this wonder of modern technology!" He goes on, and on (and on) with these claims. This is why Pafu has a thread.
Since when did every author receive an expert rating? It is clear his publisher has such a great deal of respect for his work, they print on demand (this is sarcasm, and if you've never delt with these types of publishers, nevermind).
Who cares if an amateur works out an opening system? It's when they start making fantastic claims that get people riled up. It's taught to us in the "buyer beware" lectures. Shouldn't con-men be exposed so they don't con others out of their money and time?
I think this guy has taken too much time from us as it is.
106 ( +1 | -1 )
you are calling me negative? I suggest you re-read some of you old posts. Believe me that if i was "roaming the forums" to lash out with negative comments, you would have had a lot more coming your way.
Regarding my comment on your previous post -
I did not comment about league games, so inexperience in these in not relevant. What I did say was that your assertion that
...[the rule where the rating calculations done upon completion of a game be based on the maximum between the differences at the start and end of the ratings of the players..
is stupid (obviously it should just be the difference between the ratings when the game STARTED)]
was incorrect. You did not justify your negative statement. Why should I justify my statement sying this system is OK? What do I have to justify if I think it is OK. I can only counter points you make if you think there needs to be a change.
Regarding the Pafu thread I find it odd that you cannot see it is possible to criticise ideas you disagree with, without making unnecessary personal attacks. Bogg managed it OK. Not that hard; if you have a bit of class.
447 ( +1 | -1 )
comments to kai_sim and others:
We can re-open the discussion, if you and others are interested. But there are a few comments that I would like to make first. I also hope that these points will be well taken, and that we will not have to return to them again.
First and most important, insults and abusive language have no place in chess. This is a game for noble minds, not an opportunity to show how badly you can behave. If your opponent’s play is weak , then take advantage of it as best you can. But regardlless of how he plays, you are not given license to make derogatory remarks of a personal nature.
Secondly, there is a difference between researching and proposing a system for playing the opening, and being a top player. If I was capable of championing these new systems in play, I would do so. But I am not a strong player, and so to do so is outside my capabilities. In this context I wrote in ‘The Center Game’ p.113:
“Some readers may disparage this book because it was written by an amateur, but this is unfair. Most serious players now make extensive use of chess playing computers; using them even amateurs can do valid reseach and analysis, and make significant disconveries... In any case top players frequently use lines suggested by computer analysis, and the original content of master level games during opening play is often relatively small.”
There have been some human master level games played with the basic opening and its close variants, if this is the only evidence that you are willing to accept. These games generally support the soundness of the opening. My own experience is based on extensive experimentation using the computer, and the results are solidly in favor of its validity.
Thirdly, I would reiterate the main point, that this system is primarily destined for beginners and lesser intermediate players, to allow them to get thru the opening without having to learn a lot of theory. Anything that we can do to make the game of chess more accessible and easier to learn for lesser players should be applauded, not dispised. I am absolutely confident that the Beginner’s Game and the other two systems I have defined succeed in this primary aim, and for this reason I have proposed them to the chess world.
In my opinion, you do better by learning first to defend yourself. When you are playing against the computer or against someone much stronger than yourself, these systems allow you to survive much further into the game than is possible using traditional openings. Maybe it is less satisfying from a psychological standpoint than attacking, but if you become a good defender, then you will also have a good basis for becoming a strong player, because you will be able to evaluate adversary threats more accurately, and so not embark on reckless offensives when you are in fact overly vulnerable to attack.
With these new systems you also have a framework for play, that will get you well into the middle game with a sound position and reasonable chances for the ensuing contest Of course you have to develop your attacking skills in order to play well. These systems do not pretend to make that aspect of chess easy. But the opening, which has always been considered one of the most complex phases of the game, is now much easier than it was before, this is the main thing.
If you start playing chess with one of these systems and develop your skills, you can definitely continue playing them and reach master level eg 2200-2300 ELO. The experimentation I have done has demonstrated this, Since 99.9% of all players will never achieve a master rating anyway, shouldn’t we be encouraging people to adopt systems that allow them to play better chess at the level they are capable of playing, instead of telling them to imitate grandmaster play that they cannot even understand, much less imitate?
Your challenges have not been accepted to date, because my impression is that you are mainly looking for fuel for more heckling, and not sincerely interested in giving the system a fair try. In any case, a few games played by me would by no means be a significant test, as there are millions of possible lines. But I am willing to look at any lines you wish to propose that in your opinion, put these systems in difficulty soon after the opening.
122 ( +1 | -1 )
I would like to know:
1, You sound a lot more reasonable when you write here but I still want you to explain why you wrote all those crazy claims in your book quoted in the post by kapinov 8/17/2003, 19:31:23 in this thread?
2, I think you can agree that in chess, the battle of the center is the most important part. So how can this very passive system, which gives up the center pretty much, give beginners the understanding of the game which they'll need later on?
I understand that most beginners can hold out longer if they play this system (which was applied by a few GMs long before you wrote the book) because it is pretty solid. But what means a loss if you never get a chance to win? You only learn new players how to drag the game out against better players, not learning them anything more about chess than weak analyzis made by programs (which yet cannot understand the game like for example Nimzowitsch).
If you write this book, making all these claims you'd better have some backing up else than a program. Like knowledge.
28 ( +1 | -1 )
Game with Pafu
Just for the record, if Pafu really wants to play a serious game, I'm willing and quite serious. It can be a private game, unpublished, win, lose, or draw.
Aside from my voiced opinions, I'm still a chess player and respect the code of playing training matches.
40 ( +1 | -1 )
Once you divorce a "system" from the actual game of chess, anything can be written. I, for example, could construct a system starting with 1. f3 and tell everyone it's a great system but I'm just not a good enough player to demonstrate its true potential. The only thing that shows whether a system is ok is the rough and tumble of tournament play. This system doesn't qualify.
57 ( +1 | -1 )
I believe everyone has.
Mine was a little humorous, I remember about 15 years ago I worked out a strange little system where I would play c3, Na3, Nc2, then depending on whether or not I was forced to play b3 (to avoid doubled a-pawns) I would try to get in a f3, Nh3, Nf2. If b3 was played, I would develop the Bishops to the left of the Knights, otherwise to the right. The delayed Q and K pawn pushes gives the game a closed character and the Knights are in very unnatural positions. Let us just say, I never finished the system.
I did however find a partial use for the investment of time, ...Na6-c7 and ...Nh6-f7 Caro-Kann systems are still a bit unknown.
39 ( +1 | -1 )
it's fun to invent systems for blitz play.. if you analyze them enough. no matter how sucky they really are.. in blitz play you'll destroy your oponents because of your knowledge of it..
a4/h4 is great for this.
get your rook out and memorize all the lines of defense so you don't lose it. of course you lose developement.. control of center.. tempo and everything else. but in blitz.. it's more about knowledge
12 ( +1 | -1 )
that sounds like the krazy kat (except the kingside usually developed first). Fancy a game with it?
133 ( +1 | -1 )
I play beginners game
I play the 'beginners' game, I've played it a lot and up to a certain level of play I think it works very well. I've been playing it for about a year now.
It certainly meets all 5 criteria for the opening as dictated by GM David Norwood ( See Steve Davis plays Chess - an ok book for a beginner, quite good for the club player and not too highly strung.).
I also think the tone used for much of this discussion is unfair for poor Pafu, he has contributed an interesting opening that has helped a sort of beginner player like me.
Here is a recent game, I'll keep the player anonomous, rated about 1480 I seem to recall, I am black. Now there where mistakes, I'm not perfect, but it illustrates that it largely works as an opening... the opposing player, if surprised by this, seems largely unsure how to attack its defensive qualities, but tries anyway in vain.
1. e4 e6 2. d4 b6 3. Nc3 Bb7 4. Bc4 Ne7 5. Qf3 d6
6. Nge2 Nd7 7. b4 g6 8. O-O Bg7 9. Qh3 O-O 10. Be3 a5
11. a3 d5 12. exd5 exd5 13. Bb5 f5 14. Nf4 Rf6 15. Nce2 c6
16. Ba4 b5 17. Bb3 a4 18. Ba2 Qe8 19. Nc1 Rd8 20. Ncd3 Nc8
21. Rfe1 Qf7 22. Rac1 g5 23. Ne2 f4 24. Bd2 Rh6 25. Qg4 Nf6
26. Qxg5 f3 27. Ne5 Qc7 28. Nxf3 Ne4 29. Qe3 Nxd2 30. Qxd2 Nd6
31. Nf4 Bc8 32. Qc3 Nc4 33. Nh3 Bxh3 34. g3 Qf7 35. Ng5 Qh5
36. Bxc4 Qxg5 37. Be2 Bg4 38. Bxg4 Qxg4 39. Rcd1 Qh3 40. Re7 Qxh2+
41. Kf1 Qh3+ 42. Ke1 Re6+ 43. Rxe6 Qxe6+ 44. Kf1 Re8 45. Qd3 Qe4
46. f3 Qe3 47. Qxe3 Rxe3 48. Kf2 Rxa3 49. Ke2 Rc3 50. Rc1 Bxd4
51. Re1 a3 52. Kd2 Rxf3 53. g4 a2 54. Re8+ Kf7 55. Ra8 a1=Q
56. Rxa1 Bxa1 57. Ke2 Rg3 58. g5 Rxg5 0-1
Comments on game are welcome, but although white missed a few opportunities he played quite well and fought hard.
Credit to Pafu where credit is due!
120 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, credit to Pafu, where credit is due. You, spurtus, have won 10 games here on gameknot using the beginner's game with no losses and no draws!!! Does that mean that I think the strategy behind 'the beginner's opening' is sound? No I just think you are a much better player than your previous opponents. So far none of them have played their part in the opening well at all. But I plan on demonstrating the flaw in this opening my self in our game here... board #1147687 , with the black pieces no less. PLEASE NOBODY POST ANY COMMENTARY OR ANALYSIS REGARDING THE SPECIFIC POSITIONS ARISING ON THIS GAME IN PROGRESS. I just post this in the event that there are still some people interested in the spectacle of a live 'beginner's game' here on GK with a strong player like spurtus defending 'the beginner's game' and myself attacking it using the classical theory of 'the center' and 'development'.
51 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes,... but I have to say I dont really expect to win against a 2000+ player!... I suppose I better really really tune my brain into this game!
But I'll gladly have you exploit its inherent weaknesses, which it does actually have! this will be good for analysis and improvement of my game... although I'm sure pafu will probably criticise my execution of this game.
I agree, no discussion on this game at all ( much as I would love to ).
Good luck superblunder !
163 ( +1 | -1 )
"If you start playing chess with one of these systems and develop your skills, you can definitely continue playing them and reach master level eg 2200-2300 ELO. The experimentation I have done has demonstrated this"
No matter how many of us point it out, Mr Pafu still wont get it - computers and humans are different. Passive systems work well against computers, but not so well against humans.
Even I, a patzer, have managed to draw and even beat "2700 computer" few times, thanks to anti-computer maneuvers :-) BUT vs 2700 (or 2600, 2500, 2400...) human my chances to draw even a single a game are nonexistent.
The computer games you use as examples have demonstrated nothing except that even today computers lack planning skills required to beat passive systems like Beginners Game. But I guess that is the reason why you prefer playing comps, not humans :-)
2200-2300? ELO rating (or master/FM title) is given to humans, based on games vs humans. In other words any claims about ELO ratings are completely groundless unless you have lots of practical human vs human examples (preferably from official tournament games) to back them up. Games vs or between computers have nothing to do with ELO ratings, let alone tournament play.
Demonstration you have done? Since "master level" is based on humans playing humans, unless you have demonstrated you are "master level" player WITH Beginners Game, your claim is completely untrue.
"This is a game for noble minds"
144 ( +1 | -1 )
Developing Chess Skills
Since my academic speciality is the phenomenology of human skill and my hobbies often involve the attempts (not always successful) to obtain those skills, this whole issue interests me.
To begin with, Pafu has some points in his favor. For example, while in graduate school, I was one of several masters working with a scholastic program in Indiana, and we taught our absolute beginners systems such as this simply so that they wouldn't get Scholar's Mated in the first 5 moves and would have a chance to actually play chess in their early events and experience the "success" of lasting longer (and occasionally winning, of course).
However, the rest of you have some arguments on your side as well. It seems necessary at certain points of their chess "development" for HUMANS to learn to handle tactical positions, even though that might lead to temporarily-worse results. For instance, when I myself was a teenage Expert, my strength was in positional play and endgames, but I knew that I needed to become a better tactician to move beyond that level. So I spent most of a year playing nothing but gambit openings, where my material inferiority forced me to avoid simplification and endgames (at least until I restored material equality <grin>). While some of my practical results suffered that year, in the end it made me a stronger player (IMHO).
30 ( +1 | -1 )
It is move 20 and white is hurting badly.
spurtus made some mistakes, but definitely among them was playing the beginner's opening! ;)
2 ( +1 | -1 )