|Hello, and welcome to GM Jeff's Chess Tutorial Page. Here you will find information for a wide range of players. If you find the information on the page useless or too scarce, feel free to give a mean signature in my guestbook. I will not be in the least bit offended, I am always looking to improve my site. Or, if you are looking for superior chess information, I have provided links to larger help sites. |
If you are here to view the APEHOC clan site, you are looking for this link.
7/21/01- Nothing much has happened today. I wrote about 4 lines in my intermediate section. But after checking back on this site after a good two weeks, I've found that I've gotten many hits. Strange, yes?
6/20/01- Today, I have added the Spanish version of GM Jeff's Chess Tutorial Page.
6/9/01-Got my cable mdoem hooked up yesterday, it's amazing!
6/6/01-Nothing has happened today. Could this mean that something happened on every day I did not report this? No, it could not. ARTICLE 1: KNIGHTS VS BISHOPS
4/7/01- Nothing has really happened today, but I have been informed that my guestbook doesn't work. I don't feel like correcting that, so if you have a comment just email me.
4/5/01- Today in the world of GM Jeff's Chess Tutorial Page, I have refined the table, taken out all the broken links(it takes longer than you think)made the page slightly more viewable for Netscape Navigator viewers(damned macintoshes) and taken out the "news" link from my table. I will now present news concering the chess world, and/or this webpage on the front page.
Here I will present basic information which may apply to any range of players. It is probably most applicable to intermediate to beginner players, but many experts are fooled by common misconceptions, which is compensated for by extremely good calculation skills.
I found this information by studying a book, than saw that it was absolutely true when in games. Bishops are not more valuable than knights! It is a common misconception, but it is absolutely false. In truth, a bishop is only more powerful in an open position with very few pieces. In a cramped position, knights dominate bishops, so don't listen to anyone who tells you never to trade away bishops to knights.
ARTICLE 2: GOOD AND BAD BISHOPS
I would like to inform beginner players about what the term "bad bishop" means. I did not know for a long time, and it annoyed me like heck. A bad bishop is a bishop whose color is blocked by pieces. This makes it unmobile and almost useless for a game. A good bishop has lots of square to move to, and is usually very active in play.
ARTICLE 3: DOUBLE PAWNS
Many will strongly disagree with me, but I have seen this idea come into place in several game. Double pawns are not ALWAYS a negative imbalance. Very often, one can use them to great a very powerful center, or to open a lane for a bishop. The situation depends entirely on whther the enemy has means to destroy the back, defenseless pawn. Do not go into a game with a misconception like this embedded in your mind. Always remember that everything depends on the situation.
ARTICLE 4: ISOLATED PAWNS
I will agree, isolated pawns can often be a grave disadvantage, but once again, one must always analyze the situation before calling it an unfavorable imbalance. The reason isolated pawns are unsafe is because they have no protection from the rest of the pawn chain. If they get easy protection from many minor and heavy pieces, there is no concern. The only time to worry about having an isolated pawn is when the position is open enough for it to be a target. All your base are belong to us.ARTICLE 5: MATERIAL ADVANTAGE
A discussion on taking advantage of material gain would be far too long for one of these miniature articles, so there will be an expanded section added to the Intermediate section of this page. Now, to be very brief and unexplained, I will say that material advantage does not always mean a sure victory. Of course, if one is up 3 minor pieces a loss is unavoidable, but if one is down 2 pawns, the situation must be clearly analyzed. If the opponent has a lead in development, but is down in material, many times the person with extra material loses. This sounds like common sense, but many people convince themselves they will win when they are leading in material and begin to play sloppily. It is very important to take advantage of your material advantage, and to clearly assess every situation.
ARTICLE 6: A LIST OF IMBALANCES
NOTE; this information is stolen from IM Jeremy Silman. If you want to learn more about this, I highly recommend you buy the book "how to reassess your chess", by him. And no, I have not run out of ideas for articles. Sure, its not really an article, but its necessary for people to realize that many imbalances exist in the game, and each one should be factored in to gameplay.
1: Superior minor piece
2: Pawn structure
3: Dynamic (lead in development)
6: Control of a key rank or file
Now, you might not know what all of these are, but itis important to study the position and use all the factors in it (imbalances) to develop a plan. By the way, if there is anything to get out of this webpage, it is a recommendation to buy the book "How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman. It would be over the heads of complete beginners, but for below average to experts, this book is extremely useful. It discusses the imbalances in grave detail, and would allow anyone to understand their interplay.
Well, I want to add some content to the page, so here's a debate about the economic effects of monopolies.
As Ben might tell you, companies such as Microsoft are evil, and destroy other companies with little to offer the public. However, this could be easily argued. In Microsoft's evil plans often help the public, while destroying the competition. Unlike Neuman, most people have no tremendous problem with Microsoft Internet Explorer, or Microsoft Word. Both of these products are free, and give the public what they demand.
And another thing, Mr enormous liberal, why is Microsoft being penalized? They ran their business so well that they became a dominating force. Should they now be in trouble? They did business better than their competitors, and now own this niche of the economy. Competing companies should not be given a handicapp. This is a free market economy, and whoever beats the competition should rule. Hopefully a debate could begin, but for now, we'll just say that I won.
Yes, yes, my dear fool, exactly as you say. Microsoft Word is free?
Astonishing. Do you bother to check your facts before you write an article?
Microsoft Office is hardly free at all. In fact, Office 2000 retails at roughly 200 dollars, while the upcoming Office XP will be retailing at around 300. Free? Hardly. Often, it will be bundled in with the purchase of a computer at a lower price, even if the customer doesn't want it. Thus, they may be stuck paying fifty or one hundred dollars for lousy software they donít want, but canít get rid of. (Though IE is quite different from Office, have you ever tried removing IE from a Windows 98 system? Itís not doable.)
Leaving aside the actual legalities of the monopoly for a moment,
how does this provide better services to their customers? The customers are
stuck using proprietary formats (like the Microsoft .doc, for example) with
little choice. Office XP docs will be incompatible with nearly all lower
versions, as have previous releases. It's rather ridiculous to spend 200
dollars for a GODDAMN WORD PROCESSING AND SPREADSHEET SUITE!
So, how is this good for the consumer? I suppose it's good to force
the consumer into having only one choice, however lousy it may be, to being
forced to upgrade every six months at a nice price tag of two hundred
dollars, to forcing the user to use crap that they do not want to have? Well, I guess it does somehow. How does the "free" release of Internet Explorer help anybody? Well, it does the viewer a ďfavor" by adding in extensions to the HTML standard which end up screwing over users of any other browsers. It would be somewhat acceptable if Internet Explorer was a somewhat decent browser, but it is not. It's merely a RAM hog with mostly stolen technology (though that story is another matter altogether) that crashes 10% less than Netscape does. Netscape, before IE 4 came along and forced them to distribute the software freely, was a much, much superior browser. There are better browsers out there (Opera being one) but since it doesn't use the IE extensions, not all pages will display properly.
And, trust me, you most likely are paying for Internet Explorer in
the ridiculous price of that operating system.
If we were to apply your philosophy to the rest of life, then how
about we say that "Hey, that guy was able to get a gun, and shoot a bunch of
people! If he was smart enough to do that, he shouldn't be put in jail!"
It's pretty much the same idea.
Regardless of even that, isn't capitalism a
"free market"? Well, last I checked, monopolies promote a closed market, a
dominated market, a controlled market. The interest of the American
government in this situation is to keep it an open market.
So, you foolish Fascist, go play with your Microsoft Windows. I'll
talk to you sometime, if you're not busy getting a Blue Screen of Death from
running your dear dear Internet Explorer, that crashed on some unfortunate, unfortunate DLL.
Well, the fact that I did not know that Microsoft Office added to the price of a computer by over $150 dollars means that Microsoft has done a pretty damned good job. However dishonest they may be, its good business. But forget about this point completely, because your ethical picture of the world has got to be the way to go. The world is not for the smart and superior, it is for those pure of heart. Youíre not allowed to do business well, because doing good business is the same as shooting someone. Lying to your former business associates is like killing 20 people with your assault rifle. By beating out other, less organized businesses, they have committed murder. So I guess youíre right, beating your competitors in a capitalist economy is an atrocity. That Bill Gates is a scumbag, because heís a smarter more capable business administrator than anyone in shall we say, the history of the world? (he is the richest, so why not?)
Though I will admit, I am not anywhere close to having your knowledge of computers, I know how the economy was designed. The idea of a free market economy is such: When there is a great demand for a product, a company can sell it for the maximum possible price. When there become more suppliers, the companies compete and lower their prices. When of course, the demand for a product goes down and there are far too many companies, there will be a tremendous lowering of production amounts, and as a result, many people will lose their jobs. Though I added some elements that do not apply to Microsoft, it is necessary to describe all the basics about the economy. Now, to repeat my third sentence. When there become more suppliers, the companies compete and lower their prices. Sure, this is where most liberals will exclaim, ďthis is why we need more small companies and less monopolies!Ē But they fail to see their hypocrisy.
When one of the companies can lower their price more than others can, the other companies will be forced out of business. And besides, the market is not even closed. Any company can attempt to compete with Microsoft. Sure, this will be a useless gesture due to Microsoft's size, but the market is still open. Now, to reiterate a sentence from my opening argument, Microsoft did better business than their competitors, and should not be penalized for it. In a free market economy, companies who donít know how to do business should not be doing business at all. They do not deserve it, and should not be given a handicap. The economy is not the Special Olympics; we canít go changing the rules like that. Even if Microsoft isnít helping the consumer, it is not harming them so much that they must be chopped to pieces and sent to the four corners of England.
Microsoft is not harming the consumer? They weren't harming the consumer when they released their buggy Outlook Express mail reader, that
was manipulated by many simple viruses into infecting corporate computers around the world, causing hundreds of millions in damage? And, America is not a fully free market economy. To have a free market economy, there would be no rules. Since America is a government, and this is not Vietnam, there are rules.
And, one of those rules is protecting the people against monopolies. Your
previous idea of heavily taxing monopolistic companies may actually be a
better alternative; it provides more money for the government while screwing
You're calling me the hypocrite, yet you claim to be much for
capitalism (and thus against socialism) but yet you seem to love monopolies, which are surely socialistic.
I do not give a damn about what you think a "free market" should be, but as
I said above (Hey, I'm being redundant like you are!), this is a government,
not a fully free market, and they ARE allowed to make rules. America is not
a fully free market, just like it's not fully a democracy.
In the end, it does come down to business vs. people. What happened
the last two times presidents attempted to practice the business-pandering
trickle down economy? Well, we all know what happened to dear Herbert
Hoover, and Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. nearly repeated his act by
sending our economy into a depression. Sure, let's pander to the
businessses, it works pretty damn well. Hopefully you can get your next
article typed up before your computer freezes from America Online, yet
Calling Bill Gates "the smartest man in the world" is ridiculous,
also. You don't call George W. Bush "the smartest man in the world" because
he's rich, do you? No, he's pretty damn stupid as a matter of fact. But, he
was born into a rich family, and out of that he becomes rich, and is somehow
catapulted into the position of President of the United States. If you're
already rich by family, you're bound to succeed, no matter how stupid you
are. All that is required of you is that you buy out all companies in your
realm. Gates simply got lucky, earned a decent bit of money, and then
resorted to buying out everybody in his path. The luck was the factor, not
And, on a final note, how does knowing how much Microsoft Office
cost have anything to do with knowledge of computers? All it takes is to go
to bestbuy.com and type "Microsoft Office" into the search. A few products
will pop-up, and you'll be gasping at the ridiculous price for, yes, a word
processor and spreadsheet program.
You no longer have Windows. You have found an alternative. You did not like the product, so you switched it to something else. You brag about how you have Linux. That is why companies seek to have better products. I personally, am satisfied with Microsoft's products. If I wasn't, I would get something else.
I didn't say that Bill Gates was the smartest man, he was the smartest business man. I can not see how you could disagree with that, you constantly call him a liar, and an evil twisted soul. These are what make a good business man.
Microsoft's driving up prices will encourage new businesses to develop in that area. When a large company chooses to compete in this area, it will force Microsoft to lower its prices. The system works, dangit!
This is not a matter of our knowledge of how economics work, or how economics are supposed to work. I simply believe in finding a solution that works best for the average person - sometimes that involves squashing monopolies. You believe in simply "letting things run", and think it will all just work out in the end. Well, as I mentioned above, the last time we tried that out, we ended up in the Great Depression. A game indeed.
Though my concept of economics seemed more accurate, it seems as though Ben has won this argument. I have yet to have any real anger with Microsoft and their business tactics, but his argument was clearly better. Good game.
Why did I lose? I chose to focus on one small ethical concept and expand it into a full article. Ben, on the other hand, chose to exploit the negative effects of monopolies on the economy and the public. He had the greater imbalance to begin with, and succeeded in exploiting my weakness.
If anyone read that debate, I would recommend that they find a better way to waste their time. Perhaps make a webpage of their own, or go play some chess. But anyways, one could find another copy of this article as well as some mildly humorous articles at Prager Smells.com.
Gunism, the only way to stop crime. Give everyone in the world a handgun, with no less than 1 bullet at a time. Make every man (person, stupid political correctness) hold the gun at all times. Holsters may not be used. The guns must be in hand at all times. It is preferable that you point the gun at anyone in your vision. Noone may have automatic or semi automatic weapons, this would make them too powerful. The only police in the nation that enforces gunism are there to take anyone without a gun and kill them.
How will this prevent crime, you ask? If you have a gun pointed at your own head, why would you fire? You know you would die. Constant fear will keep everyone in order. With fear being the only law, everyone keeps themselves in line. There would be no more domestic crime. Sure, at first people would try to shoot others in the back, but eventually people will develop deals where they don't fire at each other. We would hope that everyone would make non agression pacts, but of course, some people like knowing they have the ability to push a button and kill their neighbor.
If this sounds familiar to you, you're quick one.
The True Religion
the answer to all of life's problems, and the stop to various wars and inquisitions about religion.
Why try to give ourselves answers? Who has the right to say, "there is no god", or "Jesus was god's son, and God is the one true god? and so on. There is no way for us to find answers. You can lie to yourself all you want, but there are no ways to give ourselves answers. There might be a god, there might not be. If there is a god, it could be in the form of any one of the religions we have invented, or something completely different. I know I might come off as being hypocritical, in saying that we can't find the answers, when I am giving an answer myself, but I disagree with your hurtful words. "The only rule is that there are no rules", "This is the truth: we don't know the truth". Both are hypocricies, but both are a way to live by. To better these statements, "Only one rule is allowed: no rules", and "The only thing we can believe, using all of our wisdom, is that anything is possible". Happy? good.