|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 52 OF 931 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-27-08 | | mack: So who were the other seven who voted 1...g6? I might have to marry you all in turn. Or move to Utah and live as a hypermormonist. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | child in time: I voted e5. He knows Sicilian very good and if we play e5 he would be forced to spend a little more time to analyze but he is just one player and I wonder how much time he can devote to the game... |
|
Aug-27-08
 | | Open Defence: IMHO he knows 1...e5 just as well as 1...c5, the thing is, in the Ruy Lopez I think the book lines are a bit more clearer In the Sicilian I fear that we may get sucked into an inferior line |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | ganstaman: <john2054: We should go for 1e4 c5 2? e5 in my opinion. It leads to a strong locked position, controlling the centre of the board and immediately exerts our confidence! But i will see what you other guys think..> 2. Nf3 is likely. |
|
Aug-27-08
 | | TheDestruktor: <izimbra> started a good discussion. Besides the main forum, is there a specific forum or somewhere else that we could debate our colectiv strenths and weakness? It is often said that this team excels in tactical play, and would be weaker in positional play. Personally, I doubt it. But I believe that this team has shown a definite waeakness. It is in positions where there are many alternatives, and no one of them seems clearly better than all others. In these situations, it is much harder to make a colective decision. My best example is move 12 in the game The World vs G Timmerman, 2007 
click for larger view Here we had at least 5 candidate moves to consider - Be3, Bg5, dxc6, Qb3 and Rb1. And no one of them looked better than all others. I remember that, for a moment, our discussions for this move almost turned into chaos. Not because we were unable to analyse properly, but because it was very difficult to colectively decide which direction to take. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | hms123: <TheDestructor> <izimbra> I would like to see the discussion stay on this page so that more of us would benefit from it (even if we can't necessarily contribute to it). |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | kb2ct: Well at least the Sicilian voters aren't agitating for the Ponomariov Gambit. :0) |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | openingspecialist: really it's hard to say what "we" want. perhaps a list with all lines of sicillian and copy and paste your name next to it if you want it. as a french player i have no clue in comparison to a lot of people in here so perhaps a strong dragon player of najdorf player would like to start the list. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | Xenon Oxide: <hms123: <TheDestructor> <izimbra> I would like to see the discussion stay on this page so that more of us would benefit from it (even if we can't necessarily contribute to it).> Seconded. I think we should refrain from creating too many forums, because it is much better to keep all discussion in one place. Otherwise, it becomes hard to follow the thread of discussion, and the discussion might be fractionated. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | Hoozits: Nothing says we couldn't play a slightly off-beat variation of the sicilian, like say, the Sveshnikov. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | classF: Another on-going GMAN Sicilian game:
[Event "Simon Webb Memorial"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2007.3.14"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Nickel, Arno"]
[Black "Gerhardt, Frank"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2602"]
[BlackElo "2645"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 g6 5.e5 Ng4 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Bg7 8.Bf4 g5 9.Nxg5 Nxe5 10.O-O Bg4 11.Qd2 Ng6 12.Nge4 Qd7 13.Rae1 Rg8 14.f3 Bh3 15.Bg3 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Be6 17.f4 Bf5 18.Bf2 O-O-O 19.Nxc5 Bxc5 20.Bxc5 b6
21.Bf2 h5 22.Qe3 h4 23.h3 c5 24.Qf3 Qb7 25.Ne4 Kb8 26.a4 a5 27.Re2 f6 28.b3 Rg7 29.Be1 Rdg8 30.Nc3 Qd7 31.Nd5 Qd6 32.c4 Rf7 33.Bc3 e6 34.Nxf6 Rgf8 35.Be5 Nxe5
36.fxe5 Qd4 37.Qf4 *
|
|
| Aug-27-08 | | DarthStapler: I voted d5. Sicilian is too predictable |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | Waitaka: All the games <1.e4 c5> with GMAN playing white, from chessgames.com Opening Explorer, ordered by year: A) <2.Nc3>
A Nickel vs H Leserer, 1992, 1/2-1/2 B) <2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4> A Nickel vs W Krabbe, 2004, 1-0 C) <2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3> A Nickel vs Hydra, 2004, 1-0 D) <2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Nbd5> A Nickel vs J Van Oosterom, 2005, 1-0 E) <2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6> A Nickel vs M Nimtz, 2005, 1/2-1/2 F) <2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5> A Nickel vs A Soltau, 2005, 1/2-1/2 G) <2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6> A Nickel vs A J Ugge, 2005, 1/2-1/2 H) <2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nd7> A Nickel vs A Belezky, 2006, 1-0 I) <2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 e6> A Nickel vs T Schmidt, 2007, 1/2-1/2 J) <2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.h3 g6> A Nickel vs J Siigur, 2007, 1/2-1/2 K) <2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7> A Nickel vs P L Coleman, 2007, 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | auh2o: <Ceri: The team then chose a move order whereby my choices were not played at three vital turns and got into a basically lost position. The numbers voting diminished and, through remarkable endeavours, the team managed to find a way of drawing the game.> Remarkable endeavours, indeed. A herculean effort by some "stalwarts," as you say. Ceri, how nice to see your name on a post and to see you rejoining those "stalwarts." Bad news for GM Nickel. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | AnalyzeThis: <izimbra: Me...Until shown otherwise, I expect that GMAN's new strategy in this game will just be to try and play the strongest moves he can find, and he and his chess engine aren't likely to be intimidated by an "open" or "tactical" game.> I agree with this. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | ravel5184: <DarthStapler> actually has some sense for once! :) |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | Whitehat1963: I just voted 1...c5, as it seems to be the most complex and least likely to draw. We've got to keep our winning streak alive! A draw for us, even with black, is a step backward. Chessplayers of The World unite!
1...c5! |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | BaranDuin: <Boomie: <BaranDuin: Here is some discussion of 12. ... Nd5 in the poisoned pawn. It may be not as good for black as previously thought. http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yab...; The analysis there so far is:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10. e5!! h6 11. Bh4 dxe5 12. fxe5 Nd5 13. Nxd5 exd5 14. Bc4! Bc5 15. Bxd5 0-0 16. Rb3! Qxa2 17. 0-0 Nc6 18. Rg3!! (black is lost) Nxd4 19. Kh1 Qxc2 20. Qxc2 Nxc2 21. Bf6 g5 22. Rf4 However I couldn't find an advantage for white after 14...Be7.> It is quite possible that black can equalise after eg. 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Bxd5 Qxe5+ 17.Qe2 Nd7 18.Qxe5+ Nxe5 19.o-o o-o 20. Rbe1, but it wil always be a position where we would be playing for only two possible results. And I hope it is not our ambition to play for a draw. So we should not play the Poisoned pawn. Is someone examining the Old mainline of the Najdorf? |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | MikeB20: I voted 1...h5! because it has a 100% win record in Opening Explorer. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | DaringSpeculator: I voted for 1...c5.
Here is a nice article on the Sicilian defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicili... |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | zanshin: I thought this was an interesting video on Infinite Analysis in Aquarium. http://aquariumchess.com/tutorial/I... |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | izimbra: <Biscoito: I would disagree with premise 2. I would�t say that a faster computer calculates better, it would only calculate more and/or further.> The context for the remark is the same, high quality, chess program running on two computers, one computer being faster. In that setup, more and/or further is better. If that were not the case, then the chess engine couln't be high quality as its evaluation function would have to be broken in some major way. |
|
| Aug-27-08 | | kb2ct: <BaranDuin: <Boomie: <BaranDuin: Here is some discussion of 12. ... Nd5 in the poisoned pawn. It may be not as good for black as previously thought. http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yab...;
The analysis there so far is:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10. e5!! h6 11. Bh4 dxe5 12. fxe5 Nd5 13. Nxd5 exd5 14. Bc4! Bc5 15. Bxd5 0-0 16. Rb3! Qxa2> 16...Qxa2 is a blunder and a greedy computer move. 16...Qa4 hitting on the Nd4 should equalize. White however can draw by perpetual check immediately as I posted yesterday. :0)
|
|
Aug-27-08
 | | Chessgames Challenge:
1...c5
FINAL VOTE RESULTS:
| 1...c5 |
|
312 | votes |
(54.4%) |
| 1...e5 |
|
138 | votes |
(24.0%) |
| 1...e6 |
|
35 | votes |
(6.1%) |
| 1...c6 |
|
23 | votes |
(4.0%) |
| 1...d5 |
|
18 | votes |
(3.1%) |
| 1...Nf6 |
|
17 | votes |
(3.0%) |
| 1...g6 |
|
8 | votes |
(1.4%) |
| 1...d6 |
|
6 | votes |
(1.0%) |
| 1...Nc6 |
|
5 | votes |
(0.9%) |
| 1...h5 |
|
2 | votes |
(0.3%) |
|
total # of votes: 574
draw requests: 9 (1.6%)
click for larger view
|
|
| Aug-27-08 | | Hugin: <Tabanus: <firebrandx: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qa3 10. e5 dxe5 11. fxe5 Nfd7 12. Ne4 Qxa2 13. Rd1 Qd5 14. Qe3 Qxe5 15. Be2 h6 16. Bh4 Bc5 17. Bg3 Bxd4 18. Rxd4 Qa5+ 19. Rd2 O-O 20. Bd6 Rd8 21. Qg3 Qf5 22. Be5 Qg6 23. Qh4 Nc6 24. Bh5 Qf5 25. Bxg7 Nc5 26. Nxc5 Kxg7 27. Rf1 Qe5+ 28. Ne4 Qa1+ 29. Rd1 Rxd1+ 30. Bxd1 Qe5 31. Rf6 Bd7 32. Qxh6+ Kg8 33. Rf4 f5 34. Rh4 Rd8 35. Rh3 1-0> I'm backsliding this game but has only reached 26...Kxg7. Apparently flawless after this, 31...Ne7 would not have helped either.> 20..Nc6 probably draws. |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 52 OF 931 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
