< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Nov-02-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: The reason I posted the above analysis has many reasons, the simplest being is that you should always be willing to go back and check you analysis, (with the latest engines); especially since it had been close to 10 years since the last time that I had seriously worked on this game. (I completely revamped my web page over the last few days.) |
Everyone (by know) should know just how far engines have advanced ... in a relatively short time. [When they first came out - they were useless. Later, they were interesting toys. I can remember - that for a long time - the "stand-alone" <tabletop> DMP's were vastly superior to all the engines. In 2003, humans could stil beat them. In 2006, Kramnik lost to Deep Fritz. Today, no human in the world would even want to try and play an engine, the last time a GM tried, <GM Michael Adams> ... the results were not pretty.]
And its amazing how many people have not looked at this game in a long time. About a month ago, I was talking to a friend who had been stationed in Pensacola. (A number of years back, he is a USCF Expert today.) We discussed this game, he studied it as a teenager, yet even he did not know about the improvement that I gave - above. (It had obviously been a long time since he had studied this game. We also have a lot of the same books. He told me in an e-mail ... after we got off the phone ... he immediately looked up the game ... and saw no mention of the line starting with 31.Rg8+!!
|Nov-02-11|| ||Robed.Bishop: <AJ: He told me in an e-mail ... after we got off the phone ... he immediately looked up the game ... and saw no mention of the line starting with 31.Rg8+!!>|
Oh, well in that case it must be true! All that really proves is that a month ago a friend of yours didn't do his research given that the analysis for the move was done years ago.
|Nov-02-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: And I want you to notice one other thing ... before you made an issue of things, I PURPOSELY avoided talking about (my) web pages, (my) discovery, etc. |
I was trying to take the low road, but some people try to make a flame war out of a bucket of water.
So I am asking you - please stop. Otherwise, I will continue to report your behavior to the admins of this site ... sooner or later, they may grow tired of all this silliness ... and do something drastic.
Let it die!!! Stop acting like a dog-gone chimp ... and conduct yourself like a semi-reasonable adult.
|Nov-02-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: You are also - with your <<repeated attacks<<<<<>>>>>>>> (and constant insults) ... in clear violation of the third posting guideline. (In fact, about half the time, you are breaking all of them). |
(All in bold.) <<Please observe our posting guidelines.>>
#1.) No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
#2.) No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
# 3.) No personal attacks against other users.
# 4.) Nothing in violation of United States Law.
|Nov-03-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: How about a simple rule for the future? (Just stick to chess. Comment on the game ... and nothing else.)|
|Nov-03-11|| ||JoergWalter: Zukertort's continuation was convincing enough to make Blackburne resign 2 moves later.|
It is quite common that players missed possible shortcuts or a mate in fewer moves in the old days. Today, it is easy to find mates in 6, 8 or ten moves in old games which the players or annotators may not have seen or not bothered about.
Charousek vs B Richter, 1897
<JoergWalter: Fritz is insisting that 29.Qxg5 is mate in 6. the others: if 32.Qg6+ instead of Qe5+ then mate in 1. And if 33.Nd6+ is replaced by Qg7+ it is mate in 2. quite a few oversights for a great attacker like Charousek.>
Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857
So nothing to brag about imo.
|Nov-03-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ: How about a simple rule for the future? (Just stick to chess. Comment on the game ... and nothing else.)>|
It is not really clear what you mean by <Just stick to chess> as you are claiming faults (without proof) in the work of others.
<15. Qe2!?, (Maybe - '!')
Is this the most aggressive here?
Kasparov questions this ... but his analysis is based on old analysis that was done by Igor Zaitzev. (But I have punched holes in that work.)>
Now, is this attacking Kasparov? Are you asking others not to question your work at the same time?
Do not forget "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".
Or is it along the arrogant line "quod licet iovi non licet bovi"?
|Nov-03-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I am pretty perceptive.
If you honestly ask a question - I shall answer it. However, any attempt at sarcasm or attempts to drag me down or start an argument are properly and correctly ignored.
Of course, since you worked so hard on getting on the "iggy list," one must assume that you wanted to be there, and do not care if I miss something ... ... ...
|Nov-03-11|| ||JoergWalter: I know you are dying to read the posts of those decent fellows on your "iggy list". What an "Ignore" is it that is defying its purpose?|
|Nov-03-11|| ||JoergWalter: <brankat:Steinitz's overall score against Zukertort is a convincing +20 -9 =10. (according to this database). |
I suppose Dr.Lasker was trying to explain such a result, and he thought he found the answer in a different approach to the game, different school of thought. After all, Steinitz's turned out to be superior to the preceding one, and enabled the progress of the game on new foundations. Or was Steinitz that much a superior player? Also, Lasker himself was a disciple of Steinitz.>
Lasker wrote in his "Lehrbuch des Schachspiels" (my free translation):
<Up to here Zukertort defended and developed his pieces well. Now he has to make a plan. He has to protect his weak points and play for a draw. But that is something he doesn't understand. ...
When Zukertort has a plan he is at least equal to Steinitz. But a kingside attack is an old plan he didn't have to find over the board and Zukertort is a master in its execution. However, Steinitz found good plans at the board.>
|Nov-03-11|| ||JoergWalter: <brankat>
Reti in "Masters of the Chessboard" on Steinitz:
<Steinitz had rivals like Anderssen and later Blackburne and Zuckertort, all of whom probably surpassed him in natural ability for chess. His general theory was so profound, however, that he defeated all of them in their matches with him>
|Nov-03-11|| ||keypusher: <JoergWalter: <brankat> |
Reti in "Masters of the Chessboard" on Steinitz:
<Steinitz had rivals like Anderssen and later Blackburne and Zuckertort, all of whom probably surpassed him in natural ability for chess. His general theory was so profound, however, that he defeated all of them in their matches with him>>
|Nov-03-11|| ||JoergWalter: <keypusher>
well, 80% useless imo. but better than Reti's "New ideas in chess" which is a 100% flop.
|Nov-04-11|| ||nimh: <well, 80% useless imo. but better than Reti's "New ideas in chess" which is a 100% flop.>|
What's wrong with that book?
|Nov-04-11|| ||JoergWalter: <nimh> Reti's "New ideas in chess" is a compilation of articles by Reti which was published in 1922. Mainly, a reply to Franz Gutmayer.
"New ideas" meant new to Gutmayer.
Comments on games are very superficial and that the famous consultation game Fähndrich/Kaufmann vs Capablanca/Reti is such a revelation concerning opening principles was already doubted back then. I really do not see the purpose for this book and why it should be recommended as "classical reading".
If this book was not printed would we miss anything?
|Nov-04-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Most chess minds think of Reti's books as landmarks ... and I happen to agree with that.|
|Nov-04-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ: Most chess minds think of Reti's books as landmarks ... and I happen to agree with that.>|
who cares about your agreement? Reti?
For Reti you would have been another example of Franz Gutmayer.
|Nov-04-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ: Most chess minds think of Reti's books as landmarks>|
I do not think you own one and if so, that you have read it.
|Nov-04-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: "Stupid is as stupid does ..."
- Forrest Gump
|Nov-04-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ: "Stupid is as stupid does ..."
- Forrest Gump>
So, we'll call you LIFE Master Dump?
|Nov-07-11|| ||JoergWalter: The earliest mention of 31...Rg8+ I found as of now is in:|
Schachmagazin 64 no. 18 in 1992.
Remembering the 150th birthday of Zukertort by Armin Heintze.
|Nov-08-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ: <patzer2>
Seems someone borrowed an improvement ... and is trying to claim it for their own.>|
|Nov-09-11|| ||Llawdogg: Wow! This is an amazing game.|
|Nov-09-11|| ||Llawdogg: 28 Qb4! and 29 Rf8+! were two consecutive decoy moves! Amazing!|
|Jan-19-12|| ||Archerforthelord: wow, this is the first flame war ive ever seen on a website for chess O.O|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·