< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
|Mar-08-14|| ||N0B0DY: knows the better annotator.|
|Mar-08-14|| ||whiteshark: fyg: Hübner gave move-assessment symbols for the following moves:|
|Mar-08-14|| ||john barleycorn: The <LIFE annotator> is not too specific on Qg5. Except "the engines say so". His own input as a "master" = zero|
Just had a look at Reti's "Die modernen Ideen im Schachspiel" and Tartakower's "500 master games of chess" where : 8....Qg5 "this simultaneous attack on two pieces proves illusory. Better would be 8...g5 9.Nf5 Qg6"
The first mention of 8....g6 that I found is in von Gottschall's book on Anderssen.
However, he is getting more feedback here, than his webpages and videos have viewers. I am under the impression he produces third rated stuff on purpose to get any kind of attention...
|Mar-08-14|| ||john barleycorn: Even Kieseritzky had his doubts about Qg5:
<ceci n'est pas le coupe juste>
|Mar-08-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <keypusher> I am working on completely redoing my annotations for the game ... I shall post it when I am done. (I literally began this project last November. First, it got sidelined by the World Champ. match between Carlsen and Anand.) |
I continue to work on it.
I literally have done around 30-50 DPA's. (And tons of sliding.)
I don't believe in work done quickly. Too many GM's (and others, like KC) who crank out something in just a few minutes, their stuff isn't worth even looking at twice.
|Mar-09-14|| ||offramp: < LIFE Master AJ: <keypusher> (I literally began this project last November...|
I literally have done around 30-50 DPA's. (And tons of sliding.)>
Literally, eh? You mean as in <not metaphorically>.
|Mar-09-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I am fascinated by the engines.
Remember - when I first came up ... the late 1960's and early 1970's ... computers that played chess were just a pipe dream.
Every time I subject a game to close scrutiny, it finds something new. (Unless someone else has already subjected that game to deep engine analysis.)
|Mar-10-14|| ||TheFocus: I am surprised that <keypusher> was the only one to see I was being sarcastic about Steinitz.|
|Mar-22-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-...|
For the handful of people that have asked me, I am working on an update to this game. I am only doing a little at a time, so it might be awhile (2-3 months?) before I finish.
|Mar-22-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <<I am surprised that <keypusher> was the only one to see I was being sarcastic about Steinitz.>>|
Well you got me. (Totally!) Reeled me right in.
In person, I can detect sarcasm or joking. But in print, I have a much harder time telling when someone might be pulling my chain. (You may call me gullible and naïve, it would not be the first time that has happened. Probably won't be the last time, either.)
|Mar-22-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: < <Pulo y Gata:> Betcha it'll be one hella fight to get to ride the cursed machine first.)<<<<>>>> >|
One sci-fi writer - I forget which one - had a theory ... as you traveled back in time, you would lose any knowledge that was gained in the future ... that the time stream would <automatically?> strip you of any knowledge that did not belong to that era.
I.E. If you took a ride back to the days of the first stone age ... in the earliest days of man ... when you stepped off the time machine, you would be dumb as a brick and not even remember/know how to make fire, much less operate your time machine.
|Mar-23-14|| ||Pulo y Gata: I have a theory that if one will travel back in time you would become what you were at that time: an ejaculation, a mote on someone's eye, a dust, an idea... This obviously is what happened to advanced sentient beings who attempted to travel back in time. This make travelling to the future more alluring since you can chance on a better self in the future. But not always, because you can also be something else: a dead body, a memory, an echo, a dust, a footnote...|
|Mar-23-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: You were probably just a speck of food (on a tooth) in a T-Rex's mouth ...|
|Mar-23-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Or ... in its stool.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: Or as cannonfodder for 1800's
|Mar-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: <LIFE Master AJ: ...
when you stepped off the time machine, you would be dumb as a brick>
You succeeded without the equipment...
|Mar-23-14|| ||OhioChessFan: Maybe he's from the future?|
|Mar-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: <OhioChessFan: Maybe he's from the future?>|
Actually, it doesn't matter in this specific case:
0-0 = 0+0 = 0
|Jul-01-14|| ||sergeidave: Did you know that it was actually Black who won this amazing game?? :)
|Jul-01-14|| ||sergeidave: Also, from that same source, it appears that the moves ...3 through 5, actually happened in a slightly different order... Then the rest of the games plays as notated above.|
|Jul-25-14|| ||m.okun: To discuss this game from positions of today at least it's ridiculous.|
|Feb-25-15|| ||offramp: Who thought up the brilliant pun for this game? And who voted for it?|
|Apr-04-15|| ||zanzibar: <sergeidave> thank you for pointing that ref out to me. |
<jnpope>, in an older post on another forum, had mentioned that there once was a time when the color who moved first was variable.
Of course I was incredulous. But <jnpope> is both indefatigable and inimitable, and now you've offered proof most incontrovertible.
From <jnpope>'s post I believe that during match play, in days of old, players would have the same color for the entire match, alternating move.
I still would like to see more historical references for when this convention went out of favor, and the modern White-to-move convention became universally adopted.
|Jun-30-15|| ||w7n: The interesting fact is that when this game was analysed by Kieseritsky (in La Regence), the most critical move 18.Bd6 was given the comment 'the coup de grace which proves all black's efforts futile'. Supposedly the line which saves black from being crushed was too hard for chess players to find by then??|
Also, several sources have claimed that black is winning after 18.Bd6 if he plays correctly, but Stockfish 5 evaluates the position after 18.Bd6 Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 as +0.00, with the next white move as 20. Bxc5, while 20. Kd2 is also evaluated as +0.00. (Which likely means both lines should end in a draw soon)
So while 18.Bd6 is not objectively sound, it's not losing either.
|Sep-06-15|| ||The Kings Domain: One for the ages. Anderssen's combinative skill and foresight are timeless. Kieseritzky sure showed his limitation by going for piece-grabs rather than defending his kingside against whites ominous buildup there.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·