< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Nov-15-02|| ||Sneaky: Games like this is what started me playing the Queen's gambit. The plan of O-O-O and launching a kingside assault is very risky, but always makes for fun chess. |
|Sep-28-03|| ||kevin86: I agree,I have some problems with king-side attacks when my own king is there;it's good to see that q side castling is still in fashion. |
|Sep-28-03|| ||jaime gallegos: I agree too, there are many openings with q side castling as a manouever to attack the kingside ( sicilian for example ) |
|Sep-28-03|| ||ughaibu: Rubinstein vs Teichmann, 1908 |
|Jan-15-04|| ||Sneaky: Back in 1988 Kasparov relied on his d-pawn to open nearly all of his games, but as you can see, he still played for a win.|
I've played 10. O-O-O in very similar circumstances only to receive smirks and snickers from my opponent. Then they invariably play ...c5 immediately.
|Apr-13-04|| ||Kenkaku: This game shows quite a bit of Pillsbury influence (or at least feels like one of his games). QGD attacks like this originated with him, though 0-0-0 is certainly a move that distinguishes this game from ones played back at the turn of the 20th century. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: It also shows quite a bit of Rubinstein's influence as ughaibu points out earlier. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> True, but as you and others try to keep Rubinstein's influence at the forefront, I try to keep Pillsbury's (the patriarch of d4 imo) contributions and influence from being forgotten. So, I'd say it's safe to say that we're both a bit biased. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: ??? Not really. I'm not trying to "keep Rubinstein's influence at the forefront." Kasparov, the man himself, has actually repeatedly praised Rubinstein (i.e. in OMGP Volume 1 and in interviews) and claims that Rubinstein along with Fischer, Tal, Botvinnik, and Alekhine, were the greatest influences on his style as a teenager. I'm not trying to pull things out of thin air in this observation. Did Pillsbury have a strong effect on Kasparov? Maybe. I wouldn't know, but Rubinstein sure did. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> Was I trying to state that you're pulling things out of thin air? There is no denying Rubinstein's influence. I'm merely stating that as Rubinstein is a favorite player of yours, you're more likely to speak up about him in kibitzing. In my previous post (as to my efforts to keep Pillsbury from being forgotten) I was not even referring to this game, but to Pillsbury's influence as a whole on chess. Nor in my first post was I saying that Pillsbury had a certain necessary influence on this game at all <or at least feels like on of his games>. It just looks like one of his games. You are correct that Rubinstein had more of an influence on Kasparov's play by his own admission, but does that mean he was more influential overall? Perhaps. You seem to be looking for an attack in my post that isn't there, try taking it a bit more lightheartedly. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Kenkaku, did I say that you said I was pulling things out of thin air? If so, show me where. As a fan of Rubinstein, I am definitely more likely to talk about him. But in this case, it has nothing to do with the fact that I am his fan. I kibitz frequently everywhere, does that mean I am the fan of all the players I've commented on for the last few days? Certainly not. I'm just stating the obvious here- Kasparov says that Rubinstein was one of the main contributors to his style. That's something that cannot be argued with. It has nothing to do with subjectivity. I never said that Pillsbury had or did not have an effect in this game, so I don't understand the second part of your post. You seem to be looking for some sort of offense in my post which simply isn't there. Try being less sensitive. Feel free to advocate Pillsbury, but don't think that my simply mentioning Rubinstein is a cause for outright horror. Your response to my earliest post was unnecessary and seems to imply I was downplaying Pillsbury's role. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> <I'm not trying to pull things out of thin air in this observation.> certainly seems to imply that you feel I think your statements were arbitrary. If you had understood what I was saying, I was referring on the whole as to who we are likely to speak about (this was the only observation about subjectivity I made), not this specific game. I agreed with your assessment about Rubinstein's influence on Kasparov COMPLETELY, and was in no way saying you were being subjective. Nor was I saying you were somehow anti-Pillsbury, or wrong for advocating Rubinstein (a fine player). I never said or was trying to imply ANYWHERE that what you were saying was invalid, and I thought I had cleared all of this up in my last post. I guess I was wrong. Be less sensitive? I could say the same for you I think. When my viewpoint is misinterpreted, I am compelled to correct that error. Was YOUR last post necessary? Couldn't you have said "thanks for clearing that up", rather than going at me for trying to clear up my viewpoint when I feel you misunderstand me? I meant my original response to be lighthearted, not an attack, but I feel that the inclusion of =) symbols somewhat diminishes my writing, and hoped you'd catch my intention without this. Now, however, this entire thing seems to have been blown out of proportion. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||tamar: Nf4-g2! and then Rg1! are my favorite moves of this game. Pillsbury was the first I remember to do these puzzle-like manuevers with his pieces, delaying exchanging them so that when the attack came, all his pieces were unleashed. The Rubinstein comparison is quite apt too, especially the game ughaibu mentions against Teichmann. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: <I was referring on the whole as to who we are likely to speak about (this was the only observation about subjectivity I made), not this specific game>|
Well, I understand then. You are wrong of course since I comment on all sorts of players, not simply Rubinstein/Kasparov/whatever, but I understand what you are saying. I didn't imply anything against you when I said "I'm not pulling anything out of thin air." I was showing you that I had a clear reason for saying what I did and apparently you misinterpreted my comment. I hoped to elaborate what ughaibu had been trying to say, since he only posted a link with no comments, as if everything made sense after that. I didn't realize someone would take offense at that.
< Be less sensitive? I could say the same for you I think>
Exactly my point! That's what I thought about your "be more lighthearted" comment. I could say the same for you too Kenkaku.
I agree that this thing has been blown out of proportion. If your point all along was that I like to talk about Rubinstein, then that was so obvious as to not need statement. I might as well post after each of your comments on Pillsbury's games: "Kenkaku likes Pillsbury. Did you know this? I think he is biased for writing on this game." Maybe now you understand why I don't get your comments.
|Apr-14-04|| ||Shakh Matov: benjamin Lau do you argue with everybody on this site??:)lets grow up a bit.more to the point ,the main influence on kasparov must have been alekhin but i did here kasparov expesing great admiration for rubinstein.and why not,garrys last name was once weinstein. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Shakh Matov, I vaguely remember your name. Aren't you the person who wrote that nonsense a few days ago about Polgar being a "critical error" and how Kasparov beats Polgar because Kasparov is a man, and then spent hours arguing about how you are glad Kasparov cheated Polgar? |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Shakh Matov: you see now you are arguing like an insane person with me!:)this is real funny.as i said grow up a bit and stop these senceless arguments with everybody on this site |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Why don't you grow up and stop making all these stupid comments? The only thing here funny is you. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Dudley: Since Pillsbury was an earlier player than Rubinstein I think he was the one who first showed the chess world the effectiveness of the move Bg5 combined with a later Ne5 in the QGD. At one time he, like Rubinstein, could probably have been the world champion but never got the chance. I think both players are excellent to study. I have always liked Pillsbury's method in the QGD and I only recently learned that Rubinstein was great tactician as well as an engame artist. Their play appeals to me more than Lasker's, although he is hard to fault from the view of practical success. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Shakh: I've never seen a single interesting or even comprehensible comment from you before, so I'm putting you on my ignore list. Don't bother responding to me, I won't be able to hear it. Your nonsense on the Judit Polgar vs Kasparov, 1994 page resembles slothrop's, if you ever meet him, have a chat, I think you two would like each other. Sorry to everyone else for clogging up this page. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> I was never saying you post out of bias, only that we both have our favorite players and enjoy commenting on them more than on players we are perhaps less fond of (I assume you will now argue no, that you like commenting on everyone equally, but so be it). This is the only point I was trying to make. I never meant to imply that you were biased about this game. I see now that the exclusion of "=)" is apparently a grave error. When you misunderstand what I'm saying, I have to respond. Letting you have the last word after your "??" response would have made it seem like I was fool, so I clarified. Perhaps we are both at fault for being overly confrontational and misunderstanding each other. But once again your need to prove that I'm wrong has compelled me to respond. My allusion to Rubinstein being a favorite player of yours (which many newcomers may not know) was no less uncalled for than your commenting on ughaibu's post; the influence is obvious if you merely click the link. That's all. This has been talked about too long already. I too apologize for getting off topic.|
Here's a contribution to the actual game to make up for it:
11...Ng4 was somewhat of a blunder, allowing white to gain far too much momentum. If not for this, black might have had time to start a queenside attack, forcing Kasparov to turn his attention to some defensive measures.
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: You assume way too much to presume that I would say I comment on all players equally. I don't. My point was that your statement that I am more likely to post about Rubinstein was unnecessary since the fact I like Rubinstein is clearly stated in my profile, so both newcomers and old players here know. Stating it again is unnecessary. No one has commented on the Rubinstein link for months and I would know since I was here when it was first posted in September, so I felt obligated to say something about the significance. I apologize as well if you think this is redundant but it only seemed logical to me. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> Alright, let's just conclude that we both made somewhat unnecessary statements. Fair enough? As for my assumption, I was merely anticipating more attacks on my statements, I didn't necessarily think that you would argue that. |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Your blunt presumption was not exactly the most diplomatic statement in the world and probably a poor choice if you want to end the argument (you can never end a debate by attempting a "last jab"), but I'll let it slide since it seems you regret saying it anyway. The only thing I feel now though is an itch to go to all of your Pillsbury games and write something along the lines of "Kenkaku, I think it is fair to say we are both biased and that your choice of including a Pillsbury game in your collection is clear evidence of bias." ;) <- (see this, it's called not taking yourself seriously Kenkaku, try using the smileys! :) |
|Apr-14-04|| ||Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> Heh, in that case you would indeed be somewhat correct. I created a Pillsbury collection because he is one of my favorite players, so bias/favoritism was certainly a factor in my decision to do that! As for the individual games themselves, I try to be objective in their selection. I would indeed ask you to refrain from carrying out your "threat" =P |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·