| Oct-04-04 |
| gadfly: How can such ridiculous games be included in the database!!? I don't get the point of refusing to include blitz or rapid games and at the same time finding a spot for games with ludicrous blunders played by relatively not quite well-known players. Nobody can convince me that this is a game worth studying. There are far more valuable rapid or blitz games than this parody of chess, which has been published here for unknown reasons. |
 |
Oct-04-04
 |
| percyblakeney: 22. ... Qe4 could have been just a way to resign, since black can't avoid losing material. One alternative line is 22. ... Na3 23.Qxe7 Nxc4 24.Ne6 Rg8 25.Rd8 Rbxd8 26.Nxd8. There are better lines for black, but all of them losing, I think. |
|
| Oct-04-04 |
| gadfly: Black's position certainly is not enviable but this does not look like a way to resign. I find such an explanation rather implausible but maybe I am wrong. Anyways, the game is still not quite impressive so I maintain my position. And I also tried to make another point - rapid and blitz game should not be underestimated. There are some real masterpieces even among the blitz games that I have studied and the limited time controls do not prevent players from creating chef d'oeuvres on the board. Not everybody can play good rapid chess, but some players like Anand have no problems demonstrating their great chess skills in such games. That was basically my point, although I did not state it clearly in my first posting. |
|
| Oct-04-04 |
| clocked: <gadfly> What makes you think blitz/rapid games are not included here? Also, white in this game is a strong player, and his play at least is impressive. |
|
| Oct-05-04 |
| gadfly: <clocked>I am not saying that blitz and rapid games are not included in the database."Blitz games are to be avoided. If you do submit a blitz game, one or both of the players must be a grandmaster." That is the rule I am referring to. And generally there are not that many rapid games as well. Primarily games from super GM rapid play tournaments are included in the database. I have seen some exceptions but that is the general trend. Obviously my definition of impressive differs to an extent from yours as I can hardly see anything quite exceptional about white's play and even if I am wrong about that, there still remains the fact that black's play even without the blunder is far from impressive and this definitely diminishes the value of the game. I admit that my first posting was a bit of an overreaction but I continue to maintain my general postion on the matter. |
|
| Oct-05-04 |
| clocked: <gadfly> and yet you show enthusiasm for miniatures versus NN? The value of this type of game is seeing how the stronger player prevails. How by chance did you even come across this game in the first place? |
|
| Oct-05-04 |
| gadfly: In the miniature there was an impressive and unexpected move, while here white's play is as I said not that impressive. That is what makes the game less instructional - both players did not do quite well - black was disastrous and white simply took advantage of a number of errors finalized by the queen blunder. There is some good positional play by white but that is basically all that can be said about it. The miniature you are referring to was a piece of art -a beautiful checkmate and a queen sac. What more can be demanded of a game of chess!? I have the habit of picking up a player(sometimes player of the day as in this case) and going through his games, randomly choosing some of them for a review. That is how I came across this one. |
|
