|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jan-27-06
 |
| whatthefat: Evidently he's someone who knows what he's talking about. |
 |
Jan-27-06
 |
| notyetagm: <whatthefat: Evidently he's someone who knows what he's talking about.> LOL
|
|
Jan-27-06
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: I read the review, and I liked it. (Thanks to those who pointed it out.) I also must salute Master C. Utterberg. As I am NOT a household name, certainly there had to be the temptation to simply borrow/copy the work ... and not give credit in this case. |
|
Jan-31-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: The link to the review, (http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/bo...); for those who e-mailed me to ask me for it. |
|
| Jan-31-06 |
| Fan of Leko: <Nevertheless — despite the danger of his situation — Black could now seize the moment and gain the advantage with 24…f3!, as demonstrated by Goldsby: (1) 25.Rg7+? Kf8 26.h4 Be5 27.R7g6 fe 28.Ne4 Bf5 29.R6g5 Bf4+, winning the exchange. (2) 25.Rd2 Kf6, and Black is threatening …Bf4 — meanwhile dismissing any concerns over White advancing his center pawns.”> Great analysis!
Nobody had seen this for over 150 years,including Morphy, Anderssen, Löwenthal, Jaenisch, Bilguer, Bledow, Staunton, Dufresne, Steinitz, Lasker, Mason, Tartakower, Romanovsky, Keres, Bronstein, Neishtadt, Kasparov, Levy, and Harding. |
|
Jan-31-06
|
| notyetagm: <hayton3> I am sure that one of <LMAJ>'s virtual sycophants probably e-mailed him for the link. |
|
Feb-01-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <Fan of Leko> Thanks! PS, I just got the book two days ago. I have always been interested in the McDonnell - de La Bordonnais match(es). Years ago, I had a whole website dedicated to this match. |
|
Feb-02-06
|
| notyetagm: <3. I played Tal at Blitz only to lose on time.> <LMAJ> can't solve this forced mate in 3 (with checks!) but he almost beat Tal at blitz. Right.
|
|
Feb-12-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: The link above is no longer valid ... (its a different review); but you can still read the review in their archives. |
|
| Feb-13-06 |
| offramp: I also reviewed that book in great detail at MacDonnell vs La Bourdonnais, 1834. |
|
| Feb-14-06 |
| offramp: By the way, what has happened to Robert Schinkmann's games? |
|
Feb-14-06
 |
| chancho: <By the way, what has happened to Robert Schinkmann's games?> They've gone the way of the Dodo. |
|
Feb-15-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: This website decided to delete my game vs. R. Schinkmann. (You have to ask them to give the exact reason; this matter was covered in the forum, User: chessgames.com.) I have played jillions of games on the internet, and probably hundreds of (e-mail) correspondence games. (For many years I was part of a Compu-Serve group where you played other members for free.) I gave it up when it became obvious that many people just cheated and used a computer. Nowadays, I have to have a large incentive before I try that field of endeavor again. |
|
Feb-15-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: If you need more help finding the discussion on about the "why and how" of the deleted game, see User: chessgames.com, especially the post for January 18th, 2006. |
|
| Feb-15-06 |
| MorphyMatt: Not a bad game. |
|
Feb-15-06
|
| chancho: <Nowadays, I have to have a large incentive before I try that field of endeavor again.> A large incentive? :-) |
|
| Feb-15-06 |
| hayton3: <chancho> <A large incentive? :-)> Well at least we know that getting his behind belted was a large disincentive :) |
|
Apr-22-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <MorphyMatt>
That's putting it mildly ...
|
|
Jul-07-07
|
| notyetagm: I am struck by how similar Marshall's 30 ...  f2-f4+! is to Shirov's recent brilliancy 41 ...  f2-f4+!!?,Position after 41 ... f2-f4+!!?
click for larger viewagainst Gelfand from the recent Pivdenny Rapid Cup.
[Event "Pivdenny Bank Cup"]
[Site "Odessa UKR"]
[Date "2007.07.06"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Gelfand,B"]
[Black "Shirov,A"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2733"]
[BlackElo "2699"]
[EventDate "2007.07.04"]
[ECO "D85"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Nf3 c5
8. Rb1 O-O 9. Be2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa5+ 11. Bd2 Qxa2 12. O-O Bg4 13. Be3 Nc6
14. d5 Na5 15. Bg5 b6 16. Bxe7 Rfe8 17. d6 Nc6 18. Bb5 Nxe7 19. h3 Bxf3 20.
Qxf3 Qe6 21. Bxe8 Rxe8 22. dxe7 Rxe7 23. Rfe1 Bd4 24. Rbd1 Qe5 25. Rd3 a5
26. Qd1 Bc5 27. Re2 Re6 28. g3 Rd6 29. Kg2 Rxd3 30. Qxd3 a4 31. Rd2 a3 32.
Qc4 Kg7 33. Rd7 Qf6 34. f4 Qb2+ 35. Kf3 Qf2+ 36. Kg4 h5+ 37. Kh4 g5+ 38.
fxg5 Kg6 39. Qc3 f6 40. Rd5 a2 41. Rf5 Qf4+ 42. gxf4 Bf2+ 43. Qg3 Bxg3+ 44.
Kxg3 a1=Q 45. Rxf6+ Kg7 46. e5 b5 47. Kh4 b4 48. Kxh5 Qd1+ 49. Kh4 b3 50.
e6 b2 51. Rf7+ Kg8 52. Rb7 b1=Q 53. Rxb1 Qxb1 54. Kg4 Qe4
0-1
|
|
Jul-07-07
|
| notyetagm: Position after Marshall's 30 ... f2-f4+!
click for larger viewPosition after Shirov's 41 ... f2-f4+!!?
click for larger view |
|
Jul-07-07
|
| notyetagm: Position after Marshall's 30 ... f2-f4+!
click for larger view30 ... f2-f4+! is a really beautiful <LINE-OPENING SACRIFICE> by the super tactician Marshall. It is based on the tactical point that both White units which appear to <DEFEND> the f4-square, the White g3-pawn and White g5-bishop, are <OVERWORKED> since they must also <BLOCK> lines to the precariously perched White h4-king. The White g3-pawn must <BLOCK> the diagonal e1-h4 (else 31 g3xf4  c5-f2#) while the White g5-bishop must <BLOCK> the diagonal d8-h4 (else 31 g5xf4 c5-e7+ 32 f4-g5 e7xg5#). So since both the White g3-pawn and the White g5-bishop must <BLOCK> a crucial line, neither of them actually <DEFENDS> the f4-square, hence Marshall's 30 ... f2-f4+!. They are a great example of one of the two most common ways to be <OVERWORKED>: having to both <BLOCK> a line =and= <CONTROL/DEFEND> a square. |
|
| Jan-26-09 |
| WhiteRook48: wow, all that makes me think you are a master tactician. |
|
Jul-30-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: ha, ha |
|
Jul-30-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: I just went over it again, its still a pretty game. |
|
Oct-11-09
 |
| hedgeh0g: I just read through the entire 9 pages of comments, and it was almost as entertaining as the game itself: that has got to be one of the most pedantic, trivial arguments I've ever read. <LMAJ>, I'm sure you're a good player, but mother of Christ, you're 50+ years old (48 at the time of the argument) and you get all wound up because someone <ON THE INTERNET> doesn't give a <CHESS MOVE> as many exclams as you do. Seriously...<notyetagm> was just voicing his opinion and you went out of your way (borderline obsessive) to call it wrong. Just chill out. It's just a game! :) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
