< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Apr-04-07|| ||al wazir: Back to chess for a moment, if no one minds. Why is this game over?|
As I see it, after 53...Kc7 (or any other ♔ move), white plays 54. Rg6, threatening 55. Ra6 and 56. Ra8. The only way for black to stop this is to give up his own ♖ in exchange for the ♙ on b7 and the ♘.
So the game might proceed 54...Rxb7 55. Nxb7 Kxb7:
click for larger view
Now if white tries to checkmate by bringing his ♔ forward and pushing black's ♔ to the eighth rank, it doesn't work. After 56. Kb5 d3 57. Rg7+ Kc8 58. Kc6 Kd8 59. Kd6, black plays 59...e4+:
click for larger view
Then the game continues 60. Kc6 d2 61. Rd7+ Ke8 62. fxe4. Now white has to give up his e-♙ in exchange for black's d-♙ or else bring his ♔ back to block the d-♙ from promotion.
So maybe white doesn't try for the checkmate. Instead, he can plop his ♔ on e4 and then trade his ♖ for the ♗ and two of black's ♙s. Starting from the position in my first diagram, it goes 56. Kd3 Kc7 57. Ke4 Kd7 58. Rf7 Ke7 59. Rxf4 exf4 60. Kxf4 d3 61. Ke3 Kf6 62. Kxd3 Kf5:
click for larger view
This looks like a win for white: 63. Ke3 h5 64. Kd2 (64. Ke2 Kf4) Ke5 65. Ke3.
But maybe there's a simpler way to win. Can somebody post it?
|Apr-04-07|| ||BadTemper: <ThePAWN>
actually my temper may be bad, but it takes very very much to activate it.
i call it compensation.
|Apr-04-07|| ||Thrajin: <BadTemper> Perhaps next time I should develop all my brain cells before launching an attack, eh? But I might sacrifice one or two of them for the initiative.|
|Apr-04-07|| ||tpstar: <al wazir> 53 ... Kc7 54. Rg6 Rxb7? 55. Rg7+ & 56. Nxb7 wins.|
All this great intercourse is making me excited. We shouldn't be too hard on their puns, since it's a rough trick finding new material every day. You might remember "Sax and the City" Sax vs Nunn, 1984 yet you missed out on the discarded entry "No Sax Please, We're British."
Hey, it could always be worse. Don't want no Short Short man.
|Apr-04-07|| ||nimzo knight: <Thrajin> and <artemis> It was really interesting to read your comments. They kind of fall in line with my views too. When I moved to United States I could feel a huge section of society is almost completely ignorant about the world outside. Although I still hate when people try to stereotype that all americans are ignorant, for some of them are more aware than average of most other places.|
I didnt get my early education in US. But it was easy to feel that people have grown up with the idea that america is the best place to live and we have taught the whole world about democracy and free speech. Though anyone who has lived in a western european country knows by many factors quality of life is much better there (none of american cities show up in top places to live in). Not that there is anything wrong about not being the best place to live in, I personally love boston more than any city I have been too. At the same time one should be aware about other places in the world.
Same about democracy ... even in 21st century america is debating about can we have a black president ? Can we actually call america a true democracy before civil rights. Can a truly democractic country be at a war of which only 30% of its people approve.
Of course, all places in world have problems with their goverments but people there dont seem to live in any illusions.
Watch Paula Zahn show tonight at 8pm EST. Thats another american evil which goes unaddressed. The amount of racial segregation which is simply shocking.
|Apr-04-07|| ||Thrajin: <nimzo knight>: I couldn't agree with you more about Paula Zahn. Still, she's not nearly as extreme as Ann Coulter. ;-)|
|Apr-04-07|| ||realbrob: <BadTemper: p.s. sexuofobical? if that's a word, bravo. > Well, I looked up in the dictionary and sexuofobic does exist, and as you all know it means "afraid about sex" (ancient greek "fobos", fear). Maybe sexuofobical is a neologism of my invention, but that's the meaning..|
|Apr-04-07|| ||Thrajin: <realbrob>, that is interesting. I would have imagined it would be spelled "sexuophobic", but what do I know. Neologism indeed...|
|Apr-04-07|| ||Ashram64: such a cheezy corny pun-line|
|Apr-04-07|| ||al wazir: <tpstar>: Thanks, but that doesn't solve the problem. Suppose black postpones the trade: 53...Kc7 54. Rg6 Kd7 55. Ra6 Kc7 56. Ra8 Rxb7 57. Nxb7 Kxb7. Now white is again up an exchange, but he still has to find a way to win.|
Instead, white might move his ♔ to b6 and try to drive away the black ♖ by playing Nc6. But what is the black d-♙ doing while this is going on?
|Apr-04-07|| ||tpstar: <al wazir> Continue 58. Rf8 Bd2/c1/h2 (otherwise 59. Rxf4! exf4 60. Kxd4) 59. f4 eliminating the Pd4 with an easy win.|
Much riskier would be 54 ... Kd7 55. Kd5!? as Black gets counterplay with 55 ... d3 & 56 ... d2 forcing White's Rook to the first rank.
|Apr-04-07|| ||playground player: I hate to talk politics on a chess site, but somebody around here needs a civics lesson. Regardless of how most people loosely use the word "democracy," the United States is not a democracy. Our founders took great pains to create a republic. They did so because, as they viewed history, democracies are volatile, unstable, and oppressive. As for the states of Western Europe, supposedly so superior to us colonials, let's just see how many of them are still around 100 years from now.|
|Apr-04-07|| ||artemis: nimzoknight: I think that it can be said that America is in such a position where it can create the illusion of moral right, which can only survive because of our military and economic strength. The feeling of safety from outside has allowed us to create political correctness and self-illusioned moral and political superiority, simply because the U.S. has been unopposed from abroad, and we dont have to worry in our everyday lives about other countries. In countries which do not have the benefit of this strength, it would be very difficult to be so isolated in the personal views. By the way, this is not to say that America is better than other countries, but it is certainly the military and economic leader right now.|
playground player is correct that we do not have a democracy. But what is worse is that everyone thinks that we do have a democracy, and may pursue democratic ideals to the detriment of society. The founder's could not have thought a democracy would work over such an area in their time, because it took forever to get information dispersed around the nation, so even if every person was adept at judging what was best for the country, they could not have the information they needed to judge correctly. See the electoral college as an example.
I would provide some warning though: a purely democratic country would not neccessarily be the best country. For example, imagine if a University's funds were split up based on a vote by the professor's and the students at the college (plus those who donated funds). If the college were primarily a writting college, with the majority of students and faculty in those departments (and also likely the majority of donors interested in those areas as well), then, among others, the sciences would routinely get out-voted and would not be well funded (assuming that everyone is voting on self-interest). Yet typically the science departments require more money than any of the other departments do. Historical research can typically be done using a library system, whereas scientific research needs the equipment to do the experiments. I promise to all of those who are angered at the continual political presence on a chess page that this is the last comment I will make about this here. If anyone wants to continue with this discussion, please join me on my forum.
|Apr-04-07|| ||RandomVisitor: sorry for an off topic post, but here is a 4-minute per move analysis of the game :)|
Short Nigel D (ENG) - Sax Gy [B33]
Saint John 45/190 (Short,N) Saint John 45/190 (Short,N) (1), 1988
[Rybka 2.3.1 mp 32-bit ]
17.Rfd1 Rc8 last book move
18.Nxe7+ 0.53/19 Qxe7 0.54/16
19.Rc3 0.49/16 Kh8 0.58/17
20.b3 0.45/17 f5± 0.92/18 [Rybka 2.3.1 mp 32-bit : 20...Bd7 21.Nb1 f5 22.Bd5 Qe8 23.Qxe8 Rfxe8 24.Bb7 Rxc3 25.Nxc3 Bc8 26.Bd5 Bf8 27.Bc4˛ 0.45/17 ]
21.Rh3 1.01/18 h6 0.99/17
22.Bxe6 1.01/20 Qxe6 1.04/20
23.Rhd3 0.96/18 Rcd8 1.04/18
24.Qe2 0.79/17 fxe4 0.81/17
25.Qxe4 0.83/18 f3 0.98/19
26.Nc4 0.94/17 Rf4 0.98/18
27.Qd5 0.85/19 Qg4 1.02/17
28.Rxf3 0.86/20 Rxf3 0.86/19
29.Qxf3 0.87/19 Qxf3 0.92/21
30.gxf3 0.88/22 d5 0.90/20
31.Kf1 0.91/22 Bf6 0.89/23
32.Nb6 0.88/21 d4 0.92/22
33.Ke2 0.92/21 Bg5 0.88/21
34.Nc4 0.89/20 Bf4 0.89/20
35.h3 0.93/21 Rg8 1.45/23 [Rybka 2.3.1 mp 32-bit : 35...Kg7 36.Kd3 Kf6 37.Ke4 Rc8 38.h4 Bh2 39.Rh1 Bf4 40.Rg1 Rd8 41.Nb6 Ke6 42.Kd3± 0.93/21 ]
36.b4 1.53/20 Rg2 2.22/23 [Rybka 2.3.1 mp 32-bit : 36...Rb8 37.Rb1 Kg7 38.a4 Kf6 39.b5 axb5 40.axb5 Ke6 41.Kd3 h5 42.b6 h4 43.Ke4 1.53/20 ]
37.a4 2.33/19 Kg7 2.34/22
38.b5 2.38/19 axb5 2.36/22
39.axb5 2.37/21 Kf6 2.37/22
40.b6 2.37/21 Ke6 2.36/20
41.b7 2.35/23 Rg8 2.35/22
42.Rb1 2.43/23 Rb8 2.43/21
43.Rb5 2.25/22 Kd7 2.33/22
44.Na5 2.22/22 Kc7 2.46/20
45.Kd3 2.33/23 Kd6 2.91/22
46.h4 2.46/23 Kc7 2.37/24
47.Rb2 2.31/22 Bh2 2.69/24
48.Ke4 2.66/22 Bf4 2.93/22
49.Rc2+ 2.15/27 Kd7 3.05/24 [Rybka 2.3.1 mp 32-bit : 49...Kb6 50.Rc8 Rxb7 51.Nxb7 Kxb7 52.Rc2 Kb6 53.Kd3 Kb5 54.Rc8 Kb4 55.Rg8 Kc5 56.Rc8+ 2.15/27 ]
50.Kd3 3.04/21 Bh2 3.04/23
51.Rc1 3.02/21 Bf4 3.08/24
52.Rg1 3.00/22 Kd6 4.09/24 [Rybka 2.3.1 mp 32-bit : 52...Kc7 53.Rg6 h5 54.Kc4 Bd2 55.Kc5 Bxa5 56.Rg7+ Kd8 57.Kc6 Rxb7 58.Rxb7 Bd2 59.Kd5 3.00/22 ]
53.Kc4 3.67/22 1–0
|Apr-04-07|| ||TheAlchemist: I think it's a great pun, but too bad it wasn't a miniature, it could have been a quickie... :-)|
|Apr-04-07|| ||KokeFischer: Starting from the first diagram:
>al wazir: Back to chess for a moment, if no one minds. Why is this game over?
>As I see it, after 53...Kc7 (or any other move), white plays 54. Rg6, threatening 55. Ra6 and 56. Ra8. The only way for black to stop this is to give up his own in exchange for the on b7 and the .
>So the game might proceed 54...Rxb7 55. Nxb7 Kxb7:
then 56. Rf6 is menacing 57 Rxf4 and 58 Kxd4 with easy win, so Black Bishop should move along c1 and g5 diagonal and 57. Rf5 captures e5 pawn or enters the previous forced line.
With a free pawn in f column in each scenario, White enjoys a piece of cake.
|Apr-04-07|| ||BadTemper: <TheAlchemist>
|Apr-04-07|| ||Maatalkko: You know, I just heard a radio interview with Noam Chomsky today on my college's radio network. I tuned in mostly just because I was shocked our rindy-dink station could get him on there. |
The guy running the station is extremely progressive, and he pretty much invited Chomsky to go on a rant, but Chomsky declined. Chomsky obviously realized that rants aren't educational, and kept his anti-Bush comments short.
One interesting thing he said regarding the Peace Corps., was that the Peace Corps. does more good for Americans than the people it helps, because it lets young Americans see the world from the perspective of "those on the wrong end of the gun". I think he has a valid point.
Consider high school. In American high schools, chess is not cool, and those who play it are likely to feel suppressed to some degree because it's not something you talk about. I will admit I felt "bullied" in middle school, for pretty minor reasons when I look back on it, but it still gave me a sense of what being inferior feels like. The reason I bring it all up is that the "popular" kids weren't bad people - they just didn't understand how cruel they were being. Most likely, they scoff whenever they hear about bullying, much as conservative Americans scoff at oppression. And I don't blame either group. Hating on them en masse like an unnamed earlier kibitzer did isn't constructive. Chomsky himself didn't do that, although the host did.
Chomsky's talk was incredibly reasonable and non-partisan. I was a conservative until recently, and "Chomsky" was always a dirty word, but I think most of his detractors have heard of him rather than heard him. I wouldn't call Americans willfully ignorant - that would be someone who hears an opposing view (like Chomsky) and refuses to consider it. Most Americans - myself included - have only heard opposition in the form of Hugo Chavez outbursts and silly leftist drivel, like the host of my radio station. So yes, Americans are ignorant, but let's not use that word because its derogative and that's petty. Call it sheltered, that's more accurate.
|Apr-04-07|| ||Thrajin: <Maatalkko>, sheltered is appropriate for many, but when I say willfully ignorant, I mean to say that some people are so opinionated that even rational logic cannot sway them. There are more people like this than one would hope there would be.|
|Apr-04-07|| ||al wazir: <tpstar>: Yes, that works much better than the line I gave. The black ♔ is too far away to play a useful role. The Rybka line <RV> gave is better also, but it takes more precise calculation. As you might expect.|
I notice that politics and smut have caused quite a number of unfamiliar phenotypes to crawl out of the woodwork. Folks, there are other sites that specialize in those things. This one is for chess. Woodpushers are welcome here; woodwork-dwellers should go back where they came from.
|Apr-04-07|| ||Thrajin: <al wazir> I won't argue with you, but please realise that just because you do not recognize some of us doesn't mean we aren't active (and productive) members of this chess community. Nobody got out-of-hand or flamed anyone, and the conversations are dying down (I've seen much, much worse on this site). No harm done. Now I agree with you; let's get back to chess.|
|Apr-07-07|| ||black knight c6: Nimzovitchian defense of d5 by white!|
|Mar-14-08|| ||porgue: best pun ever|
|Dec-24-08|| ||WhiteRook48: cutting the Sax Short|
|May-25-09|| ||Hugh the Drover: Wayne Shorter Plays Sax.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·