|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-11-07 | | PolishPentium: To the person who said that it's Bowman, not Poole, who goes tumbling ad nauseum: In fact, the initial post was correct. It is Frank Poole who is sent to his demise by the runaway pod (nicknamed Betty--?), and Poole tumbles for the longest time on his way to an eventual ensnarement in the gravity field of Jupiter (in the movie) or Saturn (in the Arthur C. Clarke novel). David Bowman, of course, survives the misfortunes that plague 'Discovery' to be sent through the StarGate... |
|
| Aug-28-07 | | laskereshevsky: <<Jan-26-06 lostthefight:>> <Here's a trivia question for this game - who won the grandmaster section of the 1910 Hamburg tournament?> i know 1 and 1/2 year its a little too much, but i saw it just now.
However im amazed nobody answered a so easy trivia...here my: 1 Schlechter 11.5
2 Duras 11.0
3 Nimzovich 10.5
4 Spielmann 10.0
5 Teichmann 9.5
6 Marshall 9.5
7 Duz-Chotimirsky 8.5
8 Alekhine 8.5
9 Tarrasch 8.0
10 Forgacs 8.0
11 Leonhardt 7.0
12 Tartakower 7.0
13 Salwe 7.0
14 Koehnlein 7.0
15 Speyer 5.5
16 John 5.0
17 Yates 2.5
- Jakob --
JAKOB retired from the tournament after
+0
=3 (vs. ALEKHINE, FORGACS, JOHN)
-3 (vs. MARSHALL, TARTAKOWER, YATES)
THE JAKOB'S RESULTS WERE NOT COUNTED... |
|
| Oct-18-07 | | lostthefight: Reshevsky of course you got the answer correct, but your statement that the question was "easy" is dubious. It's not so obscure that nobody cares and it's interesting b/c it propelled the "drawing master" to his only title shot. |
|
| Nov-16-07 | | stupidiot21: david poole is still alive in the 2001 sequels |
|
| Nov-16-07 | | Benzol: I think it was Frank Poole and David Bowman. "Open the pod bay doors please Hal". |
|
| Feb-07-08 | | D.Observer: A safer alternative for black is 15. ... ♘f3+ 16. ♗xf3 ♕xf3. After that, white is hopeless. |
|
| Feb-25-08 | | whiteshark: Indeed white should have played 12.d4 instead of the greedy Qxa8, e.g. <12...Bb7 13.Qxb7 Ne2+ 14.Kh1 Nxc1 15.Rxc1 Nd3 16.Rf1 c5 17.Nd2=> 
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-15-08 | | DarthStapler: "Wormald attack"?
|
|
| Mar-24-08 | | PolishPentium: Those who say it is David Bowman who goes tumbling through space (after being hit by one of the repair pods) are entirely INcorrect, and thus they should NOT have reprimanded the initial people who talked about Frank Poole. Of course, as would be readily realized by anyone who has actually read the novel version of "2001" written by (recently-deceased) Arthur C. Clarke, it IS Frank Poole who gets hit by the rogue pod, and this sends Poole spinning into space ad infinitum---well, at least until he would have been snared by the gravity well of the planet Saturn (novel) or Jupiter (movie). As your own conversations reveal, David Bowman, at least in the movie version (not in the novel), goes out on the quixotic mission to rescue Poole. That of course eventually leads to the "I can't let you do that Dave" quote, as after surviving the blast through the pod bay doors without oxygen or his suit helmet, Bowman realizes he has no recourse but to shut down the higher-level functions of the Hal 9000. In the novel, true, Bowman also shuts down Hal, but the sequence which leads to that event is somewhat different, and Dave does not try to retrieve the body of Frank. It is admittedly true that D. Bowman is transported on a long voyage as he is sent through the Star Gate, in the latter parts of both the movie and the book, but in no sense can he be said to be spinning. Rather, he is transported at ridiculously high velocities and through innumerable dimensions. DON'T try to dispute PP on this point; he must have read and re-read the novel 10 or more times in his youth, and he's seen the film version almost as many times as well (have a buddy who was and is a great Kubrick fan, and together the friend and i have watched the film on DVD or VCR numerous times). Poole spins, and Bowman does not... |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | PolishPentium: Sorry, didn't realize i had posted on this Dave Bowman / Frank Poole subject over a year ago. Short-term memory man strikes again...! |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | Benzol: "My mind is going, I can feel it..." |
|
Mar-24-08
 | | WannaBe: R.I.P. Mr. Clarke, thanks to <YOU> and your vision/book, we had 2001, and may the powerful be merciful, and give us 2101! |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | jovack: prolly my fav game of the day title thus far |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | SuperPatzer77: kevin86, Right on!!! 16. h4 Nh3+, 17. Kh2 Ng4#. 0-1. The Black Queen is immune to the White Bishop on c1 so, White cannot capture the Black Queen because of 16...Nxf3#. White has no defense against 16...Nh3#. White's reply is 16. Qc8 to prevent 16...Nh3# but Black's is 16...Rxc8  . Happy Easter to you chess folks!!! :-)
SuperPatzer77
|
|
| Mar-24-08 | | Mac3: DarthStapler: "Wormald attack"?
Don't "worr'all" it's just a typo ;-) |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | Pawn Promotions: "You sit at the board and suddenly your breast leaps. Your hand trembles to pick up the piece and move it. But what chess teaches you is that you must sit there calmly and think about whether it's really a good idea and whether there are other, better ideas."
Stanley Kubrick
Newsweek, May 26, 1980 |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | takchess: Was there a game in the original Arthur C Clarke's book ? BTw. I heard that Kubrick was rated at 2001. *) |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | malthrope: There is a nice article that Bill Wall wrote titled, "Stanley Kubrick and Chess." // http://www.geocities.com/siliconval... It covers pretty much everything connected with chess in his life and in his movies
chronologically. It's well worth a view and it's a quick read. Two quotes mentioned in the article are well worth posting here. <"Chess helps you develop patience and discipline in choosing between alternatives at a time when an impulsive decision seems very attractive."> and...
<"Chess teaches you to control the initial excitement you feel when you see something that looks good and it trains you to think objectively when you're in trouble."> - Stanley Kubrick
'nuff said! ;) - Mal
|
|
| Mar-24-08 | | kevin86: It's funny,I looked at my past analysis and thought I had erred-but instead was correcting another's fault. The game was brilliant. Black sacs the queen and forces mate with a hivefull of minor pieces. |
|
Mar-24-08
 | | Phony Benoni: Actually, I think that 5.Qe2 is called the Wormald Attack and 6.Qe2 the Worrall, though obviously transpositions are possible. Where is <tpstar> when you really need him? |
|
Mar-24-08
 | | chessgames.com: Robert Bownas Wormald was a 19th century chess player and author, so I doubt "Wormald Attack" is a typographical mistake, but it conceivably could be a misclassification. Eric Schiller may be able to clarify, but until we learn otherwise we'll assume the data are correct. |
|
Mar-24-08
 | | tpstar: Q: Where is <tpstar>? A: Avoiding this crush.
Presto! It is now "Wormald" upstairs. |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | ounos: Thank you <chessgames> for this kind dedication to the going-to-be-missed Arthur Clarke... |
|
| Mar-24-08 | | gauer: Hooper & Whyld, "Oxford Companion to Chess", 2nd ed. give only the line ending 6 Qe2 as the Worrall. 5 Qe2 is the Wormald. Following along a bit, 5 ... b5 6 Bb3 Qe7 7 c3 d6 8 d4 in the latter leads to the branch with: 8 ... Bg4 starts the Grunfeld variation, the only sub-line that they give in the appendix. |
|
Mar-24-08
| | Phony Benoni: I've been pondering the difference between the Wormald Attack <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2> and the Worrall Attack <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Qe2>. One possibility is that Black can play a ...Bc5 line more readily in the Wormald, as White's usual counter of c3 and d4 is harder to enforce with the queen on e2. In the Worrall, this doesn't apply since Black has already developed the bishop to e7. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 11...Nxe5