< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|May-22-14|| ||shallowred: <Sally... "I just cannot win.">|
1st Law of Thermodynamics: You can't win.
but don't worry
2nd Law of Thermodynamics: You can't break even.
|May-22-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Thanks Shallowred,
Seems like I've been playing the 'Thermodynamic Opening' all my life.
|May-22-14|| ||ajk68: 37. N6c5!
Nice move...threatening consecutive forks. If black tries to save the rook, 38. Nxb7 Rxb7 39. Nd6+.
|May-22-14|| ||Domdaniel: 1st Law: You can't win.
2nd Law: You can't break even.
And don't forget the 3rd Law:
You can't quit the game.
|May-22-14|| ||Domdaniel: <Sally S.> -- < my f1 Bishop was moaning about that White pawn on c4. >
Heh. My theory is that Bishops should learn to be patient -- even in the French, the c8 Bish eventually comes into its own. |
BTW, I haven't played either 1.d4 *or* 1.e4 for years ... just 1.Nf3 and 1.c4, and occasional abominations like 1.e3. Fischer may have said 1.e4 was best by test - I say if it's good on the 1st move then it's even better on the 25th.
|May-22-14|| ||SirChrislov: From the <Sally S> link:|
One day Giuoco sprang his opening on Bernardo and won a brilliant game
“That was quite a game.” said Bernardo and so the name ‘The Quiet Game’ stuck.
Ha! Soooo untrue but very very funny. I much doubt they spoke to each other in English while playing chess. But if the story were true, then for centuries we've called the opening the wrong name. It's the "Bel Gioco".
che era un bel gioco=that was quite a game.
I'm calling it that from now on. Behold! I am SirChrislov! The chess opening name decider!
|May-25-14|| ||thegoodanarchist: I have a simple solution to the decline of originality in chess:|
Give the queen ability to move like a knight, in addition to her ability to move as all the other pieces do.
I always wondered why the queen couldn't move like knights can move.
|Jun-02-14|| ||Poulsen: <keypusher><Well, I would strongly disagree with that. Not only had he known him personally for nearly a decade, they'd engaged in failed negotiations for a title match (as a result, they were not on speaking terms when this game was played) and Lasker had annotated many of his games>|
Thank you for pointing this out - something I overlooked. I also overlooked, that they already had meet before - in the 1906 rapid tournament.
So Lasker must have known quite a bit about Capablanca by their meeting. After all Capablanca was a guy, who was bound to make a lasting impression on anyone that meet him. Just like the present WCh he was a star long before actually becoming WCh.
Never the less I still do not think, that Lasker would be in a position to play psychological against Capa.
|Jul-29-14|| ||SpiritedReposte: The game looks cramped and stalemated with both sides unsure of what to do until the seemingly impossible 35. e5! decodes the position and black crumbles!|
|Aug-22-14|| ||foofaraw: 11..f6 doesn't smell right to me. Anyone have any insight into this move?|
|Aug-23-14|| ||RookFile: White might play e5 himself. Black is also asking himself where the bishop on c8 is going to live. I think Capa thought it might go to e6 and then f7. Lasker's 12. f5 was terrific.|
|Aug-23-14|| ||john barleycorn: <foofaraw: 11..f6 doesn't smell right to me. Anyone have any insight into this move?>|
<11...P-B3 Preparatory to P-QKt3, followed by P-QB4 and B-Kt2 in conjunction with Kt-Kt3, which would put White in great difficulties to meet the combined attack against the two centre Pawns>
|Aug-23-14|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic: Writing about the game itself is easy. Just paste in a line out of Fritz or Crafty. Voila. Instant writing.>|
All these years, I have been a prize fool--why didn't I ever think of that??
|Aug-24-14|| ||ljfyffe: 9Be3 Bd7 10 0-0-0 0-0-0 11f4 Rhe1 11Nb3 f6
Grunfeld-Schonmann correondence 1918.
|Aug-24-14|| ||ljfyffe: That, of course, is "correspondence"; intending ...Ng6.|
|Aug-24-14|| ||ljfyffe: Typo:should be 11...Rhe8. Attack against the centre pawns has a clearer air about it, does it not?(in reference to "barleycorn" comment).|
|Aug-24-14|| ||ljfyffe: <foofaraw>Hope our comments are a bit insightful, and air-purifying, now that I realize "John" was answering your inquiry by quoting Capablanca.|
|Mar-02-16|| ||bengalcat47: <the goodanarchist> There is a variation of chess played on a 10 by 10 board. A new piece called a "prince" is added to the games, and both sides have 2 princes. The prince can move both like a queen and a knight, making it even stronger than the queen.|
|Jul-18-16|| ||perfidious: <Geoff....Lasker was an OTB problem setter - the best there was, backed with a sharp tactical brain and almost flawless end game technique.>|
Who has reincarnated in the form of Carlsen.
|Dec-27-16|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: Compare this game, played 55 years later:
Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969
|Dec-28-16|| ||offramp: <N.O.F. NAJDORF: Compare this game, played 55 years later:
Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969>
Okay I've done that. Now what?
|Dec-29-16|| ||Howard: Ditto! What's the point of comparing these two games ?|
|Jul-26-17|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: The point, which seems to have been wasted on both of you, is the beautiful move e5!|
Spassky must have been familiar with this game and actually got to play the move in a world championship match.
|Jul-26-17|| ||ughaibu: But Spassky was in the process of winning the world championship and a world champion can be expected to find a pawn sacrifice that opens a square for a knight, without needing a previous example to draw on. |
In any case, a far more impressive example, that Spassky would certainly be familiar with, is Kholmov vs Bronstein, 1965
|Jul-27-17|| ||sudoplatov: Nimzovich (I think) analyzed this game and pointed out that Lasker's plan works because he can switch between two targets thus limiting Black's defence.|
I'd also like to note that Lasker didn't generally play "bad" moves as much a moves that created a puzzle for the opponent. Chess is often a reciprocal puzzle battle between the opponents.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·