< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-07-11|| ||JohnBoy: In total agreement with <newzild>. I cannot figure out why black did not play 22...Rd8. Either rook should do the trick. This was annotated by the same NN as played numerous bozo games here.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||johnlspouge: Several people have made accurate comments about the annotations. Here are Toga's analysis of the most egregious of them. All computer variations are complete, so humans can usually improve near the end. If an alternative move is given, it is Toga's preference.|
< 15.<Qb3> >
[ply 15/52 time 02:40 value +2.22]
15.<gxf6> gxf6 16.Ncxe5 fxe5 17.Qg5+ Kh8 18.Qxg4 Ng8 19.Qe6 Na6 20.Rd7 Nc5 21.Rxc7 Nxe6 22.Rxb7 Nc5 23.Rc7 Rae8 24.Rxa7 Nxe4 25.Re1
[ply 15/55 time 01:53 value +1.18]
15.<Qb3> Kh8 16.Ncxe5 fxe4 17.Nxg4 exf3 18.Bxf3 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Na6 20.Rhe1 Ng6 21.Be2 Nc5 22.Qa3 b6 23.h5 Ne5 24.Nxe5 Qxe5 25.Bf3 Qxg5 26.Bxc6
< 16.<Nfxe5> >
[ply 15/43- time 00:28 value +2.15]
16.<Nb6+> Nd5 17.Nxa8 Qf7 18.g6 Qf4+ 19.Nd2 Bxd1 20.Rxd1 hxg6 21.c4 Qxf2 22.cxd5 e3 23.dxc6+ Kh8 24.Ne4 Qxg2 25.Qb4 Rg8 26.c7 Nc6 27.Qxb7 e2 28.Qxc6 exd1R+ 29.Kxd1 Rc8
[ply 15/61- time 08:10 value +0.11]
16.<Nfxe5> Bxd1 17.Rxd1 Nd5 18.Bxe4 Nd7 19.Nxd7 Qxd7 20.Ne5 Qc7 21.Bxd5+ cxd5 22.Qxd5+ Kh8 23.Qd4 Rf5 24.f4 Raf8 25.Qd7 Qa5 26.Qxb7 Qxa2 27.Nd3 Rd8
< 22.<h5> >
[ply 15/66 time 01:08 value (to White) -7.61]
22.<h5> Rad8 23.Qxe4 Rxd1+ 24.Kxd1 Qd7+ 25.Kc1 Rxf2 26.a3 Qd2+ 27.Kb1 Re2 28.Qxg6 Qe1+ 29.Ka2 Rxg2 30.Qf5 Qe8 31.c4 Ne5 32.Qe4 Rxg5 33.Qxb7 Nxc4 34.Qxa7 Rxh5
|Feb-07-11|| ||redorc19: very bad game... too many blunders.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||TheAlchemist: Fantastic pun!
|Feb-07-11|| ||kevin86: jw,Is Claude's a fine restaurant in NYC or New Orleans?|
|Feb-07-11|| ||kevin86: or Sydney Australia?|
|Feb-07-11|| ||buckssquares: 15 Nc4xe5.. because of no nd7 on 14?|
|Feb-07-11|| ||David2009: What a load of rubbish! - Oh it was played by a computer. "Designed by computers, assembled by robots, driven by a moron" - Volkswagen advertisment adapted.|
click for larger view
Black to play 23...Qxc2+ 0-1
|Feb-07-11|| ||Duque Roquero: CG: As I've said before, it’s clear that many users enjoy the pun contest and many others not at all. I suggest to divide this section into two: "Game of the Day" (always a great game of chess) and "Pun of the Day" (any game in your database with a clever pun). Thank you.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||Kazzak: Bloodgood had a fantazillion rating, mind you, from playing other prison inmates.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||Marmot PFL: This sac was just unsound. After the obvious 22...Rad8 white is lost. Black is up a rook and will trade white's remaining rook with check.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||zealouspawn: even better is 23... Rxf2. The threats are just destroying white on c2. if 24 c3 then Nd3+ among other moves and it all comes crashing down... terrible game.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||Domdaniel: Quite a pun, indeed.
After Henri Grob, the Swiss portrait artist who first analysed 1.g4 in depth, Bloodgood was its second great champion. His contribution to the theory of minor openings is, um, obscured by his colourful life.
Where Grob liked to play c4 as soon as possible to support the Bg2 in its attack on the light squares, Bloodgood developed some other strategies. He often played g4-g5 to hamper Black's development.
Looking at the 3rd move here, we can safely say that <Three's a Claude>.
|Feb-07-11|| ||BishopsPawn: What's wrong with taking the pawn with 14. Nfxe5 ?|
|Feb-07-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<jahhaj>: Don't believe Bloodgood's own annotations.>|
I sort of thought that Bloodgood’s annotations were a parody on some of Fischer’s annotations on some games. May times I’ve seen Fischer’s "analysis” to simply be “A good move.”
|Feb-07-11|| ||Lennonfan: <domdaniel> <three's a claude!> oh well done,thats such a clever clever pun and play on words...and an education like you brag about is needed for genius like that! congratulations on your burst of wit...(ur gonna riddicule me 4 usin wrong words now art yer mate?...soz pal lol!)...i can take it!!|
|Feb-07-11|| ||Phony Benoni: According to the Opening Explorer, <1.g4> scores a hefty 62.35% for White. But I was wondering what the score would be if games from its two greatest exponents, Grob and Bloodgood, were excluded.|
Overall: 259 games. +148 =27 -84, 62.35%.
Bloodgood: 58 games. +49 =5 -4, 88.77%
Grob: 24 games. +18 =4 -2, 83.33%.
Without CSB/HG: 177 games. +81 =18 -78. 50.85%
By comparison, White's overall percentage is 55.04%. You can draw your own conclusions, but I have a sneaky feeling that Bloodgood would have have similar results with 1.Nc3 or 1.b4.
As for the game itself, well, I guess I'm alone here but I don't like the pun that much. Where's the skewer? It would have been better to spell the word correctly and imply losing to Claude's obscure opening.
And, as for Black's 22nd move:
click for larger view
I like the game continuation much better than 22...Rad8, since it simplifies much more efficiently without losing material after 23.Qb3 Qxc2+ 24.Qxc2 Nxc2 25.Kxc2 Rxf2+ 26.Rd2 e3 27.Rxf2 exf2
click for larger view
White can doing nothing about 28...Re8 and 29...Re1, regaining the piece with all of White's pieces off the board.
Finally, all that "(a good move)" stuff is probably computer supplied annotation. Drives me crazy! (a good move).
|Feb-07-11|| ||NM JRousselle: The pun is clever; the game is lousy.
The annotations are worse.
Games like this should have player ratings listed. If this game were played (and annotated without computer assistance) by two 1400 players, that would explain a lot.
|Feb-07-11|| ||Knight13: <NM JRousselle> Bloodgood was around 2200. Most of his opponents played below 1800 strength.|
|Feb-07-11|| ||TheFocus: RATINGS MANIPULATION
Bloodgood organized chess games within Powhatan Prison, which were by necessity with fellow inmates. Many of these inmates were taught the game by Bloodgood, and thus began as unrated and inexperienced players. Bloodgood obtained USCF memberships for them. Some accused Bloodgood, with his intimate knowledge of the rating system, of rigging their ratings. The accusation was that he arranged for new prisoners to play rated games against other prisoners, who would deliberately lose, thus giving the new inmate an inflated USCF rating. Bloodgood, it is further alleged, then played rated games against the new highly-rated prisoner, and each time he won, gained a few more rating points. This continued for several years, and by 1996 his rating rose to <2702>, making the 59-year-old Bloodgood the second-highest rated player in the nation. In comparison, at his retirement Bobby Fischer's rating was 2760, and several leading grandmasters were in the 2600s. Bloodgood's true strength at the time is not knowable but is likely to have been in the USCF Expert (2000–2200) range, though some have estimated that Bloodgood was of Senior Master strength (i.e., 2400+) when in his prime in the 1960s.
This is all a matter of considerable controversy even today. Bloodgood himself vehemently denied these accusations, and said that he played chess in the only competitions available to him, prison tournaments, and won almost every game because he was the strongest player in the prison system. As his rating rose, he wrote the USCF to warn them that its system was prone to "closed pool" ratings inflation. However, nothing was done until Bloodgood's rating skyrocketed. He even qualified for entry into the U.S. Chess Championship, a prestigious invitation-only event intended for the best 16 players in the country. His high rating caused a crisis in the USCF, which debated extensively what to do about the situation. In the end, Bloodgood wasn't invited to the event (which he could not have attended anyway), and the USCF changed its ratings system rules to attempt to prevent "closed pool" ratings inflation.
|Feb-07-11|| ||Domdaniel: <Phony> - <Finally, all that "(a good move)" stuff is probably computer supplied annotation. Drives me crazy! (a good move).>|
Yup. I think they have an automated subroutine for turning exclams and question marks into words?! (a dubious move).
If it were to mysteriously vanish overnight!? (an enterprising move) I wouldn't mind.
BTW, do we *know* that annotator 'NN' is Bloodgood in this instance? Have these annotations appeared elsewhere, or did CG smuggle them out of prison?
|Feb-07-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <DomDaniel> I think people are assuming Bloodgood wrote the notes. I certainly hope this is not so. He committed enough sins against society.|
I once had his book, "The Tactical Grob", but don't recall much about it. Still, he had been editor of a state newsletter in his day, and was certainly a strong enough player to write reasonable notes.
Of course, his obsession with the Grob may have clouded his judgment. And who was going to tell him he was wrong?
|Feb-08-11|| ||sneaky pete: <PB> People are right, the what you call notes stem from page 19 of "The Tactical Grob", published in 1978 by Baruch Wood in the "Chess for modern times" series.|
|Feb-08-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <sneaky pete> Thanks for clearing that up. So it appears I was too kind, and this is a case where an author is stretching the truth to justify the opening.|
|Feb-10-11|| ||weisyschwarz: http://www.chessville.com/misc/Hist...|
Finally! A subject for a Hollywood production.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·