< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-23-05|| ||ughaibu: RookFile: have a look at Chessbase' Bloodgood collection, he was also fond of 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 (recently mentioned by Sneaky).|
|Sep-23-05|| ||RookFile: Oh, I kind of remember that, we used to fool around with that sometimes in Boston. The idea is 2... Nxg4 3. e4
But I think that one is more dubious that 1. g4.
I'm actually quite fond of Bisquier's
idea: 1. Nf3 d5 2. b3 c5 3. e4 dxe4
4. Ne5 This the Budapest Gambit, with
an extra tempo. (It also sets a trap,
turns out that after ....Qd4 white
can calmly play 5. Bb2, if Qxb2, after 6. Nc3
white ends up trapping the black queen.)
|Sep-23-05|| ||THE pawn: That was a bloody good game!|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Darknite: 15..Nxb2? 15..Bf7 first and then Nxb2 with tempo and white is toast.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Darknite: Not to mention, as in the notation, what is up with 13..Nc5?? What is going on in this game!!!|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Averageguy: <Darknite> 13...Nc5 attacks the queen and defends the b7 pawn.|
|Dec-20-05|| ||Darknite: <averageguy> it also just loses the piece. 14. Nxc5 and now what?|
|Dec-20-05|| ||Averageguy: <Darknite> Whoops, I missed the obvious. Sorry :-(|
|Dec-20-05|| ||Darknite: <Averageguy> dont worry about it - so did Charles Frizzel|
|Mar-20-06|| ||SvenBartels: <RookFile> Hm, I am not so sure about your trap: 1. Nf3 d5 2. b3 c5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Ne5 Qd4 5. Bb2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Nc6! 7. Nc4 Bg4! Black seems to be doing ok|
|Sep-19-06|| ||sfm: The best thing about this game is the very enjoyable biography of the guy playing White.|
|Sep-19-06|| ||patzer2: After 13...Nc5??, Bloodgood overlooks 14. Nxc5 immediately winning a piece and the game.|
Lewis misses the more subtle possibility 15...Bf7! 16. Qa4 Nxb2 17. Qc2 Nc4 when Black has the extra pawn and all the play against a cramped White position.
Lewis went wrong earlier with 9...dxe4?, allowing White a good game after 9. dxe4 . Instead 9...Ne7! maintains the tension with a clear advantage for Black.
|Sep-19-06|| ||patzer2: Seems to me there's nothing wrong with 2...Bxg4 to , when Black can give back the pawn for superior development as in W Loch vs B Knorr, 1989 or B Wall vs John Wong, 1986 ( a drawn game where Black missed a quick win on move 8).|
|Sep-19-06|| ||patzer2: A couple of interesting correspondence games in this opening are Grob vs R Bucher, 1966 and Grob vs Lenherr, 1966.|
|Sep-19-06|| ||mshah28: Can someone tell me why White did not move 14. Nxc5? It seems too obvious!|
|Sep-19-06|| ||kevin86: I guess this was a case of "double chess blindness" Black made a move that gave a piece away and white missed its capture.|
This game shows a minor flaw in the OPENING EXPLORER technology. Since a majority of the games on the base involving the opening move of 1 g4,were played by Mr. Bloodgood against far weaker competition,the numbers are skewed in favor of the opening. At least in this special case,the numbers are NOT accurate-because best play is not involved.
|Sep-19-06|| ||Chess Classics: <kevin86> Opening statistics hardly mean anything until you get to 2200+ level, if you ask me.|
|Sep-19-06|| ||Maatalkko: <RookFile> Is right, Bloodgood wasn't really a 2700 strength player. The reason he had such a high rating was because he played most (maybe all) of his games while incarcerated for killing his mother. |
I read about him in an excellent travelogue called "The Chess Artist", by JC Hallman. Hallman and Glenn Umstead, an African-American master who is the subject of most of the book, visited Bloodgood in prison. Bloodgood was an interesting person, in a decidedly sinister way, but going into all of it is off topic.
One of Bloodgood's gripes was the rating system for tournaments played in the prison, which was out of whack. Nearly every competent player in jail was 2400+ because of hyperinflation due to a cause I have forgotten. Bloodgood had written to the USCF about the problem, but in his own words "Nobody gave a dang."
I highly recommend "The Chess Artist" to everyone interested. I think it is available in most libraries and many bookstores.
Bloodgood played many correspondence games while in jail, hundreds at a time. He may have been a 2700 correspondence player, but I doubt it though. In a correspondence game against Hallman he "hung a piece", although Hallman confessed he was using a computer. Bloodgood was dying when interviewed, but claimed he played at about 2000 strength at the time.
|Sep-19-06|| ||strelec: <SvenBartels> What would you suggest after 1. ♘f3 d5 2. b3 c5 3. e4 dxe4 4. ♘e5 ♕d4 5. ♗b2 ♕xb2 6. ♘c3 ♘c6 7. ♘c4 ♗g4 8. ♗e2 ? It seems to me that white is doing ok. I do agree with your conclusion though as after 6... ♕a3 7. ♘c4 ♕a6 I don't see enough compensation for white.|
|Sep-19-06|| ||Chessire Cat: I'm sorry, but how that game can get into a "beautiful games" anthology after that atrocious blunder on move 14 is really beyond me! Is that notation really correct? That's the sort of thing kibbitzers would laugh at in 1-minute speed chess, and in a grandmaster tournament it's totally incomprehensible.|
|Sep-19-06|| ||LivBlockade: <Maatalkko ...played most (maybe all) of his games while incarcerated> Thanks - That explains why the game-of-the-day title is 'A Captive Audience'.|
|Sep-19-06|| ||CrystalFrost: Is eveybody here trying to say that a 2700 rated Grandmaster misses capturing a knight when it is offering itself without any compenstion or cost.|
|Sep-20-06|| ||patzer2: <CrystalFrost> The suggestion is Bloodgood's 2700 rating was gossly inflated and that his actual playing strength was far below this official USCF rating. However, from what I've seen of Bloodgood's games, this blunder was atypical of his usual stronger play. He was probably at least a strong expert in his prime.|
|Sep-20-06|| ||ganstaman: I'm issuing a challenge for all of you to find me one WC who hasn't blundered in any of his games. Make it even any GM with enough games in this database, if you want.|
Of course, the burden would be on me, since you would claim that a particular GM never blundered and then I'd have to find a game in which he blundered. So this would be ridiculous. But the point should be clear -- everyone messes up. What makes great players great is that they mess up much less often (and they sometimes even almost come back and win -- if anyone remembers Capa giving up a knight early on in one game, but playing on and fighting strong... before losing).
|Jan-23-10|| ||waustad: One problem with looking at the opening explorer is that for some offbeat openings, many of the games are by somebody like Bloodgood or Diemer against nobody in particular. Interesting, but not a good judge of the actual value of the opening.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·