< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·
|Oct-12-05|| ||euripides: <ULhumbrus> reading one of my posts I realise it was ambiguous. I meant you were obviously interested in finding out the truth of the position - unlike some others here :-)|
|Oct-12-05|| ||Ulhumbrus: One variation I gave contained a typing error. The variation I gave should have read (following 36 Ree2 a5 37 Qe1 Kg7) 38 Rxd5 exd5 39 Re7+ Kf8 40 Re8+ Kf7 41 Qe6+ Kg7 (and not Kf7 as in the message posted) 42 Qe5+ Kh6 43 h4 Rxc2 44 Qe5 Qf2 45 Qg7+ Kh6 46 Qxh7+ Kg4 47 Qxg6+ Kf4 48 Qg5 mate.|
|Oct-12-05|| ||csmath: <<The variation I gave should have read (following 36 Ree2 a5 37 Qe1 Kg7) 38 Rxd5 exd5 39 Re7+ Kf8 40 Re8+ Kf7 41 Qe6+ Kg7 (and not Kf7 as in the message posted) 42 Qe5+ Kh6 43 h4 Rxc2 44 Qe5 Qf2 45 Qg7+ Kh6 46 Qxh7+ Kg4 47 Qxg6+ Kf4 48 Qg5 mate.>>|
40. ... Kf7?
is not the move for black. Black would play a correct move
40. ... Kg7
and there is no mate here.
That has already been refuted here in the thread. There is no mate and there is no win after 38. Rxd5.
|Oct-12-05|| ||Ezzy: <Ulhumbrus> This has been an enjoyable debate. After the evidence so far, here is the way I see it. |
Yasser Seirawn doesn't think Adams has anything in the position after blacks 35th move.
Topalov states that "it was a fair draw".
All the chess engines can not find a winning continuation for white.
No kibitzer has demonstrated a winning line for white.
I am sincerely not looking for 'brownie points' here, but I must stand by my original disagreement with you that "Adams did not brilliantly outplay Topalov".
I think it is fair to say that Adam's had some good, interesting, well thought out Ideas in the game. But to say "Adam's brilliantly outplayed Topalov in that game is just a bit of an overstatement. Adams couldn't find a win, and Topalov had created serious threats of his own to restrict whites movements. It was great play by both players.
|Oct-12-05|| ||Ezzy: <keypusher
<csmath> - You, unfortunately, will forever remain a twit.> The only reason that I can find that you abuse <csmath> in this way, is because he refuted your line. <csmath> is enjoying these championships as we all are, and he writes passionately about the way he views games. If he wants to write "AND WHITE SHOULD NOT EXCHAMGE QUEENS" what in heavens name is wrong with that. If <csmath> leaves himself open to discussion, then write a post and discuss it with him.
But I think <keypusher> you are one of those characters who don't like complementing anyones work, and would even more hate it if you had to say you were wrong.
But you do seem quite pompus anyway, after I read your post on the Topalov - Svidler game page 8 . This was when only premium members were allowed into the game -
<keypusher: Yes, quite glad to be without the rabble to-day>
Your $22 dollars has certainly put you on some pompus pedestal. Perhaps you just see us as the rabble.
<euripides- I had wondered why there was such a difference between the quality of the lines you sometimes produce and your loudmouthed and ignorant comments on the positions. Now I know.> Your abuse is worse than <csmath> making a loud passionate comment on the games. If you disagree with something, then put a sensible comment to that post you disagree with, and see if you can find an answer, don't just abuse them for their content of post.
Try to separate the difference between someone being passionate about these world championship chessgames, and being loudmouthed. Because in your last 2 posts it was you <
euripides> who was being loudmouthed.
|Oct-12-05|| ||condorcet: <Ezzy> i find it funny that you are defending <csmath>, of all people, against allegedly abusive and loudmouthed and pompous critics. it's bizarre!! have you ever seen anything he's written?? abusive and pompous is a perfect description of <csmath>. all he does is call people retards, and now that he has a chess program, posting computer analysis as if it's his own. he never posted any analysis before the last week or so. and his life seems to revolve around attacking kramnik and insinuating other posters are homosexual. |
<keypusher> and <euripides> actually contribute something besides insults. like so many people they were just sick and tired of <csmath>'s constant smug and abusive attitude.
|Oct-12-05|| ||csmath: Condorcet?
And to make this post you needed to open a new account here? What are you afraid of that you cannot use your previous login? You are anonymous to me anyway.
|Oct-12-05|| ||csmath: Let's return to the game.
The claim has been made that there is a winning advantage for the white in the position before Adams' 36th move.
I think we have not see any evidence to back this claim up with some more convincing analyses, with or without engines.
Some people here are going ballistic when their errors are pointed out, which is understandable but does not need this kind of outbursts.
So once again, I am assuming that somebody reasonable enough is ready to demonstrate this winning advantage. You can even open a new account every time you make an error, who cares. Let's see. I am not saying there is or there is no winning advantage but whoever claims there is should be able to back it up.
Few ideas demonstrated here have failed. Any more?
|Oct-12-05|| ||tpstardefender: <csmath> I think there's winning advantage for white here; it's actually fairly easy to spot the winning strategy. But since I'm preparing for my match, I unfortunately can't give away any of my analysis. Maybe after my match. Sorry:)|
|Oct-12-05|| ||condorcet: i didn't have a previous login. i look at this site regularly, but not really any reason to register. i just found ezzy's statements very funny. your incredible offensiveness draws responses not only from reasonable and respectable regulars like <keypusher> <euripides> <aw1988> <iron maiden> etc, but also from people who have never registered or posted!!!|
|Oct-12-05|| ||csmath: <i didn't have a previous login.>|
I doubt that. The vitriol in your post suggests something more personal.
<i look at this site regularly, but not really any reason to register. i just found ezzy's statements very funny. your incredible offensiveness draws responses not only from reasonable and respectable regulars like keypusher euripides aw1988 iron maiden etc, but also from people who have never registered or posted!!!>
As far as offensiveness of posts goes, you started on a high ground no doubt. Keep it up.
|Oct-12-05|| ||csmath: <I think there's winning advantage for white here; it's actually fairly easy to spot the winning strategy. But since I'm preparing for my match, I unfortunately can't give away any of my analysis. Maybe after my match. Sorry:)>|
OK, Anatoly. Good luck. :-)
|Oct-13-05|| ||condorcet: <I doubt that. The vitriol in your post suggests something more personal.>
you can doubt it all you want, but it's true. my characterization of you is accurate. i noticed you didn't even try to deny it. it isn't personal; you are just that smug and abrasive. surely you've noticed many others express similar opinions about you.
what does your constant vitriol suggest?--that you have personal problems with many players and kibitzers? it's funny--you're constantly abusive and insulting to others, but can't stand to be called on it.|
|Oct-13-05|| ||csmath: A suggestion for you: go reread few posts you made in this thread in this "conversation" and think about it. I have no further need for any exchange with you, meaning you will join my ignore list, as your posts are as meaningless to me as your opinions about me. I am not your pupil that I would need to defend myself from your insults. Where did you get that idea?
You are no representative of anything except your own character, obviously an attractive one.|
This thread was supposed to be about this game before some people started to turn it into personal arguments whatever the reasons.
|Oct-13-05|| ||Ezzy: <condorcet> I personally am not interested in what problems <csmath> has with other kibitzers. |
I started an interesting debate with <Ulhumbrus> about a chess game. <csmath> made an enthusiastic contribution to the discussion, and in no way deserved any of the abuse that he received. As far as I can see, he hasn't abused anyone on this page. All the abuse is being directed at him. Now if that is a result of past battles, well it is none of my business. These pages are for analysing and talking about the game. That's what we are doing.
<keypusher and euripides actually contribute something besides insults>
All the evidence suggests that <Keypusher and euripides> were being insulting without provocation, obviously trying to rekindle some past battles.
<like so many people they were just sick and tired of <csmath>'s constant smug and abusive attitude.> But they are just resorting to the same abuse game. They who have not sinned, cast the first stone.
Anyway that's enough of that. I am going for a game of chess - What else!
|Oct-13-05|| ||Ulhumbrus: <acirce> Your variation where you claim "no Mate" seems to merely transpose into the mating variation I have given, going into it a move earlier, after 40...Kg7 ( your move) 41 Qe5+ instead of 40..Kf7 ( the move in my variation) 41 Qe6+ Kg7 42 Qe5+ etc. I therefore remain of the opinion that Adams outplayed Topalov brilliantly and that Topalov has no defence.|
|Oct-13-05|| ||svbabu: I was thinking about 21.Qf4 instead of 21.Ng5 for white. Would it do anybetter by forcing the f5 move for black?|
|Oct-13-05|| ||csmath: <acirce Your variation where you claim "no Mate" seems to merely transpose into the mating variation I have given, going into it a move earlier, after 40...Kg7 ( your move) 41 Qe5+ instead of 40..Kf7 ( the move in my variation) 41 Qe6+ Kg7 42 Qe5+ etc. I therefore remain of the opinion that Adams outplayed Topalov brilliantly and that Topalov has no defence.
I am assuming you are talking about:
36. Ree2 ... a5
37. Qe1 ... Kg7
38. Rxd5 ... exd5
39. Re7 ... Kf8
40. Re8 ... Kg7
now if you do
the black answer is
41. ... Kh6
and there is no mate here.
You can now either repeat the position or try these two variations:
42. h4 ...
and this is where black can easily force the draw by
42. ... Rxc2
but he does not have to! Since there is
42. ... Qb4!
and this changes position completely but the white would be the one fighting for his life here.
42. h3 ... Rxc2
where black easily forces a draw. And he doesn't have to again. I don't want to go into details but I am almost sure that at this point Topalov would be playing for a win.
|Oct-13-05|| ||Ulhumbrus: <a circe> In the variation you have given,on 42..Qb4, 43 Qf6 may win. The black queen is tied to the defence of the black rook while the Qf6 keeps access to g5.|
|Oct-13-05|| ||acirce: <Ulhumbrus> I am not <csmath>.|
|Oct-13-05|| ||csmath: I would know. LOL.
|Oct-13-05|| ||Ezzy: <Ulhumbrus> It's not just the game that's starting to confuse you! :-)|
|Oct-14-05|| ||Ulhumbrus: Sorry. My kibitz is a reply, then, to a variation given by csmath and not to a variation given by acirce.|
|Oct-22-05|| ||Jaymthetactician: Why not 11...Bd7 12.Qd2,e5 (may be mistake, but am investigating further, I know flank operations are best countered by center thrust so hence my idea here) 13.fxe5,Nxe5 14.Be2? Though there is a weakness on d5 white can't do anything with it as of yet, and the Ne5 is powerful.|
I've seen 11.Nxc6,bxc6 here also, but that just helps black.
|Sep-25-06|| ||positionalgenius: A fine tactical game from these two.
Adams' best game at San Luis.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·