< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Aug-11-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Once> Thank you for your words. I treasure them as much as your ability to play Chess!|
|Aug-11-12|| ||tallinn: As I am enjoying Once's posts to the problems given here, I do not get it why he is criticized for not giving analysis. Would that add to the fun provided by his texts? Not at all. Once, are you writing for a newspaper column? If not, think about it.|
|Aug-11-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: PS. Seeing as how I know already that some people are going to be offended/concerned/consternated by my exchange with <Once>, I have this to say to you: |
If you have something to say to me, say it to me on the chessboard.
You can find me on www.chesscube.com. I challenge any man who has an axe to grind with me to a match - first to win 6, draws not counting.
Any reasonable blitz time control.
|Aug-11-12|| ||Jimfromprovidence: Several kibitzers have mentioned moving the h pawn if 34…Kg5 had been played.|
To be more emphatic, the only reason 31 Rxg7 works at all is because of those pawns on f2 and h2.
Try the puzzle position without these pawns, as a side exercise.
click for larger view
|Aug-11-12|| ||Zatrikion: 31.Rxg7:
32.Bxf6 and black Q is pinned and lost. Winning ending game for white, Q vs R. 1-0
34.Bh5+ Kxh5 (34..Kg5, 35.h4+)
Winning ending game for white, Q vs R+B
|Aug-11-12|| ||Patriot: 31.Rxg7 looks good, removing the guard on the knight and attacking the queen.|
31...Qxg7 32.Bxf6 wins.
31...Ne4 32.Rxe7+ looks winning.
I'm not sure what black can do here.
Of course! 31...Kxg7 is a try.
|Aug-11-12|| ||JRMenezes: everyone got it wrong. the correct solution is Rg3! so as to double the rooks on the g-file|
|Aug-11-12|| ||gars: I guessed 31) Rxg7 Kxg7; 32) Bxf6+ Qxf6; 33) Re7+ Kg6 after some thought, than I played through them and found the other moves one by one. I cannot say I solved it, but who cares? Being 65 I have no more time to improve (to say the least), so I'm here for the fun of it!|
|Aug-11-12|| ||gars: <Once>: you have stated that "Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticise". That's interesting in its own way, but I offer you and all the other kibitzers a truly Brazilian piece of wisdom:|
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't even teach, lead!"
And, "si monumentum vis, circunspice".
|Aug-11-12|| ||Once: <gars> well, yes, but I have a great deal of respect for teachers. IMHO human civilization has developed in large part because of our ability to teach. That means that the next generation does not need to relearn everything. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.|
That's why my version of the saying doesn't take a cheap shot at teaching.
The fact that I have an eleven year old son working his way through school may mean that I am a little biased ...
|Aug-11-12|| ||Robed.Bishop: <LTJ> Your comment that anyone who wants to criticize you over your exchange with <Once> should meet you over the board is nothing short of ridiculous. It's the chess equivalent of "if you don't agree with me, I'll beat you up." |
For a person who professes to value the truth, you sure don't hesitate to express opinions as truth.
|Aug-11-12|| ||al wazir: 31. Rxg7 was a strong move, but even I saw it. The ensuing combination was something any master could be expected to see. (I missed it.) But 30. f5 was a move worthy of a GM.|
Lutikov, however, played it 10 years before he became an IM (Anatoly S Lutikov).
|Aug-11-12|| ||perfidious: < Robed.Bishop: <LTJ> Your comment that anyone who wants to criticize you over your exchange with <Once> should meet you over the board is nothing short of ridiculous....>|
Ha ha ha.....this is rich.
<....For a person who professes to value the truth, you sure don't hesitate to express opinions as truth.>
True, so long as they're the truth-giver; it's usually a vastly different story when they're on the receiving end.
Or call someone who posts a point of view 'stupid' when they presume to do anything other than suck up to him. Shades of another poster who brooks no dissent.
Aronin vs Bronstein, 1951
<Joker> needs to live in a hermetically sealed jar, where he can tell himself how wonderful he is, day and night, as he does battle against a cruel world which doesn't appreciate his genius.
|Aug-11-12|| ||Robed.Bishop: <perfidious> I clicked over to the game you linked. Apparently, at least on person will not read your post here. |
I really don't understand why people use the ignore feature. Ignoring a post doesn't make it go away.
My guess is that users who say that they are putting a user on ignore often don't. They simply stop responding to the posts to give the rest of us the impression that the user has been put on ignore.
You can't get to the truth of a matter by ignoring parts of the debate.
|Aug-11-12|| ||perfidious: < Once: ....It's all too easy to become an armchair quarterback - to criticise sportsmen, chess players, politicians from the comfort and safety of the internet....>|
Chess seems especially vulnerable to this in a sense; after all, if Usain Bolt runs a nanosecond slower than normal and some dolt like myself presumes to comment, y'all can laugh it off as the twaddle that it happens to be.
In chess, though, there are these silicon monsters called computers which can make any player with a little understanding of how to play and use the engine into a 3200 player. Just. Like. That. It's a very short step indeed and a tempting one, from my observation of others' criticisms.
<....It's the same on these pages. We get the same old comments about a puzzle being too easy, that we spotted it in a nanosecond, that we can't believe that a GM would miss it, that this or that player is an eejit, or worse....>
When I read some of the comments, it's time to throw my head back and have a good laugh. Much of the road to excellence in chess is pattern recognition; the more patterns one knows, the stronger a player one is likely to be.
There are times when a solution comes very easily to me, and others where it's rather more difficult. The first isn't cause for celebration, and the second isn't the end of the world.
<....Reality hits us with a bump. The vast majority of us are not GMs. For all our brave words and hindsight, put us in a real chess game with these people we are criticising and we would be summarily slaughtered.>
<Once>, I'm curious how many of these armchair QBs have actually played a GM heads-up. If they had anywhere near my own experience, it would be humbling indeed.
|Aug-11-12|| ||Cardinal Fang: I assume that at the time Lutikov played this combination, he would have received not only a gracious handshake from his opponent, but also an enthusiastic round of applause from the audience - whether it was made up of grown-ups or indeed of children.|
|Aug-11-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <Once: I've got this little voice in my head saying "walk away". But I'll give myself one last chance to explain.>|
|Aug-11-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <Once: It would have been pretty silly if we won the black queen but then allowed ourselves to be mated or give away a perp>.|
<polarx: That would have made this one a hell of a puzzle. I hope CG.com offers something like that in the future.>
I'd probably get that one.
|Aug-11-12|| ||M.Hassan: "Very Difficult" White to play 31.?
White is a pawn down and has a Bishop for a Knight.
I see a possibility of Black Queen being pinned:
<if ...Qxg7 32.Bxf6 and black Queen falls>
Black obstinately tries to keep his Queen.
and White's win is imminent
|Aug-12-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Once>: You'll have to excuse LTJ being a bit touchy at present. It must be difficult for him, being associated by his choice of handle with a mass murderer. I'm not sure, but I suspect this event may have motivated his change of avatar, which occurred, as I recall, within a day or two after the murders.|
Either that, or he's just a self-aggrandizing malignant narcissist. (But of course we wouldn't have any of those here, would we?)
|Aug-12-12|| ||Once: Please let's not make this too personal. We are all allowed to express opinions, but we ought to stop short of insulting each other.|
I've got no bad feelings towards LTJ whatsoever. I'm a little puzzled by his outbursts, but thick skinned enough not to be upset by them.
Let's change the subject and move on, hmm?
|Aug-12-12|| ||I play the Fred: What I found most bizarre was his chess challenge.
< Seeing as how I know already that some people are going to be offended/concerned/consternated by my exchange with <Once>, I have this to say to you:
If you have something to say to me, say it to me on the chessboard. >
How is <Let's play chess> the logical follow-up to <I disagree with you>? What, is this going to get hashed out between moves?
1. d4 You're full of it!
1...Nf6 Go soak your head!
2. Yer mom!
Besides, will the chess result validate the argument of the winner? If Garry Kasparov argues for God's existence, is he right because he beat me 6-0??
|Aug-12-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Once>: Gratuitous slights to me I was willing to forgive, but your contributions to this site are of unique value. Countless others contribute analysis; you add *story*. |
What LTJ is doing reminds me of the behavior of users on some other sites I've frequented: eggshell egos so threatened by excellence that they jeer and torment their betters not for what the latter say, but for how they say it. For these bullies, anyone who does differently must be mercilessly crushed into conformity, and I for one am tired of seeing it.
Thank you for what you do, and don't let LTJ or his ilk tell you there's something wrong with it.
|Aug-12-12|| ||perfidious: < Abdel Irada: <Once>: ....Thank you for what you do, and don't let LTJ or his ilk tell you there's something wrong with it.>|
|Aug-14-12|| ||BlackSheep: <perfidious> < Abdel Irada: <Once>: ....Thank you for what you do, and don't let LTJ or his ilk tell you there's something wrong with it.>
And ratified .
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·