|Sep-15-06|| ||Father Karras: Okaaaay. This one is definitely a fix.|
|Sep-16-06|| ||jahhaj: Yeessss. Along with D Gormally vs S Williams, 2006 apparently. Probably the whole tournament was fixed, in fact I bet it never took place at all. Photos and everything, all faked. It's well known that Nigel Short is one of those alien lizards, I mean look at those lips.|
What is it with people who see conspiracies everywhere?
|Sep-17-06|| ||Octavia: I wonder when it become clear that Nigel was winning? I saw him sauntering down the aisle with a smile on his face. When i went to look at his game (it was up on the wall in big) I couldn't see any advantage. But i was busy with my own game & later didn't have time to wait for theirs to finish.|
|Sep-17-06|| ||hitman84: Hebden mindlessly advanced his pawns.
Short just targetted and collected all the weak advanced pawns. White had the positionl edge throughout the game. The ending was better for white
good against bad and black's isolated d pawn. 36.Nd3! blockade! besides the N guards both the b2 and f2 pawn base freeing the white s. Black had no compensation for the pawn.
8...Rb8 is an interesting line in which black sacrifices a second pawn to get a dangerous lead in development.
|Sep-17-06|| ||euripides: According to Chessbase http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... Short had anlaysed this line with Kariakin and feels the Two Knights is basically an unsound pawn sacrifice. Hebden offered a draw on move 31, when he wins the pawn back, and Giddins thinks Short had lost 'most of his advantage' at that stage. |
However, White gets a very good square for his knight and his rooks get control of the open files - I don't know if Black could have contested the c file on moves 34-6. So I guess it's possible Short always judged that he was better.
|Sep-17-06|| ||Father Karras: Short was smiling because he KNEW then that hebden would keep his share of the fix. For a while I suppose Hebden wanted to make his weaker opponent sweat a bit, after Short had happily played recklessly at first feeling he could try anything since the deal had been closed earlier.|
|Sep-17-06|| ||acirce: <8 Qf3. This old move has for years been regarded as giving Black a strong initiative, but in recent times, the cold reality of computer analysis has made people realise that Black may just be a pawn down for not enough. John van der Wiel has been at the forefront of rehabilitating the move.>|
Interesting indeed. I have been using Emms' <Play the Open Games as Black> to study this line, and he agrees with the "old" assessment. I guess I will simply play 3..Bc5. If I'm going to sacrifice a pawn for initiative it'd better at least be sound.
I wonder if anyone has looked at De Zeeuw's NIC Yearbook surveys of 5..Nxd5? (Maybe '?!' or '!?') that he, if I recall, thinks might actually be playable in spite of the well-known refutation (?) 6.d4 (the Fried Liver is just unclear though). He suggests 6..Be6 if I recall correctly. But it looks weird.
|Sep-17-06|| ||technical draw: This is the game that cost me 13,000 chessbucks. If Hebden had won I would have jumped from next to last to the top 10. So my sour grapes are yelling: FIX!|
|Nov-25-07|| ||Akavall: <8 Qf3. This old move has for years been regarded as giving Black a strong initiative, but in recent times, the cold reality of computer analysis has made people realise that Black may just be a pawn down for not enough. John van der Wiel has been at the forefront of rehabilitating the move.>|
What lines does that apply to? Just 8...h6? And maybe 8...Qc7?
There are other lines where Black is not "a pawn down".
After 8...Rb8 9. Bxc6 Nxc6 10. Qxc6+ Black is down two pawns.
After 8...cxb5 9. Qxa8 Black is down a pawn and an exchange.
In both of those lines it seems to me that Black's activity should be enough compensation.
|Mar-07-09|| ||blacksburg: rumours of death...strongly exaggerated
Mamedyarov vs E Tomashevsky, 2009
V Yemelin vs E Tomashevsky, 2008
Kaidanov vs Onischuk, 2008
Vallejo-Pons vs E Inarkiev, 2007