< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Jul-07-11|| ||parmetd: White isn't scoring that well... 58% (there are only 39 games) over all games unfiltered by rating. However if you filter it by rating there are only 6 games played over 2500 all 6 white wins. Though we were talking theory with AJ not practice and theory states Nxg4 is a fine move. At any rate 6 games is not enough to use statistics (you need at least 30 games) for theory as obviously this game shows black is doing more than fine yet white won. Anyways my point was I trust GM Shirov when he says this game showed him why 7. g4 should never be played again was because of 7... Nxg4!. The inventor of the move and a strong grandmaster over a silly LM.|
|Jul-07-11|| ||parmetd: theory doesn't get built over night... it ebbs and flows and evaluations change. At one point in time, Nxg4 was thought to be dubious but that time has past. As GM Rossolimo used to say, "GMs MAKE theory." Here Kramnik made theory as he did in the Berlin wall and numerous other openings. The evaluation may change again in the future too which might shift it back to AJ being right. Right now the whole 7. g4 idea is itself considered dubious and it is because of *Nxg4*|
|Jul-07-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <FSR> Yes. Also, in the CB database, Black lost a ton of games with 7...NxP/g4. |
You might think the following game is impressive:
Shirov,Alexei (2710) - Piket,Jeroen (2670) [D45]
Amber-blindfold 04th Monte Carlo (3), 1995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 Nxg4 8.Rg1 Nxh2 9.Nxh2 Bxh2 10.Rxg7 Qf6 11.Rxh7 a6 12.Rxh8+ Qxh8 13.e4 e5 14.exd5 exd4 15.Qe4+ Ne5 16.Ne2 Bg4 17.dxc6 f5 18.cxb7 Rd8 19.Qd5 Nd3+ 20.Kd2 Rxd5 21.cxd5 Nxf2 0-1
(They probably have this game in this DB, I did not check.)
However, I sorted the games (in the on-line DB) according to rating, (highest rated players on top, doing Black first, and then White); and the above game is like the ONLY Black win out of like the top SIXTY games!!!!!!!! (White wins or draws - in ALL BUT ONE GAME - out of the top 50+ games in the ChessBase database.)
The following game is top-rated win by White. (I found it in this DB, in case you wanted to go over it - maybe check the kibitzes for notes.)
Kasparov vs P H Nielsen, 2004
In the new PB, out of close to 300 games (N) Black scored poorly ... (less than 30%, this is considered the "unacceptable level" by most GM's); and only has a 2303 overall performance rating. (Some Black lines have PR's OVER 2700, most around 2500, so I would say that this is also a SUB-STANDARD line by its PR.)
I would say with such numbers, whether or not 7...NxP/g4 is inferior should be a closed argument.
|Jul-07-11|| ||DrMAL: Being quite new to participating on this site, I was wondering why it seemed some lower level players were harassing Masters. I even received some supercilious BS myself, resulting with <perfidious> among a few other morons making my IGNORE list <FSR> was included in that gang. Now it seems quite clear as to why, with pompous twits like <AJ> constantly spewing self-promotional rubbish it makes it all the more difficult for those who want to kibitz on a higher level to have proper dialog. I still cannot believe about his accusing Nakamura of cheating against him this is totally ridiculous. In any event another (now six) has made my IGNORE list, congrats <AJ> LOL.|
|Jul-07-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Opening Explorer|
The top moves (here) are 7...h6; 7...dxc4; and 7...Bb4; all performing fairly well.
The bar graph shows that there are 88 games in THIS database where Black played 7...NxP/g4.
Black scored HORRIBLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
White wins nearly 60%, draws are 27.3% and the number of Black's wins are EMBARASSINGLY small, a dismal 15.9%
Does anyone really want to argue that 7...NxP/g4 is a "playable" line??? Puuuuhhh-leeeeeeeeze.
|Jul-07-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Sir: I would argue that you failed miserably ... and the average person (free of bias) would inescapably conclude that I was correct.|
|Jul-07-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: If you want to really persist in your delusional claims ...|
|Jul-07-11|| ||keypusher: <DrMAL: Being quite new to participating on this site, I was wondering why it seemed some lower level players were harassing Masters. I even received some supercilious BS myself, resulting with <perfidious> among a few other morons making my IGNORE list <FSR> was included in that gang.> |
Easy there, your Highness.
First of all, FSR is a strong master himself, and I think Perfidious is too.
Second of all, much stronger players than you (some of them kibitzers here) have undergone criticism. No one should have a problem with that, as long as it's not just trolling.
Anyway, that isn't the normal pattern. Nor do most strong players continually reiterate how strong they are, as you do. Instead, they provide helpful commentary and analysis, and are highly regarded for it. Learn from them.
|Jul-07-11|| ||keypusher: <Now it seems quite clear as to why, with pompous twits like <AJ> constantly spewing self-promotional rubbish>|
Physician, heal thyself.
|Jul-07-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <keypusher> Ha, ha. That's funny! |
Actually - its kind of sad. (This whole situation.)
I was just quoting theory ... I felt that many of the users here may not know what theory says about this line. (I am sure most people don't have the number of books I have. This is not to brag, just a simple statement of fact. I am <now> 53 and have been playing, studying, and collecting books just about my whole life.)
For my trouble, I was venemously attacked ... its not fair, really.
|Jul-07-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: As for (other) claims -
I (now) respect <FSR> ... he has been brave enough to go public. He is in this DB and in the USCF one.
... all the other claims, I treat with the same level of belief that I regard the (spam) mail saying "you have just won the Internet lottery." (See my earlier post on this subject.)
|Jul-07-11|| ||TheFocus: <perfidious> is also a Life Master. His name was posted here on <CG>. His rating is currently 2200.|
<perfidious> Am I right?
|Jul-07-11|| ||Shams: <AJ><I was just quoting theory ... I felt that many of the users here may not know what theory says about this line. (I am sure most people don't have the number of books I have. This is not to brag, just a simple statement of fact. I am <now> 53 and have been playing, studying, and collecting books just about my whole life.)|
For my trouble, I was venemously attacked ... its not fair, really.>
His attack was bizarre; it's not like MCO-15 is ancient or anything. I for one always appreciate it when users share opening theory, so, thanks.
|Jul-07-11|| ||DrMAL: <keypusher: Physician, heal thyself.> LOL I guess I did get carried away. IDK personally I liked AJ at first in earlier kibitzing but after seeing so many other pompous (and wrong) arguments with others, particularly here Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 one loses respect when it never stops. As for <perfidious> et al. their trash ended here
Reti vs Capablanca, 1924 cheers.|
|Jul-07-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ> consider the game Steinitz vs. Rock with the annotations of J Nunn on your (or one of your) website(s) to see the quality of your present teaching material. I wrote an email to you in the past without ever getting an answer.|
|Jul-08-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <joerg> IF you are implying that all I did was steal from Nunn - then you are (simply put) a bold-face liar. |
Not a fan? Then why are you bothering to visit my websites in the first place? Besides, I usually offer a compilation from a number of annotators, and I am never afraid to interject my own opinion.
When I do quote from an author - its usually clearly indicated.
Score: Goldsby 1 - Trolls 0.
|Jul-08-11|| ||JoergWalter: <LIFE Master AJ> oh no, that is a misunderstanding. everything is neatly done and not stolen. It is about things like :
- if the game was played with odds of Ra1 than it is an exact copy of a Morphy game. See my post to the game Steinitz-Rock in this database.
- at the end it is an mate in 6 as already mentioned in the household chess magazine from that time. etc. Just little things like this.|
|Jul-08-11|| ||parmetd: AJ-0 Class players - 1
It is nice to know a master can't understand when he's beaten off the board. Truly theory changes, I will take a GM's words over yours any day AJ. And your library obviously isn't very good when mine beats it.
Yes, Shams I appreciate when others add notes to the game too but usually they are more sane and stronger than AJ so the comments are worth something. They are willing to admit when they are wrong and deal it with it without crying - usually a worthwhile discussion ensues! With AJ, its oh man you proved me wrong.... well let me censor you then say QED period.
|Jul-09-11|| ||perfidious: <TheFocus: <perfidious> is also a Life Master. His name was posted here on <CG>. His rating is currently 2200.
<perfidious> Am I right?>|
As to this game, I've only had one blitz game with 7.g4, and don't even recall what I played against it-this was back in the early days of the line (about 1993).
My question for those who know the line is this: did 7....Bb4 ever catch on after Kasparov once used it?
|Jul-10-11|| ||parmetd: Yes it caught on and was rightly considered the mainline for quite some time until this game occurred where Kramnik showed easy = and the line was abandoned. dxc4 was also considered a major try for quite some time. All three moves are good tries.|
|Sep-08-11|| ||perfidious: <DrMAL: Being quite new to participating on this site, I was wondering why it seemed some lower level players were harassing Masters. I even received some supercilious BS myself, resulting with <perfidious> among a few other morons making my IGNORE list.>|
Make sure you capitalise 'Masters'-they're ever so much more important than other players, don't you know.
It would seem that you understand the definition of 'supercilious', inasmuch as you're very good at such haughty behaviour.
<....it makes it all the more difficult for those who want to kibitz on a higher level to have proper dialog.....In any event another (now six) has made my IGNORE list...LOL.>
Tell you what-I'll break out the violins right now!
We're all sorry for sullying your private chess forum with dissent against your screeds.
Yes, I know you believe I'm psychotic (as you've stated elsewhere), but that only shows how far removed from reality you truly are.
Only six consigned to your little iggy-land? Bet that list is a lot longer now!
|Sep-08-11|| ||I play the Fred: Is there an eccentric billionaire among our members here? Because I would love for that person to sponsor a 10-game classical match, in the flesh, between <LIFE Master AJ> and <DrMAL>.|
My hoped-for seconds: IM Silvio Danailov and GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili.
The off-the-board shenanigans in this one would make Manila 1978 look like a GP game between the Kosintseva sisters.
|Sep-08-11|| ||Robed.Bishop: Ho Hum|
|Sep-08-11|| ||Robed.Bishop: <LMAJ: I (now) respect <FSR> ... he has been brave enough to go public. He is in this DB and in the USCF one.>|
Priceless! You just can't make this stuff up.
|Sep-09-11|| ||perfidious: <I play the Fred: ....I would love for that person to sponsor a 10-game classical match, in the flesh, between <LIFE Master AJ> and <DrMAL>.
My hoped-for seconds: IM Silvio Danailov and GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili.>|
We'd likely see some head-butting between the seconds, but nothing special to tell, so long as Danailov didn't refer to Azmai as a dunderhead, an event which, based on past history, would earn censure.
The real fun would be the battle between the immense egos of the principals, which is bound to come off whenever two people are put in a situation where both need to dominate and neither will give way.
<The off-the-board shenanigans in this one would make Manila 1978 look like a GP game between the Kosintseva sisters.>
What was entertaining about their last, um, donnybrook in the Exchange Spanish was the amount of righteousness expounded on the whole mess on that game page. One would have sworn the sisters had committed original sin!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·