|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 140 OF 140 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-17-09 | | ronpaz1: thanks for the 2 teams for the very well played game! I am surprised by the strength of Archangelsk Variation. I don't know if White can improve significantly his game here. 2 possible options to change the game course are:
1. 11.Nf1, instead of c3, to prevents d5 from black. I guess Black team would continue 11...c5. the Black idea to play d5 at once been proved strong, so I wonder if 10...Bf8 is not a little more accurate then 10...h6 because White can't prevents d5 at all. 2. 21.c4, instead of Qd1, give White a little mor space. but I feel that Black can get draw quite easily by pressing and blocking at the queen wing. |
|
Feb-17-09
 | | Open Defence: <The 24 hour turnaround discourages lines like that.> I think BOB II was the best, no computers and adequate time for deep ideas and the play was of a high standard <chessgames.com> perhaps you could make this a regular feature like the bookie game ? does this stretch the server resources ? |
|
| Feb-17-09 | | kevin86: How about "TEAM IVORY vs TEAM EBONY"?
or the soap vs the magazine-lol |
|
Feb-17-09
 | | Machado: I completely agree with <Ronpaz1> comments. About the moves I wish we had played, I add <b4> instead of <15.Bd2> or <16.Qb3>. I am not sure about what would happen, but the fact is the real continuation was not good for white. Regarding <18.bxa6>, a move criticized by some of team black members, I think we should have more deeply analysed the alternative <c4>, which we had discarded in the previous move (axb5). The game would have been more interesting, but I have the feeling that <c4> would give more opportunities to black than to white, so I don't consider it a mistake. Eventual innacuracies after <21.Qd1> were irrelevant as the game was already very drawish. Just to conclude, I think the result would probably be the same if we had not played the mentioned moves, given the high quality game played by team black. |
|
| Feb-17-09 | | hms123: I still think that <c4> would have given White some real chances in the game. I am curious about the reactions from the Black side. |
|
Feb-17-09
 | | OhioChessFan: I have to disagree. I think c4 would have been a strategic disaster. In any event, when Black can yawn and play h6 on their 10th move in a RL, it's clear that White has already not played a strong opening. I have to strongly fault d3 and to a lesser degree fault Nbd2. |
|
Feb-17-09
| | Machado: <OCF> It is important to explain which move we are talking about. I am convinced that <21.c4> would be better than <Qd1>. About <18.c4> I think we could have discussed it more. And if we had played <11.Nf1> followed by <Ne3> we would prevent black to play <d5> and the game would be completely different. |
|
Feb-17-09
| | OhioChessFan: I have run the Bg5 line out to 30 some moves and White is winning. Not that it means anything. ;) |
|
Feb-18-09
| | OhioChessFan: Purely for entertainment value, here's what I came up with. 15.Bg5 hxg5 16.Nfxg5 Be7 17.Qh5 Bxg5 18.Nxg5 Qf6 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20. Bxd5 Bxd5 21. Qh5 Qd6 22. c4 bxc4 23. dxc4 Bxc4 24. Rad1 Qh6 25. Nh7+ Kg8 26. Qxh6 gxh6 27. Nf7+ Kf8 28. Nxe8 Kxe8 29. Rxe5+ Be6 30. f4 Nd7 31. Rh5 Rb8 32. f5 Bb3 33. Re1+ Kf8 34. Rxh6 Rb6 35. Rxb6 cxb6 36. a5 bxa5 37. g4 Kg7 38. h4 a4 39. Re7 Nb6 40. g5 Bc2 41. h5 Bxf5 42. g6 
click for larger view
Certainly there are improvements to be found, and I suspect Black can force a draw early in the line, but just had fun with it. |
|
| Feb-18-09 | | blue wave: <OCF><In any event, when Black can yawn and play h6 on their 10th move in a RL> I tend to agree with your comments on our h6 move. You have to question it's value when white can still play 15.Bg5! |
|
Feb-18-09
| | OhioChessFan: <blue wave> I think Bg5 makes sense in a Laskerish sort of way. While I don't care for d3 and Nbd2, it's almost impossible to believe that 15 moves into the most analyzed opening in chess, that White would be the side to have to work for a draw without a huge mistake. Bg5 at least makes Black work for it a little, and does take advantage of the weakened g5 square. FWIW, <AgentRgent's> idea of not trading Queens does look better for Black. I haven't made much headway there. |
|
Feb-18-09
| | Open Defence: <Ohio> but thats the best part.. despite being so highly analysed the Ruy Lopez still offers such opportunities for creativity.. what an opening system! |
|
| Feb-18-09 | | hms123: <OCF> <Machado> I meant <21.c4>. I am really curious about how the game would have gone had we chosen it. I am also curious about the Black Team's reaction. |
|
Feb-18-09
 | | plang: <but thats the best part.. despite being so highly analysed the Ruy Lopez still offers such opportunities for creativity.. what an opening system!> When people say "chess is played out" they really underestimate the endless possibilities. |
|
Feb-18-09
| | plang: Someone compared 14..Nb8 with the Breyer variation (9..Nb8 in the Closed RL) but this was not a closed position. The combination of 12..d5 and 14..Nb8 is quite povocative and invites a sharp response from White. |
|
| Feb-18-09 | | blue wave: <21.c4> I think would have given a completely different game. I had a quick look last night. It turns into a more closed positional game. As to how the team would have played it, who knows? My computer seemed to like <21....Re6>. I guess black could have tried to post a knight at d4 square, but this would take time. I think black would probably still try to win the b-pawn with rooks on b-file. I did think that <21.c4> was a good move for white to try. |
|
Feb-19-09
 | | Gypsy: <cg.com> Could we get a sans-engines game next? We have been riding behind engines for while on several boards; I, for one, feel like its time to take some personal responsibility for the analysis again! |
|
| Feb-19-09 | | PinnedPiece: <Gypsy: <cg.com> Could we get a sans-engines game next? > What does the vow look like that binds all who sign up -- and I mean ALL -- to the use of no engines? Seems very hard to enforce, even if 94.75% of the participants buy into the concept heart and soul. The game could last for months...and the temptation to see Rybka's second guess will be--for some--overpowering. It seems to me that the only possible way to do that fairly, would be to agree that after, oh, move 15, a 25-ply Rybka ranking of the best moves would be published... and each team forbidden to make either of the top two (three?) choices!!! Or perhaps something like this: in any 3-move sequence, Rybka's best move at 25-ply could only be played once. Just as a referee-ing principle.
A third party judge could list or track the forbidden moves, or something. At any rate, as fun as the no-engine concept sounds, there would have to be other rules agreed on to make it happen that way. Call it the "enhanced honor system." |
|
Feb-19-09
| | Gypsy: <PinnedPiece>
We already played a couple of games sans-engines
Team White vs Team Black, 2007
Team White vs Team Black, 2008
and I think that those that participated still feel that the games were played cleanly and honorably by both teams. It definitely was a lot of fun to play that way and I am not advocating anything beyond such a friendly game among friends. (No GM challenges, where things could get too competitive to resist the temptation, so to speak.) |
|
| Feb-20-09 | | WhiteRook48: why is this the pun? |
|
| Feb-22-09 | | karnak64: I have to concur with <Gypsy>: both Battle of the Brains games have been genuine pleasures and I had no sense anyone broke the "no computers" pledge. In friendly games like that with nothing real at stake we're all good sports; I don't see any need for additional policing. |
|
| Feb-24-09 | | WhiteRook48: were they using the engines a lot in this game? |
|
| Feb-25-09 | | melianis: Quite a bit, yes. Then both teams had a couple of good players checking the lines with human insight. Read some of the discussions, positions were very complex to evaluate, every now and then. |
|
| Feb-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: 5...b5 seems unusual for me. I expect the 5...Be7 move too often |
|
| Oct-12-09 | | The Chess Express: I love this game. I know I didn't participate much, but I'd like to thank my team for playing so aggressively. Sacking that pawn showed real fighting spirit, and it's what I would have voted for. Congratulations to both teams. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 140 OF 140 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
