< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Mar-28-13|| ||chancho: <mrbasso> <perfidious> is a master.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||Pulo y Gata: lol! on the last two comments above.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||JPi: <tamar: <JPi> I see a little cause for paranoia...> Yes I understand, especially under such pressure of an essential tournament. Carlsen could think why my direct contender Aronian got such opportunity from nowhere? 2 points almost gave as present by Ivanchuk. Kramnik unable to win a position he uses usually to win. Radjabov playing an obvious blunder. But it is giving substance to what is essentially hazardous. (For my part Radjabov and Kramnik deceptive result vs Aronian are possible in such Tournament. It's happen. The only crazy side of this +4 is the attitude of Ivanchuk who played suicidal vs Aronian and played one of his best game of the tournament vs Carlsen. Ivanchuk chess is fantastic but such attitude should not be for a Candidate Tournament +2 make a big difference). Therefore Carlsen must think only to his own games. Even if Aronian got such luck, Carlsen is actually the leader of the Tournament, and he is obviously the strongest chess player in the world since last 2~3 years.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||chancho: <Pulo y Gata> You can "lol" until the cows come home... what I posted is a fact.|
<perfidious> is a Life Master.
|Mar-28-13|| ||morfishine: Expect Ivanchuk to play the Orangutan, get a fantastic position due to his incredibly deep preparation, then slip into his self-induced hypnosis, watching his flag fall on move 21|
|Mar-28-13|| ||Absentee: <mrbasso: <perfidious>
A player of your strength might not understand that but 40.h5?? in the game Gelfand-Carlsen is inexplicable for a strong GM. This pawn is certainly going nowhere and even provides shelter for the black King. Carlsen was also very lucky against Radjabov. Carlsen has just no reason to complain about Aronian's luck.>|
There's no luck in chess.
|Mar-28-13|| ||Pulo y Gata: <chancho: <Pulo y Gata> You can "lol" until the cows come home... what I posted is a fact.
<perfidious> is a Life Master.> I was laughing at the exchange, chancho. I knew that little <perf> is a master as we had some exchange in kibitzes before. So take it easy, man. I thought <mrbasso>'s post was funny, more so because you had to point out the fact to him.|
Can I lol now? ;)
|Mar-28-13|| ||bubuli55: There is some reason to trash talk Chucky right now. But wait until he plays Carlsen. Then it'll be like spotting a magnificent lion in Kamchatka. |
That should play up the conspiracy angle :)
|Mar-28-13|| ||perfidious: <Pulo y Gata> Lol-I'll do it for both of us!|
|Mar-28-13|| ||perfidious: <mrbasso> It is indeed difficult to make sense of 40.h5 in Gelfand-Carlsen. If 40.Qh5 had been played instead, in my opinion there would be enough play to draw, with Qh8+ and Qf6+ in mind.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||chancho: <Pulo y Gata> Aaaaah... got it.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||csmath: <It is indeed difficult to make sense of 40.h5 in Gelfand-Carlsen.>|
That is true. I don't know how would anybody make that move, it is against basic chess rules.
And against general physics.
|Mar-28-13|| ||perfidious: <csmath> It irritates me when little things such as the law of gravity get in the way of a move on the board-especially when I want to use that idea to squash the life out of someone.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||mrbasso: <perfidious> is a Life Master.|
So what? Life Master is maybe a Candidate Master.
With a published rating of 2309 FIDE I'm a Fide Master, sort of...
I'd just have to pay 100 bucks to a certain corrupt and undemocratic organisation.
However I'm an Amateur playing team competition games only and don't need a stupid title.
|Mar-28-13|| ||perfidious: <mrbasso> seems to miss the point-I don't claim to be anything special, just a journeyman master from days of old.|
The repeated remarks by <mrbasso> in these fora on 'horrible' play by players stronger than he claims to be are almost comical in their disrespect shown to players he would never get close to on the best day of his life.
Same goes for others, here and on other sites.
|Mar-28-13|| ||csmath: Perfidious, joke aside but 32. ... h5 in Carlsen-Gelfand game was a perfectly legitimate move to me. It is not a mistake. I think Gelfand made just one obvious mistake in the game with 39. ... Ra1? and that was enough to lose. I think he played solid level of "strong GM" chess but that is obviously not enough against Magnus.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||mrbasso: <perfidious> seems to miss the point.
Just like in any sport you don't have to be as good as the players you criticize.
I expect these players to not make mistakes even I would avoid OTB.|
|Mar-28-13|| ||perfidious: <csmath> It was Gelfand's move 40.h5 that <mrbasso> mentioned I was discussing, not 32....h5, and I agree: that move is perfectly logical, as Black cannot allow his opponent to expand on the kingside without extracting some sort of concession in return.|
|Mar-31-13|| ||bennytakeapawn: i dont understand the abandon,,,after exf4.....Cf4+ take back the rook|
|Apr-01-13|| ||iamdeafzed: <bennytakeapawn: i dont understand the abandon,,,after exf4.....Cf4+ take back the rook>|
I'd be surprised if black isn't getting checkmated after that.
|Apr-01-13|| ||perfidious: <Pulo y Gata: .....little <perf> is a master as we had some exchange in kibitzes before....>|
Not so little nowadays (wink, nod), as when <chancho> would have known me-back then, my weight would have topped out at possibly 155, while over six feet. Today, the number is more like 220.
|Apr-07-13|| ||tpstar: This game should be classified under the Rubinstein Variation by transposition after 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bf4 instead of the Adler Variation which is usually 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 regaining the gambit Pawn.|
Engines liked Ivanchuk's position around Moves 25-27 so Black got a playable game out of the opening. It seems the only thing holding back the Budapest Gambit at the elite level is the absence of a top practitioner.
|Apr-17-13|| ||iamdeafzed: <It seems the only thing holding back the Budapest Gambit at the elite level is the absence of a top practitioner.>|
In his book 'Understanding Chess Move by Move', John Nunn annotates a particular game where the Budapest Gambit was used (I forget the players and the year the game was played) and he says that the main reason why the Budapest isn't more popular is because white has the option of giving back the sacrificed pawn while also generally obtaining some clear positional advantages (e.g. often the bishop pair).
Given that I'm not about to argue with GM Nunn, I'd say that's the real reason why it isn't more popular at the elite level.
|Apr-19-13|| ||senojes: Re the Budapest Defense (it's not a true gambit because black usually wins his sacrificed pawn back), Chess Opening Explorer lists 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Bf4 Bb4 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. e3 Ngxe5 8. Nxe5 Nxe5 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Bxd2 11. Qxd2 d6 12. Rac1, as the most popularly played against it. In that position, white is slightly better [=0.22 Houdini], and wins 37.5% to black's 20% with 42.5% drawn. |
As for the position above, after 27.Bd5 Nd5, 28.Rh3 (not 28...Rh8 played by Ivanchuk) Houdini evaluates it as a draw with best play, e.g. by perpetual check: 1. Bf5 Nd5 2. Rh3 h5 3. e3 Kf8 4. exf4 Nxf4+ 5. Kg3 gxf5 6. Qf6+ Qf7 7. Qh8+ Qg8 8. Qf6+ Qf7 [=0.00].
|Nov-28-16|| ||Conrad93: < I'd just have to pay 100 bucks to a certain corrupt and undemocratic organisation.>|
Why don't you do that then and earn your Master title?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·