chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

YouRang
Member since Feb-23-05
<NOTICE>

The game prediction contest has <moved!>

The new home of the Game Prediction Contest is...

Golden Executive chessforum

Please welcome <Golden Executive> as the new contest manager!

===

Love chess.
Wish I were better at it.
USA

About my peculiar moniker, "YouRang":

There used to be a show on American TV called "The Addams Family". One of the characters was a creepy 6'9" zombie-like butler named "Lurch" (pictured in my avatar, with a rare smile). In the show, someone would summon Lurch with the bell-pull (a hangman rope), which would make a loud GONG sound, and Lurch would promptly appear and say (in a deep voice), <"You rang?"> (sample: http://www.addamsfamily.com/addams/...). Kind of a dumb show really, yet it has long had cult-like following. Recently many original episodes became available on DVD (http://www.amazon.com/Addams-Family...).

Anyway, I picked "YouRang" for my user name because I was out of my mind at the time, but I'm better now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Glorious accomplishments:

- 2005 Co-winner of <"Best Avatar" Caissar>! (thank you! thank you!)

- 2006 Biel prediction contest (1st place [tie] in final standings prediction)

- 2006 User name "YouRang" named among top 100 TV catch-phrases (http://www.tvland.com/originals/cat...)

- 2007 Defeated GM Arno Nickel (with the help of 2000+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006

- 2007 Took 1st place (tie) in <lostemperor>'s Final Standing prediction contest for the Linares tournament

- 2008 Defeated GM Gert Jan Timmerman (with the help of 3000+ other members & their computers) in the classic: The World vs G Timmerman, 2007

- 2009 Achieved a draw with the black pieces in my rematch with GM Arno Nickel (with help of 2000+ other members and their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: A Nickel vs The World, 2008

- 2010 On May 6, User: thegoodanarchist spotted a license plate that said "URANGG", presumably in honor of my moniker.

- 2010 Finished in top 25 with 2,200 chessbucks in Summer leg of chessbookie. (Just 2 bets: predicted Ponomariov was winner of Dortmund, and Caruana as winner of Biel).

- 2010 Won a silver medal in 123 Ranker for the Pearl Spring tournament. (It would have been gold except <Winter> stole it with a fantastic perfect final round. Grrr...)

- 2011 Won gold in <lostemperor>'s Wijk aan Zee 2011 Final Standings prediction contest by finishing in first place for all 3 contests -- absolute ranker, least-squares ranker, and pair betting ranker! Yee-haw!

- 2011 Won silver medal in 123 Ranker for Bilbao tournament.

- 2011 I was honored in a chessvibes.com cartoon: http://www.chessvibes.com/cartoons/...! [Thanks to <Blunderdome> for finding this]

- 2011 Won gold in <lostemperor>'s Tal Memorial 2011 Final Standings prediction contest.

- 2012 A pun I suggested for for the game Akobian vs The World, 2011 ended up winning the <Best Pun> Caissar award! In that game, the World team used a queen sac to force a draw with a flourish. The pun: "Drawma Queen".

- 2012 Won silver and bronze in <lostemperor>'s Wijk Aan Zee 2012 Final Standings prediction contests.

- 2012 Won a bronze in Betting Ranker for the Dortmund 2012 tournament. A complete surprise.

- 2012 At LOOONG last, I managed to make it into my own <Game Prediction Hall of Fame> by winning two golds in Biel 2012 -- both first place ties in Standard Ranker and 123 Ranker :-)

- 2012 Won gold in <lostemperor>'s Bilbao 2012 Final Standings prediction contest.

- 2012 Defeated GM Varuzhan Akobian (with the help of *only* 1500+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Akobian, 2012

- 2013 Succeeded in completing a full year without any glorious accomplishments!

- 2014 Defeated GM Simon Kim Williams with the black pieces (with the help of 1100+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: S Williams vs The World, 2013

- 2014 Won two medals in the World Chess Candidates tournament prediction contest: Silver in Betting Ranker and bronze in 123 Ranker.

- 2014 Had a late surge to win two medals in the Norway 2014 prediction contest. Gold (shared 5 ways) in 123 Ranker, and Bronze in Standard Ranker. Also won a silver in <lostemperor>'s Final Standings Betting contest, so it's sort of a perfect sweep: One medal of every color. :-)

- 2014 Defeated Super-GM Arkadij Naiditsch (with some assistance by 1400+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Naiditsch, 2014. Some hocus-pocus was involved.

- 2015 Won the <Best Avatar Caissar> award for the 2nd time (see first glorious accomplishment above). I don't like to brag, but (here comes some bragging) this victory has been described as "a small landslide" (The Caissars chessforum (kibitz #1506))

- 2016 Won yet another <Best Avatar Caissar> award for the third time (see 2005 and 2015). Unlike last year's "small landslide", this election was very close, and it even involved a "Steve Harvey-esque" winner-announcement fiasco:

(1)The Caissars chessforum (kibitz #1820)

(2) The Caissars chessforum (kibitz #1895)

I wouldn't want to have <The Caissars>'s job, lol.

- 2017 Taking a break from cg.com...

>> Click here to see YouRang's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   YouRang has kibitzed 17416 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Mar-24-17 chessgames.com chessforum (replies)
 
YouRang: <WannaBe: I think you would get more funny one liners than you intended...> I think the funny ones would be welcome. As some Joker once said, "Why so serious?"
 
   Mar-24-17 I Cheparinov vs Drasko, 2007 (replies)
 
YouRang: Friday 22.? [DIAGRAM] One of the first rules in puzzle solving is that if you can take the Pf7, especially with check, start there. Sure enough, the bishop sac <22.Bxf7+ Kxf7> seems to open some interesting avenues by vacating c4 and by exposing black's king. [DIAGRAM] ...
 
   Mar-23-17 A Srebrnic vs A Benderac, 2007 (replies)
 
YouRang: <agb2002: The text 24.e7+ is much stronger than my 24.exf7+, which is also winning according to Stockfish.> Hmmm, but you didn't have 24.exf7+ -- you had 25.exf7+. I think you meant that 24.e7+ was stronger than 24.Qd6+.
 
   Mar-22-17 R Polaczek vs A Antoniou, 2007 (replies)
 
YouRang: <Jimfromprovidence: Side puzzle. If the puzzle had started one move earlier, figure out if 27 Nb5 works.> Very interesting side puzzle. :-)
 
   Mar-21-17 F Berkes vs M Neubauer, 2007 (replies)
 
YouRang: <Once><26. h3 might be a computer's choice, but it's no earthly use to us if we don't know how to win from there.> True, but this problem seems to feature a bunch of moves where we can figure out how to win, and 26.Nxb5 and 26.h3 (and even my lowly 26.Nb3) are among ...
 
   Mar-21-17 OhioChessFan chessforum (replies)
 
YouRang: <Boomie><Sadly, some of CG's most active posters have left due to harassment by stalkers. This is also why Susan Polgar doesn't post here anymore.> Yep, that's been an ongoing struggle for some time, although its certainly not unique to cg.com. Practically any online ...
 
   Mar-20-17 D B C Prasad vs V Samolins, 2017 (replies)
 
YouRang: Monday 28.? [DIAGRAM] For a brief moment, I noted that Rxf8 would be mate if only I could deflect the Q and N, but that seemed like a tall order. Then I noticed the white queen lurking on b3, and realized that it's really about deflecting the Rf8: <28.Qg8+(*) Rxg8(**)> ...
 
   Mar-20-17 playground player chessforum (replies)
 
YouRang: Congrats pgp! You can do with a dose of happiness. :-)
 
   Mar-19-17 E Tate vs A Chibukhchian, 2013 (replies)
 
YouRang: Insane Sunday 20.? [DIAGRAM] Sort of a typical puzzle position, with black's forces on one side, and the black K on the other with white forces (N, Q, B, 2R and Pe5) all potentially bearing down upon it. The question is, how do we break down black's position? Given that this is ...
 
   Mar-18-17 Karpov vs Ponomariov, 2007 (replies)
 
YouRang: Saturday 28...? [DIAGRAM] I thought I was on to something with <28...Ng3> threatening the Rf1. [DIAGRAM] It seems that White should move the rook (say) <29.Rfe1>, and then comes the attack on the h-file, using Ng3 to block white's queen: <29...Rxh3! 30.Kxh3 ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 670 OF 670 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-31-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: Happy New Year <YouRang>! 😊
Dec-31-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Annie K.: You are one of my all-time favorites around here. :)
Jan-02-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Annie K.> My goodness! What a nice (and to me completely unexpected) thing to say, especially since you and I have rarely conversed directly. I must admit it leaves me curious about how I managed to be so honored.

But since we're conversing directly, I'd like to return the complement. I've always found your comments to be consistently characterized by reasonableness, helpfulness, and humor. Now I can add "surprising kindess" to the list. :-)

Jan-02-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Annie K.: Thanks :)

Heh... is it an honor if it's completely deserved? Your posts are always positive, patient, and inspirational.

And I'm sure it can be frustrating when it seems nobody is really getting your messages, but it can help to keep in mind that there are always a lot more people reading what you write than will indicate doing so. So keep up the good work... :)

And of course if there's ever anything in any way interesting to you happening in my forum, please always feel welcome to jump in.

Jan-03-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Annie K.> Well, thanks again for the kind words. :-)

You have correctly assessed that I've felt some frustration, at least in discussing religious matters.

If there are onlookers reading the discourse on this site between Christians and non-Christians, and even between Christians themselves, I think they would have to come away with a bad (and IMO wrong) impression of Christianity.

I did come to the point where I felt my contributions were doing little besides fanning the flames, so I've pretty much dropped out lately.

But I do appreciate your encouraging words (especially if I'm right in assuming that you aren't a Christian yourself) as well as the invitation to participate in your forum.

Jan-03-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Now I can add "surprising kindess" to the list. >

Hmmmmmm. "surprising" kindness? What, that's out of character for Annie? Yeah, yeah, I know, kindness is pretty much out of character for this site!

Jan-03-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <OhioChessFan: <Now I can add "surprising kindess" to the list. >

Hmmmmmm. "surprising" kindness? What, that's out of character for Annie? >

Well, perhaps I don't know Annie as well as others do. I've always found her to be kind, but her kind comments the other day felt like lightning from a blue sky (if lightning felt nice).

We should all learn a lesson... :-)

<Yeah, yeah, I know, kindness is pretty much out of character for this site!>

It depends on where you go. There is plenty of kindness if you steer clear of religion and politics (and dubious moves in team games -- grr!).

Jan-04-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: It is unfortunate that kindness is often - usually - absent in religious and political discourse. At this site, the discussions are often chaotic, full of rancor and insults; at times they are termed as "debates" and yet personal attacks still prevail.

Politics and religion are two areas where any criticism of a person's viewpoint on the subjects is taken as a personal attack. These viewpoints are strong, usually held for years, and are often part of a person's identity. It is understandable why discussions on these hot topics are taken personally, but understanding it doesn't make it right. No matter how well intentioned an effort might be, the compulsion to "convert" a person to one's point of view is apparently overwhelming.

You're right - better to stay away. I would also agree with you that the discussions between Christians here does not show them in a good light.

Jan-04-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Robed.Bishop><Politics and religion are two areas where any criticism of a person's viewpoint on the subjects is taken as a personal attack. These viewpoints are strong, usually held for years, and are often part of a person's identity. It is understandable why discussions on these hot topics are taken personally, but understanding it doesn't make it right.>

Good points. I think that it's a bit more complicated in the realm of religion, however.

Christian scripture says that we *should* keep heresy out of the church. This requires us to draw a dividing line between heresy and non-heresy, and that line tends to be the "battle line" upon which Christians argue.

To complicate things further, two Christians may have have different ideas about how to interpret scripture and how to decide which doctrinal issues are vital. They will come up with different ideas of what constitutes heresy, and both will be convinced of their own view. This explains why there are many different denominations of Christianity.

Things are only made worse by our faults and foibles:

(1) Christians forget that the line between heresy and non-heresy exists only among Christians. Non-Christians don't even acknowledge the authority of scripture, which is the standard by which doctrine is judged. A Christian readily understands that if a Muslim accuses him/her of heresy based on something in the Quran, it carries no weight. And yet, Christians will use the Bible to argue heresy against Non-Christians.

(2) Christians forget that the foremost attributes that any Christian should have is love, faith, humility, peace, and forgiveness (the scriptural support for these things is overwhelming). And yet, it is evident that many Christians quickly dispense with these attributes when confronted with a disagreement.

(3) Christians tend to have an "absolutist" mentality concerning doctrine: "Whatever you believe, you believe it 100% and never budge from it". It's actually not a good stance to take since it hinders learning and listening. Christians often believe questionable things they were taught as children, because they've never dared to challenge those things.

- Note: I don't think that we Christians are the only ones with these sorts of foibles, but we are supposed to do better IMO.

<No matter how well intentioned an effort might be, the compulsion to "convert" a person to one's point of view is apparently overwhelming.>

I suppose this is natural though. We would all like to be more persuasive, but yes, one also has to know when to stop. IMO, stop when you find it hard to maintain a respectful and civil dialog, or if you just start repeating without progress.

<You're right - better to stay away. I would also agree with you that the discussions between Christians here does not show them in a good light.>

Yep. But then again, if the issues are important and interesting (and IMO they are), then it's sort of sad to refrain from discussing these things. It would be preferable for Christians to model kindness and respect even when having disagreements, but it seems like too much to ask. :-|

Jan-05-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <YouRang: I think that it's a bit more complicated in the realm of religion, however.>

I agree.

<Christian scripture says that we *should* keep heresy out of the church.>

The requisite action and attitude may well depend on how you define "church." Defining it narrowly as "the church I believe in and attend" explains why members of a Christian denomination might argue about the meaning of a specific scripture, or the role of scripture, or about church doctrine in general among themselves, but it doesn't explain why they would care how a different denomination might believe in those same things. If you define "church" more broadly, such as including all similar Christian denominations, then you necessarily expand the reason for debate among those similar denominations. It stretches the meaning of "church," however, to include those who are not Christians at all. It appears you agree with this in your paragraph #1.

<Christians forget that the line between heresy and non-heresy exists only among Christians.>

More accurately, the line between how Christians view heresy and non-heresy should exist only among Christians. As you point out and as discussed above, the Christian definition should only matter to Christians. Unfortunately, not all religions or denominations are willing to tolerate different beliefs.

<Christians forget that the foremost attributes that any Christian should have is love, faith, humility, peace, and forgiveness (the scriptural support for these things is overwhelming). And yet, it is evident that many Christians quickly dispense with these attributes when confronted with a disagreement.>

I agree, but I would not limit this to Christians. I think most people, regardless of whether they are Christian, would agree that love, faith, humility, peace, and forgiveness are qualities we should all strive for and practice in our lives. I also agree that Christians, just as all others, quickly dispense with these qualities when confronted. "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand." Neil Peart.

I recognize that you state as much in your qualifying paragraph immediately after your statement (<I don't think that we Christians are the only ones with these sorts of foibles, but we are supposed to do better IMO.>), but I don't agree that Christians should do better than everyone else. If one professes that the qualities we are describing are good attributes to live by, then the obligation to live by them is the same. For example, if an atheist grounds his morality by the principle that people should respect the freedoms and liberties of all others, then that moral imperative is just as strong as scripture, given that both are seen as imperatives to live by. To the extent that each fails to live by them is the extent to which they fail to abide by their moral imperative.

<But then again, if the issues are important and interesting (and IMO they are), then it's sort of sad to refrain from discussing these things. It would be preferable for Christians to model kindness and respect even when having disagreements, but it seems like too much to ask.>

I agree. Indeed, it's not "sort of sad," it is just plain sad, that we refrain from these discussions. It would be preferable for all people to model kindness and respect.

Let me add here that I recognize that the part I played in the AJ war would not conform to these ideals. Those actions, however, were not in the context of a discussion; rather, my goal was to force the site to take action to bring the entire problem under control, understanding that my actions might well include sanctions against me personally. It was a risk I was willing to take. This is certainly not the place to debate whether this was appropriate, but I do not want to appear to say one thing while past actions might well infer something different. I am, if nothing else, self aware.

Thank you for your comments. I recognize that the only way to join a conversation in another's forum here at the site is to butt in, and I appreciate your tolerance with my post.

Jan-06-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Robed.Bishop> I don't really disagree with anything you said, but some comments:

<Unfortunately, not all religions or denominations are willing to tolerate different beliefs.>

I think I differ from many of the other Christians on this site in that I think Christians should be *more* tolerant of the beliefs and behaviors of Non-Christians that we are for those of professing Christians.

Typically, a Non-Christian does not hold the Bible as authoritative or that the God it describes is real. The Christian can only hope to persuade a Non-Christian to think otherwise, which is why the Bible stresses the use of gentleness, patience, and love. However, people are seldom persuaded by Christians who come across as hostile, disrespectful, or hypocritical. In any case, one must always respect the right of another to make his/her own decisions regarding God.

On the other hand, I am less tolerant of a professing Christian who fails to act in accordance to Biblical principles. Being intolerant of wrongful teachings or behavior *within the church* is itself a Biblical principle.

<I recognize that you state as much in your qualifying paragraph immediately after your statement (<I don't think that we Christians are the only ones with these sorts of foibles, but we are supposed to do better IMO.>), but I don't agree that Christians should do better than everyone else. If one professes that the qualities we are describing are good attributes to live by, then the obligation to live by them is the same.>

I distinguished Christians as those who "should do better" intentionally.

When you profess to be a Christian, you by definition place yourself under the authority of the Bible and you are obliged to live by its principles, e.g. "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", "regard others as more important than yourself", etc. You are *supposed* to be distinct from the world around us ("they will know us by our love"). Failing to live by these principles makes us hypocrites.

Since Non-Christians do not acknowledge Biblical authority, they have more freedom to act however they want without hypocrisy.

<I recognize that the only way to join a conversation in another's forum here at the site is to butt in, and I appreciate your tolerance with my post.>

You (and anyone else willing to be civil) are welcome to post here. :-)

Jan-06-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <YouRang: I distinguished Christians as those who "should do better" intentionally.>

Yes, I understood that.

<When you profess to be a Christian, you by definition place yourself under the authority of the Bible and you are obliged to live by its principles, e.g. "love your enemies", "turn the other cheek", "regard others as more important than yourself", etc. You are *supposed* to be distinct from the world around us ("they will know us by our love"). Failing to live by these principles makes us hypocrites.>

I agree with this. It is the explicit or tacit agreement to act within the "code of conduct" that creates the obligation to do so.

<Since Non-Christians do not acknowledge Biblical authority, they have more freedom to act however they want without hypocrisy.>

I agree with this only to a certain extent. We can break down non-Christians into two categories: those who recognize a "code of conduct" and those who don't.

Some people, perhaps most, (and I am here referring only to non-Christians) have not given specific thought to what ultimate moral code they live by. If you were to ask them, however, if they should live according to the code of conduct at issue, <love, faith, humility, peace, and forgiveness>, I think most would agree that they should. Tacitly, then, they are admitting that they should have been living according to the code; after being asked and acknowledging the standard as the standard by which they should live, they have explicitly agreed. This creates almost the same obligation that Christians agree to, and failing to live up to the standard means they can be described as a hypocrite for failing to do so, just as it would be for a Christian. (I am purposely avoiding saying that failing to do so would always make them a hypocrite because no one is perfect and we all will fail to live up to the standard at some point. Also, there may be some circumstances under which we would agree that failing to act that way is appropriate.)

Further, I also qualified the obligation as almost the same, the difference being who one obligates themselves to. For a Christian, they obligate themselves to God; for a non-Christian, they obligate themselves to themselves, perhaps to society in general. In either event, a hypocrite is a hypocrite.

Finally, for those non-Christians who do not recognize a code of conduct, arguably none of this applies and I agree with you in that regard. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore the proposition that we all agree to live within certain guidelines when we agree to live in a society that has them. I am ignoring it because even such an agreement doesn't mean that they would agree to live within the code we've identified.

I understand your points regarding Christians having a "higher duty," but I think you're being too easy on non-Christians. I think most people would agree with you, however, at least as a knee-jerk reaction. "You're a Christian, you shouldn't be acting this way!" The response being, "You're a non-Christian, neither should you!" And I'm guessing more than nine out of ten times the response would be right.

You also raise the issue of tolerance, but I consider that another question entirely and I will forego any discussion regarding that unless you want to discuss it.

Again, thank you.

Jan-06-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Robed.Bishop> I suspect that we are speaking at cross purposes.

<<Since Non-Christians do not acknowledge Biblical authority, they have more freedom to act however they want without hypocrisy.>

I agree with this only to a certain extent. We can break down non-Christians into two categories: those who recognize a "code of conduct" and those who don't.>

~~~

You are discussing <*a* code of conduct, determined by individual choice> whereas I am discussing <*the* code of conduct prescribed the Bible>.

I would agree that practically everyone has developed *a* code of conduct. Even terrorists have a code of conduct (however perverse it may be). And yes, if someone claims to follow some code of conduct but fails to do so, he/she is exposed as a hypocrite.

I would even say that *most* Non-Christians give consent to *some* of the Biblical principles (e.g. love, peace, maybe forgiveness, maybe humility, faith?), but none would consent to *all*. I think that there are several Christian principles that would seem unnatural to non-Christians.

This is the point:

If a non-Christian is (say) unforgiving, I couldn't necessarily consider him to be a hypocrite, because forgiveness might not be in his/her code of conduct. But if a professing Christian is unforgiving, then even that unforgiving non-Christian can rightfully call him a hypocrite!

However, when you call yourself a Christian, you declare that you fully abide by *the* code of conduct that has been made public in the Bible. Furthermore, you do with intent to honor Christ as His representative (not just for the sake of your own reputation). This constitutes the "higher standard" that the Christian should be expected to uphold.

As we know, Christians often fail to uphold these principles. Sometimes non-Christians uphold them better! Thus the Christian testimony is open to justifiable ridicule.

<You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” - Rom 2:23-24>

~~~

<You also raise the issue of tolerance, but I consider that another question entirely and I will forego any discussion regarding that unless you want to discuss it.>

There has to be *some* border between Christians and non-Christians.

To non-Christians, that border is simply whether or not a person professes to be a Christian. I am the same way: If a man tells me he is a Muslim, I believe him. If he says he's not, I believe him.

However, to Christians, that border might not be so simple. We define some "vital" Christian doctrines that *must* be accepted. Thus, if someone professes to be a Christian but then denies a vital doctrine, I could count him as a non-Christian. Of course, there are disagreements about which doctrines are "vital", let alone which doctrines are correct.

Jan-06-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <YouRang> I don't think we are at cross purposes. I think we have fleshed this out, and though our differences are (were) minor, I still think (thought) they were worthwhile for discussion.

I agree with your distinction. The certainty you have with a Christian does make the obligation easier to distinguish, and the obligation between Christians and non-Christians may very well differ. Not that it must necessarily be different, but your distinction is well taken.

Jan-10-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: Hi <YouRang>!

3 days till Tata Steel - Saturday Jan. 14th 2017!!!

♘Tata Steel♘ Tata Steel Masters ♗Tata Steel♗

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdo...

This tournament will run from Jan. 14th thru Jan. 29th 2017. (13 Rounds)

Participants include Adhiban, Andreikin, Aronian, Carlsen, Eljanov, Giri, Harikrishna, Karjakin, Nepomniachtchi, Rapport, So, Van Wely, Wei & Wojtaszek.

Average rating: 2753 - Category: 21 (FIDE-ratings of December 2016)

*****
*****

<<> Tata Steel Chess 2017 <>>

http://www.tatasteelchess.com/

< 3 Prediction Contests: (Win virtual medals - Gold, Silver & Bronze) >

User: lostemperor - Predict the order the players will finish. Run & hosted by <lostemperor>. (3 categories to medal in)

User: Golden Executive - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1. Run & hosted by <Golden Executive>. (3 categories to medal in)

This year will be the 11th Anniversary for this contest! (from 2007 to 2017 - 11 years running)

User: OhioChessFan - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1 & the number of moves. (4 categories to medal in). This contest is run by <chessmoron> & hosted by <OhioChessFan>.

*****
*****

Also, don't forget about <chessgames> ChessBookie game for this event. He can't wait to take some or all of your chessbucks. ;)

ChessBookie Game

This is the Championship Leg for the ChessBookie game. Nice prizes given out to the top(10) finishers.

Don't miss out on the fun for this Super Event!!!

Feb-05-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: So I had to satisfy my curiosity on the G.S. Patton quote:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/0...

=))

Feb-06-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <WannaBe> I suppose that Patton's version might be a bit too intense for a family-friendly collection of chess quotes. ;-)
Mar-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Fusilli: Hey <YouRang>, I thought you'd enjoy this. I just played a 5-min game on ICC. I was white, and after 16.Ne5?! d4 17.exd4 Qxd4, I found myself in trouble:


click for larger view

It looks like white loses a piece. It turns out he can save it. As it happens, I saved the piece playing the wrong order of moves because my opponent saw the same order I saw, not realizing that he could have won.

Can you see how to save the piece? In the right move order?

Oh, and for good measure, white does not lose a pawn in the process (initially it appears he does.)

Cheers!

Mar-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: Hi <Fusilli>. That's an interesting conundrum you had there:


click for larger view

Well, I wasn't able to find a satisfying way to escape the black queen's 3-way fork on Bh4 and the two knights.

The immediate Bxh7+ to exchange queens is no good since I just lose the Bd3 for a pawn.

So, then I got to looking at 18.Bxf6 (exchanging one of the forked pieces and threatening Be7), but after 18...Bxf6 I still have two forked knights. I was hoping that somehow it would spring an effective attack via 19.Bxh7+ Kxh7 20.Qh5+, but it appears to fizzle since I can't get either N to contribute to the K attack. :-(

~~~~

So, I decided to plug it into the computer to find out what I was missing.

Sure enough, it sees an even game after <18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Nc6!>


click for larger view

I hadn't even given this a second look since I figured black wins the other N <19...Qxc3>, but then white springs <20.Rb3!>, effectively trapping the black queen. :-)

To escape unscathed, black needed to find <19...Bxc6 20.Ne2 Qe5 21.bxc6 Rac8>


click for larger view

Here, white plays 22.Qc2! (threaten Bxh7+ while setting up a Q+R battery) 22...g6 23.Bb5 Nd8 24.Rc1 and we exchange pawns on the c-file, with an even game.

A good puzzle, but a bit beyond me. I'd rate it as Saturday or Sunday worthy. :-)

Mar-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Fusilli: It was indeed an interesting conundrum!

I did not see Rb3, so I ended up playing 18.Nc6 first, and I thought I was being a genius since the move threatens the B on e7 (with check), black has to capture it 18...Bxc6 and now 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Ne2 and I saved the piece. Since black captured the resulting c6 pawn with the queen, the Q+B battery threatened the h7 and Be4 winning the exchange. He didn't see the latter and played g6, and I won the exchange and the game.

Now, alas, imagine my surprise when after the game I asked the computer and it found 19...Qxf6! and white is toasted, a piece under!

The tactical magic of blitz!

Mar-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Fusilli: I mean, in the actual game he responded 20.Nd2 with Qd5. There is no Bxh7+ winning the queen because his bishop on c6 is defending it. It followed 21.bxc6 Qxc6 22.Qc2 g6? 23.Be4.
Mar-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: I see. I didn't give 18.Nc6 much of a look because it could be captured with 18...Bxc6, and black queen still has the fork on Nc3 and Bh4.

I figured that exchanging bishops on f6 still left white with the choice of saving his N (thus failing to recapturing the Bc6) or capturing the Bc6 (thus losing the Nc3).

However (as you pointed out), this is true only if black recaptures on f6 with the queen. I don't think I noticed that detail myself when I glanced at Nc6, but I'm going to pretend that I would have noticed it if I had been playing. ;-)

This is the type of combination where it's easy for someone to lose track of the piece counting, and end up a piece down wondering how that happened, lol.

Mar-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Fusilli: I got the flu. Just played a 5-minute game and lost on time with my opponent still having 2 minutes, playing lethargically. Not a good idea.

I should be Netflix-binging, but I just feel miserable.

Mar-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Fusilli> You must be a chessaholic?

You've got the flu -- get some rest and recover! :-)

Apr-19-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: Hi YouRang,

2 days till Shamkir Chess - Gashimov Memorial 2017 - Friday Apr. 21st 2017!!!

♘Shamkir Chess♘Gashimov Memorial♗Shamkir Chess♗

This tournament will run from Apr. 21st thru Apr. 30th 2017. (9 Rounds)

Participants include Adams, Eljanov, Harikrishna, Karjakin, Kramnik, Mamedyarov, Radjabov, So, Topalov & Wojtaszek.

Average rating: 2761 - Category: 21 (FIDE-ratings as of April 18th. 2017)

*****
*****

<<> Gashimov Memorial 2017 <>>

http://shamkirchess.az/

< 2 Prediction Contests: (Win virtual medals - Gold, Silver & Bronze) >

*** User: lostemperor - Predict the order the players will finish. Run & hosted by <lostemperor>. (3 categories to medal in) ***

**User: Golden Executive - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1. Run & hosted by <Golden Executive>. (3 categories to medal in)

This year will be the 11th Anniversary for this contest! (from 2007 to 2017 - 11 years running)**

*User: OhioChessFan - Predict the result 1-0, 1/2, or 0-1 & the number of moves. (4 categories to medal in). This contest is run by <chessmoron> & hosted by <OhioChessFan>.*

***No confirmation from <lostemperor> that he will be running his contest***

Status - Unlikely

**<GoldenExecutive> has confirmed he will be running his contest**

Status - Definitely

*<chessmoron> has confirmed he will be running his contest*

Status - Definitely

*****
*****

Also, don't forget about <chessgames> ChessBookie game for this event. He can't wait to take some or all of your chessbucks. ;)

ChessBookie Game

Don't miss out on the fun for this Super Event!!!

**********
**********

Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 670)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 670 OF 670 ·  Later Kibitzing>

A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC