|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-13-12 | | Conrad93: Fischer got merely lucky in this game.
Very poor play from Larsen. |
|
| Sep-13-12 | | diceman: <Conrad93: Fischer got merely lucky in this game.> Fischer once <got merely lucky> aganst Larsen 6 times in a row. |
|
| Sep-13-12 | | diceman: <Conrad93: Both positions are theoretically drawn.> So was the position at move one. |
|
| Sep-14-12 | | Conrad93: The difference is that this is not move one. This is the middle game, where black clearly had a simple and effective move to equalize, but failed to play it. |
|
| Sep-14-12 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<Jim Bartle>
a little bit of context required!
<A 15-year-old kid defeats one of the world's top players, and all you can do is think to criticize him. Naturally his play got stronger as he became an adult, but this is plenty good. Not his fault if Larsen errs.> Larsen was "only" 23 at the time, and he received his GM title after his impressive results for Denmark at the 1956 Moscow OL. btw, as ppl have noticed <conrad> has a chess piece permanently rammed a certain place, so forgive that he whines and denigrates any and every famous figure in chess history! |
|
| Sep-14-12 | | Conrad93: I spotted that move in mere seconds. the fact that Larsen missed it is a joke. |
|
| Sep-14-12 | | twinlark: Conrad's a troll. Don't feed him. Alls he seems to do is diss top players. |
|
| Sep-14-12 | | Conrad93: No, I diss poor play. The fact is that I'm right. |
|
| Sep-14-12 | | twinlark: ...and demonstrate just how full of himself he is. I'll keep him in the Iggy bin for a while longer. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | RookFile: perfidious is right about the draws in the 6-0 match. I'm just saying that if Larsen makes them, and loses 5-1, he's got nothing to write home about. |
|
Sep-15-12
 | | perfidious: <Garech> In the second (Larsen vs Fischer, 1971) and Larsen vs Fischer, 1971) sixth games. |
|
Sep-15-12
| | perfidious: <Garech> Strike the second game, which of course had nothing to do with anything-it was the fifth game I'd meant to cite as the other example
(Fischer vs Larsen, 1971), where Larsen could have held by playing for opposite bishops, instead of going for the win of exchange. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: I'm not full of myself, if I'm correct.
That just means I'm 100% right.
In chess, regardless of what you think, if a certain combination gains the advantage, then that player is correct. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: You mean like that combination you completely messed up, with all those illegal moves? |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Jim Bartle the combination has no illegal moves.
What are you smoking? |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: Conrad, there was a game where you wrote ...Nd2, when the knight was on d5. That isn't illegal? |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: No it isn't. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: A knight can move from d5 to d2. Riiiight. (You already admitted the error. Why go on? Or are you just a complete clown?) |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Jim how about figuring it out for yourself?
I's a very simple solution. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: I can figure from now until doomsday, and I'll never figure out how to move a knight from d5 to d2. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Well, how about using logic?
How could the knight go to d2?
Could it be from d4? |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: Well, it was on d5, but let's say it was on d4. It STILL can't move to d2. What a joke. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Conrad93: Jim, yes it can.
Try again. |
|
Sep-15-12
 | | SteinitzLives: C'mon guys, this is silly, and this page can hardly be the place for such a pee pee dance-off. |
|
| Sep-15-12 | | Jim Bartle: You're right, Steinitz. Just check Movsesian vs Z Almasi, 2012 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 22.Rxh5