|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-09-13 | | Conrad93: I will never accept that I am wrong. It's not in my nature. |
|
| Nov-09-13 | | Jim Bartle: <Conrad93> "I will never accept that I am wrong. It's not in my nature." You won't get far in life with that attitude. |
|
| Nov-09-13 | | Wyatt Gwyon: <Conrad> That's 'cause you're a tard. |
|
| Nov-10-13 | | Conrad93: No. it's because such admission is bad for the mind. |
|
| Nov-10-13 | | Conrad93: Anyways, you guys are a bunch of weaklings anyway. |
|
| Jul-05-15 | | SpiritedReposte: Actually admitting you are wrong and learning from your mistakes is quite good for your mind...otherwise you're just in denial. Denial is definitely not good. |
|
Jul-05-15
 | | perfidious: The great opponents in this game would never have reached such heights as they did without learning from their own errors. That attribute, combined with hard work, the toughest competition and talent, took both a long way. |
|
| Jul-05-15 | | SpiritedReposte: Or you can think of yourself as infallible, not know the basic rules of chess, and be a 2200 player lol. |
|
Jul-05-15
| | perfidious: Ah am infallible, don't know nuthin and Ah am still a 2200 playah! |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | JimNorCal: Wasnt there a Soviet GM (multiple?) who didn't know the details of castling? Specifically that a rook can traverse a square covered by an enemy piece? |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | Retireborn: <JimNorCal> Averbakh v Purdy(?) and Korchnoi v Karpov 1974; both White players unsure about legality of castling when the rook is attacked or crosses an attacked square. Korchnoi wrote about this in his book; not sure if the Averbakh story has been verified. |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | SpiritedReposte: I think Korchnoi may have been one. Maybe in the book <Karpov on Karpov> if my memory serves me (don't bet on it). Which is quite amazing if true. My first thought was there was 0% chance Conrad was 2200+ now that <Jim> brings that up there could be a good 1% chance! |
|
| Jul-06-15 | | Wyatt Gwyon: Korchnoi did that to troll Karpov. Conrad is a patzer. |
|
Jul-06-15
 | | Sally Simpson: Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974
click for larger viewHere Korchnoi (White) was unsure whether or not he as White could or could not castle Kingside. At a visit to the London Chess & Bridge Center someone asked Korchnoi if this was true - his reply. "Korchnoi confirmed he did ask the question at that point, explaining that
the Russian chess rules left the situation a little ambiguous, and it was the
first time the situation had occurred in his games. " I just tried the link I had confirming that but it no longer works. I'll see if I can find another source. ---
Averbakh vs Purdy, 1960 Here
click for larger viewPurdy played 14...0-0-0 and Averbach objected.
You can get more details from Purdy from the above link. Maybe Averbach fell foul of these unclear rules the Korchnoi mentions. |
|
| Nov-17-15 | | SpiritedReposte: It's just amusing, the last time I was unsure about castling rules I was probably <1400. And here are these 2500+ gms who play for a living who are still not grasping it. |
|
| Nov-17-15 | | NeverAgain: @Sally: don't bother with a link.
It was not the first time Korchnoi encountered such a castling situation in his games (see Chess Notes #9550
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...)
So I highly doubt he went up to the arbiter because he was not sure about the rules. WyattGwyon is right, methinks. |
|
| Nov-19-15 | | SpiritedReposte: Makes more sense than GMs not knowing the rules, but why?? If my opponent objected to a legal castling move I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be mad lol. Some weird head games going on or what? |
|
| Nov-20-15 | | NeverAgain: Yes, that was a tense match psychologically, a forerunner of the scandalous Baguio match. You can read about the psychological warfare in Korchnoi's "Chess Is My Life", chapter "Final Test" (pp.103-113). |
|
| Jan-06-18 | | circleVIII: 36. Ng6? made me sad. Lines with 36. Qxa7 are so much more delectable. |
|
| Jan-07-19 | | BickeDag: I played the same first 8 moves today, but used 9. Bg5 instead of 9. Ne2. He responded with 9... Rg6 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Qe3 cxd4 12. Bb5+ Bd7 13. Bxd7 Nxd7 14. Qxe4 dxc3 15. Qxb7 Rb8. I ended up with decent drawing chances but made a massive blunder about 20 moves later and lost the game. It's at least interesting to know that I played just like Alekhine in his world championship match for the whole opening without studying Winawer much at all. |
|
| May-25-20 | | joddon: Alekhine would destroy him, there must have been some cheating going on on Euwes behalf...……………….not a question of doubt in its littlest uncertainty of my mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Mar-07-21 | | Margetic D: <joddon> , 1935-1936 Alekhine had the worst phase - he was permanently alcoholized, there are many references about his problem, particulary in 1935, 1936 and at the end of the second world war. Despite of being under alcohol, he played in this match some notable games. In 1937 he demonstrated (after successful anti-alcoholic treatment) again his real strength.Euwe was heavily defeated and congratulated Alekhine. Thanks, anyway, for your coment. I also love Alekhines play style and i m very sorry he suffered so much from life (1st world war, 2nd world war, deaths in his family......). But as Fischer and Kasparov wrote no one played ever with such strenght even in extremly complicated positions. I leaved this statements in Alekhines last official game against Lupi 1946, in Estoril, as well as some rare youtube Videos which show Alekhine. |
|
| Sep-24-21 | | Tacotopia: I've been carefully analyzing all the games of this match and this beautiful bishop maneuver starting on move 17 by Alekhine in Game 3 is one of the most memorable moments from all the games. I absolutely love it! |
|
| Sep-24-21 | | Tacotopia: <Margetic D> Concerning the excuse that Alekhine's drunkenness is responsible for his mistakes in this match, look at Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors" on Game 12, commenting on 8...b5!? (on the supposed dubious nature of Black's last two moves of that game): "For a long time question marks were attached to Black's seventh and eighth moves. In his novel [White and Black] GM Kotov uses his artistic license to suggest that Alekhine was drunk when he played the game, and after writing 8...c6 on his scoresheet he suddenly picked up the b7-pawn. 'How terrible!' writes Kotov. 'It was just like with Pushkin: instead of the ace, the queen of spades. A crude oversight, he simply picked up the wrong pawn, he got confused... And now the c7-pawn remains undefended, it is lost without any compensation. To pick up the wrong piece! This was delirium!...Alekhine's drunkenness immediately left him, when he saw what a mistake he had made. It was not just that he lost a pawn; Black's position immediately became hopeless.' This is how legends are born! In fact, according to the main eye-witness — Euwe, 'Alekhine did not drink at all during the first half of the match.' and besides, 8...b5!? is by no means a blunder, but a genuine revelation: in the 1970s this fully correct pawn sacrifice received the name of the 'Hungarian Variation'. Intuitively, Alekhine was right!" Also Kasparov on a notable blunder Alekhine makes later in the match (Game 24, 32...c5??): "One of the key moments of the match: Alekhine throws away a 100% win! The dreadful thing is that on that evening he was completely sober and had plenty of time on the clock." Alekhine was expected to easily win this match against Euwe, and people worried that Euwe was going to be embarrassed in his home country by Alekhine. But Euwe simply outplayed Alekhine with good chess. Alekhine blew his early three point lead while completely sober. |
|
| Sep-24-21 | | aliejin: Alekhine himself said it in
simple words....
"I lost because I underestimated my opponent
whom I thought defeated, after the first
games " |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 37.Qxf4