< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jun-15-13|| ||Abdel Irada: <badbishops: Greed...usually good>|
Thank you, Ivan Boesky.
|Jun-15-13|| ||PaulBl: Simply great. One wonders: what was Quinteros thinking during the game?|
|Jun-15-13|| ||Abdel Irada: Thinking?
|Jun-15-13|| ||gars: Why did Quinteros make some moves that even I, a confirmed rabbit, would not make? And <perfidious>, please explain your remark to us all, thank you.|
|Jun-15-13|| ||Abdel Irada: <perfidious: Do you suppose Quinteros had a chance to get to the nearest pay phone before getting wiped out?|
Most will find this question odd, unless you've read Soltis' book, 'Confessions of a Grandmaster', lol.>
I haven't, so please explain.
|Jun-15-13|| ||Jarman: When my opponent plays something like 5. ...Qg4, I usually get the impression that he doesn't feel like going the distance on the day, and he couldn't care less about the result. Maybe Quinteros was even happy to be done with it quickly.|
|Jun-15-13|| ||chesssalamander: Wow. Quinteros really gets clobbered quickly here. There is a Variation of the Sicilian named after him, which involves a very early queen move. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Qc7|
|Jun-15-13|| ||kevin86: Mate to come soon...and it's gory!|
|Jun-15-13|| ||hedgeh0g: I think it's generally accepted now that 5.Qg4?! is dubious. There is no shortage of miniatures in the Canal.|
|Jun-15-13|| ||hedgeh0g: You would be hard-pressed to find a 1700 player who would dare venture into this variation these days.|
|Jun-15-13|| ||perfidious: On Soltis:
He defeated Quinteros in a game which he annotated in the above-named book (believe it was Soltis vs Quinteros, 1975).
Soltis' quote from the one kibitz to that game is telling. In the annotations, Soltis mentions that he won another game against Quinteros, this at Lone Pine, where the latter spent all his time on the pay phone during the game-believe Soltis made a comment to the effect that Quinteros could never take him seriously as an opponent.
Please forgive any errors of recollection, as I have not seen my copy of <Confessions> since that kibitz of eight years ago.
|Jun-15-13|| ||lemaire90: Develop the knights before the bishops ! The end position of this games gives this opening tip all of its meaning.|
|Jun-15-13|| ||RookFile: <Simply great. One wonders: what was Quinteros thinking during the game?>|
There's a line of the Latvian that goes 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5.
click for larger view
Black gambles that white doesn't know what to do.
In the same way, I think that Quinteros was gambling with this opening.
|Jun-15-13|| ||perfidious: <hedgeh0g: You would be hard-pressed to find a 1700 player who would dare venture into this variation these days.>|
When I was 1700, I played the Najdorf and had at least one game in which I played 5.....e5.
Today, I'd never enter the line at all if I played a Sicilian-3....Nd7 leads to more of a fighting game, though objectively it is no stronger than 3....Bd7. Why give White the type of dry, technical position he probably seeks when going in for 3.Bb5+?
|Jun-17-13|| ||hedgeh0g: It's just a testament to how much defensive ability/technique has improved over the years; combined with a database-assisted knowledge of opening theory, even class B players are wary of accepting known gambits.|
Of course, it's still possible to win miniatures against competent club-level players - one just needs to play something offbeat like 1.b3 or 1...b6* and throw the opening book out of the window.
*It's pretty incredible how ill-prepared many players are to face this move (after 1.e4).
|Feb-25-17|| ||Sargon: Does anybody have an opinion on the <Editor Notes>? Is there an inversion on moves 11 & 12 for White?|
|Feb-25-17|| ||sneaky pete: <Sargon> Both the official tournament book, published by the Organisation Committee in February 1974, and Wim Andriessen in Schaakbulletin 75/76, February/March 1974, give 11.Bf4 Qd7 12.Nab5 .. etc as we have it here.|
|Feb-25-17|| ||Fusilli: Instructive game to show what can happen when you ignore the basic rules of the opening stage of the game. Massacre.|
|Apr-07-17|| ||plang: Browne after 9..Qxc4?:
"I couldn't believe my eyes."
|Sep-16-18|| ||kungfufighter888: haha the black queen was so comical in the end retired at c8|
|Sep-16-18|| ||HeMateMe: Browne read Pandolfini's book "Traps and Zaps in the Openings."|
I like the note from Lone Pine given by Jeremy Silman at one of the Lone Pines. He was all excited about playing the legendary Vasily Smyslov. When Silman sat down at the board Smyslov remained standing, for the entire game. He was demonstrating to his youthful American opponent that this was nothing more than a simul exercise, that Silman didn't belong. I suppose that's true, but still seems a bit rude. Silman lost the game, of course. He was but an IM.
|Sep-16-18|| ||offramp: If play had continued |
18...Kf6 19. Qf3+ Kxe5 20. Re1#
click for larger view
...that is called a <Mirror Mate>. All 8 squares around the king are unoccupied
I was half hoping that Quinteros would get away with his crazy pawn-snatching, the same as one roots for the baddies in <The Italian Job>.
|Sep-16-18|| ||cunctatorg: Quite obviously GM Quinteros made an experiment and he paid it with just one point... He was in experimentation and adventurous mood, that's all! |
Regarding the Silman-Smyslov incident (described above by <HeMateMe>) I want to say that Vassily Smyslov, being of course a very-very great chessplayer, he was a little bit... Well, he had most probably some complexes... Read Korchnoi's relevant question also in the last edition of his book "Chess is my Life"...
|Sep-16-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Silman says Smyslov 'hardly sat down' indicating he did sit for a few moves.|
Silman vs Smyslov, 1976 (kibitz #1)
I like Silman's quote when he found out this game v Smyslov was published around the world.
"Lovely! I was now immortalized as a human punching bag!"
(welcome to my world.)
|Sep-16-18|| ||HeMateMe: I think I read Silman's version of things when I was looking at his website, where he reviews chess books. He was reviewing a book of Smyslov's games, saying that the games themselves were terrific but that the notes weren't great, it was just an average chess book. He then goes on to say that his negative opinion isn't because of the treatment he received at Lone Pine, and describes it (Smyslov treating him like a simul opponent).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·