< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Apr-23-13|| ||Petrosianic: Don't apologize, Paul. I didn't expect you to read the posts. I'm surprised you even got part of one.|
|Apr-23-13|| ||AylerKupp: <morfishine> Well, maybe this post belongs in the Jeremy Lin page but, being from Los Angeles, I have to bring up the Lakers' 33-game winning streak in 1971-1972. Surely nobody can suggest that it was not done against anything but the highest level of competition.|
Similarly, UCLA's 88 game winning streak in basketball in 1971-1974 bears mention. Maybe not always against top level competition but it did involve victories against quite a few good teams.
Ahhhh, 1971 was certainly a good year in Los Angeles. Not only did the top 2 basketball teams in town start winning streaks but I got married. And, after more than 41 years, that's still going strong. Now <that>'s a winning streak! :-)
|Apr-23-13|| ||PaulLovric: <Petrosianic,Don't apologize, Paul. I didn't expect you to read the posts. I'm surprised you even got part of one.> please refrain from talking to me from now on, because i come in peace and say very little: so when an obviously, jaded moron's narrow-minded opinions are exposed our conversations end ! do you need me to spell it out?|
|Apr-24-13|| ||Lutwidge: I just wanted to chime in with the (possibly minority) viewpoint that both Petrosianic and Paul might well be very knowledgeable people getting bogged down in an argument over what will soon appear even to them as meaningless minutiae.|
Oh, and go Golden State Warriors.
|Apr-24-13|| ||perfidious: <Petrosianic: ....As far as I know, winning a zonal was an automatic IM title.>|
Don't know whether or not that was so, but scoring two-thirds of the possible points in a zonal was good for the title, the way most players from the Canadian, Asian and African zones got theirs, through the 1980s.
|Apr-24-13|| ||Petrosianic: I believe that it was, just as Qualifying from an Interzonal was an automatic GM. |
I think you're also right about the 2/3 part. Anyway, I'm willing to concede that Naranja was an IM in 1970.
|Apr-30-13|| ||Petrosianic: <Agent Bouncy>: <Petrosianic, read your own post. "...>|
Several days late and several dollars short. I conceded several days ago that Naranja was an IM in 1970. You must have misunderstood the post. You're also not one of the people who proved the point, so who are you fooling here?
Even when you're right, you manage to embarrass yourself! In the words of Harry: lol.
|Apr-30-13|| ||Agent Bouncy: I'm right, you say, but nevertheless you still feel the need to insult me again a week later? Petrosianic, this must have been a traumatic experience for you if it's still on your mind.|
|Apr-30-13|| ||Petrosianic: It's perfectly simple. It's true that Naranja was an IM in 1970. But you didn't prove that, perfidious did. You're taking credit for his work.|
Also, you failed to observe that I admitted he was right about that, and still posted days later that I wouldn't admit something I admitted a few posts up. So you were definitely wrong there too.
So, you see, even when you manage to guess right about one thing, you find a way to be wrong about two others. Clearer now?
|Apr-30-13|| ||Agent Bouncy: Days later? Prior to today, all of my posts were Apr 22 and 23. For anyone who is reading this exchange between Petrosianic and myself, it's a simple matter, if you are interested, to read the posts beginning with FSR's post of Apr 22, which sets the context, about Fischer's phenomenal record on the black side of the Symmetrical English. Make up your own minds whether Petrosianic's condescension and insults are justified.|
|Apr-30-13|| ||Petrosianic: Well, I'm sorry you can't understand. I know it's embarrassing for you, but the fact remains that it was perfidious, and even FSR who made a case. Stop trying to ride their coattails.|
I'm not insulting you, just pointing out a cold, hard fact. It's you who's being insulting and even comically foolish, trying to argue a point that's already been settled. I didn't ASK you to embarrass yourself, it was all your own idea.
|Jan-25-14|| ||jerseybob: Smyslov had this weird little tic of playing b3,Bb2 & Na4, swapping off the fianchettoed bishop at great cost in time. It never seemed to work out well, and was odd for a player who was normally so logical in the openings.|
|Jan-26-14|| ||SChesshevsky: <jerseybob: Smyslov had this weird little tic of playing b3,Bb2 & Na4, swapping off the fianchettoed bishop at great cost in time.>|
He always had his eye on control of d4 in English setups. Maybe with good reason, there's often a hole there and if White's QB gets exchanged off while Black still holds the KB especially on the diagonal White can get into a tough bind. Though as you suggest the Na4 maneuver might not be the best way to handle it.
Coincidently, in a recent skittles game, I got careless and Black planted an almost invulnerable B on d4 and it was very unpleasant.
|Feb-09-14|| ||PJs Studio: As to the wonderful ending here where Bishop bests knight.|
White could've EASILY set up a fortress after move 40. with h4 and Kh2. Black's king would have no access to infiltrate the white camp while the white king covers squares a4 and d3 from the Bishop. ((45...Nf3 46.Bh5 wins the a4 pawn. So that wont work at all.)) Smyslov found a strong active knight was his best chance and it almost held. Instructive ending!
|Oct-17-14|| ||Owl: I dont see where Tal can mate or win. I went through all of y'alls analysis and couldnt find. Tal can draw but that is the most I got out of it. No clear win for Tal.|
If there was clear win for Tal it would been one of his greatest games (If not his greatest game) and in all his collections on chessgames with a title.
|Oct-17-14|| ||Mendrys: <Owl>Do you mean from the final position?|
click for larger view
If so then a likely outcome would be 73. Ng4+ Kf3 74. Nxf2 Kxf2 75. Kxa2 Ke3 76. Kb1 Kxd3 77. Kc1 Ke2
click for larger view
And the pawn can't be stopped.
|Oct-18-14|| ||perfidious: <Owl: If there was clear win for Tal it would been one of his greatest games (If not his greatest game)....>|
In Cafferty's work, covering the grand maître's career through 1973, Tal himself is mentioned having noted that he considered this one of the finest games he had played.
|Oct-18-14|| ||Owl: No starting with the queen sac
24 ... Qe7-e2!!
|Oct-18-14|| ||1d410: I think Smyslov giving the queen back was a clear sign of panic. Otherwise I agree that it is a draw, but I don't have a computer.|
|Oct-19-14|| ||Owl: 24...Qe7-e2 25.RxQ RxR 26.Qc1 Rg2+ 27.Kf1 Rxh2 28.Ne1 Bd5|
There's probably a win here for Tal but its just not clear but the win is based on the threat of perpetual checks not a clear win!!
|Oct-30-14|| ||hoodrobin: <Owl: No clear win for Tal.> That's why this game is so beautiful. It's a living game.|
|Oct-30-14|| ||hoodrobin: According to Kasparov (My Great Predecessors) it should be:|
<26.Qc1 Rg2+ 27.Kf1 Rxh2 28.Ne1 Bd5 29.Rb2 Rh1+ 30.Kf2 Nxf5! 31.g4 Ne3 32.Kg3 Re8 33.f5 h5 >.
|Oct-30-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
Game Collection: Tal at the USSR Clubs Team Championship 1964
|Nov-09-14|| ||perfidious: <Owl: 24...Qe7-e2 25.RxQ RxR 26.Qc1 Rg2+ 27.Kf1 Rxh2 28.Ne1 Bd5|
There's probably a win here for Tal but its just not clear but the win is based on the threat of perpetual checks not a clear win!>
Cafferty's annotations follow the line cited by <hoodrobin> from Kasparov through 30.Kf2, though Cafferty deviates with 30....Re8.
|Jul-19-18|| ||saffuna: Tal was upset he'd been left off the Olympiad team, and was "burning with a desire to 'gain revenge.'"|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·