| Nov-18-04 | | Halfmatje: in the F.A.Q: Only GM games> a chessmaster who makes such of faults? |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | Catfriend: <Halfmatje> This happens.
Besides, if you did already visit the F.A.Q page, read it carefully!
it's not only GM games, only one of the players must be 2200+. Also, games of theoretical/cultural/historical importance are O.K. In addition, blitz games where one of the players is a GM are fine, and surely in a blitz worse things happen! Don't forget about the touch-move rule! |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | azaris: <Chessgames.com> could stop pretending and remove the 2200+ clause or replace it with a "or any games of interest" clause. Either that or start a mass deletion of Bloodgood/Bill Wall games. There are a lot of notable games by lesser known GMs and IMs missing and instead a lot of rubbish games from the past. Maybe they could appoint some kibitzers as "quality control agents" who'd have automatic ability to delete bad games and add games without having to go through the lengthy feedback cycle. |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | Catfriend: <azaris> Interesting idea, but how will they be chosen?
Perhaps they're going to be kibitzers whose games can appear in the db anyway, thus cancelling the mass-game-uploading danger. |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | azaris: <Catfriend> There are certainly enough reasonable and levelheaded kibitzers, maybe some of them can volunteer. I wasn't thinking of mass uploads from Megabase but rather adding individual games of interest and moderating the upload queue. I've often found myself wanting to make a note about some game when I find it's not in the database, upload it and then forget about it in the three weeks that it takes to appear. |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | Catfriend: <azaris> One of the reasons for limiting the uploads was to block games played by <chessgames.com> visitors from being uploaded, which, I think, is a positive idea. Of course, choosing <reasonable and levelheaded kibitzers> solves all these problems, but it also creates a negative atmosphere, as some of those not chosen might feel bad about it.
On the whole, I agree with the idea, it really can be beneficial. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | Autoreparaturwerkbau: Ouch ... Marshall's trap at it's best! |
|
| Mar-03-07 | | Rubenus: I thought it was called Lasker's trap. I don't know why. |
|
Mar-03-07
 | | TheAlchemist: <Rubenus> I too think it's called Lasker' trap. There is a Marshall's trap somewhere in the Petroff, I think |
|
| Dec-18-10 | | Infohunter: <TheAlchemist: There is a Marshall's trap somewhere in the Petroff, I think.> Right. Marshall's Trap arises from e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O O-O 8.c4 Bg4 9.cxd5 f5 and now White, instead of the correct 10.Nc3, plays 10.Re1?, to which Black responds with 10...Bxh2+! Play continues 11.Kxh2 Nxf2 12.Qe2 Nxd3 13.Qxc3 Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Qh4+ and Black wins a Rook. |
|
| Mar-30-20 | | sea7kenp: I see an interesting continuation, if 7 Ke2: 7 ... fxg8=N+! Then, if 8 Rxg8, Bg5+ and White drops his Queen. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 5...dxe3