|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-26-11 | | rilkefan: I don't get it - this seems like a pretty standard game in this line, if unusually calm. |
|
Jun-26-11
 | | al wazir: 47...Rh7. Now what? After 48. Rf6 Re7 49. Nxe6? Bxe6 50. h7+ Rxh7 51. Rxe6 Rg7+ Re7 52. Kf5 Rf7+ 53. Ke4 Rc7, I'm not sure who has the advantage. If 54. Rf6 Kg7 55. Kf5 Rf7, I think it's black's game. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | rilkefan: Here's the Ivanchuk game in this line that jumps to mind: Ivanchuk vs Shirov, 1996 |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | rilkefan: After 47...Rh7, my first thought was
48.Rf8+ Kxf8 49.Kxh7 b4 50.Kg6 Kg8 51.Ne4 b3 52.Ng5 c3 53.h7+ Kh8 54.Nf7. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | ColeTrane: Cornered. Core Nerd. Co-ed nerd. Corn Heard. Buggered in the corner. Stuck-up up-Chuck. What?!? |
|
Jun-26-11
| | al wazir: <rilkefan>: It's still not quite ice cold, because of, e.g., 49...Kg8 50. Ne4 Bd7 51. Ng5+ Kf8 52. Kg6 Be8+ 53. Kf6 Kg8. I would have played on a few more moves. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | Oceanlake: Don't Fence Me In.... |
|
Jun-26-11
| | al wazir: Never mind. After 47...Rh7 48. Rd1 Rf7 49. Rd8+ Rf8, 50. h7+ is a killer. |
|
Jun-26-11
 | | Once: No fireworks, but a very workmanlike game from Ivanchuk. Neutralise the queen's bishop and push the unopposed h pawn. And if you are sitting opposite it, there is not a darned thing you can do about it. Like <al wazir> I wondered if 47...Rh7 allowed black a tiny amount of wriggle room and reason for black to play on. But it's just a dead cat bounce. 48. Rd1 or even the uneccessarily flashy 48. Rf8+ bring home the win for white. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | ColeTrane: Once --- "womanlike" ???
check out the polgar sisters . . . |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | Infohunter: <ColeTrane: Once --- "womanlike" ??? check out the polgar sisters . . .>
You misread that post: The word was "workmanlike", i.e., showing fine craftsmanship. |
|
Jun-26-11
| | Once: I think I prefer "womanlike"! Wish I'd written it instead. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | goodevans: <harshs: And black was practically down a piece for a while, given the bishop's position.> Yes, it's so bad you'd have thought it was worth giving up a pawn or two just to activate it. Maybe something like 28 ... e5 would have given black a bit of freedom. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | erniecohen: The bad bishop wasn't necessarily fatal, but going after the d4 pawn certainly was. Black might have survived by keeping two rooks to blockade the kingside. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | bengalcat47: This reminds me of the classic Pillsbury Bind position in the famous game Pillsbury-Tarrasch, Vienna 1898.
Pillsbury would have been very proud of this game! |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | Eduardo Leon: <Once>, as in "womanlike, in the good sense of the word"? |
|
Jun-26-11
| | Once: <Eduardo Leon> Now there's a funny thing. When I first saw it I thought "womanlike" was one of those accidental coinages which seems to take on a fresh new meaning. Ever played that game where you take two random words and stick them together to see if they make something interesting? Something like that. But I've just googled it, and it turns out that womanlike is really a word. Has a rather different sense than the related "womanly", don't you think? |
|
Jun-26-11
 | | scormus: Excellent game by Ivanchuk, puts the B LSB in prison, locks the door and throws away the key. <Erniecohen> Yes! ca. move 24 B almost owned the h-file, and in the end the W h-pawn killed him. Between move 29 and 41 BR visited d8 4 times and h8 5 times. And no other piece or pawn was moved. <Once, 2 random words> Yes, interesting how they can come together. Here is one I made up more than 30 years ago, Blogworthy. Easy today to figure out what it could mean today. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | Marmot PFL: Now I see why black usually plays c5 around move 12-14. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | WhiteRook48: material means nothing when you have less mobility. Ivanchuk proves that in this game. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | freakclub: This is probably why Gelfand said that "Ivanchuk in form plays better than Carlsen." |
|
| Jun-27-11 | | Eduardo Leon: <Once>: I don't know. Since I am not a native English speaker and have never needed to achieve native-like proficiency, I have never bothered to take the time to understand such subtleties [the difference between "womanly" and "womanlike"]. I just meant to be sexist in a very simple, unrefined, actually rather vulgar way. Sorry if this disappoints you. |
|
| Jun-27-11 | | Eduardo Leon: <Once: 2 random words [woman, like]>, <scormus: blogworthy>: Forming compound words by "chaining" simpler ones just feels natural in English and German. I do not know other Germanic languages, so I cannot say whether they also have this "word chaining" feature, but it would not be a surprise to me if they did. As a rule of thumb, the grammatical category of the compound word is that of the last word to be "chained": A) woman(n) + like(adj) [similar] = womanlike(adj) [feminine; lit. similar to a woman] B) blog(n) + worthy(adj) = blogworthy(adj) [worthy of being published in a blog] C) over(adv) + see(v) = oversee(v) [supervise]
D) unter(adv) [under] + nehmen(v,inf) [to take] = Unternehmen [enterprise, lit. undertaking] * E) Lebens(n,gen) [of life] + unwertes(adj) [unworthy] = Lebensunwertes(adj) [unworthy of life] * German allows infinitives to be treated as nouns in the same way "-ing" verb forms can be treated as nouns; e.g., rechnen [to compute] and Rechnen [calculation, lit. computing]. This "word chaining" thing is very Germanic in its essence, and, thus, its presence in common English usage does not come off as a surprise. It just feels natural, even for someone whose native language is not Germanic, like me. |
|
Jun-27-11
| | Once: <Eduardo> What interests me is how language evolves. These chained words can be created (a coinage) in order to describe something new or just to create a new word - as in "internet" or "television". Using compound latin and greek stems to form a modern word. Or they can fall out of common usage - as in "womanlike". Thanks to yesterday's accidental discovery, I now know that this words dates back to the 15th century. But we don't use it much anymore. "womanly" - yes. "Childlike" - yes. But "womanlike"? I've never heard it used or seen it written. And then you wonder why it fell out of common use. Or maybe not, as I'm struggling to think of a situation where I would use it today without being accused of sexism. Even the more common "womanly" is a minefield these days. Some years ago the then British deputy prime minister was involved in a fracas at a music awards ceremony. Someone squirted him with water and he retaliated angrily. And when he was asked why he got so angry, he said he was defending the "womenfolk" at his table. This then provoked a debate about his use of an old-fashioned word. Some said that it showed that he was behind the times. Some said that it was belittling to the women at his table. Some said that he was being chivalrous and applauded him. Massively off topic, for which apologies. |
|
Jun-27-11
 | | kevin86: Chuk Wagon-it makes me hungry for some good chess-lol |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
