|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-23-06 | | TheSlid: Thanks, <mormonchess>, that would confirm the impression we get here from the BBC. |
|
Mar-23-06
 | | offramp: I think white still had some chances before 59.Qd6. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: I'm not surprised that Galliamova lost this game. Just check her games with the white pieces in the reportoire explorer. - She's more specialized in 1.d4 openings. Why she's playing 1.e4 in the final is beyond me. - Against the French she only played 2 games, both of which were a draw. - In both of these earlier games she played 3.exd5 (French, exchange variation), so this is her first game in the database with the French main line. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | gulliver: < EmperorAtahualpa > <In both of these earlier games she played 3.exd5 (French, exchange variation), so this is her first game in the database with the French main line.> mmm.. Interesting .
Thanks for the input. Also I am going to check those two exchange variation games ( I used to play it long ago when I was young and sharp :) ) |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: Thanks <chessgames.com> for your coverage of this game! |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Joao Quinta Godinhos: 23.g4 didn't look like a good move.
|
|
Mar-23-06
| | offramp: <Joao Quinta Godinhos: 23.g4 didn't look like a good move.> I think that was a bad move as well. Galliamova had no advantage out of the opening, but she still wanted to play for a win, just because she had the white pieces. What else could she play to keep the game going? |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | euripides: 28 a4 looks worth considering; perhaps also 33 gxh5. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Ezzy: <EmperorAtahualpa: I'm not surprised that Galliamova lost this game. Just check her games with the white pieces in the reportoire explorer.
- She's more specialized in 1.d4 openings. Why she's playing 1.e4 in the final is beyond me.> Sorry, but I really do have to laugh. Playing 1 e4 instead of 1 d4 does not lose you a chess game. :-) There were 64 moves played in this game. It would be just a little more believable if you gave a different move that you think lost Galliamova this game. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | euripides: A Galliamova-Ivanchuk vs P Cramling, 2003 illuminates Galliamova's intentions here. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | gulliver: < Ezzy > What EmperorAtahualpa was saying was quite clear: Her ( Galliamova) expertise is in the 1. d4 domain. Playing 1. e4 had put her out of her best abilities and potential. You can argue with the Emperor's line of thinking, but you cannot undermine the sense in his words. I noticed that some people in cg.com's forums, take joy in finding weaknesses in other's members arguements, without respecting the total idea of their message. If you find joy in the degradation of others, you can continue laughing but I do not find it funny at all |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | gulliver: < Ezzzy> One more point: The opening moves and the 1st move included, in the above game and in any chess game, has a unchangeable influence on the rest of the game. That is true not only for the moves played actually on the board but also psychological affect that the opening positions have on the players. I can only guess that Gallimova was surprised and not ready for a french set up, and that therefore that the first moves of the game had a direct affect on the final score. I agree with you that no one loses just by playing e4 ( that is the best move according to Fischer) but that was not the Emperor's arguement and neither mine. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Veryrusty: <offramp: <Joao Quinta Godinhos: 23.g4 didn't look like a good move.> I think that was a bad move as well.>
I'm with both of you -- that looked like 'the losing move' (although many more moves were made before the position could be said to be lost) in the sense that until that move things were equal, and afterwards Galliamova had to defend a very weak Kingside. From my lofty (yeah, right) perch, I think she underestimated how weakening the pawn chain with Queens on the board -- in other words, she was applying endgame thinking to a tactical middlegame. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | gulliver: < euripides: A Galliamova-Ivanchuk vs P Cramling, 2003 illuminates Galliamova's intentions here > Thanks Euripides. I watched the game and left a kibitz there. Also I suddenly realized that Gallaimova chose 1. e4 , maybe because open games deriving from e4 openings have a greater chance in ending in a decisive result. Unfortunately she took the loser's side in the 1st game. this system setting of a 2 game match forces the player taking the white pieces to play for a win at all cost almost. She definitely payed the price of the system. Also Xue deserves credit for being so well prepared |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Ezzy: <gulliver: If you find joy in the degradation of others, you can continue laughing but I do not find it funny at all> Chill out man, I am not degrading anyone.
<EmperorAtahualpa> is a cool guy, but I find it funny that the emphasis for Galliamova losing the game was because she played 1 e4 instead of 1 d4. Galliamova played a fine game in the opening and middle game, and reached a Q+p endgane in an equal position. Now you can argue with me until the cows come home, but playing 1 e4 or 1 d4 had no involvement of why Galliamova lost this game. <gulliver - I agree with you that no one loses just by playing e4 ( that is the best move according to Fischer) but that was not the Emperor's arguement and neither mine.> So what is the real reason for Galliamova losing this game? |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | mormonchess: Galliamova lost the game because she made a wrong move in the endgame. It has nothing to do with whether or not she played 1 e4 or 1 d4. So I agree with Ezzy on this. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Ezzy: <mormonchess> Thank you for your sensible reply. |
|
Mar-23-06
 | | oao2102: what about 44 Qd3 instead of the text move? |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | Ezzy: From the official website.
<At the press conference Xu Yuhua said that her opening wasn't that successful for she failed to find the best variant during her home preparation. In the middle game the situation improved. She took benefit of her opponents' fouls, got an advantage and finally won.> <The semi finalist Viktoria Cmilyte followed the game and got her own impression: "Alisa was eager to win and at some moment could fix a draw but overestimated her position. It was not wise to keep on active playing.> Please note <Gulliver> that Xu Yuhua said that her opening was NOT that successful. So a piece of advice to you <Gulliver>. Don't come on to this site and start abusing me and accusing me of degrading other peoples comments, when my opinion was logical and reasonable and correct. Study the game properly before you make abusive comments in future. It will save you a lot of embarrassment. |
|
| Mar-23-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: <Galliamova lost the game because she made a wrong move in the endgame. It has nothing to do with whether or not she played 1 e4 or 1 d4. So I agree with Ezzy on this.> <mormonchess> <ezzy> Of course, she reached the endgame with equal material, but what I'm saying is that if she played an opening with which she had more experience, she might have had a better chance of reaching the endgame in a better condition. |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | Ezzy: <EmperorAtahualpa ...but what I'm saying is that if she played an opening with which she had more experience, she might have had a better chance of reaching the endgame in a better condition.> Hi <EmperorAtahualpa> See what trouble you've caused! :-) No seriously ) (If I can be) Even Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik etc can not gaurantee any advantage just because they play there best opening, because every opening has to be your best these days. It was Galliamova that provided the shock by playing an opening in which Yuhua was unsure of, and Yuhua had a worse opening game which she admitted to. If Yuhua would have won the battle of the variation played in the French defence then your point would carry more validity, but because she didn't, the credit has to be given to Galliamova for her opening game. She tried too hard to win in the endgame, overpressed and created weaknesses in her pawn structure. But hey! Cheers for creating the debate. Sorry you wasn't here for most of it. People were actually trying to beat me up! :-) |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | gulliver: < Ezzy > So a piece of advice to you <Gulliver>.< Don't come on to this site and start abusing me and accusing me of degrading other peoples comments, when my opinion was logical and reasonable and correct. Study the game properly before you make abusive comments in future. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.>
I was wrong. My speculation that Galliamova's choice of 1st move had had an affect on the result of the game was ,as shown by Ezzy and another member, not had enough on what to be based. I will try and take Ezzy's advice and study the game well before I post any comments on cg.com Also : I apologize for abusing and accusing Ezzy. His laughter at the emperor's arguement was not because he thought it was silly but because of his jolly and happy nature, laughing and laughing. Finding other's people statements and arguements a reason for a good laughter but not making of them a joke. Keep the good mood Ezzy, laugh , laugh and laugh. If you can, also love. |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: <See what trouble you've caused! :-)> <Ezzy> LOL yeah I noticed, that was not my intention! :) <No seriously ) (If I can be) Even Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik etc can not gaurantee any advantage just because they play there best opening, because every opening has to be your best these days. It was Galliamova that provided the shock by playing an opening in which Yuhua was unsure of, and Yuhua had a worse opening game which she admitted to. If Yuhua would have won the battle of the variation played in the French defence then your point would carry more validity, but because she didn't, the credit has to be given to Galliamova for her opening game. She tried too hard to win in the endgame, overpressed and created weaknesses in her pawn structure.> Hmm..yeah that's interesting reasoning too. Anyway, 1.e4 created a shock effect, but 1...e6 surely no less. Just look up in Xu's repertoire explorer: it's only her third game with the French defense playing black! I dare say that Galliamova was counting on a Sicilian when she played 1.e4, and probably she prepared something nice for it. Also, more often than not, White reaches the endgame with a pawn up or at least with the initiative. As you see in this game however, that didn't happen here, so you could consider that a small victory for Black. Of course your point is equally valid. White did go wrong at a certain point in the endgame (I'm not sure where the exact mistake is, but I think it is 23.g4, allowing Black's queen to invade into White's queenside pawn mass). So honestly, I do think your point and mine both have some validity. |
|
| Mar-24-06 | | Ezzy: <EmperorAtahualpa - I do think your point and mine both have some validity.> Fair enough, we will call that a draw! <gulliver - I apologize for abusing and accusing Ezzy.> Thank you. I also go 'over the top' on occasions, and have apologised to people. I find it easy to do. Some people don't have this wonderful attribute within them, and find it difficult to apologise. I appreciate your gesture, and it shows that you have good wisdom. You're a cool guy! |
|
| Mar-30-06 | | LivinFree: In retrospect, 23 g4? is a fairly
critical endgame mistake (playing
a middlegame move in the endgame)
which seriously loosens the kingside
pawn structure. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
