|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-02-09 | | Gilmoy: <5.cxd5 cxd5> clears c6 for silky-smooth Q-side piece flow: <6..Nc6 7..Bf5 8..Rc8> with nigh-ideal pressure on c2. After <11..O-O> we reach the first nexus -- both players must reveal their plans. <12.Nd2 Na5> and Black breaks symmetry with a much more energetic idea. (White could have played 12.Na4 13.b4 himself!) <13..b5 15..Nc4 16..a5!> threatening unbearable pressure on a3/Na2, with White's Qc1 overworked and out of squares. Even so, <17.Nxc4?!> cedes a monster protected passed pawn, and still doesn't solve a3. <20.Nc6?!> Torre lets his weak a3-pawn drop, but So relentlessly squeezes the air out of his center: <24..Be4 25..Nd5 26.Bd3> and the passers are too heavy. |
|
| Apr-06-09 | | rjsolcruz: I believe that the BOG 2009 has introduced a novelty in the scoring system; 4 points for a W, 2 for a D, 0 for a L, and 1.5 for the player who forces a stalemate and 0.5 for the stalemated player. This might be the solution to the high percentage of draws in a tournament. The premium for the stalemate can be likened to the win given in wrestling, dama, etc where a player who becomes immobile loses. |
|
| Apr-06-09 | | rjsolcruz: I think that the BISHOPS became the deciding factor in this game, a classic example of the good and bad bishop. Thus, I recommend the title: "THE GOOD, THE BAD, and THE BISHOP" |
|
| Apr-12-09 | | ninjaVariation: im excited when time comes that wesley will be facing his contemporaries: wang yue, magnus carlsen, teimour radjabov, hikaru nakamura... that ought to prove something! |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | berbanz: Rolly, your title was accepted! |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | ounos: <rjsolcruz: I believe that the BOG 2009 has introduced a novelty in the scoring system; 4 points for a W, 2 for a D, 0 for a L, and 1.5 for the player who forces a stalemate and 0.5 for the stalemated player.>
That would make no sense, since no player would want to be at either side of the stalemate (1.5 and 0.5 points respectively) and would simply accept a draw (and gain 2 points). |
|
Nov-29-09
 | | al wazir: What was Torre thinking when he played 19. Nb4? It gives up a ♙ for nothing. Better is 19. Bc7, and if 19...Bd8, then 20. Nb4 Qb7 21. Bxd8 Rxd8 22. a6 Qb6 23. Bf3. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | zdigyigy: Torre must have had something else on his mind during this game. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | Starf1re: A leisurely throttling by So. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | JohnBoy: This is a lame GotD. White just folded. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | zanshin: <al wazir: What was Torre thinking when he played 19. Nb4? It gives up a p for nothing. Better is 19. Bc7, and if 19...Bd8, then 20. Nb4 Qb7 21. Bxd8 Rxd8 22. a6 Qb6 23. Bf3.>
click for larger view<al wazir> The pawn was already lost and Nb4 just allowed the recapture. Rybka gives 19.f3 as best - apparently preparing to fight for control of the center. Also, 19.Bc7 is answered by 19...Nd5. Eugene slowly lost control of the Queenside. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | goodevans: The final move was excellent and would make excellent puzzle material. Prior to that the game was a bit too one-sided (IMO) to make a really good game of the day. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | psmith: The rule must be:
2 points for a win
1 point for draw
0 points for a loss
1.5 points for forcing stalemate with .5 points to the opponent. There is a question what "forcing stalemate" means. Anyway I think this is a silly rule. It won't discourage agreed upon draws of the sort we shouldn't want. |
|
Nov-29-09
 | | playground player: Yesterday's CG Quote was by So, to the effect of "I can't believe I won as Black today--hope I draw tomorrow!" Draws are dull, and public interest in chess will never, never, never be revived for as long as chess masters play for draws. Draws need to be penalized. Penalized how? I dunno. Deduct money from the prize purse. Or maybe administer electric shocks. Or plug in a rule like "Four draws and you're out of the tournament, buster!" |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | goodevans: <playground player: ... Draws need to be penalized.> Some decades ago "Grandmaster Draws" were rife: Half a dozen moves then "draw agreed". That practice has thankfully disappeared. If a player establishes a good lead in either a match or a tournament then surely he's entitled to play for a draw. He's taken the risks early on and they've paid off, now he's entitled to play it safer to see home the overall victory without fear of some sort of penalty. Nobody wants to see a return to the days of "Grandmaster Draws", but tinkering with scoring systems or other rules are solutions to a problem that right now doesn't exist. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | WhiteRook48: black just had too many pawns |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | zanshin: <Draws are dull, and public interest in chess will never, never, never be revived for as long as chess masters play for draws. Draws need to be penalized.> <pgp> Normally, I would agree. However, there were special circumstances in the game he referred to because a draw put him through to the next round. A draw was essentially a victory. And if you go over the game, it was not a dull, pre-arranged draw because Kamsky was fighting for his tournament life. |
|
Nov-29-09
 | | Domdaniel: Some - many - draws are exciting epic struggles. Some wins are dull one-sided affairs, or the result of a blunder. And yet the anti-draw bias persists. We amateurs tend to lose too easily. You drop a pawn, lash out madly with a futile attack, and resign. Grandmasters are very good at sustained defence - making your opponent work for the win, and being able to survive 80 moves in a bad position without cracking. Such draws are earned. But I admit that, in any set of games, I tend to check out the decisive ones first. It's hard to shake off the assumption that draws will be dull - even though I agree with <goodevans> about the decline of old-style GM draws. Is there a problem? Only in perceptions. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | GMMandetowitch: Yes,the presence of oppousite colored bishops favoured black with heavy pieces still on the board(also white was several pawns down).But ok,I don't think this game can be called a game of the day,white's play was so bad,black could simply kill evrything on his way without even having to make a brilliant combination to do so. |
|
| Nov-29-09 | | rjsolcruz: CG,
I'm honored to have my suggested title of The Good, The Bad, and The Bishop chosen. And I am doubly honored that it was for the game of the Philippines' dynamic duo of chess. BTW, the title was derived from one of my favorite western movie, The Good, the Bad and The Ugly by Clint Eastwood. |
|
Nov-30-09
| | al wazir: <zanshin: . . . The pawn was already lost> I was referring to the *other* Q-side ♙ white lost. If 19. Bc7 Nd5, then 20. Nb4 Bxb4 (20...Qa7 21. Nc6; 20...Nxb4 21. axb4 Bxb4 22. Qb2 Bxa5 23. Ra1) 21. axb4 Nxb4 22. Qa3 Nd5 23. Bd5 Ra8 24. Ra1. I think white can hold on to the second ♙. |
|
| Dec-02-09 | | kevin86: BOOC-may be an advantage for the attack-though poor for the ending. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | Big Easy: I heard of a suggested rule change not long ago concerning draws. It was something like, if player A offers a draw to player B, player B can choose to continue play, but the draw offer stands for the rest of the game. So, player B might not accept the draw offer (initially), and play very agressively, knowing that if he were to get into a bad position, he could simply accept the earlier draw offer. This could have the effect of players only offering draws in dead-drawn positions, or in games where they were slightly better. |
|
Mar-21-10
 | | Honza Cervenka: Reading about some proposed "reforms" concerning chess draws makes me a die-hard conservative...:-))) |
|
| Dec-23-14 | | kardopov: Draws are ugly if both the opposing players have it pre-agreed. Not also good if it is the only thing in both players' mind before their game begin even if not pre-agreed. But a good fight it will be if one of the players is out for blood even if his opponent is just aiming for a draw. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
