Dec-03-10
 | | FSR: 21...d4? was horrible, exchanging the d-pawn for the stupid a-pawn and letting White invade my position. Nonetheless, I might have still had drawing chances in the late endgame if I'd played something intelligent instead of the stupid cheapo 33...Bd6? (time pressure). (I knew that Portisch had once ground out a win in a R+N+4 v. R+B+3 ending, but it's not easy.) After DeFotis had played a horrible blunder against me in the first round, I naively started expecting all of my opponents (all 2300+ masters) to do so. |
|
Mar-23-11
 | | perfidious: <FSR> This is the game to which you refer: Portisch vs C W Pritchett, 1978. For 25 years, I played this line vs the Gruenfeld, but I got manhandled by V Mikhalevski and Dlugy in two of the last three games I tried it. While I always liked the OGD Exchange features of these middlegames, I now believe Black gets enough play that 5.Bg5 doesn't offer anything special. |
|
Mar-23-11
| | FSR: <perfidious> Yes, I had seen that game in one of the "Endgame Preparation" books. I agree that 5.Bg5 is no great shakes, which is no doubt why one doesn't see it much these days. |
|
Mar-23-11
| | perfidious: <FSR> Never knew it was in one of the Polugaevsky works; Timman refers to it in his Art of Chess Analysis, if I recall. In the other main line of 5.Bg5, where White plays instead 8.Qd2, there's some interesting middlegame play, but I saw Joseph Fang, a specialist in 8.Qd2 for White, lose a game to Kudrin in Philadelphia in 1993, when the GM improved on published theory, though regrettably it's listed thus here: C Fang vs Kudrin, 1993. I'll take another shot at putting this right with CG. |
|
Mar-23-11
| | FSR: <perfidious: <FSR> Never knew it was in one of the Polugaevsky works;> No, I was referring to Speelman's book "Endgame Preparation," although I don't see the game in there. Maybe in his "Analysing the Endgame," which I either don't have or can't find at the moment. I was a little saddened just now when I went upstairs to look at my chess library. If I'd actually READ all those books, I'd probably be over 2400 OTB. But no, I waste my time chatting on the Internet and such. |
|
| Apr-02-11 | | Robeson: Black looks like the kind of player who cracks under pressure. Was this played before the guy was a master? |
|
Apr-08-11
| | perfidious: <Robeson: Black looks like the kind of player who cracks under pressure. Was this played before the guy was a master?> Just curious, mate: how many games of Black's in this DB did you analyse before coming to this sweeping conclusion? Have you made master yourself? There's plenty of hard work involved, and not all the games one plays are great, that I know. Go to the Nakamura-Goldsby page and fan the flames or something. |
|
Oct-09-11
| | FSR: <Robeson> I was a low 2200, then as now. Newsflash: 2200s are decent players, but don't play anything near perfect chess. If they did, they'd be rated 2800, not 2200 - and even 2800s screw up now and again. And if you're looking for someone who never cracks under pressure, try a computer. You won't find any humans who meet that description. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
