|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-10-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: yes the Lasker defense is a big weapon here! It's the first time that i've noticed that! thx for that game keypusher! |
|
| Oct-10-05 | | paladin at large: Interesting overview <Keypusher> - thanks. Here's one which seems to fit < there are lines in which Black is happy to give back the pawn but gets fully equal play, as in the 7...Nge7 line, which I always hate to see. > R Blanco Estera vs Capablanca, 1913 |
|
| Oct-14-05 | | midknightblue: keypusher's point is a good one. If you want to play the evan's gambit, then be prepared to deal with the accepted, the declined, and the two knights defense as well. Having said that, I think white can do pretty well doing just that. Of course a superGM will never make it his mainstay, but that isnt the point. |
|
| Nov-02-05 | | cracky90: Isn't it called Evans' Gambit? Because looking at the repertoire of the players it says Evan's Gambit. |
|
| Dec-08-05 | | Kriegspiel: At the risk of enduring the querulousness of <hayton3>, or the slanderous vituperation of <chopin> or some other whiny lackwit posing as a sentient being, allow me to say that Jester seems to get lost in this opening. For example:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Nxb4 5.Nxe5? Qf6 6.Bxf7+ Kf8 7.d4? Bxd4 8.Ng4 Qxf7 9.c3 Qc4 etc. Kriegspiel
|
|
Dec-08-05
 | | tpstar: <Kriegspiel> Hello! Glad to have you back. 4 ... Nxb4 doesn't have much independent significance since 5. c3 basically forces 5 ... Nc6, then 6. d4 transposing T Kostuk vs S Lapinskaite, 1992 with chances for both sides. Computers are not ideal for wading through the opening on their own, instead relying on centuries of master play. Please consider revising your message. We are all here because we love chess, and there's plenty of room for everyone. We don't need to instigate anything, or else call out folks by name to recharge a previous brawl. Finally, these posts are permanent; people have been known to cite specific quotes months or years later. Let's focus on the chess, and learn new things together. Thank you. =) |
|
| Dec-08-05 | | RookFile: Any opening with stats like these should be strongly considered: White wins 55.6%
Black wins 31.0%
Draws 13.4% |
|
| Dec-09-05 | | Kriegspiel: <tpstar> Unfortunately it is not true that "we are all here because we love chess" and that "we don't need to instigate anything". When I focused on chess and wrote well about it, that was precisely when the instigators chose to attack me. I have yet to receive any acknowledgement of wrongdoing or any apology by them. I have noticed a persistent current of irrational hostility against me, here as elsewhere. I do not apologize for or retract anything I have said to date, and indeed, *I* have no need to. If comments such as I have written are unwelcome, put pressure on the malefactors to correct the situation: I am merely one responding to them. I do not believe that putting up with them will make them behave any better. Also, I am not "back". I said that I would post nothing in the Kibitzer's Cafe for a very long time, and I mean it. Why should I go back there just to be abused by perverse travesties of human beings? I did not say that I wouldn't ever post anything elsewhere in the site, though I am discouraged from doing so precisely because those named (and many others) have demonstrated in responding to *my* serious chess messages that *they* are NOT serious about chess: the only thing they appear to be serious about are irrational expressions of hostility toward me, and in general disruptiveness in my affairs. If the characterization (which is accurate) is unwelcome, then don't act that way! I will not put up with the habitual rudeness, perversity, deceit, and hateful attempts to undermine me and to degrade the quality of my existence. I created a long ignore list in attempting to weed out the troublemaker accounts, but that was insufficient due to their multiplying numbers and persistence, and general pervasiveness. I am sick of dealing with you defectives! Don't like it? Then STRAIGHTEN UP AND FLY RIGHT, IDIOTS. Kriegspiel
|
|
Dec-09-05
| | tpstar: <Kriegspiel> Fine sir, thank you for your response. I am not here to lecture you, and I don't mean to be disrespectful toward you in any manner. I would like you to appreciate the positives of this site and continue as part of our group, instead of creating the perfect Ignore List which ultimately serves no purpose and proves no point. That was very nice of you to invest your time and analyze his game. In truth, it was a tad overdone for the beginner level. When people voiced such opinions, you took that very personally as if they were ridiculing you. If you review the subsequent incident, there were insults on both sides (yes, some by you), which totally destroys any goodwill for the student, the observers and the participants. Finally, calling out people by name <here> can only be taken as instigation. I sense there are anger issues which go way beyond chess and this site. Please look around at all the great people here, and maybe get to know folks in a friendly manner. Surely nobody will subject you to "perverse travesties" or anything of that sort. If you do encounter anything offensive, toward yourself or otherwise, put them on ignore Without Telling Anyone, because that is seen as a cheap shot. But with a little effort, you can enjoy your time here. Peace. =) |
|
Dec-09-05
 | | keypusher: <kriegspiel> If I noticed <a persistent current of irrational hostility> against me everywhere, I would conclude it was rational. |
|
| Dec-14-05 | | capanegra: <Rookfile <<Any opening with stats like these should be strongly considered: White wins 55.6% Black wins 31.0% Draws 13.4%>> I partially agree. The lecture of time series stats without taking on account the weigh of time may be tricky. If you didn't, please read my previous post. |
|
Dec-14-05
| | keypusher: Looking over the recent games I notice that the so-called Stone-Ware Defense <1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bd6> has made a comeback. I've never seen it myself. Pillsbury used it to win three games at Hastings 1895. At that tournament, by the way, the Evans performed dreadfully -- something like one win, seven losses and a couple of draws. The organizers gave a special prize for the player who won the most Evans Gambits. Chigorin won the prize by achieving the only victory with the gambit in the entire tournament! It would be interesting to see if the Evans did equally badly in the other leading tournaments of the era. Results like that would explain its eclipse. |
|
| Jan-07-06 | | capatal: <Kriegspiel>
Our attitude determines our altitude-as surely as if we were piloting a plane in this life...Flying to low? Adjust your attitude and your altitude will improve as surely as night must follow day.It never hurts to remember, when we point a finger at another man,we always have three fingers pointing at ourselves. Regards |
|
Jan-21-06
| | keypusher: Here's to the opening of the day! |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | fred lennox: The first game of the Morphy/Anderssen match, Morphy was said to of stated the Evans Gambit has been refuted. I don't know if this is true. He never did play it against Anderseen again and didn't play it much afterwards. A reversal on who taught who about openings. Anderssen was a fierce one with the Evans Gambit. One of his best known victories. Anderssen vs Zukertort, 1869 |
|
Jan-21-06
| | keypusher: <fred lennox> I think he was always a skeptic about the Evans Gambit. <SBC> has the exact quote but he said something to the effect that the gambit was infallibly lost for the first player if Black played properly. Morphy played the Ruy Lopez in game 3 of the match and Anderssen didn't play 1...e5 after that. Morphy played very few serious games after the Anderssen match, so it's interesting to wonder if he would have kept playing the gambit. I suspect not. |
|
Jan-21-06
 | | An Englishman: Good Morning: <keypusher>, I had also noticed the striking number of games featuring the Stone-Ware Defense since 2000. What's even more striking is that over 50% of the games end in wins for Black! I think the score is +6 -1 =4 for the second player. I don't get it. Not at all. |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | fred lennox: <keypusher> I'm pretty sure Morphy said the Evans Gambit is the most beautiful of openings. I'm not sure when, so he could of been skeptical about it well before his defeat against Anderssen. The problem is, that game lasted 72 moves so i find it hard to blame it all on the opening, if at all. |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | blingice: What is the benefit from ♙b4? |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | hidude: pb4 is for development
|
|
| Jan-21-06 | | blingice: Well, obviously, but what does it develop? |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | aw1988: <blingice> White gets center via c3 + d4. |
|
Jan-21-06
| | keypusher: <fred lennox> that the Evans Gambit is unsound and that it is the most beautiful of openings are not necessarily contradictory. :-) I love the Evans myself but I don't think it's terribly good for White. If you look at the Morphy-Anderssen game after 15 moves material is even but white's king is exposed, he is behind in development, his pawns are weak and his bishop is bad. So I do think you can blame the opening for the final result (although I understand the experts focus on Morphy's premature e5). <An Englishman> I think the reason the Stone-Ware does so well is that it's a good defense! Black doesn't have to surrender the center and he can complete his development, two things that are very difficult for him to accomplish simultaneously in most variations. Look at Pillsbury's games with the Stone-Ware from Hastings 1895 -- he knew how good it was 110 years ago. I just hope it doesn't become too widely known. :) <Blingice> -- 4 b4 Bxb4 lures the bishop to b4, then c3 attacks it with gain of tempo to help white seize the center with d4. If the Black bishop retreats to b6 then the way is opened for White's queen bishop to take command of the a3-f8 diagonal, hindering Black from castling. White's queen can also move to b3 to support the king bishop's attack on f7. All of these concepts are illustrated in the most famous Evans Gambit of all, the Evergreen Game: Anderssen vs Dufresne, 1852 |
|
| Jan-29-06 | | midknightblue: <blingice> the benefits of b4 as stated by <aw1988> are that they allow white to build a strong pawn center with c3 and d4. Also it gains some time as black moves the bishop twice. White will usually castle fairly early on and will have developed his kingside bishop and knight, his rook, and his Queen. Polgar reviewed the opening in a recent issue of chesslife (january 06 issue i think). White's idea is to get compensation in the form of strong central pawns and development. The opening took a big hit with the lasker's defense where black calmly gave back a pawn and was left with a favorable position. the details of the lasker defense are outlined in a post above i think. White really should avoid the lasker defense if possible, and there are several ways to accomplish this. |
|
| Jan-29-06 | | midknightblue: Wow, 5... Bd6 appears to be one of the most popular responses to the evan's gambit of the chessgames database games played in the last two years. Up until now, I considered that an unusual/rare sideline. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
