|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-10-04 | | patzer2: The following is from the post two above this one, from Eric Schiller's site on unusual chess openings, describing the accepted line for beating the Grob in the gambit line with 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 Nf6 4.Qb3 Nbd7 5.cxd5 e5 6.Nc3 Bd6 7.d3 0-0 8.h3 Bh5 9.Bg5 Nc5 10.Qc2 Bg6 11.e4 a5: Grob Opening - Grob Gambit A00
1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4.
White commits a chess felony by advancing the g-pawn two squares on the first move, and then does not even bother to protect it. Such a cavalier attitude deserves to be punished, but Black must not overplay the position. 3.c4 Nf6 This is one of many playable defenses, but it is the most principled. 4.Qb3. 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.cxd5 Nb6 is a good line for Black, who will pick up the d-pawn at leisure later. Or perhaps not at all! For example 6.Qb3 Qd7 7.d4 Rd8 8.e4 e6! 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.d5 Bg4 and Black will quickly complete development. 4...Nbd7.
4...Qc8 can lead to a tactical trap: 5.Nc3 c6 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Be6 8.Qa4 b5 9.Qc2 Black resigned, Elger - Kurth, Kassel 1994. 5.cxd5 e5.
5...Nb6 6.Nc3 transposes to the note on 4.Nc3.
6.Nc3 Bd6 7.d3 0-0 8.h3 Bh5 9.Bg5 Nc5 10.Qc2 Bg6 11.e4 a5 and Black had a solid position in Mueller - Schneider, Dortmund 1987. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | Hinchliffe: patzer2 thanks for your work on handling the Grob. It is both interesting and very helpful and, above all, much appreciated. Cheers. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | refutor: patzer2...he organized hundreds of tournaments (within the prison) and won virtually all the games so his rating went up and up and up. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | ughaibu: ....and yet various posters still cite ratings as if they have independent meaning. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | PizzatheHut: <ughaibu> What do you have against rating systems? True, they do get messed up from time to time, but that's the way anything is. To save time, I'll cut and paste my previous post, to which you never replied.<If you don't go by ratings, then what do you go by? You have to be able to set some sort of standard. How would we judge the strength of players in ughaibu-land? By how neatly they dress? By how tall they are?> |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | ughaibu: Rating systems give an approximate guide that's all, statements about Fischer's ascendency over Spassky or that Capablanca was the "best ever" based on ratings are tiresome red herrings and dont provide evidence for arguement, as ratings are taken over-seriously these days I have no choice but to be against them. As for your previous question, I dont know what you're asking. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | Doctor Who: Ratings are useful for comparison purposes, as long as you compare contemporaries and don't try to span the decades. |
|
| Feb-12-04 | | ughaibu: Doctor Who: Even in that sense they only provide a meaningful comparison if the players being compared have been rated by games against the same opponents and if such is the case they can more easily be compared by actual results. |
|
| Feb-13-04 | | Catfriend: <ughaibi> Generally, I agree with you. Yet, as <Pizza> pointed, one must still find a way to count the players' relative strength. |
|
| Feb-13-04 | | ughaibu: Why? Or how precisely do you need to know? Does anyone believe that ratings can genuinely distinguish between, for example, the world's 15th best and 16th best players? |
|
| Feb-13-04 | | Catfriend: Well, not really. But without indication who's better, many players wouldn't play at all! The sportive, competitive part of chess is what top-GMs really love. Besides, curiosity is the main reason, of course! |
|
| Feb-13-04 | | Reisswolf: The point to remember is that the rating is a statistical measure. Therefore, in order for it to be of any use, the sample space must be large, and it must be representative of the attribute that is being measured. (For example, if you want to find out how Americans feel about the issue of gay marriage, it is not sufficient to ask a large number of conservative Christians; you must ask a good cross-section of the population.) Thus, when one is playing against a large number of other good chess players, the rating will give an accurate measure of his playing strength. In Bloodgood's case, it seems that he was not playing against strong players. So the rating had little meaning. Basically, he was committing the same mistake as "asking only conservative Christians." I think it is for this reason that in order to get a grandmaster norm, a certain number of grandmasters must be present in the tournament. It is not sufficient to have just a high average rating for the tournament. |
|
| Feb-14-04 | | PinkPanther: <clendenon>
Does being in jail while playing Monopoly count?
<square dance>
Hahahaha, that Snoop Dogg joke was pretty good. |
|
| Feb-14-04 | | marcus13: Why did he went in prison? |
|
| Feb-14-04 | | Catfriend: For murdering his mother, ALAIK |
|
| Feb-14-04 | | marcus13: He is crazy how can some1 that killed some1 can play chess like him. |
|
| Feb-17-04 | | PinkPanther: <marcus13>
A lot of crazy people are/were good at chess. For example, Steinitz, Fischer, Morphy, Kasparov (sometimes I think he is)...I mean Morphy had a fetish for women's shoes and Steinitz once though he played God in chess over the phone and won while giving him pawn odds...All I have to say is, God must be a patzer :-) |
|
| Feb-17-04 | | Lawrence: PP, the story of Morphy's fetish for women's shoes was exposed as a fake in Edward Winter's column in chesscafé.com, but I'm not saying that Morphy was "normal" towards the end of his life. |
|
| Feb-17-04 | | apple head: did you ever notice that he is almost always white and that you have black atleast once per tournament, So i think these games are fake |
|
| Feb-17-04 | | Resignation Trap: Bloodgood escaped once. He was arrested again when they found him....playing in a chess tournament! Bloodgood wrote the book "The Tactical Grob", and this is one reason why nearly all of his games are with White and begin with 1. g4. These games were often against other inmates, but he had many games by US Mail. In his later years, he often played 1.b3. While in prison, he fabricated many tales about himself, but his actual life was interesting enough, in my opinion. |
|
| Mar-14-04 | | SPARKS: bloodgood is the the author of two books he wrote from jail.the tacticalgrob and the "norfolk gambits"
blood good murdered his mother and was given a life sentence.he was allowed to play tournaments away from jail at one time.but escaped while staying at a guards house.this braught a lot of contravercy why he was over a guards house. any ways i beleive they took chess away from him for a good while and then let him play again but never away from prison again.he died in prison of lung cancer a few yearsa ago.he played alot of correspondance chess in his later days and also wrote articals for a chess news letter by a correspondence chess club called apec chess i beleive this is the correct name.he was also popular for hosting and being involved in chess tournaments in norfolk virginia before being locked up.he taught chess while in the navy .he claimed he was a spy for germany but many say these are untrue stories and also claimed he used to husle chess with alot of celbs in hollywood way back in the day.also claims he used to play humphry bogart .wether true or untrue,claude bloodgood was a decent chess player and a chess hustler at heart.i always beleived if hollywood would make a movie about this guy and his lifeit would be a hit.i have just about eveything that bloodgood ever printed.peace be unto all and god bless.
steve |
|
| Mar-14-04 | | ughaibu: It does surprise me that Bloodgood is less of an icon than Fischer for the inhabitnts of a country who apparently have a creative well full of works on the wild west outlaws, the mafia and Vietnam. |
|
| Mar-14-04 | | drukenknight: we are still trying to get over Fischer and Vietnam. |
|
| Mar-14-04 | | ughaibu: You mean Bloodgood will be next(!)? |
|
| Mar-14-04 | | sac 4 mate: Ughaibu, where are you from that gives you the right to stereotype Americans like that? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
