|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 129 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-08-07 | | Eyal: <I don't get it. They never used to be so garrulous before...> They aren't now, actually. It's *your* number of posts which is decreasing, and Joe is the culprit - he's been deleting lately from his forum all the posts by other users, and yours (as well as mine) are the main casualties... |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | mack: Someone gave me an Easter card today. That never used to happen, did it? |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | achieve: <It's an honour, sir/madam.> If permitted I'll pass on your kind words! I'm sure she'll be delighted.. |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | Eyal: <Zaw Win Lay vs Khalifman, 2000... 18.Rad1 has turned up a few times since then, even at GM level. Usually Black just rattles out the refutation, but I've seen one game between 2200+ players where neither was aware of it, and the game was drawn.> Interesting - I've checked chessbase.com database, and here is what I found: 9 games with 18.Rad1, all of them continuing 18...Rxd1 19.Rxd1. In the earliest one, from 1997, Black plays 19...Bd7, which loses to 20.Rd4; then there's the Ponomariov-Sadvakasov game from 1999 (which appears in the Opening Explorer as well), where Black plays 19...Qe5, losing to 20.Be3. Then another one from 1999, which is drawn after 19...Be5 20.Qe3 Ne4 21.Qxe4+ Kxh6 22.Qh4+ Kg6 23.Qg4+ with a perp. Then Zaw Win Lay vs Khalifman and 3 other games from 2000-1, in all of them Black promptly winning after 19...e5. Then a game from 2005, where after e5 20.g3 Black plays 20...Qc6? (rather than Ng4!) and the game is drawn (so here Black probably knew the recommendation but didn't really understand the position). And finally, a game from 2006 where both players seem to be unfamiliar with the latest theory - Black plays 19...Nh5 but still wins, after 20.Rd4? (rather than retreating with the bishop) Kxh6 21.Rh4 Qe5 22.g4 Bd7 23.Qxb7 Qe1+ 24.Kg2 Qg1+ 25.Kh3 Qf1+. |
|
| Apr-08-07 | | achieve: <Eyal>
<Well, as you pointed out yourself, he might have had in mind some improvement for White after 15...Qe6. Letting Fritz analyse [!] the position for a while, it seems that White actually has good winning chances after..> When I was about to push the POST IT button, I hesitated cause I felt some logic missing in my post, (which can be a good thing), but, having to perform kitchen-duties, I pressed it.. --My romantic side won it over my lust for logic. Anyway, the spelling of analyse [!] was very "English", but foremost thoughtful towards me ;-) I'll go through the Fritz-lines tomorrow.. zzz |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | achieve: <Eyal> Great lines! <Black might be better off with 17...Qc2, after 18.Bd7+ (not 18.Rd5? as in the game, because of 18...Qc1+ 19.Rd1 Qxd1+ 20.Qxd1 Be4) Kd8 19.Bf5+ Ke8 20.Bxc2 Bxc2 21.Rd5 Bf5 22.Rxe5+ Be6.> Love this game.. -- So let's take out the bloody black bishop (I'm Tadic) -- 23. Rxe6 fxe6 24.Qxe6+ Kd8 25.Qd5+ Nd7(?) but fun! 26.Qxb7 Rc8 27.Bxa7 Re8 reaching this position.. 
click for larger viewNow this is a position to get yer teeth in.. Would take Fritz a day to make real sense of it.. Probably draw but Tadic is human so 28.a5!? Rc1+ 29.Kg2 Rxe2 30.Be3! and you do NOT want to be in time trouble right now heh If it happens that Chess will be SOLVED by comps from move 1. in my lifetime, I'll be happy to go six feet under fairly soon afterwards.. (Except if I had grand-children looking to play a game of chess with their grand-daddy ;) |
|
Apr-09-07
 | | Domdaniel: <mack> No. That never used to happen. Eggs were the thing, if I remember rightly, often made from chocolate and containing plastic ninjas. But not cards. Best practice, I find, is to completely ignore such things. Never, ever reciprocate, as it only encourages 'em. Of course, you'll still get easter cards generated by computer databases who are indifferent to your response or lack of same. That never used to happen either. |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: <Eyal> Aha. So the post-count *does* fall in case of deletions. I tried to track this once before, during the Great Forum Shut-down Incident, but it proved impossible -- many of those deleted were Jessica's, and she could post new ones much faster than I could zap old ones. Interesting, too, the way some people like to keep a tidy forum. <Joe Wms> could be way up there in the Stats list if he chose, but he prefers to keep an orderly farm. And <monad> used to have a warning, saying 'if you value your utterances... make a copy'. While some of us just let it all accumulate. *[paranoid mode]* ... this is how They permit us the illusion of choice, by letting us personalize our tiny portions of virtual territory... Anyway, I seem to have overtaken chessgames.com again... not that I'm being competitive, or anything. |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: <Eyal> As far as I can remember, one of those games in the Khalifman French line was played by Naiditsch as black, a few months after Khalifman had beaten Zaw Win Lay. It seems almost shocking that in 2000 a top GM would not have been up to date on new theory in a fashionable line. Admittedly, the Khalifman game was played in Bali, against a little-known player from Myanmar/Burma (who had somewhat mysteriously reached a rating of 2633, seemingly without playing very many games). And it was possibly too soon for year-end roundups like Informator and Super Tournaments 2000 (which is where I found it originally).
But one still expects news of a novelty to spread almost instantaneously at GM level. In his notes there, Khalifman wrote something like "we won't see that 'interesting' move again". I guess he was wrong. |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | Eyal: <As far as I can remember, one of those games in the Khalifman French line was played by Naiditsch as black, a few months after Khalifman had beaten Zaw Win Lay.> Naiditsch was playing white, actually (he was 15 at the time - got his GM title only a year later)... against Gregor Mainka in Dortmund. As for times - the Khalifman game was played in April and the Naiditsch game in July. Btw, Mainka-Naiditsch repeated the Khalifman game exactly, only Naiditsch didn't resign immediately after 21...Kxh6, but kept playing for a few more moves: 22.Bxf7 e4 23.Qh3+ Kg7 24.Qh4 (maybe hoping for 24...Kxf7?? 25.Qxh7+...) Nf6 25.Bd5 Bf5 26.g4 Bg6 0-1 <Interesting, too, the way some people like to keep a tidy forum...
While some of us just let it all accumulate.> I tend to think about it in Bakhtinian terms - how much you let your forum become "dialogic" or keep it "monologic". Or one could say it depends on how much of a "control freak" you are (or aren't) - wanting everything to be exactly to your taste/according to your design, or letting contingencies operate. |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | WBP: <Dom> Good morning. Busy as I'
ve been, I was following the Foxwoods tournament a little yesterday. I see that our local boy, IM Jesse Kraai, had a good tournament, defeating GMs Nakamura and Shabalov in later rounds (the latter with a French, which is his standard defense to 1. e4). Kraai, born and raised in Santa Fe, N.M., managed to work his way up to IM virtually "by himself"--certainly no local or even regional competition to help him get better. He has, I believe, one or two GM norms right now. (He has a game collection on CG.) Anyway, it's the French that I'm writing you on. I'm really intrigued by games with the Winawer--it seems to lead to an exciting game (witness the <Rookfile>/<Plato> duke-out). The problem is that white can avoid it with the Tarrasch. I am after all these years still looking for what to play against 1. e4. I find the Sicilian so over-played now that I avoid it (at least standard lines) from both sides (and I am an almost exclusively 1 e4 player). I also love the double-edged, unbalanced aspect of the Winawer. So, as I contemplate wasting more time with this ridiculous game by investing hours and hours in studying yet another opening, I ask you, how does one deal with the Tarrasch? Best, Bill |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: <WBP> -- <How does one deal with the Tarrasch?>
Wish I knew the answer to that. In the past, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2, I've tried 3...Nf6, 3...c5, 3...b6, 3...a6, 3...Nc6, 3...Be7 and 3...dxe4. I used to find 3...c5 too drawish, but I've gone back to it lately with the idea of recapturing on d5 with the queen instead of the pawn (ECO C07), 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.Bc4 Qd6 being the usual line. I've only played this once in a 'real' game, and I lost -- but my position from the opening was equal. This was my 2nd round tournament game last week, where I chickened out of a probable winning line against the eventual tournament winner. I'll certainly play it again. The main alternative, 3...Nf6, is not doing so well in theory or practice at the moment. White has some very dangerous lines involving Ng1-e2-f4. At least fashions change. When I started playing the French in the 1970s, there were still enough Fischer/Spassky fans around who could be relied on for 3.Nc3. Then, during the Karpov era, everyone seemed to play 3.Nd2 -- which is why I tried so many different 3rd moves for Black. Now 3.Nc3 is back, though a majority of Black players seem to prefer the Classical 3...Nf6 to the Winawer. And the Advance variation, 3.e5, is also more popular now. I think, if you play the French, you have to be willing to play cramped positions as well as chaotic Winawer-style ones. The positions to avoid, IMO, are the ones reached in the Rubinstein after 3...dxe4. The apparent advantage is that it doesn't matter where White develops the knight -- the problem is sterile positions with no winning chances for Black. There are other ways of dealing with the Tarrasch, too. 3...h6 has been played a few times, though it seems to elicit the kind of derision usually reserved for the St George. |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: <WBP> Jesse Kraai ... I like that name. Is it a version of the Dutch 'Kraaj' or something more exotic? Either way, I shall become a follower at once... Speaking of names, I was leafing through an openings book yesterday when I found a reference to a game between Koch and Sucher. Not in our family-friendly database here, thank goodness. |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: All right, before Eyal gets the chance to correct my last error I’ll just point out that the players were actually Hans Uwe Kock and Johannes Sucher, that the game was played in the Liechtenstein open in 1992, and that White won in 14 moves: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.Nbd2 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.c3 Nc6 8.0-0 b6
9.Ne5 Bb7 10.Qf3 Bd6 11.Qh3 Ne7 12.Rad1 Qe8 13.Ng4 1-0 |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | achieve: <Domdaniel: <WBP> Jesse Kraai ... I like that name.> Exactly what I thought! I'm sure it's Dutch, both Kraaij, Kraai or Kraaj. Must be.. <Dom> I informed Loes (Louisa) about your gracious welcome and she had a chortle about it.. |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | Eyal: <All right, before Eyal gets the chance to correct my last error> Damn, I was just about to push the POST IT button when I saw that. |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: Ahem. Meanwhile, here's another belated entry in the category of Van Morrison titles with chess links:
<Topalov Honey>.
Wasn't Elvis Preslikov born in Topalov, Miss? |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: <achieve> I'm not actually a walking encyclopedia of Dutch names, or anything -- but a friend, who happens to be Dutch, also happens to be named Kraaj, and I've always liked the name. Hmm. Speaking of songs with chess connections, how about <No Woman, No Kraai>? |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | achieve: <No Woman, No Kraai> Besides that it's a great song, the pronounciation in Dutch is indeed like "cry". The translation for kraai = crow. Damn it, now I'm starting to get factual.. errg
|
|
| Apr-09-07 | | achieve: <Eyal> Just to make sure. Reading back my posts they come across as if I am not serious towards you.. If you take it the *wrong* way they might come across as plain rude and tasteless. (Sarcastic) Not intended so in any way. I intended it to be a bit playful.. Nothing more. As I said, it's just to make sure. I value your analysis and views tremendously and took a thorough look at Qc2 this morning. The position after 22...Be6 is still very interesting. In case you perceived my tone as unpleasant, please let me know. If not, than this post is a good reminder for me to stay alert. Niels
|
|
| Apr-09-07 | | Eyal: <achieve: In case you perceived my tone as unpleasant, please let me know.> Not at all, honestly! Btw, your line starting from 23.Rxe6+ is very interesting - for what it's worth, Fritz evaluates the position after 30.Be3 as basically drawish; there are several lines which are evaluated either as 0.00 or very close to it (but where the very slight advantage is Black's). It seems that White would have a lot of opportunities to force a perpetual if he would like that - taking advantage of the fact that some squares are blocked for the Black king (e.g., f7 because of Qc4+ winning the rook on e2). |
|
Apr-09-07
| | Domdaniel: Would somebody please insult somebody? Anyone. Me, if you like. All this niceness and chess-related posting will ruin my image and put Frogspawn out of business. Tin-eared suckfish. |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | achieve: <All this niceness and chess-related posting will ruin my image and put Frogspawn out of business.> That would serve you JUST RIGHT! Regardez! The sea! The sea!-- was the WORST!
(this any good? .. No, need to change my attitude first) |
|
| Apr-09-07 | | WBP: <Would somebody please insult somebody? Anyone. Me, if you like.
All this niceness and chess-related posting will ruin my image and put Frogspawn out of business. Tin-eared suckfish.> Ah, zip it, you kraai-baby. (Just have a moment--more posts here and in other forums to follow later in the day) |
|
Apr-09-07
 | | jessicafischerqueen: g
day g'day
No time yet so I'll have to let the <BeeGees> speak for me: "Well you can tell by the way I use my walk-
I'm a woman's man's woman, no time to talk"
See you all later,
Jessica
(see <Chess Classics> forum for an explanation of my new (and lame) salutation). |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 129 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
