Oui, c'est vrai. I read a demented post recently which tried to use this fact to prove that the French was a bad opening cos engines don't play it.

To quote some smutty schoolboy in my geography class at school: "Lahore? Is that French?"

In loco parentis = crazy like a parent

Bint is in my Merriam-Webster bible as British: girl, woman. So, Asian bint Katisha is of mixed race; right?

G'night.

Sir Arthur Sullivan (of Gilbert & fame) wrote the music for "Onward Christian Soldiers."

That hymn will become America's national anthem if wannabe-president Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, makes it to the White House.

The "New Feature' can be posted anywhere, I'm hoping to dig up more <Fischerabilia>.

Ok Quite seriously on the 750 guy.

DO NOT TAKE HIM LIGHTLY.

Seriously.

You posted recently that I'm good at eviscerating lower rated opposition.

Well yes, and because of this-- I take them VERY seriously and do not look for "shortcuts" or hack traps he might "go for."

When I play a guy way higher than me, I'm "super up" for the struggle-- and he's likely to be totally relaxed and in a "coffee house attack" mood.

That's the reason I won the two games I did against 2000+ players.

They played carelessly and I played as hard as I oould.

Remember, this guy has no illusions that he can beat you, which is why he can beat you.

It's "scary" to face someone 100 points higher.

It's not at all scary to face someone 1000 points higher.

Trust me-- take your time and find the strongest moves. No short cuts. No ice cream.

Very low rated players can be dangerous.

That's why I duped out the other middlety of the night, because I could only come up with "pointless" (or dodgy, as you put it) anagrams, which I decided did not make the - <Frogspawn Anagramical Quality Threshold> - (FAQT) -- Hence not "up", to scratch, for public humiliation.. (read: publication)

It's all cool to have fun and play around... but but but butt...

So I exerted some pressure on myself and after Anagramnic Cleansing by Frogspawn's Editorial Basta Division (FEBAD), I found that my efforts had ZERO to show for...

In the light of your fine remarks/advice you gave <Elixir>, following Jess'advice, where you brought up the point of not analysing too complex GM games-- I was wondering how you viewed this method/opportunity to analyse GM play ( albeit in a Simul)-- and use it to improve one's own play...

One game of mine that stuck in my mind (though, as usual, I've lost the complete score) was a 75-move bishop-vs-knight (plus about 6 pawns each) ending against a guy rated about 2350. He won -- and my attitude back then, in the 1980s, was that the game had been level until I cracked under the strain and made a fatal blunder (allowing him to sac his knight, getting two separated passed pawns which my bishop couldn't stop).

I'd gone into this particular ending in the belief that a bishop was good when there are multiple pawns on both wings. And it wasn't a classically 'bad bishop' -- it had freedom to move, wasn't tied to defending pawns, etc.

But some time later I looked at this game again and saw that I'd been totally outplayed. He gradually made me turn my bishop into a 'bad' bish. He didn't charge in, grabbing outposts or looking for a king entry - there wasn't one. But he patiently maneuvered his king and knight, slowly improving their scope while I just moved back and forth. He avoided pawn moves, keeping key squares free for his pieces. And he put pressure on the centre, just like the classics say -- while I was firefighting, reacting to short-term threats, with no sense of the bigger picture. I hadn't understood that his knight was always going to be better than my bishop.

It probably was objectively drawn for several moves, but I was in deeper trouble than I realised -- the eventual 'blunder' was just the culmination of his strategy.

Three things I've observed in playing strong players, anyone from FM/IM level upwards:

- Immense patience. If they want to win a game they can do it *very* slowly. Not that they'll overlook a quick kill, if you give 'em the chance. But they know how to wait without just marking time.

- An acute sense of danger. In a 2006 game, I had a 30-minute think, found a (subtle, I thought) move that retreated a piece in order to threaten to threaten to sac it a few moves later. And my master-level opponent had a *30-second* think, then snuffed the whole idea out by exchanging bishops -- a 'concession' I didn't think he'd make and had barely considered. He won, too.

- Finally, sheer will to win. Another guy beat me with 2 mins left on his clock and no more add-ons or increments: just 120 seconds in a roughly equal, but difficult, ending. I had 10 minutes, but I went wrong and lost. Nobody offered a draw: we were both trying to win. The difference is, I'd have taken a draw, and he wouldn't.

These are personal examples that (I hope) taught me something. And if I'm going to make a habit of surviving into tenable endings I should learn not to lose them.

I asked a good player recently how come he never seemed to lose, ever, to 'weaker' players. "Raw terror" was his response.

I ain't scared enough ... but you scare me good. Thanks.

BTW, I think the cheesecake story was in a book about the 1992 rematch with Spassky ... I'll have a look for it.

The only other bit of Bobbiana I recall right now is his Icelandic radio interview, about a year ago. At the time somebody posted a link on the Fischer page. He was angry with the Chinese and had a high opinion of North Korea. They may claim to be commies, but they're demonstrably not Jewish. Unlike, say, the Japanese.

On the current topic of learning things from games of chess, about a year ago I finally learned the value of a pawn. After a difficult middlegame I reached a static-looking ending a pawn up. Seeing no way to progress, I offered a draw. My opponent looked amazed, accepted, and then asked why.

"I couldn't see any way to improve my position" I said. "Neither could I", said she, "and you had a pawn more than me"

So now I make my opponents earn the draw when I have the extra pawn. This paid off recently when I beat a weaker player who offered a draw when a pawn down, knowing that a draw was all I needed to win the match for my team. I played on and won.

Mind you, I had to survive making a horrible blunder that should have dropped a whole rook. My opponent missed it, and then offered the draw, so I had to go through the mental trauma of...

"...I was lost! I should take the draw. No, wait, he doesn't know I was lost. I'm a pawn up. But I'm rattled, can't think. What to do? One extra pawn! Besides, he's lower rated, I can't give him a draw. I was lost! How could I be so stupid as to play that? Calm down, you're still winning..."

After about 20 moves, he was toast. I had bishops, rooks and queens aimed at his king, with multiple mate threats, and no defence. For instance, if he played ...h6, I just exchanged queens and played Rxh6 mate.

And he was taking *ages* to work this out. I paced up and down, grumpily accepting smiles of premature congratulation. 'When will the idiot resign?', I thought. Finally, after what seemed like hours, he moved. It was ...h6. Gotcha!

I dashed back to the board, leaned in, and played Rxh6+. He replied ...Qxh6. I'd forgotten to exchange queens first. His queen was guarding h6. Oh, bollocks.

I stared at the board, and the pieces were literally swimming before my eyes. Couldn't see a thing. I resigned.

Later I saw -- not exactly a forced win -- but a continuation where I had great compensation for the rook. I still had a huge attack. All things being equal and if sanity was in force, I'd have won by playing on.

I *did* learn something, though. Last year, in my first tournament after a 15-year layoff, I started with a draw and a loss. In round 3 I dropped a rook. Another loss and I'd seriously consider giving up again in disgust. But no way was I resigning -- I somehow whipped up an undeserved attack, and wound up mating him. And then I won my next game nicely: back in the groove. But it was a close call.

Now I don't resign unless I'm sure the opponent knows exactly how to win and can blitz it out without thinking. Any ambiguity, and room for maneuver, and I look for complications and a swindle.

I can still smell the studenty adrenalin in that room when I blundered a rook and the game in a single burst of hubris, idiocy, arrogance, and thirst for a humiliating revenge.

Remember chess is also bad for the other guy's nerves. This can be exploited.>

I like that... RIGHT on the button.

Funny how that even translates to other sports, like eg when I played table-tennis at the highest level (and games still went to 21 instead of the 11 of today) --

Anyhoot the thing is that when your opponent leads 19-10 and you won four in a row with a bit of luck and a "all-or-nothing" attitude, it was well possible to see him, the enemy, bend and buckle under the pressure of facing a (maybe unexpected) win...

Just unable to handle the taste of victory in that particular context, losing patience, going for impossible shots... in essence a psychological test was presented towards the final phase of the match, and you're about to being "found out"- regarding the mental bottle you have, that given day, in those circumstances...

Even in Chess, with handling pressure of many kinds towards the end of a game, including time, I think your attitude behind the board, your posture and facial expression, even the way you breath (everything is audible in a quiet room) are all playing a part-- and form a challenge in order to find out who the best <competitor> is... Not just the better, more talented, chessplayer...

<Dom> In general -- Thanks for your posts! Very helpful...

This may sound like a bit of kiss ass, but it is not... Just get used to this Dutchman saying what he means, including the occasional compliment that will be directed to your crazy Irish butt!

Would you consider looking at the game I just posted at my house?

I've been getting kicked around by TOUGH OPPONENTS on <Yahoo> all week so i'm kind of happy about this one.

Yours,
JFQuennedy

Yeah, I'm sure we've all done it. I broke a 13 game unbeaten streak (my best ever) like that. 2 pawns up against a stronger player, about to win a third, when a fourth would follow. The only question was whether, after some preliminary exchanges, I could play Qa3 without getting my queen trapped. 20 minutes of intense thought later, I concluded that 3.Qa3 was safe and good, and reached out and played it. Not having played the exchanges first, my opponent simply took the queen, and I resigned.

That was game 1 of a seven game losing streak. My worst ever.

Told us not to blow it!!

Let the children <something or other>...

GM Dhindassvillialkjfadfjdal has taken credit for this novelty, but don't believe him. It was me.

I am White:

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 d6
3.RESIGN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdWD...

Do you think they are painting together in <Arles>?

They better not be kidnapped.