|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 293 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-14-08
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Dr. Max Euwe>:
Well, I believe <Dom> was playing some OTB chess-- he's also been known to "take a break" for a week or so at a time. Also, he seems to have more than his share of "computer meltdowns" etc. I think the last time he was gone was because his IP actually blew up, if I'm not mistaken. (wind whistles through <Frogspawn>) |
|
Jan-14-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: It's also possible that <Dom> is actually <GM Elf a nov>. Has anyone ever seen both of them at the same time? I didn't think so... |
|
| Jan-14-08 | | achieve: You mean GM Velimirovic Paveljanovich Brezinskaya ?? We may well have anagram material here... I think you're on to something... |
|
Jan-14-08
 | | Domdaniel: <Jess & Niels> Thanks for the conspiracy theories which as always are more entertaining than the mundane truth. Gawd, I loathe truth, especially the mundane kind. Give me lies, or give me, well, different lies. In this case I vanished because I had a so-called 'cold' and decided just to hole up in a warm corner and read books. Keyboard pecking was too much like exercise. Both mack and I, I think, are playing in tournaments *next* weekend. BTW, has anyone ever actually seen me and *anyone* at the same time? Thought not. Not in the visible-light EM spectrum anyhow. Ultraviolent light is different. |
|
| Jan-14-08 | | Harvestman: So, your true form is revealed under ultraviolent light eh? Cue spooky noises... Its a well known fact that scorpions are fluorescent under ultraviolet light. Walk into a desert at night with a UV lamp, and all the glowing purple spots are scorpions. Of course, wandering around a desert at night looking for glowing purple spots may be a sign of something else entirely... |
|
| Jan-14-08 | | achieve: Fearless Leader! Finally!
Winds back, winds back...
You made it! Back there you recovered as all do like we do... Nothing fancy to say right now -- that's Jess' job for tomorrow... Corus is ziemlich exciting by now - hope you can have a good time catching up on some things - I think the informal interviews with some of the top players at < Chessvibes> are a joy. |
|
Jan-14-08
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> Slow, down, there. I didn't say I'd actually *recovered*, just that I felt like pecking a keyboard again. Tomorrow I might try food. Yes, Wijk was part of what drew me back (I can't call it Corus, I'm so ancient I remember Hoogovens) -- the violent beatings dished out to certain so-called world champions, for a start. And of course the plaintive cries of you and Jess, like scorpions in a desert calling out for bigger stings and more global warming. |
|
Jan-14-08
| | Domdaniel: <Jess> A fine novelty, that. Like most novelties, it's been played before - probably by some camel-eating toothless cosmopolitan under the influence of the former Duke Karl of Braunschweig. It's a variant on the <Hanham Hadham Butt Lostham> line of Philidor's Defence (which, and this is actually the unvarnished truth, is known as the French Knight's Opening in some countries). - May I peek inside your armour, m'sieur le chevalier? - Madame! Je suis homme de partie ... et tu peux faire what-you-like. Time for my mug of Noveltine, I suspect. |
|
| Jan-14-08 | | achieve: HA! Yes, <Dom>, we do get carried away, but all in good spirits. Corus is indeed hard to crank out for me too, but I have made some adjustments after Hoogovens in Wijk am See. (In my mind it will always be Hoogovens-- all those fusions/mergers...) Anyhoo, my fellow sufferer, I am glad to see you pop up again- and sincerely hope you'll get better soon. Peck away, peck, peck. |
|
| Jan-14-08 | | achieve: PS Loek van Wely could have won today... To convert the advantage he should have played 36...Bf5 in stead of ...Rd5 -- Loek shows again he can mix it with the best of them and proves that all the talk about him being the "weakest" of the field is sheer nonsense... What weakest? At what? They're all so strong.
And Caruana in the C-group is also one to watch... Co-leading with a German called Braun, whom I never heard of before... |
|
Jan-15-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: Welcome home <Odysseus>!! I'm sorry you were under the weather.
Relieved and happy to see you.
I just posted a minature in my house where I beat the Crap out of someone. You know, my chess psychology is screwed up. I overestimated this guy cuz of his rating-- played overly carefully and missed an easy win three times in a row. Live and learn!!
I took him seriously but my Engine didn't. It laughed at him!! Stupid Engine... |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> -- < Co-leading with a German called Braun, whom I never heard of before...> I (genuinely) was going to tip Arik Braun as a cast-iron certainty -- well, a red-hot plunge, or whatever the gambling terminology is this week. I've seen some of his games. The latest German Wunderkind, unless I'm mistaken. And quite a Wunder, too. There are so many German players at every level up to strong GM, that it's something of a mystery they haven't produced more world-class players. But this could be the one. |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Domdaniel: <Jess> They had a big debate in chesslive (I think, but maybe I'm delirious) about changing the rules (again) to discourage grandmaster draws. All the usual flawed ideas: zero points each for a draw, draws verboten before x moves or y minutes, usw. All fail for obvious reasons. In any case, I don't really think draws *are* such a problem. But one suggestion I found interesting, for different reasons, was to keep players and opponents separate at all times. Not only could you not see your opponent, but you wouldn't even know who it was. And in an open tournament it might be a GM or a beginner. This would eliminate rating neurosis -- from being afraid to play forcefully against a high-rated opponent to being too impatient vs low-rated ones. Could be interesting afterwards too: "You mean I offered *her* a draw?? And she took it!! Aargh!" Still tremendously delirious, as you can see. |
|
| Jan-15-08 | | Tomlinsky: <Dom> I think one of Yermolinsky's ideas has merit with regard agreed draws. If both players are confident that a position is indeed drawn then turn the board round and play on for a set number of moves to prove it. It would certainly make players think about even offering a draw before doing so let alone accepting it. I find that an interesting idea as often one sees, or believes they do, resources for their opponent that they think an opponent is missing when accepting a draw. Proving the agreement seems reasonable and it could be entertaining, not to mention instructive, to observe. |
|
Jan-15-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: <dom> your idea is interesting-- but as an ex-club player forced to do something like what you suggest on the Internet... I NEED to be able to look my opponent straight in the eyes... Ask, deadpan..."Did you REALLY fly Messerschmidts?"... And then play 3.d4...
(that's a true story from my Club when I played the Scotch against a 130 year old German fellow.) I liked him immensely.
Regards, Cathy.
(PS your DSB FEN is more beautiful than a toilet in a museum. Actually, in the context where you "situated it," it's bloody brilliant. Outstanding, just outstanding.
It's made MY night I can tell you.
Love,
Mrs. Faversham (deceased) |
|
Jan-15-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: To be more precise:
I got this far....
<Domdaniel: <Jess> As it looked more interesting than this, I constructed a 55-move game in which White ended up with nine DSBs against Black's lone King.> before I began giggling so uncontrollably I could not read any further for several minutes. HAHAHAH I can't help i I'm going crazy yere laughing right now.... HAHAHAHAHAH
hah
heh
Oh my god a gut laugh is better than... well I don't know what-- and once you start... HAHAHAHAAH
helpPHEOP i CAN'T STOP...
heh..
thank you...
wheeee |
|
| Jan-15-08 | | achieve: Well, <dom>, you've done your bit for the crown... I will be keeping an eye on Brown from now on...
BRAUN, BRAUN, IMMER BRAUN!!
heh |
|
Jan-15-08
 | | Open Defence: <<Ziggurat Stardust and the Camels from Sumeria>. has a nice ring to it ... |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Open Defence: <Dom's> eye make up also reminds me of Ziggy |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Domdaniel: <Jess> Glad you liked that FEN. I could show you the whole sequence so you could construct such magnificent edifices in your own games. It starts 1.h4 g6
2.h5 Bg7 [<mack> would suffer here, I feel] 3.h6 Nf6
4.hxg7 Ng8 [a nod to <Murphy-Endon, 1939>] 5.gxh8(B)
That's the 1st - or 2nd - DSB. Just seven to go ... and I'm sure 55 moves can be bettered. Sigh. The little ways we bemuse ourselves.
Dr Lieblingszug. |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Domdaniel: <Ziggurat> Apparently cats don't laugh, much. Hence the existence of a comedy festival (in Kilkenny, Ireland, also home to a chess tournament). And the popular phrase "That'd make a cat laugh", whatever that's supposed to mean. I think "That'd make a Ziggurat laugh" is so much more ... profound. |
|
Jan-15-08
| | Domdaniel: Done it. A 44-move nine-DSB game, which must be the theoretical minimum -- 5 moves each for 8 pawns to reach the 8th rank + 4 bishop moves (since only 4 'bishopricking' squares are eligible, 4 bishes have to get out of the way). Well, I can't call them 'queening squares', can I? Ordination squares, maybe. Or is it <elevation> to a bishopric? Hmm. Is a <nonuple> or <ennead> of opposite-color-bishops possible? As in nine each? My minimal game also removes all other pieces from the board. Think I'll get into those <fairy serieshelpmate> things next. Excellent tournament training. Make 12 moves in a row with your Gryphon, then detonate an Atom Bomb Pawn... |
|
| Jan-15-08 | | JoeWms: Inevitable: Somebody had to extend the <bishopric> spelling. See my recent "Brotherly love" post and link about a real genuwyne archbishoprick. |
|
Jan-15-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Done it. A 44-move nine-DSB game,> DOM!!!
Huzzah!
Ok I feel I need to explain further, although that's no guarantee that anything will become "more clear." First, there is something both marvelously Quixotic and wonderfully dedicated about actually WANTING to find the shrotest possible <nine-DSB game> following all existing and actual chess rules. This goes WAY beyond "chess nerdiness" and approaches the sainted realm of actual insanity. One is reminded of <Duchamp's> infamoous rejoinder "Why not chess"? Why not indeed.
You have to understand (because I certainly don't) why I was rolling on the ground helpless with laughter until my tummy ached. It was the <matter of factness> in which you reported "this seemed more interesting", I think--- More interesting than the Game between the two leaders of the Highest Category Tournament in the history of chess. OK the insouciance here is priceless.
But even better--
More interesting than the stentorian, puddle-headed, pompous, slack-jawed, GALLERY posts-- No doubt there, though, as with any collection of the Great Unwashed, no game goes by without a few GEMS by the punters as well. But after dismissing the players and fans so matter of factly, so ingenuously, the understatement of the actual insult became ENORMOUSLY FUNNY. Especially given the nature of what you proposed to be MORE interesting. Well I thought I owed you some kind of further explanation so you are under no illusion that I regard you or your "project" to be nothing more than "comic relief." In fact, I implore-- nay-- BEG you to please post the 44 moves in your latest discovery so I TOO can play them out over the board and marvel at the ETERNAL MYSTERY that we call "chess." Regards,
Morphette |
|
Jan-16-08
| | Domdaniel: <Joe> A great theological quandary, I agree ... but what are we to do if we wish to speak of bishoprics, and matters pertaining to 'em. As, inevitably, we do. Take 'Bishoprickery' for example, formed by analogy with 'trickery'. It means, um, the sort of stuff that happens in a Bishopric. Note that, if I left out the 'k', it would then be 'Bishopricery'. Which sounds far worse, with the pricing of bishops and the sins of Usury, Onan, and that other guy all rolled into one (which also sounds sinful). We can't have that. Let our watchword be "Think before putting out the K". Or maybe "If you see a good move sit on your hands - unless you're holding a bishop". |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 293 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
