|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 114 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-02-11
 | | Fusilli: <dak> The opening Botvinnik chose is tricky. With White you run the risk of falling into a passive position if you don't play it right. Of course, that wasn't Botvinnik's problem. :-) Good luck with the rest! |
|
| Jan-02-11 | | dakgootje: I thought my.. his.. our! position was nice but we just traded down to a near-endgame position [current task is finding move 18] which is not one I really fancy. d4 Was his idea! Not mine! Now we've got an isolated d-pawn, nice going Mike. And they say my team-mate is the better of us two! Preposterous! Little more room and activity though, so supposedly it is fine. Somehow.. Back to the drawing board. |
|
| Jan-02-11 | | dakgootje: Heh, I lost a point. Twice in row.
And on both occasions I thought the move was quite okay. What is really wrong with 24. Bc4? We've got pawns hanging left and right and at least Bc4 gets rid of the ..Rd5 threat. Besides, in either variation the queens probably get exchanged on d6 so it is not like moving our queen once more is that much of a gain. Actually, I initially had not seen the d5-square so I wanted to play 23. f4 but a better look -after I lost the first point- revealed nasties after 23. ..Rd5. |
|
Jan-02-11
| | Fusilli: <dak> When you say you "lost a point", do you mean you got 2 instead of 3? That means you still made a good move, only that MB's move was better. I got plenty of 2-point moves, and still made it past 110 (with two blunders which got me punished to the tune of -3 points each time!) |
|
| Jan-02-11 | | dakgootje: No, my dear Fusilli. The solution to the mystery is much more elemental. When I lose points, I actually get -1; I'd be a happy man if I'd consider scoring 2 on a move instead of 3 as a loss of a point. Or, if not happier, at least I'd undoubtedly be a better chess-player. I'm good at reading Sherlock Holmes though - so I've got my qualities. ps:Team-mate Mike stumped me a couple of times with his moves [e.g. I thought 26. Rc1 simply lost a pawn and dismissed it fairly quickly]
pps: 'Fairly quickly' is measured in the International Sluggard Scale; not the Imperial Scale of How Art Blitzing Bullets. |
|
| Jan-02-11 | | dakgootje: WE ARE NOW FOLLOWING
Botvinnik vs Levenfish, 1937.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF BOTVINNIK.
Your score: 108 (par = 97)
-- Did take a fairly long time though.. But I am satisfied :D Blundered once as well - I wanted to play 47. Ke3 because I could not really find a bust in either Ke1 or Ke3 and thought I could get out in the latter option. -3 Said I could not. So I could've scored 114 for eternal glory while now.. I still performed above my expectations ;) |
|
Jan-02-11
| | Fusilli: <dak> Awesome! Isn't GTM fun? |
|
| Jan-02-11 | | crawfb5: <<C> That's a good score on GTM! You should go back to competition too!> Thanks, but OTB is impractical at this time. I try to keep my hand in with CC at a few sites. |
|
| Jan-02-11 | | Knight13: <Fusilli> Thank you for the wish. What's your favorite color? |
|
Jan-03-11
| | Fusilli: <K> It depends for what... For tango I tend to favor black and other dark colors. My wardrobe has a variety of colors, with dark colors found more often than light colors. But my house is painted in bright colors. For example, the dancing room we have painted red, and the dining room salmon, and I love it. I would say that in general I prefer the warm palettes (such as red, salmon, brown) to the cold palettes (such as most blues). Was this a more complicated answer that you expected? If you want a single color, I'll go for red. Specifically, the second red on the top row here: http://vickiwelsh.typepad.com/field.... |
|
Jan-03-11
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Maerial Combat>
Thanks so much- that's very valuable information to me about <Rossolimo>, especially since you provided the source. |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | dakgootje: <Isn't GTM fun?>
It is! But it does take a lot of time :P
That said, I'm planning on doing it more in 2011 ;) |
|
Jan-03-11
| | Fusilli: <dak> A couple years ago I took a few lessons with GM Kaidanov. He asked me how I studied and sadly the only systematic thing I did was to play GTM once in a (long) while. He encouraged me to do it more often. Didn't happen, I must embarrassingly admit. But, like you, I do plan to go back to it in 2011! |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | dakgootje: Did one today actually! Korchnoi - Timman, 1988.
Scored 66 on a par 56, so that is quite okay. Could've been much better though as I played much faster than yesterday. So had a -2 and a -3 along with some normal lost chances. Suppose you can score a 75 without too much of a fuzz. |
|
Jan-03-11
| | Fusilli: <dak> Yeah, I'd prefer it to tell you that you are at certain level of playing strength, rather than giving you a single number and the par (which I believe is just the average of those who tried). Bruce Pandolfini's solitaire chess in Chess Life does just that. It tells you what your level is (in equivalent rating level) depending on how many points you score. But I gave up on it because he likes to bring up games from the romantic era (Morphy and such), heavy in (often flawed) sacs and tactics, and few people play like that anymore. I prefer GTM because you can choose the players of your liking and they are more strategic games. For that, Botvinnik, Petrosian and Karpov rock... or at least they are my favorites. If I want to spice it up with tactics, Bronstein or Larsen are perfect choices, and obviously Kasparov or Alekhine. There is a Petrosian - Polugaevsky, won by Petrosian, that is pretty good, but I don't remember the year. But all of the super GMs are well balanced players, anyway. |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | dakgootje: I generally forget playing styles - so usually I use the random-GTM option :) Perhaps I shall do another one this evening ^^ |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | dakgootje: Heh.. I actually random-GTM'ed into Radjabov - Goguadze, 1996. On the one hand my score was decent [missed some points because my attacking-plan turned out to be slightly different] with 58 on a par-51. On the other hand.. Radjabov was only... 9? at the time. No fun when a 9-year old probably makes the better moves :P EDIT: And for some reason my 'overall' rating is still <average> despite having 1x average, 1x needs work, 1x outstanding, 1x very good and 3x good. Would expect a 'good' overall would you not? Heh, and all because of a 2008-GTM when I scored 50 on a par-60 at a Kasparov game.. |
|
Jan-03-11
| | Fusilli: <dak> Not sure what you are talking about. Is there an overall GTM ranking? |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | dakgootje: yapyap!
GTM -> Special Functions -> Review all Your Scores -----
<results>
-----
You have taken 8 quizzes to date.
OVERALL RATING: AVERAGE |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | crawfb5: <M> If you go a GTM game and look below the board and move choice section, you will see an option called <Special Functions>. Within <Special Functions> there is an option to <Review all your scores>. This holds all your old scores along with the dates you took them. You <can> clear them all out, but this keeps the system from giving you a game you've already tried. At the bottom of the review page you get a summary that looks something like this: <You have taken 214 quizzes to date.
OVERALL RATING: GOOD> |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | crawfb5: I see <dak> beat me to it. I was doing a lot of GTMs in 2008 and then got distracted with other things. The Botvinnik game was the first I'd done since then. I find it easier to see where a plan is heading once the GM has started it off than I would coming up with the plan by myself, but that's just part of why he's the GM and I'm not. |
|
Jan-03-11
| | Fusilli: <dak> <C> Ah, look at that. I got this: Tal vs Smyslov, 1959 May-26-07 55 34 OUTSTANDING!
Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 Jul-30-07 84 72 GOOD
R Akesson vs P Dias, 2001 Jul-15-08 43 40 AVERAGE
Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1955 Oct-01-08 53 46 GOOD
Vaganian vs Ulf Andersson, 1968 Jul-18-09 90 70 VERY GOOD
Petrosian vs Polugaevsky, 1970 Dec-14-09 76 63 VERY GOOD
Botvinnik vs Levenfish, 1937 Dec-29-10 113 98 GOOD
You have taken 7 quizzes to date.
OVERALL RATING: VERY GOOD
It seems that my best try was my first! And it seems I have done this a lot fewer times than I thought... However, once I let my cg.com account expire and my records may have been erased, because I am positive I tried Kasparov-Beliavsky once. |
|
Jan-03-11
| | Fusilli: New Year Resolution: I *will* do many more GTMs this year, and I *will* get another "outstanding"! |
|
| Jan-03-11 | | crawfb5: <M> Here are the last few "outstanding" ratings I got back when I was actively working on GTM. If I could do it on these games, surely you can. As always, I live to serve... Lesiege vs Zaremba, 2001 Jun-25-08 32 19 OUTSTANDING! T Luther vs O Touzane, 1994 Jun-25-08 25 12 OUTSTANDING! D Baretic vs T Timman, 1974 Jul-27-08 37 23 OUTSTANDING! |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | dakgootje: Heh, or just pick any low-mover. With a bit of careful thought you can score high. Tarrasch vs Gunsberg, 1890 Oct-04-08 15 5 OUTSTANDING! S Bogner vs K Szabo, 2007 Jan-03-11 13 6 OUTSTANDING! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 114 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
