|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-02-07
 | | Tabanus: <RV> Yes, 44.Qxd5 is probably better than 44.Qf4+ Could this mean that AN is hoping for a perpetual after 41...Qh8 42.Qxd5 Rf6 43.b5? 40.Rf7 avoids this, as well as 39.b5 |
|
Jan-03-07
| | Tabanus: Madonna macaroni, 38...Qc8 39.Qa7+ Kh6 40.Qf7 Qe8 41.Qb7 Re3 42.Rf1 Qe4 43.Qxa6 Re2 44.Rg1 Qf4+ 45.Kh1 Rb2 46.Qa8 completely fails (24-ply): (0.22) 46...Rxb4 etc.,
see analysis in User: Eyal 's forum. And 46.Qb7 fails to the perpetual: 46...Rxg2 |
|
| Jan-05-07 | | twinlark: <Ohio>
Well mate, this particular line was an extraordinary journey for us. The damned thing looked so promising for so long, but the final resolution either kept slipping tantalisingly further from us, or simply wasn't worth the candle compared to 39.b5. The shelf life of these workshops seems to be gradually drawing to a close. What an amazing experience this has all been. Still, let's wait for the fat lady to sing before we get carried away with nostalgia or celebrations. |
|
Jan-05-07
 | | OhioChessFan: It's interesting to consider that OTB, Qa7+ would be quite playable. I still think it wins, but I'm not sure that's the case. CC wise, it just doesn't measure up. |
|
| Jan-05-07 | | twinlark: Qa7+ would be a natural OTB move to play, and would probably win fairly quickly in that context. The escape clauses for this variation, especially that diabolical Kg5 move in the Qf7 variation on <Eyal>'s forum would have been impossible for the normal player to find OTB. But you're quite right, it doesn't cut the mustard with CC, especially when one opponent is a thousand-headed centaur. |
|
| Jan-07-07 | | themadhair: When I was doing analysis I looked at Qb7 first. I usually look to the simpler lines first. Although having being ploughing throung <RookFile>'s rook endings may have helped. |
|
| Jan-08-07 | | Eyal: Happy Birthday (Elvis)! |
|
| Jan-08-07 | | Artar1: Happy Birthday Elvis too!
Thanks for the kind words.
We have the next game to look forward too.
Next time around I will try to produce more analysis! Take care. |
|
Jan-08-07
 | | WannaBe: Well, now, today is Elvis' birthday, and also the BCS Championship game between Ohio State University and University of Florida. One doeth wonder where <OhioChessFan> is, and how many Beer, J Daniels, J Walker, or just plain R Waters he's had so far. :-) C'mon Buckeyes! Let's see a great second half from you! Gooooooo Buckeyes! |
|
Jan-08-07
| | OhioChessFan: LOL <Wannabe> I managed to sleep through most of the first half. Turned the game on to see Florida's last Touchdown of the half. I guess I'm glad I missed it.
I'm not much of a drinker, and occasionally will have a beer or a glass of wine. |
|
| Jan-10-07 | | Artar1: OhioChessFan:
Are you going to join the Yury match?
Chessgames Challenge: Y Shulman vs The World, 2007 |
|
| Jan-11-07 | | noctiferus: <Ohio>
Thanks to You, <Ohio>, for starting that search!: no matter the effective result, it has been great the fight for proving that our line was good, no matter the voting result. |
|
| Jan-11-07 | | noctiferus: <Ohio>
I forgot: kudos to our Elvis |
|
| Jan-11-07 | | Artar1: <OhioChessFan: Love the avatar. I am leaning toward not participating in the new game. Work and real life matters are taking my time.> Thanks for the endorsement and a real deep thanks for your participation in the A. Nickel game. <You ain't nothin' but a hound dog, rockin' all the time...> Sorry...
Work? Real life matters?
Chess is the only real life we have! I'll miss ya...
Take care! |
|
| Jan-15-07 | | hitman84: Hi <OhioChessFan>,
I've planned to organise a friendly consultation team chess game b/n some of the experienced kibitzers on the site. The date of commencement will be decided after consulting with the members in the roster. Rules( liable to change ) :
1. Three members on a team.
2. 2 days/move.
Once a total of six members fill the roster, "draw of lots" shall be used to decide the team. I'm yet to decide on the forums to be used for the game. I invite you to join the game. I'm sure everyone invovled in the game will enjoy and friendship will blossom among the members. Thank you! |
|
| Jan-18-07 | | Chess Classics: <OCF> Are you ever going to finish your Moscow series? Regards,
CC |
|
| Jan-27-07 | | Rocafella: <OCF> practises insulting himself in the mirror to get good |
|
| Jan-31-07 | | Artar1: OhioChessFan:
I think forming forums would give the group an excellent place with which to debate the various pros and cons of each major opening variation of the Queen's Indian. The comments that are made in the forums could be saved for easy access and not lost in the main forum. |
|
Feb-04-07
| | OhioChessFan: Thought for today:
If a frog becomes a man when a woman kisses it, that's a fairy tale.If a frog becomes a man without a woman kissing it, that's evolution. |
|
Feb-04-07
| | WannaBe: <OhioChessFan> You wrote in the Kib'z' Cafe: <Indianapolis is going to be able to move with short passes. Chicago has some problems on offense to address. Great game so far, sloppy as it is.> You should be a football head coach. After the first quarter, that's ALLLLL Indy did, little dump passes, run the ball, and keep the tired Bears defence on the field. |
|
Feb-11-07
 | | tpstar: <OhioChessFan> I understand your position on name players, but I don't think you fully realize how hot it got before. In June 2004 there were no Premium Members yet; we were all equally anonymous and the only serious player in the group was <Honza Cervenka>. When <ray keene> arrived, one person kept repeating his dispute over and over, got himself ignored and eventually banned. The other two loudly complained about the "Ray Keene Crowd" because people went way off topic on his page (ex. literature). They were actively discouraging people from visiting his page as it was not in the "spirit of the site." This came to a head where it was decided that anyone may use their page however they want (cookie recipes) but there were several insults against him (and others) in a blatant effort to drive him away. Some people can't resist the temptation to bring another down, just to do it. I believe personal attacks against other users are hurtful and harmful; worst of all, they are permanent. That's why I took on <CrackerSmack> all those times; he caused trouble just because he liked to cause trouble, and people have left over it. Review what happened to <Susan Polgar> if you doubt how serious this anonymous sniping can get ("nonsense" "arrogant" "ridiculous" "false statements" "You're not holy" "frail little princess"). IMO if someone asks a question on a name player's page, they should sign their real name and maintain a respectful tone throughout. To me, the tone is far more important than the content. You know I mean. Other posters concur with you that name players deserve no special treatment and should expect to be attacked here in the normal course of events. I completely disagree. |
|
| Feb-11-07 | | Dr.Lecter: Please come back to the City of Moscow page and continue your Lord of Flies. It's hilarious! |
|
Feb-12-07
| | OhioChessFan: <tpstar> the discussion was not on Nigel Short's profile page. It was on his games page. Big difference. I noticed several posters who were far out of line, who had posted before <skiskichess> and would agree their behavior was awful. I stand by my point that when GM Short used that page to make his case, he invited reasonable quesetions about the matter. I disagree with your point that a person should sign their real name when asking a question, and really don't see your basis for that. I do agree the tone is important. I don't appreciate your remark that I think name players should expect to be attacked here. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | Squares: I don't think skiskichess was 100% disrespectful to Nigel Short. If he merely had asked what redress Nigel wished to implement in order for resolution to occur, then Nigel would have been free either to express his opinion or not. Skiskichess' list was sarcasm but probably hinted more at his belief that there would appear to be no satisfactory resolution to a shameful event now over a decade old. |
|
Feb-12-07
| | OhioChessFan: Hey <Squares> I just posted a response to you over there, and popped back here to see this comment. I believe in balance. I think Short's outburst toward Kamsky was terrible. A little sarcasm addressed toward him in the matter really doesn't strike me as out of line. And it was a legitimate question. It's one I use a lot with people who are complaining about something or another: "What do you want?"
Again, I note Short didn't respond to the question posed, though he did respond to the poster. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...