|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-08-06 | | oao2102: Sneaky what are your thoughts on the Tolush-Geller gambit in the Slav? I recently encountered: 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 b5 6. e5 Nd5 7. Be2 !? Be2 seems rather low-key for a sharp gambit. I replied with 7...Bg4 with the same idea as Caro-Kann, Two Knights |
|
Aug-10-06
 | | Sneaky: <twinlark> No, close to the first but not quite the first. Beat out by a handful of people who don't come around any more. <oao2102> The gambit is great, but 7.Be2 deserves a "?" in my opinion. To me it looks awful. I don't understand where White can claim any opening advantage. By the way, if you play the Geller gambit from either side of the board you must know about a few traps, one of them being 7.a4 a6 8.axb5 Nxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ng5 
click for larger viewIf Black is tactically snoozing there are many losing moves he might try here. 10...h6? 10...e6? 10...Nbd7? 10...Bd7?, they all stink because of 11.Nxf7! followed with Qf3. Most slav players have seen this little petite combination. However here's something you probably haven't seen before. Suppose Black plays 10...Qc7?! there. Especially at blitz chess, many Geller's Gambiteers will be quick to play 11.Nxf7? as an answer to 10...Qc7, but guess what--the tactic doesn't work anymore because 11...Kxf7 12.Qf3+ Kd8 13.Qxa8 Bb7 14.Qa7 Nc6 and the queen is snared. |
|
| Aug-10-06 | | oao2102: <Sneaky> Thanks for your thoughts. I'm currently playing the black side of the Geller Gambit (correspondence). It is not boring! |
|
Aug-10-06
 | | TheAlchemist: I was once playing around with the Geller gambit and came up with the following 19th century style line (where we have the fearless attacker on one side and a materialistic pawn grabbing player on the other), though I'm aware it's full of errors and very unsound: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 e6 8.Ng5 Be7 9.Nce4 O-O 10.Qh5 h6 11.h4 (I started going crazy here) Nb4 12.Be3 (Even crazier) Nc2+ 13.Kd1 Nxa1 14.Be2 (Of course this is bad, but so is everything else by now, 14...Nb3 or 14...c5 are very straightforward and should win simply for Black. But what if...) Qa5 (This also seems reasonable) 15.Rh3 Qxa4+ 16.Ke1 Qb4+ 17.Kf1 Qxb2 18.Kg1 c3 19.Rg3 c2 20.Nf6+ Bxf6 21.exf6 c1=Q+ 22.Kh2 (And White is winning, though it's really complicated, e.g. 22...Qh1+ 23.Kxh1 Qb1+ 24.Kh2 Qg6 25.Nxf7!) 
click for larger viewNow don't be too harsh, please, it's not meant to be really serious :-) |
|
| Aug-10-06 | | oao2102: True to your name <alchemist> you cooked up something crazy! Well played... |
|
Aug-10-06
| | Sneaky: If your game reached the diagrammed position it hardly matters what moves led up to it! I'm gonna check this out.... |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | fevered cheek: <Sneaky> you seem in the know, especially about fischer, who i also consider the best player of all time. tell me what you genuinley think of fischers chances against karpov in 75' or 78' and beyond. |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | positionalgenius: <fevered cheek>I will wait for <sneaky>to post his opinion.You both probably know my opinion. |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | fevered cheek: indeed :) but you said so yourself that you can seperate the player from the person, did you not? |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | positionalgenius: <fevered cheek>No,I can.I hate Fischer and Alekhine as men but as chessplayers they are awesome.
<sneaky>I want a rematch.You sprung some home-cooked novelty on me!:) |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | chessmoron: <positionalgenius> Why do you hate Alekhine? |
|
| Aug-11-06 | | positionalgenius: <chessmoron>Doesn't my name explain it?:)
And hey I'm organizing a KO tourn for Chessgames.com players.Go to Kibitzers Cafe to register. |
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: <fevered cheek: <Sneaky> ... tell me what you genuinley think of fischers chances against karpov in 75' or 78' and beyond.> I like how you phrased the question. "Chances" is the key word. It's a sporting event and nobody knows with absolute certainty what's going to happen. There can always be a "Tyson-Douglas" type confrontation where reality defies even the most shrewd oddsmakers. Anybody who speaks on subjects of "what would have happened" with absolute certainty is either deluded or stupid. I'd say a typical result would be similar to Fischer-Spassky. Fischer would win by a comfortable margin but it wouldn't be a complete whitewash. If you want to speak in gambling terms, I would say that Karpov would be a 3:1 underdog. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | capatal: Didn't Karpov beat Spassky
16 games to 3 with 25 draws?
Seems a much better record
than fischer beat Spassky
17 games to 10 with 28 draws.
|
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: Capatal, if you use those statistics to draw a conclusion about the aborted 1975 match, your logic is flawed on many different levels. 1 - For starters, cross-comparisons of that sort are notoriously inaccurate. Is it not true that Boris Gulko beat Garry Kasparov 3 to 1, with 4 draws? And is it also not true that Judit Polgar beat Boris Gulko 5 to 0 (!) with no draws!! Therefore, by your logic, Judit Polgar should be much much stronger than Kasparov. I don't think you really believe she is. 2 - The statistics that you gleaned include things like the Karpov vs Spassky 15 minute chess match which appeared on Hamburg television and other nonsense that really conveys very little information about how strong they are relative to one another. 3 - Perhaps most important, you are using statistics that span an entire career to make a judgement about would have happened in 1975. Many of those victories that Spassky had over Fischer occured in the 1992 match. How could games played in 1992 give us information about what would have happened in 1975? |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | Hesam7: 
click for larger view<Sneaky: what SHOULD white play here? That's a very interesting topic in itself.> Lets take a look at White's options: As we have seen Black has a lot of resources after 13. Bxb5+. The other option is: 13. Qf3 Bb4+ 14. Ke2 Rb8 and I like Black's position more to be honest. The last try is 13. 0-0 Qd5 14. Qe2 Ba6 and I would say White has compensation for the pawn but nothing more than that. Maybe the truth is that White is not better at all and should be happy with a draw. I am no expert but I think the most principled way of responding to semislav is 5. Bg5, but if I have to play the Meran then I think I would prefer 10. d5. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | capatal: <Sneaky> Simply stated, Karpov's life-time record vs Spassky is grossly superior to Fischer's life-time record vs Spassky-common opponents statistics are historically relied on by odds-makers world-wide.(that would seem to be the fact...now we get to the interpretation of the facts). |
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: <capatal: Karpov's life-time record vs Spassky is grossly superior to Fischer's life-time record vs Spassky> I think "grossly superior" is an exaggeration--after all they both got the better of Spassky, but it's certainly better. So what conclusions do you draw from that? |
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: <Hesam> 13.O-O is a sound and strong continuation. I think you underestimate White's chances in that position. There is one game which especially made a profound impact on my opinion of this game, I have even dubbed this variation "The Korchnoi Attack" although it does in fact date back to Alekhine. Check it out: Korchnoi vs F Csajka, 1988 13.Qf3 is fascinating too. I think it's a great gimmick move to be used at sub-master levels to score points. You say 13. Qf3 Bb4+ 14. Ke2 Rb8. Yes you are 100% correct, that's the best way to deal with it. But here's the rub--it's a very hard continuation for many players to see, because a strong player (but not the very strong player) will see ahead to this position and conclude that White must be winning 
click for larger viewbecause of the 3-way fork 15.Nc6. The queen, a rook, and the bishop all swinging in the breeze! But like a guardian angel, Caissa comes out of heaven to bless the Semi Slav with an answer to everything, and this time it comes in the form of 15...Bb7! So my conclusion is
(A) 13.Qf3 is a good try in blitz chess but not the best continuation. (B) 13.O-O gives excellent prospects to White, and gives me the kind of intense game that I enjoy, but I still believe in the Semi Slav's guardian angel. |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | fevered cheek: thanks for the info |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | capatal: capatal: It seems Fischer was well aware of Karpov's severe trouncing of Spassky and decided to change the rules quick, fast and in a hurry before meeting Karpov for the World Chess Championship in 1975.
If Fischer had any moxie or class - he would have defended the title with the same rules he won it from Boris Spassky with in 1972. Fischer rather preferred to make dozens of changes to the Chess World Championship competition rules...then duck the Karpov match... when just one of his new self-serving rules was declined by the World Chess Governing Group. (chicken feathers personified)
A disappointed fan
|
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: <capatal> You've been listening to too much propaganda from Kasparov. The theory that Fischer, while in hiding, was watching Karpov play, and that's why he had to abort the match. Use your head and don't believe everything Weinstein tells you. That makes about as much sense as saying Morphy retired from chess because he feared Steinitz (who he had never heard of at the time.) It was very clear in 1972 that Fischer was probably never going to play chess again. In fact it was a miracle that the 72 match could even be arranged. I assure you, if Spassky demolished Karpov instead of the other way around, we would still not have seen Fischer play in '75. Fischer could not play due to mental problems. Yes, it's very sad, but no more sad than a giants like Tal and Pillsbury cut down due to physical ailments. When I hear people criticize Fischer for his extremely abberant behavior, it makes me as sick as hearing somebody make fun of a mentally retarded person. Nature plays some cruel tricks sometimes, but we can show compassion instead of mockery. |
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: Besides, look at the bright side--Fischer's legacy is enormous and it can never be taken away from us. I know, there are only 1,000 Fischer games, compared to 3,000 Karpov games. But one Fischer game is worth 5 or 6 Karpov games--it's quality not quanity that matters! |
|
| Aug-12-06 | | TIMER: <Sneaky> Karpov at his best was close to Kasparov's strength, I think that you are under-rating him a bit giving that ratio. Karpov was a great champion for 10 years, then he remained second after Kasparov in ranking for another decade. It would have been a great match. |
|
Aug-12-06
| | Sneaky: Don't read much into my "ratio", all I'm saying is that with Fischer I can look at 3 or 4 games, on the average, to find one real gem, but with Karpov I would have to look at many more to find a similar gem. With Alekhine, every other game is a gem! (Of course his opponents were often cooperative in helping him construct his brilliancies.) Of course this is purely opinion. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
