|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-10-06
 | | WannaBe: We have to get one of them over-sized smoking caterpillar to go into the corner for the ambiance, (did I spell that correct?) Then we'll all start singing...
One pill, makes you larger
One pill, makes you small
and the one your mother gives you
don't do anything at all! =) |
|
Jan-10-06
 | | Sneaky: By popular request... <TOPACABANA pt II> His name was Kramnik, he was a world champ
But that was many years ago, back when Garry ran the show Now it's a circus, a silly side show
It's become so cheap and seedy, run by all the crooks at FIDE But Topa was renewed...
and that made Kramnik brood...
"I beat the Beast from Baku
But just WHO are YOU?"
He was Topa... Topacabana...
The hottest Champ since J.R. from Havana.
Oh yes it's Topa... Topacabaaana...
Pawn storms a-crashin' is always the fashion
Go Topalov... |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | brankat: <Sneaky> Are You aware of this important fact: Your next kibitz will be #6000! Congrats! |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | blingice: Gasp. |
|
| Jan-12-06 | | mymt: <Sneaky> love the song!
in your game what had you planned
for 17. ...Kf7?
was it something like 18.Rh4-f4
or 18.h6 - Bh5? |
|
| Jan-12-06 | | Jarlaxle: if i could find some nice B.C or humbult nuggets i'd be in business |
|
Jan-12-06
| | Sneaky: <what had you planned for 17. ...Kf7?
was it something like 18.Rh4-f4 or 18.h6 - Bh5?> I saw both of those moves and figured that if one didn't work, the other would. Sometimes you just have to have faith that your position is at least equal and you can cross bridges when you come to them. |
|
Jan-12-06
| | Sneaky: Just for fun, I was analyzing 17...Kf7 on my computer and found this funny line: 17...Kf7 18.Rh4 Ke8 19. h6 and now ...Qd6 (Sigma Chess suggestion) looks like a good consolidating move, right?
click for larger viewWrong! 20.e5! Qxd5 21.Rd1! and Black can resign in light of Bh5+ |
|
| Jan-13-06 | | shr0pshire: <sneaky> I finally got three of my correspondence games uploaded into the database (I might plan on trying to upload a few more). If you get a chance let me know what you think! S Tomporowski vs Thomas, 2005
Thomas vs T Hannebauer, 2005
and finally my crowning loss, but this very well may go on my refrigerator
U Mehlhorn vs Thomas, 2005 |
|
Jan-13-06
| | Sneaky: shrop, I left you some comments on the Melhorn game. It reminded me that I need to take a look at the Colle system more carefully. I have a deep contempt for it, and I scorn those who employ it, but I must admit I've never really sat down and came up with a game plan. At the next tournament I could easily lose to one of the many Colle system woodpushers out there. |
|
| Jan-14-06 | | shr0pshire: <Sneaky> Thanks for your comments and analysis. I wanted to post the games at chessgames.com because I don't have any friends who play chess. I was shocked that I was playing a person who less than a year ago was actually in the top 35 correspondence players in the world! I mean for me that would be like Gata Kamsky coming over to my house after the Corus tournament for a private otb match! I mean this wasn't a 36 person simul, this was just me v. one of the strongest players in the game (Uwe Mehlhorn). I will have to think about posting anymore of my games though, I am just disheartened by most of the responses I got. It seems like everyone could have played better than I did. And I don't know how many people on this site who post could actually say they played a match with a 2600+ rated player. Maybe I am being over-sensitive, or maybe this site is just too negative for me. I am not sure which.... I am going to go think. shr0p |
|
Jan-14-06
| | Sneaky: < am just disheartened by most of the responses I got> As far as I can tell I'm the only one who posted a comment... I hope you don't mean that my comment was negative. I tried to figure out the losing move and I think I did it. Putting my finger on the problem so to speak. What kind of criticism gets you angry? The only kind that gets my goat is when somebody really doesn't know what they are talking about, and I know it, and I have to sit their patiently listen to them say all this BS as if I'm a little child who needs their fatherly advice. |
|
| Jan-14-06 | | shr0pshire: <sneaky> No it wasn't you. It was more of a composite of the comments I got, more than anything. Some of the comments also were directed at a very sharp sicilian najdorf that I am playing against Tomporwoski (he is a USCF CC master and one of the three games I posted was a game against him). I showed some players on this site the game, and it seems like everyone is a critic. I don't think most kibitzers realize how precise you have to play in a sicilian najdorf against one of our country's best. And I guess some of the comments I took to heart were when I showed the uploaded games into the database to some of my friends on here I got ho-hum responses. Two of the games I posted were players deep in the world ICCF championship cycle, and the third was a person who has played for the US CC championship. I did lose all three games, but for an unrated player who has never ever played in a single tournament before (by any national or international organization such as FIDE, or USCF) I thought I was doing really well -- contrary to poplular belief evidently. I guess that coupled with the whole AJ Goldsby fiasco really tilted me -- which is in part why I posted these games to show that I play and hang with people 400 points higher than AJ Goldsby's OTB rating (let alone his correspondence rating which I think he said was 1900 or 2000). I will toughen up though. I am not sure if I plan on posting anymore of my games, but I definately plan on studying Mr. Mehlhorn's repitiore and then asking him for a two game rematch. I have a few very strong players who practice with me and hopefully one of them will help me with the colle. And if you would like to work on the colle with me I would appreciate any help I can get. If you would ever like a correspondence game let me know sneaky. You are very polite and a fun player. I am currently playing CC games with <AgentRgent and Suenteus> from chessgames.com. Thanks for your posts though and your concern. I am just a little down more than anything. :( |
|
Jan-16-06
| | Sneaky: Isn't this position interesting
click for larger viewQuestion: if it's Black's move, and Black is allowed to make as many consecutive moves as he pleases, how many moves will it take to put his King on the e4 square? Answer: Trick question--the king cannot get to e4! The Black king is locked in behind a wall. Since I can't put X's on the diagram board I will use Black queens to represent the wall I'm talking about: 
click for larger viewNeat huh? |
|
Jan-23-06
 | | tpstar: <Sneaky> Swat the typo = 3. Qg6+ Kg8 But 1. Nxg5! fxg5 2. Bh7+ wins quicker, just like your second line. Nice combination. =) |
|
Jan-23-06
| | Sneaky: <<Sneaky> Swat the typo> Oops thanks, let me fix that <But 1. Nxg5! fxg5 2. Bh7+ wins quicker, just like your second line.> Quite true, it's funny I didn't think of Bh7+ in any of my calculating during the game. I guess I was just in a rook-saccin' mood. Sneaky vs NN (ICC 2 min + 12 sec/move)
click for larger view1.Nxg5! fxg5 2.Qh7+ Kf7 3.Qg6+ Kg8 4.Rh8+! Kxh8 5.Qh7#
After the game I checked out 1.Nd6! here, sure it works: ...Qxd6 2.Bh7+ Kh8 3.Bg6+ etc. |
|
| Jan-26-06 | | thomaspaine: There is no need to "keep giving checks" I think maybe even the "quiet" move is fastest: Nxg5 fxg5 2. Bg6 xx 3. Qh8#. |
|
Jan-27-06
| | Sneaky: True enough, but in blitz games there is a nice feeling of security when you keep giving checks--you're always afraid that if you make a quiet move in the midst of an attack he might have some resource that you're overlooking. |
|
Jan-27-06
| | Sneaky: I want to say a few things about transpositions, ECO, and the Opening Explorer. This stuff gets really confusing so let's go slow. A lot of people here are confused about how transpositions work, and why the Opening Explorer does some of the weird things that it does, so let me try to explain what I've figured out. I believe that examples drive ideas home, so lets start right off the bat with an example. Look at this position: 
click for larger view
White to move.
This position was reached after playing a slightly uncommon move in a very common opening. Can you figure out what opening this is? |
|
Jan-27-06
| | Sneaky: If you said "French exchange" you are absolutely right. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 Nf6. If you said "English" you are equally as correct. 1.c4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 Nf6. I remember being in this position when I was playing around with the Albin countergambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.e3 exd4 4.exd4 Nf6 Even the Budapest Gambit can lead to this position ... 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.e3 exd4 4.exd4 d5 And finally, the Scandinavian can easily go down this path -- 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.d4 exd5 So we see, this position can be achieved many different ways. This is not what you I call a "defining position" of openings. When you see this position you just don't know what the opening is, it depends what happened leading up to it, but it also might depend on what happens next. Compare that situation to this position:
click for larger viewOf course you recognize this as the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) This is a defining position--if you see this position, you know that the game, so far, is a King's Gambit. It cannot possibly be anything else at this point. Now check this out--even if the game began with Bird's Opening 1.f4 e5 (From's gambit) 2.e4 it is still a King's Gambit. The fact that the game began with 1.f4 doesn't mean that it's a Bird's Opening. Think of it this way: if you were in a correspondence game, and were in this position, which book would you rather have, "Birds Opening for the Correspondence Player" or "Winning with the King's Gambit" ?? |
|
Jan-27-06
| | Sneaky: The idea here is that each opening has certain defining positions. The King's Gambit has not only the 1.e4 e5 2.f4 position, but also many others like 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3, or 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4, etc. When you figure out what opening a game is, you don't start at the beginning, you start at the END. What is the most advanced position in the game which is a defining position in a well known opening? That's what opening the game is. ♗ to be continued... ♗ |
|
Jan-27-06
| | WannaBe: <Sneaky> Thanks for the 2 games last night, I'm gonna run through our second game. May possibly post analysis here later this weekend perhaps, if I may. =) |
|
Jan-28-06
| | Sneaky: Now let's take a look at a real example.
Ivanchuk vs Topalov, 2006 starts << 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.g3 O-O 6.Bg2 >> Giving us this position--
click for larger viewWe may be inclined to say "This is a Nimzo Indian!" but it's not that clear. After these moves the Opening Explorer says "English Symmetrical (47)", "Nimzo-Indian, Three knights (14)", "Nimzo-Indian (7)" So this tells us that there are a number of games which are classified as English Symmetrical games which reaches this same position, in fact, more of them than the Nimzos. When I first used the Opening Explorer I would scratch my head and say "What exactly does this mean??" To understand maybe it's best to say what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that 47 of games started with "1.c4 c5" and the Nimzo games started with "1.d4 Nf6". Those moves don't define whether or not it's a Nimzo or an English! Here's what it really means... Depending on what happens NEXT in this position will tell us whether it's an English or a Nimzo. E.g., the game Rubinstein vs Bogoljubov, 1920 continued << Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qa5 >> and then we were in Nimzo territory. The game Piket vs Korchnoi, 1993 continued << 7.Nxd4 d5 >> and that put us back into English country. Why does this put us back into English country? Well, it's because of the common move order for the English symmetrical 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. g3. If there's no capture on d4, it doesn't transpose into the English. if there is, it can. So there you have it, friends. It took me hours to figure this out, through trial and error with the Opening Explorer, but I think I finally figured out what those weird opening designations really mean. At first I was simply wondering "Why doesn't chessgames simply say THIS OPENING IS ______ and be done with it, why all this confusion and subterfuge?" Now I know. The job of identifying openings, and the way that some openings and transpose into others, is not as clearcut as I had once believed. |
|
Jan-28-06
| | WannaBe: [Event "Yahoo Casual"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.01.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "WannaBe"]
[Black "Sneaky"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A06"]
[Annotator "WannaBe"]
[PlyCount "58"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. b3 d5 3. Bb2 Bf5 4. d3 e6 5. Nbd2 c5 6. c4 Nc6 7. Rc1 Bd6 8. g3 d4 9. Bg2 Qd7 10. Nh4 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. O-O Ne5 13. Qe1 O-O-O 14. Ba3 Bg6 15. Nxg6 hxg6 16. Rb1 Nc6 17. Ne4 Nxe4 18. dxe4 e5 19. b4 cxb4
20. Bxb4 Bxb4 21. Rxb4 Nxb4 22. Qxb4 g5 23. Rb1 Rh6 24. a4 Rb6 25. Qc5+ Qc6 26. Qxc6+ bxc6 27. Rxb6 axb6 28. Bf1 Rd7 29. e3 d3 0-1 5...c5, black goes off the book.
6. e3 was probably better, it would allow Be2 and then 0-0 by white. 7...Bd6, black is now ready to castle and pieces are in ideal position. White is still trying to bring out the last bishop. 9. Bg2, black's pawn on d4 now prevents white's play of e3. Otherwise d3 pawn falls without compensation, and white can't 0-0. So I chose to fianchetto another bishop. 14...Bg6, black now can play ...Bxd3 exd3 Nxd3 and get queen/rook fork. 18. dxe4??, Bxe4 was better, with dxe4 my bishop is now officially sealed off from the game, and black's d pawn has a clear path. Bad move... Didn't know what I was thinking. 19. b4, starts another dubious exchange.
23. Rb1, last gasp. With my bishop out of the action, I'm playing Q+R vs. Q+R+R. 27...axb6, black, of course, would be more than happy to trade off these pieces and get R vs B ending, a very badly positioned B. 29...d3, white can't stop d1=Q without giving up the B. Then it's K+R vs. K. Game over. |
|
Jan-28-06
| | Sneaky: I plugged the position after 18...e5 into my computer chess machine (Macintosh Sigma Chess... eh, it's no Hydra, but it works.) I'll going to leave for a while and we'll see what it comes up with by the time I'm done. My guess is that the game must be about equal at that point but only if White is very careful. The idea of ...Rxh3 then Bxh3 ...Qxh3 and finally ...Rh8 was a real threat. I would have done that had you not given up the exchange. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
