|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 181 OF 754 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-17-06 | | whatthefat: Are there links to these best posts? |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | chessmoron: <notsodeepthought, Nov-11-05, Zaw Win Lay >: <Zaw Win Lay - a name to remember> Certainly <Win Lay> sounds like a successful night in two important departments. <Chopin>
<Hayton3>'s forum should not have closed. Hayton3 was blessed with a great sense of humor, and he was simply trying to humble <LMAJ>. If anyone should have been banned from chessgames, it should have been <LMAJ>; no justice I tell you.
It's worth mentioning that any kibitzer, can write whatever he pleases on the Kramnik/Topalov forums-- I've read more logic on washroom walls at a subway station. Speaking of washrooms, I remember once I wrote on the Alekhine forum, that Alekhine used to frequently urinate on the floor in chess tournament, and in less than 24 hours it was deleted. I'm not a chess historian, but isn't that true. I'm sure some kibitzer, with an over active bladder and a prostate problem, must have complained. <Honza Cervenka>
<tpstar>
I held a quick seance to determine the next move:
Alekhine = 18. f4
Botvinnik = 18. Ba3!?
Capablanca = 18. exd5
Tal = 18. Nxc7!?
Nakamura = 18. Qh5!?
Kramnik = 1/2-1/2
<MammoudKubba>
Chessgames.com manipulates the very fabric of space-time. <JoeWms>
All his witty posts.
|
|
| Dec-17-06 | | chessmoron: <mack, Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006;
<AN IMPASSIONED PLEA FOR 2.Na3
It may well be too late, and it's entirely possible that I'm just wasting my time here. But please, for all those sticking stubbornly with 2.Nf3 (or 2.c3, or whatever), just listen to what I have to say. Here is the case for 2.Na3 - in plain English, without a single variation in sight.
Football aside, chess is the best game in the world. We all know that. That’s why we’re all here. People play chess for different reasons, but it is the evolution and refinement of ideas and theories, over many, many years, that is one of its main appeals. No other game or sport boasts the sort of complex systems and styles found in chess.
Every chessplayer wants to make his name known somehow - some go after IM and GM titles, some head for their national championships, some have their sights set on the world championship. Most of us are not in the league, but still we strive to improve, and have the desire to make our names in different ways, be it winning the club championship, or getting a cash prizes in local congresses, even refuting well known ideas and openings. And occasionally, we're handed an opportunity like this.
Here we have the chance to play against a strong correspondence GM, one who beat Hydra, for Pete's sake. He’ll be only too happy to head in to a mainline Sicilian, because that’s his job. He’s a chess grandmaster who knows a million different variations off by heart - that’s how he pays rent and makes his beer money. We have a lot of very strong players here and a wealth of resources - is the best we can do really just run headlong into the Najdorf?
I don’t think it is. We’ve been handed this opportunity, let’s use it. Let’s play 2.Na3, accomplishing two major goals at the same time:
1. This will ensure that we are PLAYING A GAME OF CHESS from the very beginning; after all, isn’t that what we all like doing? One of Raymondo’s more pertinent sayings - used as a quotation of the day on this site not so long ago - is that he avoided Open Sicilians because he didn’t want to get involved in a memory championship. People talk about chess having been played, how GM games start at move 20, or 30, and so on. That someone can make the chess world blink at move 2 in the Russian Championships is hopefully proof that this is tosh - let’s continue this noble aim.
2. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, because the theory surrounding it is so embryonic, this is our chance to immortalise this site - if we pool our mighty, mighty resources, then we can create some very new and exciting theory. Who knows what we might find out about 2.Na3 if there are so many of us working on it at the same time?
When Arno Nickel posted in the Kibitzer’s Café last night, he concluded by saying ‘let the Royal Game be the winner’. This is the key point. Let this game be a celebration of the myriad different ideas still undiscovered in chess, rather than merely a public memory championship. Let’s play chess, damn it!> |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | chessmoron: <Rookfile, on the World vs Nickel game.>
Let's go back to the 6th move of the game.
[diagram!?]
In this position, the world decided to play the move 6. Nb3, and black retreated with 6....Be7.
How should we evaluate this transaction? On the face of it, it appears to have favored black. After all, the knight on b3 was decentralized, and black retreated his bishop to a perfectly reasonable square, e7.
Did black gain a move for free? Are we obligated to move the knight back to d4, or perhaps to d2, in order for this piece to be effective?
Anatoly Karpov had a way of playing chess. In game after game, this philosophy came out. It can be summarized as follows: "Give the opponent what he wants, and then show him that what he wanted wasn't so great after all." He also had another mindset - "I'm here to win - period. No nonsense - I'm going to play straightforward chess and just beat you."
How can we follow this? How can we give black what he wanted, and then show him that what he wanted wasn't so wonderful after all?
The answer is - and this is the only answer - that we must pursue a plan that demonstrates that knight on b3 is an effective piece - RIGHT WHERE IT IS.
In his last book, "Last Lectures" (material by Capablanca put into book form after his death) - practically the very first topic Capablanca covers is: "one pawn that holds two". That is the type of mini bind that we have an opportunity to achieve here.
[diagram!?]
This setup presents black with a quandry. The queenside is the main source of black's counterplay in the Sicilian. Here, we are on the verge of compeletely snuffing out black counterplay. Once we've achieved this, we have a free hand on the kingside to expand with a plan like f4 and f5, blowing up black's king. And we can take our time doing this, with black's counterplay first neutralized.
Consider:
A) if the black pawn ever pushes to b6, we take it, and put a knight on a5, blockading the a6 pawn, and the knight prevents black's bishop from setting up an effective post on the a8/h1 diagonal.
B) If no action is taken, the knight on b1 goes to c3, a4, and then b6, where it really ends any hope of black queenside play.
A ha! But doesn't black have a knight on f6 that can go to d7 and swap itself for the knight on b6?
Would that we be so lucky if black did this!! Why? Because it is not really on the queenside that we are going to win this game. No - there is another natural weakness of black's. Where I come from, playing an opening that involves moving pawns to e6 and g6 is inviting yourself to get mated by a kingside attack.Motylev vs Svidler, 2003
This game was agreed drawn, because 2765 rated Svidler outrated his opponent, and knew when to take the draw with black. Yet I submit to you, this position is favorable for white. I think we have a chance to have an even more favorable position than what white got - either we have a knight sitting there on b6, paralyzing the queenside, or black moves his knight over from f6 to d7 to challenge it. Oh I sure hope he does! Removing that knight from the kingside is often a key ingredient to a successful kingside attack! |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | chessmoron: <acirce> Posts like this: Best user profile (no competition really): Hesam7 to me WILL BE DISQUALIFY!! =D <Honza Cervenka>
No idea where. |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | whatthefat: <chessmoron>
Thanks a lot for that.
Best Post: <tpstar>
Best/Worst Pun: <Michael Rohde Boat Ashore> |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | RonB52734: <chessmoron> Hayton3 <<<was>>> LMAJ; that's why his account was deleted. ;} |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | whatthefat: <RonB52734: Hayton3 <<<was>>> LMAJ; that's why his account was deleted. ;}> Diabolical! :) |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | Larsker: <MammoudKubba: Chessgames.com manipulates the very fabric of space-time.> Let's just think about that for a moment. |
|
Dec-17-06
 | | WannaBe: Now, I'm not <Nikolaas>, and I'm quite sure he doesn't want to be me either. :-) I do not know the origin of <Best Kibitzer> nor the intent/qualification to be <Best Kibitzer>. Is it one post? Is it the number of posts made during the past year? I don't know. If my memory serves me correctly, last year's award, it was given/voted upon to someone who made numerous <good> if not <<GREAT>> posts. That's all. |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | JoeWms: Best Pun: Michael Rohde De Boat Ashore. |
|
| Dec-17-06 | | JoeWms: Best Written Posts: <JoeWms> (I'm in a desperate race with Mahmoudkubba!) |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | Archives: Funniest - Jackmandoo
avatar - Tamar |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | suenteus po 147: Best Avatar: <madlydeeply> Funniest Kibitzer: <WannaBe> BTW, methinks there's a little lobbying going on for <Sneaky> since his name appears twice in the nominee's list. |
|
Dec-18-06
| | WannaBe: <suenteus po 147> Errrr.... Wha' chu talkn' 'bout Willis? *WINK* Thanks for catching that. I've corrected it. |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | whatthefat: Best Avatar: <Phony Benoni> Funniest Kibitzer: <jackmandoo> |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | brankat: Best Avatar: <Susan Polgar>, Funniest Kibitzer: <WannaBe>. |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | chessmoron: Funniest Kibitzer: <jackmandoo> Best Avatar: User: Honza Cervenka |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | Archives: Hmm, Jackmandoo has changed his biography.
Apparently, he wants a hug! |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | Where is my mind: Best Avatar: <Benzol> Funniest Kibitzer:<TheAlchemist> |
|
Dec-18-06
 | | cu8sfan: Funniest kibitzer: <Hayton3>. Best avatar: Even though someone nominated me (thank you!) I will vote for <Phony Benoni>. |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | twinlark: <WannaBe> Do you list all nominations? If you do, there are some on page 175 you missed. |
|
Dec-18-06
 | | TheAlchemist: Best avatar: <WannaBe> Funniest kibitzer: <notsodeepthought> |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | JoeWms: Best Avatar: <Technical Draw> |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | RonB52734: <chessmoron> et al. <<MammoudKubba>
Chessgames.com manipulates the very fabric of space-time.> This post doesn't actually exist, does it? I've been trying to trace it and to the best of my recollection, here's how it came about. On February 4 or 5 of this year, <chessgames.com> had some kind of technical glitch that changed the date on the site, and there was all kinds of discussion on the <chessgames.com> chessforum about what should be done with the puzzle of the day as a result. (If you look at page 14 of the <chessgames.com> chessforum, you'll see that there are some posts dated 2/5 in between posts that are dated 2/4.) Someone posted "chessgames.com manipulates the very fabric of space-time" (although the actual post has been deleted, probably by <chessgames.com>, and probably because they were trying to keep that chessforum "relevant." But someone else (I think <Larsker>), replied that this would be a great subject for a post by <MammoudKubba>, something which I don't believe <MammoudKubba> ever actually did. Now, as to the question of who made the initial (now deleted) post, I actually think it was me. Does anyone else have any better memory than this?
|
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 181 OF 754 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
