User Profile: chancho

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

chancho
Member since May-16-05

<Jer 20:10-13
Jeremiah said:
"I hear the whisperings of many:
'Terror on every side!
Denounce!
Let us denounce him!'
All those who were my friends are on the watch for any misstep of mine.
Perhaps he'll be trapped; then we can prevail, and take our vengeance on him.
But the LORD is with me, like a mighty champion: my persecutors will stumble, they will not triumph.
In their failure, they will be put to utter shame, to lasting, unforgettable confusion.
O LORD of hosts, you who test the just, who probe mind and heart, let me witness the vengeance you take on them, for to you, I have entrusted my cause.
Sing to the LORD,
praise the LORD,
for he has rescued the life of the poor
from the power of the wicked!">
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<1 Corinthians 13
13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<The Promise of the Lord's Coming
The Second Letter of Peter
Chapter 3
1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you
2 that you should remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles.
3 First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts
4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!?
5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water,
6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished.
7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.
8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.
9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.
11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness,
12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire?
13 But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.
Final Exhortation and Doxology
14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish;
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity.
Amen.>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<Psalm 23
The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.>

   chancho has kibitzed 44554 times to chessgames [more...]

   Sep-22-25 A Kimmel

chancho: Look who's back!

   Sep-20-25 Chessgames - Sports

chancho: I see nary a mention of Terrance Crawford defeating Canelo Alvarez on this page. First guy to win undisputed championships in three weight divisions. Henry Armstrong won three back in the 30's, but they were not undisputed. Manny Pacquiao won 8... but again, not undisputed. Crawford

   Aug-14-25 Chessgames - Guys and Dolls

chancho: More, More, More. (Andrea True)

   Jun-07-25 Norway Chess (2025)

chancho: He left the championship on his own terms. He has won everything in sight. No better way to exit the stage.

   Jun-03-25 D Gukesh vs Carlsen, 2025

chancho: Also called: The Angry Fist.

   May-27-25 Carlsen vs D Gukesh, 2025

chancho: <Poor is the apprentice who does not surpass his Master.”" - Leonardo da Vinci>

   May-24-25 Bogdan Pietrusiak

chancho: His highest rating was 2310 according to this link which translates in Polish and Spanish: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogda...

   May-09-25 Chessgames - Music

chancho: All this Steely Dan talk... Here's a song from 1973: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h-...

   Apr-29-25 perfidious chessforum

chancho: Perf, just heard about this: <The White House has hit back against a reported plan by Amazon to detail the price impact of Donald Trump's trade tariffs to its customers, calling it a "hostile" political act.> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c... It's like, how dare Amazon

   Apr-26-25 John Eyre

chancho: From Tournament: 33rd Hastings Premier 1957/58... One-Week Open B: (1) <John Eyre> (London N14) 4½/5; (2) Peter Merrett (East Grinstead) 3½; (3) William Arnold Parkin-Moore (Mitcheldean) 2½; (4) N. W. Robinson 2; (5) R. L. Baker 1½; (6) Lewis James Worsell 1. ...

indicates a reply to the comment.

Chess and Things

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 53 OF 200 · Later Kibitzing>
Jul-09-08		Xenon Oxide: <DanLanglois: the theory on the Queens Indian might be enormous, but it's all a bunch of equal boring drawn lines, is my overstated point, here. the Queens Indian is not 'inherently theoretical', because the lines are not forced (contrast to, say, the Benoni). does this notion fly?> Okay, I see what you mean. However, my point still stands. In my example, we are not talking about how much charted opening theory Benoni COULD have if it got equal attention as compared to the Queen's Indian. The fact remains -- the Benoni contains far less pre-analysed lines as compared to the Queen's Indian.

Jul-09-08		DanLanglois: <Xenon Oxide>, yeah ok, fair enough :-)

Jul-09-08		Xenon Oxide: Besides, perhaps the Benoni is considered "aggressive" precisely because it is not analyzed so deeply. Perhaps all the "aggressive" lines would have turned out to be drawish had they been analyzed properly. Something similar had happened to other openings. The Petrov was once a sharp opening. It is Kramnik's prep that made it so water proof (and as Naiditsch's 19. Qd2!! reminds us, there are still many, many uncharted tactical landmines there). Same with the Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit. At first, the gambit is considered speculative. As theory advanced, however, a lot of lines where the verdict was previously unclear were able to be analyzed out to a draw.

Jul-09-08		kb2ct: <whatthefat: Are you honestly saying that you think 7.g4 is a refutation of the Semi-Slav?> Yes, I think so, at least for CC. :0)

Jul-09-08		Xenon Oxide: <Yes, I think so, at least for CC.> So why don't I see top-level CC GMs trashing anyone who dares play the Semi-Slav with 7. g4?

Jul-09-08		DanLanglois: <kb2ct>, I take 7. g4 as a follow-up to 6. Qc2, which I take as more-or-less an attempt to avoid theory. Man, you're spooked. 7. g4 generally gets a !?, after all. You're afraid of ghosts. Let's play one out: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 h6 8. Bd2 Ng4 9. Rg1 Nxh2 10. Nxh2 Bxh2 11. Rxg7 Qh4

Jul-09-08		DanLanglois: <kb2ct>, coward, c'mon, you've posted against 7. g4 h6 SEVEN times since I posted this line yesterday, without getting around to giving White's bust: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 h6 8. Bd2 Ng4 9. Rg1 Nxh2 10. Nxh2 Bxh2 11. Rxg7 Qh4

Jul-09-08		DanLanglois: <kb2ct>, I'll give you a handicap :-) . d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Nxg4 8. Rh1 Nh6!? You will lose, without grace or dignity. Your move.

Jul-09-08		Xenon Oxide: Oh man, I'm having a bad feeling that huge, huge arguments are gonna take place before the game even starts.

Jul-09-08		imag: Check out this links: http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_o... http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_o...

Jul-09-08		isemeria: <Xenon Oxide: Besides, perhaps the Benoni is considered "aggressive" precisely because it is not analyzed so deeply. Perhaps all the "aggressive" lines would have turned out to be drawish had they been analyzed properly.> Benoni is "aggressive" because it relies on tactical complications, and Q side counterplay, at the cost of position so to speak. QID is "solid" because there the idea is to control the center (especially light squares) and prevent White's e4 or at least make it costly. If you look at <whatthefat's> summary of opening philoshopies, then QID falls nicely to class 1 and Benoni to class 2. But there might be something in your notion of the amount of analysis vs. drawishness. I remember reading that something like that has happened to Najdorf Poisoned Pawn variation (could be wrong, don't play it myself). But even with further analysis the character of those opening will be "aggressive", at least in OTB play where you have to solve the complications yourself.

Jul-09-08		isemeria: <whatthefat: ... as I see it, there are two real philosophies to the opening as Black: 1) Play solidly to try to approach an equal (or very near equal) middlegame position. From here, a draw can be secured without much trouble, or Black can try to outplay White in the middlegame by complicating matters. 2) Mix it up in the opening, thereby providing both sides with greater winning chances. Still White has the opening edge in such systems, and objectively it will often even be slightly increased. But Black hopes to outplay the opponent in the complications.> Well said. Is there any kind of agreement about where on this spectrum our opening strategy should be? In the three games this far (GMAN 1, GMYS, GMT) we have been on the "solid" side and that has worked well for us. <Of course, these are more opposite ends of a spectrum than rigid classifications, and most openings fit somewhere between. Allowing White to play 7.g4 will complicate the game, and presents risk to both sides as I see it. Consequently it also provides both sides with winning chances.> If we want to take risks necessary to generate winning chances, then is the Shirov-Shabalov the correct choice? If GMAN "declines" it with 7. Bd3 for example, then are we satisfied with the positions after that too. We want to play some type of game, but actually give the decicion about it to the opponent. Is this a valid concern? Example line: Opening Explorer

Jul-09-08		kb2ct: < DanLanglois: <kb2ct>, I'll give you a handicap :-) . d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Nxg4 8. Rh1 Nh6!? You will lose, without grace or dignity. Your move.> I am not interested :0)

Jul-09-08		kwid: Jul-09-08 <kb2ct> Hi Ken, did you see the message from CERI at the main forum? As to our convictions what should be the teams best choice or not, I would like to express my thoughts about it. As we have seen not long ago Hugin's objection for not supporting his recommendations to select a defence which would lead to an open type position and therefor quit. The point here is that we should learn to accept our different preferences and yes perceived ignorance of others. To homogenize our stated diversity without being individually offended should be our mission statement for this site. We all know that it is nearly impossible to change a chessplayers view about the merits of an opening. But this is exactly what we are trying to do here without creating animosity or a discourse between us. I believe we can accomplish our task here successfully by just posting our preferred line or position. We can then analyse , evaluate or refute its soundness based on a factual assessment and not with a perception derived from a potential biased view point. Hugin's case can simply be assessed by all of us if he just would submit a line or a position in support of his arguments for which he has to accept that the view of the majority will decide the pro and con based on our analysis. He can then make a case for a review if he can influence our team decision with a substantive proof. I hope that this not being perceived as an uncalled lecture. It is written to stave of future potential withdrawals due to hostility created by insisting our perception is the best remedy without providing factual evidence for it.

Jul-09-08		kb2ct: <kwid: Jul-09-08 <kb2ct> Hi Ken, did you see the message from CERI at the main forum?> Yes, I e-mailed Ceri to let him know we were beating Timmerman. He would be a great addition. You don't get a 3100 rating by just using a chess engine. :0)

Jul-09-08		whatthefat: <isemeria: Well said. Is there any kind of agreement about where on this spectrum our opening strategy should be? In the three games this far (GMAN 1, GMYS, GMT) we have been on the "solid" side and that has worked well for us.> I would suppose that objectively one should err towards the solid approach, but then plenty of top players have taken the opposite approach - Fischer among them. Certainly the correspondence format reduces the effectiveness of practical chances in favour of the objective truth of the position, but even between the best players it doesn't remove that factor altogether. Even with our team's impressive resources, there have been plenty of times when we simply haven't been able to reach a conclusive assessment of a line. In this game, I would cite as examples the liens arising from 36...Kf6, and a rook sacrifice in the late opening that we analyzed (I'm afraid I can't remember the particular line right now). <If we want to take risks necessary to generate winning chances, then is the Shirov-Shabalov the correct choice? If GMAN "declines" it with 7. Bd3 for example, then are we satisfied with the positions after that too. We want to play some type of game, but actually give the decicion about it to the opponent. Is this a valid concern?> All very good questions that the team will have to answer as a whole. I personally would be quite satisfied with a more 'normal' Semi-Slav position, should he avoid the Shirov-Shabalov. But for me, I would like to at least feel that we'd found some strong novelties in response to 7.g4 before being comfortable with entering a line that GMAN has scored so well in. It's a dangerous line for both sides, but something makes me wonder about the theoretical soundness of such a move.

Jul-09-08		Xenon Oxide: <All very good questions that the team will have to answer as a whole. I personally would be quite satisfied with a more 'normal' Semi-Slav position, should he avoid the Shirov-Shabalov. But for me, I would like to at least feel that we'd found some strong novelties in response to 7.g4 before being comfortable with entering a line that GMAN has scored so well in. It's a dangerous line for both sides, but something makes me wonder about the theoretical soundness of such a move.> I think if GM Arno Nickel avoids the Shirov-Shabalov, and went for a quieter line, it would still be good for me. One thing that I ask is: does the Shirov-Shabalov result in a more positional game, or does it create tactical complications? If it is the former, then we should be careful. Some mentioned that engines might overlook the pawn storm, but I think we're smarter than that. We've shown we sometimes do reject the engine's choice if it is unsound positionally.

Jul-10-08		kwid: Jul-09-08 < imag: Check out this links > Thanks, how did my dc4 lines compare? Should be interesting. I do not use any paper books anymore. I am just looking at available game data's from the net and form my own opinion about it.

Jul-10-08		kb2ct: <kwid: Jul-09-08 < imag: Check out this links > Thanks, how did my dc4 lines compare?> dxc4 is played by both Shirov and Shabalov as well as Kramnik. :0)

Jul-10-08		kwid: No win in sight with this line <1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 e5 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd2 N7b6> click for larger view [Event "xxx"] [Site "xxx"] [Date "xxx"] [Round "?"] [White "GMAN"] [Black "World"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D45"] [WhiteElo "xxxx"] [BlackElo "xxxx"] [Annotator "Widmann,Kurt"] [PlyCount "82"] [EventDate "2008.??.??"] 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 e5 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd2 N7b6 11. Bxd5 (11. Be2 exd4 12. Nxd4 Qxg5 13. O-O-O Bd7 14. Ne4 Qe7 15. Nxd6+ Qxd6 16. Qe4+ Qe7 17. Qxe7+ Kxe7 18. e4 Nf6 19. Bb4+ Kd8 20. e5 Nfd5 21. Bd6 Re8 22. Rhg1 g6 23. Nf3 f6) (11. Nxd5 Nxc4 12. Qxc4 e4 13. Ne5 Bxe5 14. dxe5 Be6 15. O-O-O Bxd5 16. Qd4 c5 17. Qa4+ Qd7 18. Qa3 b6 19. Bc3 O-O-O 20. Rd2 Kb7 21. f4 Qc6 22. f5) 11... cxd5 12. dxe5 Bb8 13. Rg1 O-O 14. O-O-O Be6 15. e4 Qc8 16. Be3 (16. exd5 Nxd5 17. Ne2 Bf5 18. Qxc8 Rxc8+ 19. Bc3 Nb4 20. Kd2 Nxa2 21. Ke3 a5 22. Bd2 Be6 23. Ned4 Bd5 24. Kf4 a4 25. Rge1 Ra6 26. Nf5 Re6 27. Kg3 Bb3 28. Ra1 Rc2 29. N5d4 Rxb2 30. Nxe6 fxe6 31. Bc1 Rc2 32. Bf4 Bd5 33. Nd4 Rc5 34. Bd2 b5 35. Rab1 Bc4 36. Kf4 Rd5 37. Nf3 Rd8 38. Kg3 Ba7 39. Rb2 a3 40. Rc2 Bc5) (16. Rg3 Re8) 16... dxe4 17. Nxe4 (17. Qxe4 Bxa2 18. Rg4 g6) 17... Bg4 18. Rg3 Bxf3 19. Rxf3 Bxe5 20. Qxc8 Raxc8+ 21. Kb1 Nc4 22. Bxa7 b6 23. Rb3 Rc6 24. Nc3 Rfc8 25. a4 Kf8 26. h4 f6 27. gxf6 Bxf6 28. Ne4 Be5 29. f4 Bc7 30. Rc3 Re8 31. Ng5 Re2 32. Rd4 Rxb2+ 33. Kc1 Rb4 34. a5 h6 35. Ne6+ Rxe6 36. Rcxc4 Re1+ 37. Kd2 Rbb1 38. axb6 Red1+ 39. Ke3 Rxd4 40. Kxd4 Bxb6+ 41. Bxb6 Rxb6 1/2-1/2

Jul-10-08		kb2ct: G-Man probably plays the Shirov-Shabalov because he is uncomfortable with the Anti-Meran gambit. dxc4 is acceptable and much better than Ph6. What does G-Man play against the Nimzo?? :0)

Jul-10-08		kwid: [ECO "B52"] click for larger view Are we going to play Nxd7 or Qd7? 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 Nf6 7. Qe2 e6 8. d4 cxd4 9. cxd4 d5 10. e5 Ne4 11. Be3 Be7 12. Ne1 f5 13. f3 Ng5 14. Nc3 (14. Nd3 O-O 15. Nc3 Rac8 16. Rac1) 14... O-O 15. Nd3 Rac8 16. Rac1 Na5 17. b3 Nf7 18. Nf4 Nc6 19. Na4 b6 20. Qf2 g5 21. Nd3 f4 22. Bd2 Nh6 23. Bc3 Nf5 It looks that he will play 1.d4 and not 1.e4 trying to spring a novelty on us in a closed position. Thus we should stay with Nimzo or QI if we do not want to go into the slav.

Jul-10-08		isemeria: <What does G-Man play against the Nimzo?? > Usually the Classical. Repertoire Explorer: Arno Nickel (white)

Jul-10-08		imag: Very important: GMAN avoids the variations where the game goes Bd3 dxc4 Bxc4 b5 etc, where Black advances on the queenside with a6 b5 and c5. In other words, he delays Bd3 as much as possible. Proof: <1> in KGA he plays 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 <3.e4> <2> He also plays 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 <6.Qc2> <3> After: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 he rather plays 4.e3 than 4.Nc3 By time the game starts I'm going to have GMAN all worked out :)

Jul-10-08		kb2ct: G-Man also is very satisfied with endings where he has B vs N even if chess engines rate it 0.00. We need to expand this list of his prejudices. :0)

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 200)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 53 OF 200 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.