|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 334 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-29-08
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Dom> The very fact that you can still get yourself eligible to play <top ranked> opposition remains an INCREDIBLY STRONG lifetime-chess achievement= One I can only dream about.
A. Fan. |
|
Mar-29-08
 | | Domdaniel: <mack> Couldn't play my usual anti-d4 stuff - Dutch or Benoni - because both are rubbish against strong players. But these GMs are cunning creatures: I'd prepared the 4.Qc2 Classical line - originally to play somebody else last week - and I 'knew' that Baburin has almost always played it, so ... But the cunning bounder switched to 4.e3 and I was on my own, vague general knowledge aside. He 'got bored' with 4.Qc2, he said. And now back to the massacre, er, struggle. |
|
| Mar-29-08 | | Red October: <But the cunning bounder switched to 4.e3 and I was on my own> one more reason to know if Caro Kann |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | achieve: Hi <Dom> -- I know you're frightfully busy, ie. at the Cork Masters playing your @$$ off --- but here is a (copied) post of mine, covering some of the elements I ranted on- and asked your opinion about a wj\hile back... From the magnuschess blog --
HENRIK:
< The purpose of mentioning some possible reasons for the up's and down's is that it's one out of several angles from which we may throw some light on the complex turmoil of opening choice, positional preferences, calculations, fighting spirit and psychological efforts affecting the outcome of individual chess games at top level. > ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
"One out of several angles..."
-- Now, this is extremely interesting to me --- I've been ranting and guessing on this at my forum (<page 208>) for a while now-- and would be mightily interested in other peoples' points of view on these matters... Comp evals and such are less and less interesting to me in as far as judging even these Super GMs games is concerned... An intelligent discussion on these elements would be very welcome -- either here or at my forum. Also to address the dependency towards comp evals by so many who watch the games live at eg ICC and forget to think themselves. This is not an accusation towards those who rely mainly on comp evals-- but rather an attempt to find out what is going on at various levels in the chess world -- psychologically. Please feel welcome to drop by with thoughts at my forum, too, at any time! |
|
Mar-30-08
 | | Open Defence: <Dom> have you ever played against the Frog? |
|
Mar-30-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: <Deffi> In <Dom's> game I analzed, you'll recall that he DID play against a <Frog>. His name was <Count deBartleby> or something like that. So I believe the answer is 'yes' |
|
Mar-30-08
| | Open Defence: interesting... would actually like to challenge Dom with me on the Dark side of the Frog |
|
Mar-30-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: Heh I think you should challenge him!!
Why don't you guys play an internet game on <Yahoo>, like with a <2 hours each> time control so we could watch all the action? Correspondence would be good too.
Did you miss my joke? Dom played against a <French guy> but he didn't play agaisnt the <French defence> in the game I analyzed. heh
It's an interesting question how well a player knows the <opposite side> of their pet openings. You'd think they'd know it well-- but I can tell you that in my case I face the <Scotch> very rarely when I have the Black pieces-- and when I do, instead of me saying "Ok I know this inside out" I find myself saying "Oh no!?" Isn't that strange? |
|
Mar-30-08
| | Open Defence: hmmm I always like playing both sides of an opening.. which is why I took up the Ruy... |
|
Mar-30-08
| | Open Defence: Yahoo would be cool, only thing I might be distracted by Dom's fan club shouting GO FROG!! over and over again ;-p |
|
Mar-30-08
| | Open Defence: It could be a Frog thematic, 2 games colours swapped, 30 mins for each player per game so the games can finish in about 2 hours (maybe a 5-10 min break between games) |
|
Mar-30-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: HEY! I would be cheering for you. In support of the <female species>!! |
|
Mar-30-08
| | Open Defence: I was referring to Dom's groupies in Ireland :) |
|
Mar-30-08
| | Open Defence: the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 would have to be mandatory for it to be a true Frog event though |
|
Mar-30-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: Heh all the <froggy analysis> is doing me some good-- I just won against the <Frog> today, and it's my second win in a row against it. I'm starting to enjoy the <Frog> now. I don't know if I'd ever try it with black though. |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | Red October: one fun froggy line is 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | mack: 2.Qe2 puts the French to rest, everyone knows that. |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | Red October: 2..♘f6 |
|
Mar-30-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: 2.Qe2 That's the <Chigorin>, no? |
|
| Mar-30-08 | | mack: <jess> Yuh-huh. I've never lost with it in tournament play. |
|
Mar-30-08
| | jessicafischerqueen: <mack> have you ever played <Dom> against his French? I"d pay money to see that. As you probably well know, there are several <Tal> Gems where he employs the Chigorin. I remember last year you posted a long and very interesting article, of which part was devoted to a defence of the Chigorin System against the <French>. |
|
Mar-31-08
| | Domdaniel: G'day, all.... in no particular order, then. I don't like playing both sides of any opening, though there are a few exceptions: English, Tarrasch. Don't think I've ever been on the white side of a French in a 'real' game. Tournament went OK up to round 5, when I was on 2.5/5, only losses to Baburin and a strong 2080 guy - whom I knocked about a bit before running out of steam. Good games. And one of my wins (with the Exchange French) was vs a teenager who beat me in an earlier tournament. Revenge. Heh. But I screwed it up by losing a won game in the last round. Horrible mess. Ironically, my two losses up to then were as black in the Nimzo- and Queen's Indian: new openings for me, as I'd decided to 'rest' the Dutch. Then this 1800-ish guy played the Dutch against me, and I whipped out the Lisitsyn Gambit: 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Ng5 Nf6 4.d3 Nc6 5.dxe4 h6(?) and I was soon winning. Then losing. Then winning again. Then the exchange up. Then a stupid king move left me in a mating net, and I had to sac a rook to escape. I still came very close to a drawn R-vs-R+N ending: but he still had one pawn which I'd neglected to whip off earlier, and it was enough to win for him. That hurt. I'm furious with myself today. Of course I could have had a draw just by asking. Which would've been 50% and a performance rating of about 2000. But I wanted more, didn't I? Argh. Actually, um ... last year I also finished on 2.5 with a last-round loss, but this year the opposition was of higher quality and rating. 2.5 is about par, so I don't think my rating suffers. But I missed a golden opportunity to climb back up the greasy ladder to the stars... And I'm not in the mood to play anyone right now. I don't like playing online anyhoo, so you'd havta swim to Ireland. Think I'll use that Nimzo again, though, even if its debut vs Baburin was short-lived. Looking on the bright side, part 2: um, 100% with the Frog? |
|
Mar-31-08
| | Domdaniel: <Jess> Funny you should mention Tal. I picked up a copy of his games/autobiog book over the weekend - the one everyone says is among the best books ever, <The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal>. I used to think I was mainly a 'positional' player but it's time to accept that I also have definite combinational tendencies. I'm coming out as a bichessical, okay? |
|
Mar-31-08
| | Domdaniel: <mack> True, that 2.Qe2 can be tricky against the Frog, especially if Black's entire strategy revolves round ...d5. Mine doesn't, though: I might play (after 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2) something like 2...a6. More normal is 2...c5, which either becomes a closed Sicilian or a King's Indian Attack. And 2...Nc6 is playable as well. Some even argue that the Qe2 is misplaced after 2...e5!? You could then try the <Queen's Spanish> 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Qb5 (note that my cunning 2...a6 prevents this). Or the <Queen's King's Gambit> 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 e5 3.f4 ... Hmm. 2...b6 is also pretty good. Or, for insistent types, 2...Be7 renewing the 'threat' of ...d5. |
|
Mar-31-08
| | Domdaniel: <Niels> I've seen a (typically excellent) article by Hans Ree on comps, 'cheating', analysis engines, etc. You've probably read it too, but I'll see if my chaotic filing systems will disgorge it ... it was in a fairly recent issue of New In Chess... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 334 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
