|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 702 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-24-11 | | cro777: <Domdaniel> In any case, you played well and missed even this spectacular line: 15...Bxc6 16.Qxf7 Rdf8 17.Qxe6+ Bd7 18.Qxe7 Rxg2+ 19.Kh1 Rxf3
click for larger view |
|
Feb-25-11
 | | Domdaniel: <cro777> Yep, I missed that too - all because I thought it was too risky to let him play 17.Qxe6+. Careless. I hope I'd have looked more deeply in a regular tournament game. Amusingly, one of the sidelines -- 15...Bxc6 16.Qxf7 Rdf8 17.Qxe6+ Bd7 18.Qxe7 Rxg2+ 19.Kxg2 Bh3+ 20.Kxh3 Qxe7 -- winds up with exactly the same material balance I had against Tony Miles in 1976. 
click for larger viewThat game also began with a French and reached a position where I had a Queen against Rook, Bishop and Knight. And there too the Queen's activity and the lack of coordination among the White pieces made up for White's nominal material advantage. Miles offered a draw. I thought about it while he did another round trip, looking for a way to win and not finding any, so I shook hands. Here, I'm not sure how I'd have reacted to a draw offer. Probably in the same way, although Black has better chances here than in the Miles game. Which I've lost, though I still hope an old scoresheet might fall out of a book or a file turn up on some obsolete 1980s computer. |
|
| Feb-25-11 | | cro777: <Domdaniel> You may be more than satisfied with your performance (the final result is more a consequence of the time pressure). But you outplayed Nigel Short (such a connoisseur of the French defence)in the opening. Having in mind that you played the Armenian Variation and 11...Qxa5 after 11.Nf3, it is really a worthy achievement. |
|
Feb-25-11
| | Domdaniel: <cro777> Thanks, but I'm not so sure. To outplay somebody in the opening you probably should play good moves immediately *after* the opening, and I missed the best continuation twice. I like to call it the 'SWARM' variation. Between Botvinnik in the 1950s and Vaganian (and other Armenians) from the 1970s on, the main exponents of 5...Ba5 were Swiss players such as Werner Hug. It was even named the 'Swiss Variation' for a while. So I pay homage to both the Swiss and Armenian contributors by combining their names. And when the opening goes really well the Black pieces tend to *swarm* all over the board. |
|
| Feb-25-11 | | pulsar: <Dom> You got me interested on this Ba5 sideline, and I might just try it out if I get the chance to join a tourney again. I've been studying the French on and off, but I've got a friend who's making a living (and killing) playing it at every opportunity. |
|
Feb-25-11
| | Domdaniel: <pulsar> It's an effective line, it seems playable at all levels, and some White players will be less prepared than for 5...Bxc3+. I only began playing it about three years ago, but I've done well with it. Fashion can be fickle. I have a book, Super Tournaments 2000 - a Bulgarian version of Informator with annotated games from the year's top events - which is almost like a textbook on 5...Ba5. For some reason it was massively popular around ten years ago, in 2000-01, played by Khalifman, Lputian, Vaganian, and many others. I don't think it was ever refuted - fashion at high levels switched to other lines, notably 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 - and the Swarm, like the Winawer as a whole, drifted into the background. The most testing line for Black is probably the one where White plays both Qg4 and Nb5 -- 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Qg4 Ne7 8.Nb5 -- but even here there are good ideas for Black. And White can very easily suffer catastrophe. Check out Timman-Khalifman, Bali 2000, where Timman innovated with 14.Ng3 and was lost by move 18. Just one example: there are many. |
|
| Feb-25-11 | | pulsar: <Dom> I'll look into the whole thing more closely. I usually see <5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Qg4 Ne7 8.Nb5> being played at our local chess club but only in blitz games. The study materials abound, I just have to find the time to get things done. We'll see. :) |
|
Feb-26-11
| | Domdaniel: A footnote on the Swarm: 27 years ago, Short played it as White against an Armenian, in Armenia - the same line, but with 12.Ng5 rather than Rb1. Back in the USSR, in a sense: Short vs Lputian, 1984 Great pawn swarm. Both sides had winning chances. |
|
Feb-27-11
| | Domdaniel: Another Swarmenian footnote: I've found a game in which the 'spectacular' line seen by cro777 -- 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Qxf7 Rdf8 17.Qxe6+ Bd7 18.Qxe7 Rxg2+ 19.Kh1 Rxf3 -- was actually played: Pritchett-Reefschlaeger, Teesside ENG 1978. Amazingly, Black chose to exchange Queens, entered an opposite-colour Bishops ending where he was two pawns down, and *won*. Yes, the Swarm subverts every truism known to chessic humankind. In this case the White Bishop was stuck on g3, unable to go anywhere because of blocking pawns and a well-placed Black King. Meanwhile, Black was able to create two widely spaced passed pawns on the a- and d-files, and the Black Bishop stopped any runaway White pawns. Don't believe what they tell you about Bishops of opposite colours. |
|
| Feb-27-11 | | cro777: <Domdaniel> Nice to see a *spectacular* offensive swarming in a real action. Being curious how would a defensive swarming look like, I’m now analyzing the position after 16…Rg6 (instead of 16…d4). White has several plans from here, but the principle variation seems to be: 17.Qxf7 Rdg8 18.g3 R6g7 19.Qf4 Rg4 20.Qh6
click for larger view
As expected, chess engines have difficulties in understanding this position (they differ considerably in their evaluations). It seems that the best plan for Black is 20…Kb8 followed by Rc4 and Qc8. |
|
| Feb-27-11 | | cro777: <Domdaniel> You probably know that <kingcrusher> also played Short in a simul, during Nigel’s UK touring. Tryfon used the Burn variation, one of his pet systems in the French defence. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 According to Watson, the Burn-Morozevich line is the most dynamic of the opportunities in the …dxe4 complex, which includes the Rubinstein and Fort Nox. Tryfon lost the game convincingly.
(Tryfon is going to upload his game to chessgames.com). |
|
Feb-27-11
| | Domdaniel: <cro777> Yes, I'd actually seen that game before I played mine - and I mentioned it to Nigel when talking to him beforehand. It probably helped me make up my mind to play the Winawer - I'd been toying with the idea of 3...dxe4, but I never had good results (or even good games) with the Rubinstein in the past. With the Winawer you can have a bad result but an interesting game. Your analysis of the 16...Rg6 line is interesting, and clearly better than what I played -- but if I ever get the chance again I won't recapture on c6 with the Knight. The lines after ...Bxc6 may be high-risk, but Black gets much more play. I'm not sure about the untried idea of 14...Nxe5 instead of ...0-0-0. I'll try to analyse that in more depth. But 14...0-0-0 seems playable with 15.Bxc6 Bxc6. The problem then is choosing between 16.Qxf7 d4, and 16...Rdf8 as in the Pritchett game. I'll probably upload my Short game in due course. I also found a much more horrible non-simul loss to a GM, when I went down in 17 moves to Baburin, in my first (and so far, only) Nimzo-Indian. Now I'll have to dig up a win to compensate. I found one against 6-times Irish champion Stephen Brady, but it's one of those games where both sides play badly. |
|
Feb-28-11
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Dom> congratulations on that stirling effort vs. Nigel- especially on all the "inside scoop" about the process of simuls and what you were thinking/feeling whilst playing. I hope you have submitted this game on the PGN upload?! I don't like the sound of this "due course" nonsense. Of course I'm aware that the quickest way to get you to do something really slowly is to insist that you do it really quickly. You do understand that this is exactly the same thing as just giving in to demands, eh? It's perfect mirror image behavior- you give up the actual locus of control to an external person. That's not meant as criticism but I am in fact giggling at the moment. Ok off topic- hang on- oh right and...
Oh yes- thanks for your recent comment "it all seems a bit silly to me now"- I had a very similar feeling recently about a different member than you were referring to, and I'm really glad I acted on it. In fact I actually quoted you. Acting on your advice led to an interesting and stimulating conversation I might otherwise have missed out on. The conversation reminded me of what I had originally liked- very much- about this person in the past. Anyways bloody good show as usual. |
|
| Feb-28-11 | | cro777: <Domdaniel: I'm not sure about the untried idea of 14...Nxe5 instead of ...0-0-0. I'll try to analyse that in more depth.> 14...Nxe5 was an important tactical resource. White has four main answers: 15.Bxd7, 15.Nd4, 15.Qh5 and 15.Nxe5. The principle line seems to be: 15.Bxd7 Kxd7 16.Qh5 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 Nf5 18.g3 b6.
click for larger view
The game is equal (a small plus for Black). Black swarm looks nice. |
|
Feb-28-11
| | Domdaniel: <Jess> - <Of course I'm aware that the quickest way to get you to do something really slowly is to insist that you do it really quickly.> Heh. It's true, I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by... The *locus of control*, eh? To an *external* person, yet? I don't like the sound of that ... although the *internal* person, if it exists, is clearly not to be trusted. As for advice, I hadn't known I was giving any. But hey, whatever works. |
|
Feb-28-11
| | jessicafischerqueen: Well you weren't giving me advice, of course.
I just thought "I took your advice" sounded better than "I copied you again." On a rare frivolous note- yes- and no- possibly maybe. Who should be "in control"?
Who knows the "internal person" best? The "internal person" or the "external person"? Individuals have so many strong motivations- conscious and unconscious- to lie about themselves to themselves. However, at the end of the day, one imagines the deeper truths of our natures are indeed accessible. Buddhist meditation is supposed to help us unlock these "hidden gems and horrors". It may well do- luckily, I'm far too lazy to do such work. Best regards,
Mrs. Du Singe |
|
Mar-01-11
| | Domdaniel: Gawain Jones won Bunratty, beating Short and Baburin en route. Both played Alekhine's Defence -- Baburin's regular opening, but I have no idea what Nigel was trying to do. The Bunratty website and the ICU page have some amusing photographs: Nigel among four bearded brothers named Short, including his last-round opponent in Bunratty, Philip S. And Nigel wearing a large fake beard in an effort to blend in. Despite Nigel's damage to my Swarm, I still have an overall plus score against Short people. |
|
Mar-01-11
| | Domdaniel: Oops, that was #17000. Now I'll have to wait until #18000 before saying something witty or clever. Never mind. Plenty more filler where this comes from. |
|
Mar-01-11
| | Domdaniel: Maybe this reverse psychology stuff works. Having been told by Jess that I was unlikely to act promptly, desirable though this might be, I went and acted promptly. The Short game - the antiswarm, to borrow a word from Neal Stephenson - has been submitted. Just to keep things balanced, I also uploaded a second game in the same variation -- actually my first win with it, from 2006, against a player with about 20 games in the CG database. It features a very unusual tactic, which of course I missed at the time. But I found other ones that achieved the same result. OK, reverse psychology. Is there something else I should be doing? There almost always is. |
|
Mar-01-11
 | | OhioChessFan: You could always go delete one that wasn't witty and get the count back down to 17,999 |
|
Mar-06-11
| | Domdaniel: This must be why they say "Quick, March". |
|
Mar-06-11
| | OhioChessFan: Was anyone else wondering how long this forum could go without a post? |
|
| Mar-07-11 | | dakgootje: hey domd! Thought you might like reading this: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/mov... :) Bit long, but I've heard your generation still manages reading more than half a page. |
|
Mar-07-11
| | Domdaniel: <I've heard your generation still manages reading more than half a page> T-talkin' 'bout my generation?
Nah, they've given up reading. Not sure they ever really did, apart from a few eccentrics and outliers. Among whom, etc. |
|
Mar-07-11
| | Domdaniel: <dak> I agree, of course. I've been saying it for some time: all the 'old' media are finito, dead in the water, defunct. Pushing up 3-D daisies. One mildly bitter irony is the fact that science fiction - which was a non-mainstream medium for speculative and original ideas until the 1970s - has morphed into one long brain-dead special effect, and become part of the problem. Among whom, etc.
Movies may not yet *seem* to be quite as dead as, say, newspapers and the music biz ... but it's just a matter of time. No viable economic model remains. And the nutterweb will inherit the nightsoil. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 702 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
