<us, the living>

heh

I don't even remember typing that, and I haven't the faintest idea what it means either.

That's just how I roll!

I have an EMU?

How exciting@!!

Only 4 pages to break the record now

Here's how an IM smacks you down. It was a couple of years after the Cale game. As I said, I jumped up a rating class in Austin. Douglas Root was doing postdoctoral work at U of Texas at the time. Doesn't everybody have an IM in their club?

[Event "Delight for D Players"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1992.05.02"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Crawford, Larry"]
[Black "Root, Doug"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2000"]
[BlackElo "2580"]
[ECO "B00"]
[PlyCount "84"]

I'm deeply honoured that you decided to include and even showcase my game in your Game Collection: Fawn Pawns

It's my pleasure!

<hms123> was kind enough to find your game for me.

I got interested in the <Fawn Pawn> after noticing it being discussed as an important positional trump in several <Kingscrusher> videos.

So I then managed to win maybe 4-5 games this past year thanks to the power of the <fawn pawn>.

So when I posted the most recent of these wins at <Achieve's> forum, I decided to make the collection.

When BF won in Iceland, '72, Collins was at a victory celebration/party. One of Fischer's biographers in "Profile of a Prodigy" said that Bobby came up to Collins and gave him a big hug. Collins was in a wheel chair his whole life, childhood disease.

F Sanz vs E M Green, 1970

That's a good question- and I think yes, it does.

F Sanz vs E M Green, 1970

The effect of a <fawn pawn> is not always critical- and you couldn't say it was critical in this game- but it did in fact significantly contribute to the cramping of White's pieces on the Queenside.

The White <d-pawn> is immobilized by the <fawn pawn> on <d3>- so on move <30>, White actually gives back material- sacs the a-pawn, in order to untanlge and release his frozen forces from the Queenside-

From here-

click for larger view

White plays <30.a4>, saccing the pawn to get his pieces out of jail.

So yes, I'd say this game very much fits the criteria.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the <fawn pawn> is that it can have a CRASHING THUNDERBOLT influence on a position- as in your game where you actually checkmated with the <fawn pawn>-

Or, as in this game, the "baleful influence" can be much more subtle.

And yet significant.

I have a theory that even when you can't make a case for a <fawn pawn> having any real impact on a game or a position-- you can still make a case that it has a psychologcial effect on the opponent.

The opponent must always bear the <fawn pawn> in mind as long as it sits there. And I think it drags on a player to carry this mental burden.

Heh- I did a brief "commentary" about the <funny double fawn pawn> game that <Phony Benoni> found.

The game link and the commentary are over in <Eyal's> forum:

BTW <The Grand> is the funniest gambling movie in history.

My favorite line-

And old gambler in a wheelchair is waxing nostalgic about the old <Grand Hotel> in Vegas.

He points to an alley and sighs--

"I stabbed a bum over there."

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAH
AHAHAAHA

Well thanks for the UNHAPPY MEMORIES, but spot on as usual.

This would be a theoretical question in the balance then?

Here is the position after White plays <10.d3>:

click for larger view

I have twice played an English variation very similar to this with the White pieces-- conceding a <fawn pawn> on the <e3> square-- and I lost both times.

From the games sample you linked, it looks like White is scoring pretty much even with Black from here-

Although I think it's interesting that there are an unusually large number of decisive results in our data base from this position.

Suggesting that it is sharp.

Horrible memories.

What is your opinion <N'Swaba>?

Amazing.

1st- this reminded me of the recent <Arno Nickel v. the World> rematch.

In other words, a Computer v. a Computer.

Very strong Computers.

Both games showcase what a Strong Computer can do- which is "knowing" when there are no tactical dangers in a position-

But the positions look "funny".

Let me explain. When humans play chess, they can tell when a position is tactically locked down.

But a computer can tell when a position is tactically locked down when a human could not see this.

That's why the position in the <Nickel II> game looked so strange-

So in the game you posted, the pieces are all over the place, BUT both computers can tell the position is <actually> tactically locked down- so then a bunch of mutual Queen shuffling occurs.

Much like the mutual Rook shuffling that occured just before the draw in the <Nickel> rematch.

But here, thanks to the <fawn pawns>, there is a decisive result.

In which Black shuffles his queen right back to the <h8> square.

Then, White locks the Queen up with <fawn pawns> on the <f6> and <h6> squares.

Producing this position, in which Black is a Queen down, with the Queen still on the board:

The King vs XINIX, 2006

click for larger view

Her Majesty is in prison! And later in this game, she gets her head chopped off trying to escape.

<and we couldn't make a clear decision who was better>

Well yes, but that's just <Karpov and Kasparov>.

Frankly I expect a little higher standard from YOU.

Which is why I asked you instead of them.

In both the games I lost with similar, but not precisely the same, positions, the enemy <fawn pawn> effectively cut communication between my Queenside and Kingside and I felt "strangled" the whole game.

This line is played rarely, correct?

And yet with even results, and with a low percentage of draws.

Do you think GMs are scared of the "murkiness"?

Maybe we should insist that <GM Topalov> take up this variation.

I think the position is absolutely fascinating, personally.