|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 49 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-23-08 | | brankat: I'm sure You know I was only joking, while referring to the discussion at Ashley site. |
|
| Apr-11-08 | | brankat: <keypusher> Have You heard of this one: "Up to this point White has been following well-known analysis, but now he makes a fatal error – he begins to use his own head." This remark was merely labeled as ... "Tarrasch, on a game in a world championship match" when given on page 52 of The Chess Scene by David Levy and Stewart Reuben (London, 1974). Would You happen to know which game/match was Dr.Tarrasch referring to? Thank You. |
|
Apr-14-08
 | | keypusher: <brankat> I haven't got a clue. Rather rude, so assuming it isn't a misquote, I would bet Tarrasch was writing about Janowski. :-) |
|
| Apr-15-08 | | brankat: <Janowski> A misquote is always a possibility. As for poor old David, yes, that's what I thought, too :-) |
|
| Apr-16-08 | | brankat: Oops, I just realized I said <Janowski> yesterday. Meant <Keypusher> :-) |
|
Apr-17-08
| | keypusher: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Apr-18-08 | | brankat: <keypusher> You are now not only famous, but also immortal :-) |
|
Apr-18-08
| | keypusher: And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my...oops, wrong reference. |
|
| Apr-20-08 | | brankat: <keypusher> Feel like visiting <JoeWms> place again? :-) A legal/constitutional matter this time around. P. 91, start date: Apr 17. |
|
Apr-24-08
| | keypusher: <Marmot PFL> I couldn’t find Watson’s book, but there are some endgame statistics gathered in Lamprecht & Mueller’s 2001 endgame manual, culled from a database of 1.7 million games, most of them played over the preceding two decades. These statistics seem to show that rook endings are slightly less drawish than minor piece endings. Below I give, in order, the total number of endings of a particular type, the number that are drawn, and the percentage that are drawn. Rook v. rook
142,488/55,974/39.28%
Bishop v. bishop (same color)
27,864/11,351/40.74%
Bishop v. bishop (opposite color)
18,653/11,045/59.21%
Bishop v. knight
55,476/19,670/35.46%
Knight v. knight
26,623/no figure given/?
Bishop v. bishop (same color) + bishop v. bishop (opposite color) + bishop v. knight 101,993/42,066/41.24%
I don’t know why Lamprecht & Mueller don’t give a drawing percentage for knight v. knight, but unless this type of ending is drawn at a very low rate, minor piece endings overall are drawn more often than rook endings are. For example, if you assume that knight v. knight endings are drawn no more often than bishop v. knight endings (which is an unrealistic assumption IMO), then 26,623 x 35.46% = 9,441 draws. Plugging the knight v. knight numbers into the totals for the other minor pieces, we then get: 128,616/51,507/40.05%
So, even assuming that knight v. knight endings are drawn at a low rate, the percentage of draws for minor piece endings remains about three quarters of a percent higher than the percentage of draws for rook endings. |
|
| Apr-24-08 | | square dance: <keypusher> im glad you liked pb&j. i recommend them to everyone and twice to beatles fans. ;-) |
|
| May-07-08 | | Karpova: Regarding Akiba Rubinstein Apr-07, 2008: A new game with Rubinstein's annotation is in the database:
Rubinstein vs Loman / Van Gelder, 1920 |
|
| May-09-08 | | brankat: Have You seen this? :-)
Lawyer Times |
|
| May-09-08 | | sitz: <keypusher> I am sorry that I come to your forum while you have my original account on ignore, but I hope you will read this one message and take it serious. I wonder why you asked me a question and then take away my ability to answer you. Did you seriously ask that question or don't you care about the answer and was it just made to harm me? I answered your post, and asked you something in return. I hope you will at least answer me this time, since you started talking about me, and I answered you too. An answer would be greatly appreciated. you asked me:
<<<Why do you think he was reacting to your last post? > ,when rogge was the first to make a post that made it clear that he too thought eric was responding to me.
(<
rogge: i believe <sitzkrieg> was joking (?), but I appreciate the words from a respected authority :)> ) Then why do you ask it to me, and why do you feel the need to make this tendentious comment with it?: < I suspect you may be exaggerating your importance in others' eyes.> You also indirectly called me one of the <pissers> lately, and I really did not expect such posts from you since I always greatly appreciated your posts -although it apparently is a one way love..If you chose to ignore me, fine, but plz do not attack me then either. |
|
| May-09-08 | | angslo: < sitz:I always greatly appreciated your posts -although it apparently is a one way love..If you chose to ignore me, fine, but plz do not attack me then either.>
<keypusher>, I think <sitz> posts are ok on the carlsen page over all. sometimes he overreacts and gets too angry but overall he is pretty ok , especially lately. JUST MY THOUGHTS |
|
| May-10-08 | | sitz: Thanks angslo:p
But it's a pitty KP won't answer me. I take it as proof that his question to me was indeed not meant as a question but just a cheap insult. The fact that KP won't react also shows that he can't talk right what is wrong. Still it is pretty weak to try and ignore his own misbehaviour, in my opinion it would have been more honorable to give a response like I gave him. |
|
May-10-08
| | keypusher: <sitzkrieg> Hi, I did write a response to you, and it was very aggressive, so I deleted it, thinking I would write in your forum...but of course you don't have one. So I will write here, but not right now. |
|
May-13-08
| | keypusher: <Lasker's next chess came at Nuremberg 1896, a tournament that's never gotten the attention it deserves. It was a virtual repeat of Hastings 1895. Only 3 of the top 14 finishers at Hastings failed to play at Nuremberg and one of them, Amos Burn, was replaced by the talented Rudolf Charousek. There were fewer gift-points at the Bavarian tournament. The also-rans at Nuremberg -- Richard Teichmann, Showalter, Emil Schallop and Moritz Porges -- were a cut above the tailenders at Hastings. Porges, for example, was among the world's top 20 players during this era according to retrospective ratings. This game illustrates how Lasker was able to fatten up his scores by massacring the lesser masters as Black.> Soltis, <Why Lasker Matters>. |
|
May-13-08
| | keypusher: st Lasker 13½ points (+12, =3, -3);
2nd Maroczy 12½ points (+8, =9, -1);
=3rd Tarrasch 12 points (+9, =6, -3);
=3rd Pillsbury 12 points (+10, =4, -4);
5th Janowski 11½ points (+10, =3, -5);
6th Steinitz 11 points (+10, =2, -6);
=7th Walbrodt 10½ points (+7, =7, -4);
=7th Schlechter 10½ points (+5, =11, -2);
=9th Schiffers 9½ points (+5, =9, -4);
=9th Chigorin 9½ points (+8, =3, -7);
11th Blackburne 9 points (+7, =4, -7);
12th Charousek 8½ points (+6, =5, -7);
13th Marco 8 points (+3, =10, -5);
14th Albin 7 points (+5, =4, -9);
15th Winawer 6½ points (+5, =3, -10);
=16th Showalter 5½ points (+3, =5, -10);
=16th Porges 5½ points (+2, =7, -9);
18th Schallopp 4½ points (+4, =1, -13);
19th Teichmann 4 points (+2, =4, -12). |
|
May-13-08
| | keypusher: 1st Pillsbury 16½ points (+15, =3, -3);
2nd Chigorin 16 points (+14, =4, -3);
3rd Lasker 15½ points (+14, =3, -4);
4th Tarrasch 14 points (+12, =4, -5);
5th Steinitz 13 points (+11, =4, -6);
6th Schiffers 12 points (+9, =6, -6);
=7th von Bardeleben 11½ points (+8, =7, -6);
=7th Teichmann 11½ points (+8, =7, -6);
9th Schlechter 11 points (+5, =12, -4);
10th Blackburne 10½ points (+9, =3, -9);
11th Walbrodt 10 points (+6, =8, -7);
=12th Burn 9½ points (+8, =3, -10);
=12th Janowski 9½ points (+7, =5, -9);
=12th Mason 9½ points (+7, =5, -9);
=15th Bird 9 points (+4, =10, -7);
=15th Gunsberg 9 points (+7, =4, -10);
=17th Albin 8½ points (+5, =7, -9);
=17th Marco 8½ points (+5, =7, -9);
19th Pollock 8 points (+6, =4, -11);
=20th Mieses 7½ points (+4, =7, -10);
=20th Tinsley 7½ points (+7, =1, -13);
22nd Vergani 3 points (+2, =2, -17). |
|
May-14-08
| | keypusher: Of the top 14 at Hastings, Mason, Burn and Bardleben are out; Maroczy and Charousek are "replacements." At the bottom: Winawer, Showalter, Porges, Schallopp v. Bird, Gunsberg, Pollock, Mieses, Tinsley, Vergani. Common participants: Lasker, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Steinitz, Janowski, Walbrodt, Schlechter, Schiffers, Chigorin, Blackburne, Walbrodt, Albin, Teichmann, Marco. |
|
May-14-08
| | keypusher: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing... http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing... |
|
| May-15-08 | | slomarko: <It was my perception, and remains my perception, that a bunch of people, starting with <slomarko> came on the pagem saw the Carlsen fans (a thoroughly modest and well-behaved crew, at the time) and started -- well, I won't say the p-word again, but they started acting like dogs in the manger.> rofl <a thoroughly modest and well-behaved crew, at the time>? what a joke obviously you have no idea what are you talking about. or you still haven't meet <Fincher> and his similar.. what is really tragicomical is a Fischer-basher like yourself gives morals about behavior. |
|
May-16-08
 | | tpstar: <keypusher> Don't let a little mouse slip get ya down. =) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUUH...
I'm not gonna crack ... |
|
| May-17-08 | | brankat: The little mouse was just trying to amass posts, so he could pass <aw1988> on the "Most Kibitzes" list :-) He'll be OK now. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 49 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
