I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Main

Date: 06 Aug 2005 03:49:50
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Still on course to be a GM within eight years.

This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
stupidly, as most 2300s do.

He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but White
was never in any real danger.

1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3 Nxa3
15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4 Nh4 21.
Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26. Qxg8+ Kxg8
27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32. Kh2
{Black resigns} 1-0

Date: 21 Oct 2005 05:54:08
From: Some Loser
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in
news:yrWIe.5928$%[email protected]:

> This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
> stupidly, as most 2300s do.

Maybe he should stick to arm wrestling. (Never could resist a gloat.)

--
1.f3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Nh3 Nc6 with White to mate in 44 moves.
http://www.unorthodoxchess.com/

Date: 21 Oct 2005 10:48:12
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Some Loser Wrote:
> "Ray Gordon" [email protected] wrote in
> news:yrWIe.5928$%[email protected]:
>
>
> This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
> stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>
> Maybe he should stick to arm wrestling. (Never could resist a gloat.)
>
>
> --
> 1.f3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Nh3 Nc6 with White to mate in 44 moves.
> http://www.unorthodoxchess.com/

I recommend arm-wrestking for anyone wanting to improve their game.
broke my humerus arm-wrestling last year. That's a break that neve
really mends. My chess rating has gone up by about 100 as a result!:

--
tdiedwards

Date: 07 Aug 2005 05:03:25
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:49:50 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Still on course to be a GM within eight years.

you can get your gm norms by playing one minute chess??? havent seen
many tournys posted for 1min chess...

J.Lohner

Date: 06 Aug 2005 16:41:52
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Nick wrote:
> N. Silver wrote:
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
> >
> > > This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess.
> > > My opponent played stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>
> Most games of 'one-minute chess' seem full of stupidity.
>
> I once observed a specialist (internet 2300+) at one-minute chess.
> As far as I could tell, nearly all of his wins took place by time
> forfeit, though he often had clearly losing positions, because he
> nearly always could win the mouse-clicking races with his opponent.
>
> I was able to persuade him to play a few three-minute games with me.
> I won every game, though I came close to losing by time forfeit.
> Afterward my opponent complained that I had an 'unfair advantage'
> because the three-minute time control could give me a little time
> (though much less than I preferred) to think about my moves. :-)
>
> > > He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4,
> > > but White was never in any real danger.
> >
> > > 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
> > > Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3
> > > Nxa3 15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4
> > > Nh4 21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26.
> > > Qxg8+ Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7
> > > Rg3+ 32. Kh2 {Black resigns} 1-0
> >
> > That's impressive, Ray. What does winning a one-minute skittles
> > game have to do with becoming a Grand Master within 80 years?
>
> "...becoming a Grand Master within *80 years*" ?
> --N. Silver
>
> "Still on course to be a GM within *eight years*."
> --Ray Gordon

According to a note that I have received, N. Silver
seems displeased with my earlier post in this thread.

Yes, I suspected that N. Silver had just committed
a typo by writing '80 years' rather than '8 years'.

Yet I was amused by the possibility that Ray Gordon *could*
become a GM '80 years' from now, at the age of 100+ years.

> > Post a game when you can beat one of the Polgar sisters.
>
> Given some of Ray Gordon's apparent attitudes toward women,
> I hope that N. Silver meant "when (Ray Gordon) can beat one
> of the Polgar sisters" in chess *only*. :-)

Yes, I knew that N. Silver was referring to Ray Gordon being
able to 'beat one of the Polgar sisters' *only* in chess.

May I suggest that N. Silver not confuse my intended mild jokes
with any very serious criticism of his writing in this case?

--Nick

Date: 06 Aug 2005 13:25:50
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

N. Silver wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
>
> > This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess.
> > My opponent played stupidly, as most 2300s do.

Most games of 'one-minute chess' seem full of stupidity.

I once observed a specialist (internet 2300+) at one-minute chess.
As far as I could tell, nearly all of his wins took place by time
forfeit, though he often had clearly losing positions, because he
nearly always could win the mouse-clicking races with his opponent.

I was able to persuade him to play a few three-minute games with me.
I won every game, though I came close to losing by time forfeit.
Afterward my opponent complained that I had an 'unfair advantage'
because the three-minute time control could give me a little time
(though much less than I preferred) to think about my moves. :-)

> > He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4,
> > but White was never in any real danger.
>
> > 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
> > Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3
> > Nxa3 15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4
> > Nh4 21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26.
> > Qxg8+ Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7
> > Rg3+ 32. Kh2 {Black resigns} 1-0
>
> That's impressive, Ray. What does winning a one-minute skittles
> game have to do with becoming a Grand Master within 80 years?

"...becoming a Grand Master within *80 years*" ?
--N. Silver

"Still on course to be a GM within *eight years*."
--Ray Gordon

> Post a game when you can beat one of the Polgar sisters.

Given some of Ray Gordon's apparent attitudes toward women,
I hope that N. Silver meant "when (Ray Gordon) can beat one
of the Polgar sisters" in chess *only*. :-)

--Nick

Date: 06 Aug 2005 14:55:03
From:
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:49:50 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
>
>This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
>stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>
>He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but White
>was never in any real danger.
>
>1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
>Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3 Nxa3
>15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4 Nh4 21.
>Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26. Qxg8+ Kxg8
>27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32. Kh2
>{Black resigns} 1-0

Impressive...but there's a problem here...and it's something former WC
Bobby Fischer has been alluding to for quite some time...memorizing
chess lines doesn't guarantee chess players are really that good.
These people are only good at memorizing lines to ensure good end
results.

Recently GM Susan Polgar broke the Guiness Book of World Records for
the most number of games won at one 24 hour sitting. She actually
played 19 hours straight against 231 opponents I think, correct me if
I'm wrong. Her winning ratio was an astonishing 96 percent.

However, I would have been more impressed if GM Susan Polgar and
others who boast great chess playing skills to try their game at
bullet or rapid chess using Fischer Random rules. I suspect GM Susan
Polgar and others would be afraid to try this because then out goes
their memorization skills in their favorite opening lines. They would
be as in the dark about what to do on the chessboard as their
opponents.

I'd love to see anybody play shuffle chess against any of the
Chessbase commerical engines out there and boast of winning such
encounters and posting those results right in this forum. I would be
even more impressed if GM Susan Polgar or other GMs were to try their
hands at shuffle chess against Fritz, Junior, or whatever live on the
Playchess server. It would be very instructive to see such a result.
And I suspect the results would be quite humbling as well.

Date: 10 Aug 2005 01:57:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

>>Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
>>
>>This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
>>stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>>
>>He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but
>>White
>>was never in any real danger.
>>
>>1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
>>Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3
>>Nxa3
>>15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4 Nh4
>>21.
>>Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26. Qxg8+
>>Kxg8
>>27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32.
>>Kh2
>>{Black resigns} 1-0
>
> Impressive...but there's a problem here...and it's something former WC
> Bobby Fischer has been alluding to for quite some time...memorizing
> chess lines doesn't guarantee chess players are really that good.
> These people are only good at memorizing lines to ensure good end
> results.
>
> Recently GM Susan Polgar broke the Guiness Book of World Records for
> the most number of games won at one 24 hour sitting. She actually
> played 19 hours straight against 231 opponents I think, correct me if
> I'm wrong. Her winning ratio was an astonishing 96 percent.
>
> However, I would have been more impressed if GM Susan Polgar and
> others who boast great chess playing skills to try their game at
> bullet or rapid chess using Fischer Random rules. I suspect GM Susan
> Polgar and others would be afraid to try this because then out goes
> their memorization skills in their favorite opening lines. They would
> be as in the dark about what to do on the chessboard as their
> opponents.
>
> I'd love to see anybody play shuffle chess against any of the
> Chessbase commerical engines out there and boast of winning such
> encounters and posting those results right in this forum. I would be
> even more impressed if GM Susan Polgar or other GMs were to try their
> hands at shuffle chess against Fritz, Junior, or whatever live on the
> Playchess server. It would be very instructive to see such a result.
> And I suspect the results would be quite humbling as well.

I memorize formations, not lines.

Date: 06 Aug 2005 07:47:40
From: ian burton
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Date: 10 Aug 2005 01:57:19
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Date: 10 Aug 2005 09:47:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> One thing computers have shown is that there are many more possibilities
> in the opening than have ever been considered, and this move gains
> space.

In what way have computers shown that? If computers are so good at the
opening, why do they all use opening books?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Hilarious Boss (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a middle manager but it's a
bundle of laughs and it wants to
kill you!

Date: 11 Aug 2005 01:36:38
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

>> One thing computers have shown is that there are many more possibilities
>> in the opening than have ever been considered, and this move gains
>> space.
>
> In what way have computers shown that? If computers are so good at the
> opening, why do they all use opening books?

Because they are even stronger with the books than without. Very few people
could beat them even if they played on "instinct" except for holes in the
programming that they find.

Remember the "Fischer on ICC" rumors? It was called a "hoax" with someone
who programmed a strong engine to play 1. f3 and 2. Kf2, and then let the
engine crush people while pretending it was Fischer.

Computers have resurrected openings which were once thought unplayable, and
win many games with them, while taking many "benign" openings (like 1. g3)
and turned them into formidable weapons, at least for anyone rated under
2700 FIDE.

Date: 10 Aug 2005 08:24:05
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

On 10 Aug 2005 09:47:58 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> One thing computers have shown is that there are many more possibilities
>> in the opening than have ever been considered, and this move gains
>> space.
>
>In what way have computers shown that? If computers are so good at the
>opening, why do they all use opening books?

I believe their opening books have been designed to avoid positions
not suited to the computer way of "thinking".

Date: 11 Aug 2005 01:38:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

>>> One thing computers have shown is that there are many more possibilities
>>> in the opening than have ever been considered, and this move gains
>>> space.
>>
>>In what way have computers shown that? If computers are so good at the
>>opening, why do they all use opening books?
>
> I believe their opening books have been designed to avoid positions
> not suited to the computer way of "thinking".

That used to be the case more than now. Now the computers just try to see
the opening through to a clear-cut middlegame, where its strength jumps to
around 3200.

I see less and less "preferences" among the machines, and more and more the
machines are doing what a player who was properly booked in any line used to
do. For example, I've seen the machines play the Poisoned Pawn now where 10
years ago they wouldn't have touched it.

Date: 06 Aug 2005 01:38:00
From: matt -`;'-
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:yrWIe.5928$%[email protected]...
> Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
>
> This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
> stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>
> He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but White
> was never in any real danger.
>
> 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
> Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3 Nxa3
> 15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4 Nh4 21.
> Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26. Qxg8+ Kxg8
> 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32. Kh2
> {Black resigns} 1-0
>
>
That was an interesting game. I supposed even the stronger players have a bad day. I wrote some comments on the game. Can you
comment on my comments? I want to know if I am thinking logically. Nice game!

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 Nc6
{I think a c6 or c5 or e5 would have been better. The Knight just looks akward.}
2. d4 d5 3. e5
{The pawn is extended, but I find that this works well to cramp black who now has to wait to develop the g8 Knight and also has to
consider the development of the c8 Bishop.}
3... Bf5
{That solves one problem. Now Nb4 is a threat coordinated by the f5 Bishop.} 4.
f4
{Is this in anticipation of f6? It does not seem to work against much else except maybe g5 -an unlikely move.}
4... e6 {Black probably is considering Bb4 a simple but useless attack.} 5. c3
{Working against the possible plan mentioned last comment.} 5... h5
{Perhaps black is considering Nh6 followed by Ng4? A pointless plan as it is repulsed by h2. Maybe the plan is to try and push h4,
h3 to attack at g2, but this would be stopped short by h2 as well. I do not see the reasoning for this move.}
6. Bd3
{A rather combative move. But is is really good to trade off the Bishop? Maybe. It would free a f5 pawn break at a later time.
But this seems to soon because of the King sitting in the center and the majority of undeveloped pieces.}
6... g6
{Well that decides the Bishop's fate. Perhaps black was hoping for the d3 Bishop to retreat Be2 then to be followed by g4. IF Bxg4
Bxg4, hxg4 Qxg4, there is a half open for the Black Rook at the expense of a pawn.}
7. Nf3 {Looks like a good developing move that does not block anything.} 7...
Nh6 {Here comes that Knight.} 8. O-O
{Looks a little dangerous to castle to this side. Not right now, but later.}
8... Be7 {Not a real useful move.} 9. b4
{A nice strong developing move with potential to attack the Knight.} 9... Bxd3
{Gives up the blockade of the f4 pawn.} 10. Qxd3 Nf5
{Hoping to lure the g2 pawn?} 11. b5 {Nice.} 11... Na5 12. a4
{Seizing some board. Nb3 could have forked R and B.} 12... Nc4
{Black opts for an outpost.} 13. Na3 {Encouraging an exchange.} 13... Bxa3 14.
Bxa3 Nxa3 15. Rxa3
{The board is lighter. Its hard to see either side has a great advantage. White is better by King safety, better cover of pawns.
Neither side has an attacking coordination of pieces. Black has a choice of castling either side. Q-side is threatened, the K-side
is weak. Choices, choices. You would have to really pull a plan out of a hat to make this game go somewhere good.}
15... O-O {The lesser of two evils?} 16. Ra2
{White has plans for a nice direct attack on the King involving the coordination of the rooks and eventually pushing f5?}
16... a6 {Black seeks to open the B file.} 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5
{The a file is opened instead.} 18... Qe7
{Its not easy to try and find a good developing move for Black. This does tie the rooks. The Q and R are targeting a3 which views
the White Queen thru a pawn.}
19. h3
{This move left an opening at g3 that the Knight could have taken advantage.}
19... Ra3 {Black tries to constrict pawn play.} 20. g4
{This could have ended up bad if Black played hxg3 followd by hxg3 opening up the h file. Black would only have to move Kg7, Rh8
and work on placing the Queen on the h file and it would have been tough for White.}
20... Nh4 {This takes steps to achieving an strong attack on the White King.}
21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5
{The move gxh5 may have been interesting. Especially if the Black Queen attempted to apply a check on the g file. A quick Rook
response would have proved decisive.}
22... hxg4
{Black seeks to open up the h file but is not looking at the danger from the f pawn.}
23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 {fxg6 would have led to a similiar fate.} (24...
fxg6 25. Rxf8+ Kg7 26. R1f7+ Kh6 27. Rh8+ Kg5 28. Rxh4 Kxh4 29. e7 Ra1+ 30. Rf1
Rxf1+ 31. Kxf1 h2 32. Kg2 h1=Q+ 33. Kxh1 g5 34. e8=Q g4 35. Qg6 g3 36. Kg2 b6
37. Qxg3+ Kh5 38. Qg7 Kh4 39. Kf3 Kh5 40. Kf4 c6 41. Qg5#) 25. e7 Rg8 26. Qxg8+
Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32. Kh2
{Black resigns} 1-0

Date: 06 Aug 2005 13:51:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

> That was an interesting game. I supposed even the stronger players have a
> bad day.

He didn't play that badly. He just got his ass kicked by a stronger opening
player.

>I wrote some comments on the game. Can you
> comment on my comments? I want to know if I am thinking logically. Nice
> game!
>
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "?"]
> [Black "?"]
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> 1. e4 Nc6
> {I think a c6 or c5 or e5 would have been better. The Knight just looks
> akward.}

The idea is to let White think that Black is a weak patzer, let his guard
down, and launch an attack that Black has spent hundreds or thousands of
hours in books preparing for.

Alex Dunne is the highest-rated player I know of who uses this defense.
Players like this are usually very strong in the middlegame and endgame for
their rating. They're like a racehorse looking to mop up in the stretch.

> 2. d4 d5 3. e5
> {The pawn is extended, but I find that this works well to cramp black who
> now has to wait to develop the g8 Knight and also has to
> consider the development of the c8 Bishop.}

This is a "formation opening" that I can reach through several different
lines, thus multiplying the mileage I get from my opening study. The idea
is to gain space and a "big center." Usually I take as much of the center
as my opponent is willing to give me.

> 3... Bf5
> {That solves one problem. Now Nb4 is a threat coordinated by the f5
> Bishop.} 4.
> f4
> {Is this in anticipation of f6? It does not seem to work against much
> else except maybe g5 -an unlikely move.}
> 4... e6 {Black probably is considering Bb4 a simple but useless attack.}
> 5. c3
> {Working against the possible plan mentioned last comment.} 5... h5
> {Perhaps black is considering Nh6 followed by Ng4? A pointless plan as it
> is repulsed by h2. Maybe the plan is to try and push h4,
> h3 to attack at g2, but this would be stopped short by h2 as well. I do
> not see the reasoning for this move.}
> 6. Bd3
> {A rather combative move. But is is really good to trade off the Bishop?
> Maybe. It would free a f5 pawn break at a later time.

If he trades for my "good bishop," my "good queen" is then unopposed on the
diagonal. Smash open his pawns later with a sacrifice and this can prove
decisive.

> But this seems to soon because of the King sitting in the center and the
> majority of undeveloped pieces.}
> 6... g6
> {Well that decides the Bishop's fate. Perhaps black was hoping for the d3
> Bishop to retreat Be2 then to be followed by g4. IF Bxg4
> Bxg4, hxg4 Qxg4, there is a half open for the Black Rook at the expense of
> a pawn.}
> 7. Nf3 {Looks like a good developing move that does not block anything.}

Computers like trading here, but that pawn structure isn't so easy to crack.

>7...
> Nh6 {Here comes that Knight.} 8. O-O
> {Looks a little dangerous to castle to this side. Not right now, but
> later.}
> 8... Be7 {Not a real useful move.}

I'm not even paying attention to what he's doing at this point, as my pieces
are unopposed in their development.

>9. b4
> {A nice strong developing move with potential to attack the Knight.} 9...
> Bxd3
> {Gives up the blockade of the f4 pawn.} 10. Qxd3 Nf5
> {Hoping to lure the g2 pawn?} 11. b5 {Nice.}
11... Na5 12. a4
> {Seizing some board. Nb3 could have forked R and B.} 12... Nc4
> {Black opts for an outpost.} 13. Na3 {Encouraging an exchange.} 13... Bxa3
> 14.
> Bxa3 Nxa3 15. Rxa3
> {The board is lighter. Its hard to see either side has a great advantage.
> White is better by King safety, better cover of pawns.

Not so hard to see after all.

> Neither side has an attacking coordination of pieces. Black has a choice
> of castling either side. Q-side is threatened, the K-side
> is weak. Choices, choices. You would have to really pull a plan out of a
> hat to make this game go somewhere good.}
> 15... O-O {The lesser of two evils?} 16. Ra2
> {White has plans for a nice direct attack on the King involving the
> coordination of the rooks and eventually pushing f5?}

This allows the doubling of rooks wherever they wind up.

> 16... a6 {Black seeks to open the B file.} 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5
> {The a file is opened instead.} 18... Qe7
> {Its not easy to try and find a good developing move for Black. This does
> tie the rooks. The Q and R are targeting a3 which views
> the White Queen thru a pawn.}
> 19. h3
> {This move left an opening at g3 that the Knight could have taken
> advantage.}
> 19... Ra3 {Black tries to constrict pawn play.}

It's a "Siberian Rook" which effectively leaves Black a rook down on the
kingside, thus paving the way for sacrificial threats.

>20. g4
> {This could have ended up bad if Black played hxg3 followd by hxg3 opening
> up the h file. Black would only have to move Kg7, Rh8
> and work on placing the Queen on the h file and it would have been tough
> for White.}

If 20...hxg4 21 hxg4 Ng3 then 22. Rc1 (or even Rb1) is fine.

> 20... Nh4 {This takes steps to achieving an strong attack on the White
> King.}
> 21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5
> {The move gxh5 may have been interesting. Especially if the Black Queen
> attempted to apply a check on the g file. A quick Rook
> response would have proved decisive.}
> 22... hxg4
> {Black seeks to open up the h file but is not looking at the danger from
> the f pawn.}
> 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 {fxg6 would have led to a similiar fate.}
> (24...
> fxg6 25. Rxf8+ Kg7 26. R1f7+ Kh6 27. Rh8+ Kg5 28. Rxh4 Kxh4 29. e7 Ra1+
> 30. Rf1
> Rxf1+ 31. Kxf1 h2 32. Kg2 h1=Q+ 33. Kxh1 g5 34. e8=Q g4 35. Qg6 g3 36. Kg2
> b6
> 37. Qxg3+ Kh5 38. Qg7 Kh4 39. Kf3 Kh5 40. Kf4 c6 41. Qg5#) 25. e7 Rg8 26.
> Qxg8+
> Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+
> 32. Kh2
> {Black resigns} 1-0

Black's 32nd move was best.

Date: 10 Aug 2005 02:18:05
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>1. e4 Nc6
>>{I think a c6 or c5 or e5 would have been better. The Knight just looks
>>akward.}
>
>
> The idea is to let White think that Black is a weak patzer, let his guard
> down, and launch an attack that Black has spent hundreds or thousands of
> hours in books preparing for.
>
> Alex Dunne is the highest-rated player I know of who uses this defense.
> Players like this are usually very strong in the middlegame and endgame for
> their rating. They're like a racehorse looking to mop up in the stretch.

Hello Ray, this is only for joke:

That show you know "highest rated players" like chess openings.

Some insigne black players of that 1....Nc6:
- Robert Hubner
- Sergei Tiviakov
- Larry Christiansen
- Anthony Miles
- Vlastimil Hort
- Boris Gulko
- Carl Schlechter
- Joel Benjamin
- Ian Rogers
...

AT

Date: 11 Aug 2005 01:33:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

>> The idea is to let White think that Black is a weak patzer, let his guard
>> down, and launch an attack that Black has spent hundreds or thousands of
>> hours in books preparing for.
>>
>> Alex Dunne is the highest-rated player I know of who uses this defense.
>> Players like this are usually very strong in the middlegame and endgame
>> for their rating. They're like a racehorse looking to mop up in the
>> stretch.
>
> Hello Ray, this is only for joke:
>
> That show you know "highest rated players" like chess openings.
>
> Some insigne black players of that 1....Nc6:
> - Robert Hubner
> - Sergei Tiviakov
> - Larry Christiansen
> - Anthony Miles
> - Vlastimil Hort
> - Boris Gulko
> - Carl Schlechter
> - Joel Benjamin
> - Ian Rogers

I mean *exclusively*.

Date: 10 Aug 2005 12:56:59
From: ian burton
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

"Antonio Torrecillas" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> >>1. e4 Nc6
> >>{I think a c6 or c5 or e5 would have been better. The Knight just looks
> >>akward.}
> >
> >
> > The idea is to let White think that Black is a weak patzer, let his
guard
> > down, and launch an attack that Black has spent hundreds or thousands of
> > hours in books preparing for.
> >
> > Alex Dunne is the highest-rated player I know of who uses this defense.
> > Players like this are usually very strong in the middlegame and endgame
for
> > their rating. They're like a racehorse looking to mop up in the
stretch.
>
> Hello Ray, this is only for joke:
>
> That show you know "highest rated players" like chess openings.
>
> Some insigne black players of that 1....Nc6:
> - Robert Hubner
> - Sergei Tiviakov
> - Larry Christiansen
> - Anthony Miles
> - Vlastimil Hort
> - Boris Gulko
> - Carl Schlechter
> - Joel Benjamin
> - Ian Rogers

You missed Alexander Kevitz. As Hans Kmoch always said, he'd have easily
have been a grandmaster if he didn't have to play Black.
--
Ian Burton
[Please Reply to Newsgroup]

Date: 09 Aug 2005 20:30:03
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:18:05 +0200, Antonio Torrecillas
<[email protected] > wrote:

>En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>>1. e4 Nc6
>>>{I think a c6 or c5 or e5 would have been better. The Knight just looks
>>>akward.}
>>
>>
>> The idea is to let White think that Black is a weak patzer, let his guard
>> down, and launch an attack that Black has spent hundreds or thousands of
>> hours in books preparing for.
>>
>> Alex Dunne is the highest-rated player I know of who uses this defense.
>> Players like this are usually very strong in the middlegame and endgame for
>> their rating. They're like a racehorse looking to mop up in the stretch.
>
>Hello Ray, this is only for joke:
>
>That show you know "highest rated players" like chess openings.
>
>Some insigne black players of that 1....Nc6:
>- Robert Hubner
>- Sergei Tiviakov
>- Larry Christiansen
>- Anthony Miles
>- Vlastimil Hort
>- Boris Gulko
>- Carl Schlechter
>- Joel Benjamin
>- Ian Rogers

Not to mention Bogojubow, Nimzovich, and Chigorin.

Date: 06 Aug 2005 05:10:52
From: N. Silver
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Ray Gordon wrote:
> Still on course to be a GM within eight years.

> This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
> stupidly, as most 2300s do.

> He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but
> White was never in any real danger.

> 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8. O-O
> Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14. Bxa3
> Nxa3 15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3 20. g4
> Nh4 21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7 Rg8 26.
> Qxg8+ Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6 Rxc3 31. f7
> Rg3+ 32. Kh2 {Black resigns} 1-0

That's impressive, Ray. What does winning a one-minute skittles game
have to do with becoming a Grand Master within 80 years? Post a
game when you can beat one of the Polgar sisters.

Date: 06 Aug 2005 13:23:55
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

>> Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
>
>> This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
>> stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>
>> He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but
>> White was never in any real danger.
>
>> 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8.
>> O-O Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14.
>> Bxa3 Nxa3 15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3
>> 20. g4 Nh4 21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7
>> Rg8 26. Qxg8+ Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6
>> Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32. Kh2 {Black resigns} 1-0
>
> That's impressive, Ray. What does winning a one-minute skittles game

You are mistaken: there is a new breed of player who demands a perfect game
of chess at the one-minute time control. Most of them play nothing but.

People can cheat at longer time controls now so those are useless. Anything
over three minutes is simply too long.

Date: 06 Aug 2005 14:10:17
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:LR2Je.5951$%[email protected]...
>>> Still on course to be a GM within eight years.
>>
>>> This is a pretty good game for one-minute chess. My opponent played
>>> stupidly, as most 2300s do.
>>
>>> He could have held the balance better with 13...Nb6 or 20...hxg4, but
>>> White was never in any real danger.
>>
>>> 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. f4 e6 5. c3 h5 6. Bd3 g6 7. Nf3 Nh6 8.
>>> O-O Be7 9. b4 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nf5 11. b5 Na5 12. a4 Nc4 13. Na3 Bxa3 14.
>>> Bxa3 Nxa3 15. Rxa3 O-O 16. Ra2 a6 17. Raf2 axb5 18. axb5 Qe7 19. h3 Ra3
>>> 20. g4 Nh4 21. Nxh4 Qxh4 22. f5 hxg4 23. fxe6 gxh3 24. Qxg6+ Kh8 25. e7
>>> Rg8 26. Qxg8+ Kxg8 27. e8=Q+ Kh7 28. Qxf7+ Kh6 29. Qf6+ Qxf6 30. exf6
>>> Rxc3 31. f7 Rg3+ 32. Kh2 {Black resigns} 1-0
>>
>> That's impressive, Ray. What does winning a one-minute skittles game
>
> You are mistaken: there is a new breed of player who demands a perfect
> game of chess at the one-minute time control. Most of them play nothing
> but.

Them? THEM?? Got a turd in your pocket, Gordo? Sorry to again be the
cold, sobering voice of reason, but you're the only one who "demands a
perfect game of chess at the one-minute time control." The ONLY one..

> People can cheat at longer time controls now so those are useless.
> Anything over three minutes is simply too long.

ROFLMFAO.

World-Class players are complaining that FIDE keeps shortening the time
controls. You, for all your unjustified bragging about becoming a GM when
you pack a 1500-ICC rating, disagree. So people should listen to you,
right?

Again, get over yourself. Your memorization of MCO is a little bit
impressive, but not really. And your ridiculous claims of having "GM
opening strength" has been and will continue to be laughed at until you
realize how ludicrous this sounds to someone who has even a basic knowledge
of the game.

I knew you couldn't stay away for long -- what was it? A month? Three
weeks? Whatever. We all know an attention whore like you can't live
without people talking about them. Just keep talking about your "opening
strength" and how you're going to be a GM in x-number of years (all the
while sporting a 1500-ICC rating) and there'll be no shortage of people who
will pile on to clown the shit out of you some more.

Welcome back!

Date: 19 Dec 2005 23:45:36
From: Barry
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Matt Nemmers wrote:
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:LR2Je.5951$%[email protected]...
>
> Again, get over yourself. Your memorization of MCO is a little bit
> impressive, but not really. And your ridiculous claims of having "GM
> opening strength" has been and will continue to be laughed at until you
> realize how ludicrous this sounds to someone who has even a basic knowledge
> of the game.

You mean playing 1. e4 doesn't mean I have the opening strength of Bobby
Fischer?

Date: 20 Dec 2005 09:49:40
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Barry <[email protected] > wrote:
> You mean playing 1. e4 doesn't mean I have the opening strength of Bobby
> Fischer?

Sure it does. It means you play like a grandmaster for at least one
move! Once you can play like a GM for fifty moves, you should be a
real-life GM so you're already 2% of the way there!!

Dave.

--
David Richerby Generic Peanut (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it's just like all
the others!

Date: 21 Dec 2005 10:52:48
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

En/na David Richerby ha escrit:

> Barry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You mean playing 1. e4 doesn't mean I have the opening strength of Bobby
>>Fischer?
>
> Sure it does. It means you play like a grandmaster for at least one
> move! Once you can play like a GM for fifty moves, you should be a
> real-life GM so you're already 2% of the way there!!
>
> Dave.

Hello Dave,

Another fool has published the "LAST Rule", here you have:
The only important move is the last one (the mate or the move which
forces resignation). It does not matter how you play the game if you are
able to play the last move.
In that case there is no difference between playing 1.e4 or 1.g4.
You can play like a GM only playing last moves.

:-)

AT

Date: 21 Dec 2005 14:39:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> Another fool has published the "LAST Rule", here you have:
> The only important move is the last one (the mate or the move which
> forces resignation). It does not matter how you play the game if you are
> able to play the last move.
> In that case there is no difference between playing 1.e4 or 1.g4.
> You can play like a GM only playing last moves.

Well, you see, if I play 1.g4, I very rarely get to play that
all-important last move: my opponent tends to get there before me. :-(

Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Sadistic Newspaper (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a daily broadsheet but it wants
to hurt you and it's covered in goo!

Date: 21 Dec 2005 07:24:41
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

>> You mean playing 1. e4 doesn't mean I have the opening strength of Bobby
>> Fischer?
>
> Sure it does. It means you play like a grandmaster for at least one
> move! Once you can play like a GM for fifty moves, you should be a
> real-life GM so you're already 2% of the way there!!

All poodles are dogs, but all dogs are not necessarily poodles.

Figuring out what to do on the first move is the FIRST thing a chessplayer
should do. Figuring out what to do on the second move is the SECOND thing
he should do, and so on.

Date: 20 Dec 2005 11:29:19
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

In article <WZb*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:

> Barry <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You mean playing 1. e4 doesn't mean I have the opening strength of Bobby
> > Fischer?
>
> Sure it does. It means you play like a grandmaster for at least one
> move! Once you can play like a GM for fifty moves, you should be a
> real-life GM so you're already 2% of the way there!!

Actually, I am a 2450 rated one-minute player.*

--Harold Buck

*Meaning that I play the same moves a 2450-rated player would play for
the first minute of the game.

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 20 Dec 2005 05:07:01
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: I just crushed a 2300 rated one-minute player

David Richerby wrote:
>
> Barry <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You mean playing 1. e4 doesn't mean I have the opening strength of Bobby
> > Fischer?
>
> Sure it does. It means you play like a grandmaster for at least one
> move! Once you can play like a GM for fifty moves, you should be a
> real-life GM so you're already 2% of the way there!!
>

Ah, the concept of linearity; Dave you
are too kind... 8 >)

> Dave.
>

Regards,

Major Cat