Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

Main

Date: 08 Oct 2006 21:11:52
From: Zero
Subject: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

how boring

this is like a botvinnik-smyslov match

Date: 11 Oct 2006 06:18:24
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

[email protected] wrote:
> Zero wrote:
> > how boring
> >
> > this is like a botvinnik-smyslov match
>
> Yes. I'd love to see 1 e4 e5 2 f4 !!
>
> Only spassky had the guts to play it at top level and play he did.

Not in a WC match though.

If you're hoping for a revival of romantic openings at this level, you
should be rooting for Morozevich, who has the talent to reach the WC
finals one of these years.

LT

The
> one against Bronstein. Ignoring the loss of rook by a pawn with check,
> he sacrificed the knight instead.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:56:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

[email protected] wrote:
> Larry Parr wrote (8 Oct 2006 23:08:40 -0700):
>
> 7 ...
> 7 "... I also learned the final moves of The Immortal Game
> 7 (Anderssen vs. Kieseritzky, London 1851) were used in
> 7 the sci-fi film Blade Runner." -- Evans On Chess
> 7 ...
>
> _
> This was noticed long ago. For example:
> _
> "In the movie Bladerunner there is a scene where
> Drexell and Sebastion play chess and Sebastion
> wins by following the 'Immortal Game'. ..." - Adrian
> Corbould (11 Nov 1994 12:47:40 GMT)

No, no, you can't steal Evans' thunder by getting
the dates mixed up. While your man may have
spotted this "long ago", just as you say, in 1994,
Evans had astutely noted the moves were from
The Immortal Game back in *1851* -- which makes
him the very first. Sorry. People are always
trying to mess Larry Evans up by jumbling their
dates. : >D

-- help bot

Date: 10 Oct 2006 03:00:17
From:
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

Zero wrote:
> how boring
>
> this is like a botvinnik-smyslov match

Yes. I'd love to see 1 e4 e5 2 f4 !!

Only spassky had the guts to play it at top level and play he did. The
one against Bronstein. Ignoring the loss of rook by a pawn with check,
he sacrificed the knight instead.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 01:28:59
From:
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

Larry Parr wrote (8 Oct 2006 23:08:40 -0700):

7 ...
7 "... I also learned the final moves of The Immortal Game
7 (Anderssen vs. Kieseritzky, London 1851) were used in
7 the sci-fi film Blade Runner." -- Evans On Chess
7 ...

_
This was noticed long ago. For example:
_
"In the movie Bladerunner there is a scene where
Drexell and Sebastion play chess and Sebastion
wins by following the 'Immortal Game'. ..." - Adrian
Corbould (11 Nov 1994 12:47:40 GMT)

Date: 09 Oct 2006 21:15:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

Zero wrote:
> how boring
>
> this is like a botvinnik-smyslov match

I replayed the first several games, and it seems to me
a better comparison might be the Alekhine--Euwe match,
with its many Slav Defenses which led to dull draws.

Euwe: "Alex simply cannot beat the Slav."

Spectator: "Of course he can. Alekhine can beat anything!"

Euwe: "Oh yeah? Just watch this -- I will lull him to sleep."

Even so, the main thing I noticed in these games was
not the repetitive openings, but the way in which the two
players strongly diifer in their approaches. IMO, Kramnik
is too chicken, eagerly settling for repetitions of position
when he has an edge, while Topolov is far too reckless,
trying to win when he ought to be adopting the Kramnik
strategy of not-losing. IMO, Kramnik's "chicken" strategy
will most likely prevail, yet not earn him many new fans.

At the lower levels, when one player is this eager to allow
a draw though ahead on the board, and the other player is
this desperate to win even if he stands worse, the explanation
can usually be found in a large discrepency in ratings, along
with their inherent "expectations".

-- help bot

Date: 09 Oct 2006 14:46:31
From:
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

[email protected] wrote:
> 1. d4 is good enough,.. as good as 1. e4.
>

It's high time for Fischer chess.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 07:51:15
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:

>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > 1. d4 is good enough,.. as good as 1. e4.
> >
>
> It's high time for Fischer chess.

That's like saying, "Enough of this American football, it's time for
rugby!" Completely different games, and no reason they can't coexist if
there is sufficient interest.

--Harold Buck

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

-Homer J. Simpson

Date: 09 Oct 2006 06:05:56
From: M P
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

Zero wrote:
> how boring
>
> this is like a botvinnik-smyslov match

No matter how many brilliancies are played with d4, no matter how many
players start with e4, and then shuffle wood for 70 moves hoping for a
blunder, some people are going to insist that 1. d4 is inherently more
dull. It's almost pointless to argue.

Consider this, though. Out of 9 1.d4 games so far in this match (not
counting the forfeit with no moves at all) five games have been
decisive. That's an unusually high percentage for this type of
contest. Yes, there have been a lot of blunders, but these have
occurred in difficult positions, with both players trying hard.
There's no reason to believe that this would have been different with
the selection of 1. e4 openings.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 09:20:02
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

En/na Zero ha escrit:
> how boring
>
> this is like a botvinnik-smyslov match
>

After winning Kramnik first two games Kramnik as white want no risk with
1.d4 and Topalov want to avoid drawinsh lines as Petrov or Berlin.

If it were Topalov who have won two first games maybe Kramnik would
wanted to risk as white with 1.e4 c5 and Topalov was happy as white with
1.e4 e5.

AT

Date: 09 Oct 2006 07:46:20
From: Martin S
Subject: Re: TOPALOV Wins Game # 8

Dave (from the UK) wrote:

> John A Swartz wrote:
>
>> what I meant to
>> say was that "While the world, including Kramnik, *MAY* feel that the
>> score should be 4-3 at this point..." (emphasis on the missing word
>> "may"). If you note the rest of my post (that you didn't include in
>> your follow-on), I said "..according to FIDE, it's 4-4, and therefore
>> officially that is the score."
>
> My reasoning is that if everyone put the real (based on games played)
> score on their web sites, it would add pressure on FIDE to overturn the
> forfeit, which is what should happen according to most of the chess world.
>
> Public opinion does have an influence some times. In the UK, the revolt
> over the "poll tax" caused the Prime Minister (gret Thatcher) to
> resign.
>
> By putting the real (rather than official) score on web sites, would add
> pressure to FIDE. They would be seen as a joke of an organization if 99%
> of the chess world did not accept their decision.
>
> I don't know if there are other ways to add pressure. Vote of no
> confidence, GM's asking for their details to be removed from the FIDE
> web site..., whatever else could be done.
>
> In any case, the game has been played under a set of rules that are
> different to what both players signed up for. Hence I don't see how it
> can be an "official" score.
>
>> So, I agree that the score should not be
>> advertised as something other that what is "official" unless it is
>> overturned.
>
> But its more likely to be overturned if the chess world are seen to not
> accept the result.

Personally I'd rather not join the hunt for the head of Topalov untill he
himself (as opposed to Danailov) has made a statement on the whole sorry
mess. If Kramnik forfeited the 5th game, then that "result" counts.
Anything else is just adding to the sorry state of the match.

Originally I was clearly a Topalov fan - then when Toilategate broke lose I
hoped Topalov would renounce Danailov (yeah, a wee bit naive I know) but as
he hasn't I am disappointed in Topalov as a person. As a chess player I
think Topalov is the much more exiting of the two. I still hope he wins the
match. Although - he status in the chess world will still be questionable.
The whole purpose of the match was to declare an undisputed world champion
- Toiletgate has upset that ambition.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Date: 08 Oct 2006 22:08:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is the WCC just going to be 1.d4

1. d4 is good enough,.. as good as 1. e4.

Old Haasie