| |
Main
Date: 28 Aug 2008 13:42:12
From: John Salerno
Subject: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
What I've learned from Chernev's book is that until you've developed your
pieces, you shouldn't try to put together any combinations for attack. If
you are attacked, defend yourself and then continue with development.
Now I'm reading Seirawan and an example game he provides goes:
1 e4 Nf6
2 e5
This is meant to demonstrate how you can gain an advantage in time and space
by forcing Black to move his knight again.
But if I were to look at this through Chernev's eyes, I get the feeling he'd
balk at abandoning the good position on e4, not to mention not developing
another piece, perhaps simply 2 Nc3 to defend the pawn.
I suppose White's second move depends on the style of the player, but
generally speaking, is it better to ignore such an early attack and just
continue with development? Perhaps Seirawan wouldn't *actually* play 2 e5,
maybe it's just a demonstration.
Thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2008 11:09:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
I actually forgotten I had interviewed Ray Keene on this subject [only
remembering and repeating Adorjan's comments here].
I see the GM now was his own website up now, and carries our interview
together on it. Here is one of several questions I put to him about
creativity
Chessville: The late Arnold Denker wrote in 1947: ".the Russian masters have
been combing the archives to retrieve and improve upon hundreds of
apparently 'hopeless' attacking variations, infusing new life into forgotten
lines of play. The pendulum is ever moving." Where is Arnold's pendulum
moving in 2006? Whose work is currently supplanting the 'Russian masters' if
any? And is the process the same now as then?
I imagine that help-bot in particular will like Keene's response. see
http://www.keeneonchess.com/index.asp?contiene=article&id=32
or
http://www.keeneonchess.com/
The answer to the following question is also fascinating, especially in
respect of 'the book'
Chessville: Classical chess is often said to be played-out and spoken of as
if virtually solved. In editing such a monumental work as Batsford's Chess
Openings (BCO) what percentage of its lines would you estimate are unclear
or of open-ended fortunes?
---
Other threads in chess.misc recently covered who Russians feared, Fischer or
Larsen &c. The GM also admits his own bete-noire and why. He names the
composer he finds his own chess most like, and disagree's with Taimanov on
Kasparov, Keene prefers Beethoven to Shostakovitch.
Also covered here recently were soviet-era goings on during the cold-war. I
had read the unpublished material, so invited RK to dilate on it,
Chessville: In an unpublished memoire of the cold war you say how you
smuggled information out of Moscow, foiling the KGB at the airport - tell us
about what you know about smuggling and the KGB does not.
the answer to a subsidiary question on similar theme was
RK: You just don't know how scared and deferential the chess world was to
the Russians then - if they withdrew players or visas or whatever they could
make life very hard for any professional chess player writer or
organisation. I think they somehow respected me because I was very friendly
with them but also made no secret that I detested their regime and communism
as a whole - even though I fraternised with refuseniks and was Korchnoi's
second it never stopped me having trips to Russia and negotiating with them
at very high levels-as when I personally terminated the boycott against
Korchnoi in 1983.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 22:38:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 9, 9:10=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Miles, Keene & Tisdall were the first English GMs
If true, this doesn't say much for "that hated
country", as it was called in the movie
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. As I recall,
in WWII the British army was quite easily
cornered at Dunkirk, being no match for
German strategists. No surprise then that
they were also easily bested by a band of
disorganized colonists in America.
> and spawned another 20
> natives when the US with 5 times England's population, produced 10.
America seems to have attracted considerable
outside talent-- unlike um, what did you say your
puny country was called again-- I forget?
> I should
> like to add this to the list of their crimes, to which they are justifiab=
ly
> haughty. Indeed, maybe this 'cheap' sort of chess writing has something t=
o
> it after all?
I think you would have to back up a generation
or so; who was "churning out" potboilers back
when those fellows who failed to become
strong chess players were growing up? My
guess is writers like Fred Reinfeld. Certainly,
the paucity of American grandmasters could
not have been affected by what hacks like Ray
Keene and Andy Soltis did after-the-fact; no,
their aftermath is probably being felt only now,
at a time when the Russians are challenged
by a man from India.
You know, I was browsing the famous Web
site TheGreatPedant.com and reading Mr.
Winter's take on the variety of books churned
out after the 1992 rematch between former
FIDE world champs Bobby Fischer and Boris
Spassky. Quite a few efforts appeared, and
it is not surprising that among them was one
by the incomparable Ray Keene. As one
might expect, the great pedant made short
work of RK's work, as well as that of a few
others whose efforts were insufficient to
amount to much.
Say, wasn't there once -- just once mind
you -- a fellow from your neck of the woods
who bragged his way to chessic fame?
You know who I mean-- Howard Dean... or
was it Howard End... no, um, Stanton, or
Stanley or Stanford? No, it definitely had a
Howard in it somewhere. Oh well, that
was centuries ago anyhow... .
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2008 15:49:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:328eb004-6f51-47da-b612-d180879786b2@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 9:10 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Miles, Keene & Tisdall were the first English GMs
If true, this doesn't say much for "that hated
country", as it was called in the movie
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. As I recall,
in WWII the British army was quite easily
cornered at Dunkirk, being no match for
German strategists.
**what a passion! The expeditionary force could have used a bit more help
from the French - which was the allied strategy.
No surprise then that
they were also easily bested by a band of
disorganized colonists in America.
**hot-heads to a man. but after all, the Americans considered themselves
English colonists, not Americans as such. the country is merely the
continuation of Norman folks and ways, somewhat adrift of rhyme or reason -
they liked stormin' stuff, genocidal activities - a persistent strain. the
Saxons being a more peaceful bunch, and who would have insisted on health
care, education, and better ale!
> and spawned another 20
> natives when the US with 5 times England's population, produced 10.
America seems to have attracted considerable
outside talent-- unlike um, what did you say your
puny country was called again-- I forget?
I come from a Celtic country, and before that another. It has what we call
'culture' being not an idea, but the practice of quality things in life. It
won't matter to you what you call it.
> I should
> like to add this to the list of their crimes, to which they are
> justifiably
> haughty. Indeed, maybe this 'cheap' sort of chess writing has something to
> it after all?
I think you would have to back up a generation
or so; who was "churning out" potboilers back
when those fellows who failed to become
strong chess players were growing up? My
guess is writers like Fred Reinfeld. Certainly,
the paucity of American grandmasters could
not have been affected by what hacks like Ray
Keene and Andy Soltis did after-the-fact; no,
their aftermath is probably being felt only now,
at a time when the Russians are challenged
by a man from India.
**Don't forget the women from India. Though actually, the Chinese seem to
have taken over that prominent position. As for Keene Soltis and Reinfeld,
they supplied what I needed when I wanted it. And as you know, I want a lot.
But I can't really blame them for not making me a road-map for the rest of
my chess playing days. I rather expect they think people should eventually
do their own thinking. Perhaps this is a cultural difference twixt our
contries?
You know, I was browsing the famous Web
site TheGreatPedant.com and reading Mr.
Winter's take on the variety of books churned
out after the 1992 rematch between former
FIDE world champs Bobby Fischer and Boris
Spassky. Quite a few efforts appeared, and
it is not surprising that among them was one
by the incomparable Ray Keene. As one
might expect, the great pedant made short
work of RK's work, as well as that of a few
others whose efforts were insufficient to
amount to much.
**You are a lay-preacher? As recently mentioned to 't', "God is merciful'
the rest is commentary. Just because you start with a few words from a book,
don't mean you are blessed in your own comments on it, and it turns out, as
likely human and fallible as everyone else who has a go.
Say, wasn't there once -- just once mind
you -- a fellow from your neck of the woods
who bragged his way to chessic fame?
You know who I mean-- Howard Dean... or
was it Howard End... no, um, Stanton, or
Stanley or Stanford? No, it definitely had a
Howard in it somewhere. Oh well, that
was centuries ago anyhow... .
**He had the temerity to talk straight of power to power. The people didn't
like it, said the press. PI
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 20:50:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 9, 11:23=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm rather enjoying his book
> 'Petrosian vs the Elite - 71 victories by the
> master of manoeuvre 1946-1983' (ray keene and julian simpole, Batsford
> Chess) =A0
>
> I find this book well written, just the right amount of commentary
> (not just reams of variations behind each move) and gives an overall
> 'feel' for each of the games. =A0My only complaint is that the books
> binding is weak and is falling apart (im 2/3 the way through the
> book). =A0Ive found this book far better than alot of games collection
> books that I've read. =A0
I have one written by TP himself, and upon
seeing a strange comment re: one position,
decided to let Rybka have a spin; it fully
agreed with Mr. Petrosian, much to my
surprise.
So then, if this book "Petrosian vs. the
Elite" can be added to the one on Mr.
Nimzowitch, we might posit a pattern:
that when analyzing the games of great
players, Mr. Keene is capable of rising far
above his usual level-- the low level seen
when he fumbles with the world of politics
in chess, or what-have-you.
But there is another possibility here;
the use of a co-writer introduces a new
variable, and as we discovered when
critics began taking a book purportedly
authored by Gary Kasparov apart, it
became apparent that there was a huge
"disconnect" between the person whose
name was touted on the work's cover,
and the person or persons who did the
actual writing. Thus, one alternate
explanation might be that Mr. Simpole
is a far better writer than Mr. Keene... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 17:54:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 9, 3:57=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **I watch 3 hours of tv a week. Plus material from net-flicks. Instead, I
> read.
A false dichotomy; one can of course, both
read AND watch TV-- possibly even at the
same time.
> **It is a choice. What else to waste your money on, as an active player? =
Of
> course, not buying chess books and not watching tv is not expensive. But =
let
> us not have to explain that to, say, Louis Blair.
Forget LB. He was too busy to mediate
our little query regarding the punch-- right
cross, uppercut, jab or roundhouse?-- so
to heck with him (yes, he may quote me).
> =A0 I think no one could be so dumb as to
> get it wrong *every time*; hence, your
> spelling errors must be deliberate. =A0In
> fact, your unique ability to get it exactly
>
> **You chose to say "it" because the noun it refers to is uncertainly spel=
led
> to your understanding, or is a typo written by me at 60 wpm
Edward Winter has it that a *girl* bested
you by typing 110 wpm while giving a simul,
eating a banana and giggling. Call it
hyperbole, but the newspapers wrote it up.
> wrong every time shows you to have a
> very high IQ-- perhaps ten or twenty
> points more than Mr. Sloan (the exact
> figure has been hotly debated).
>
> **Mine is 165.
Hmm. The average (arithmetic mean, I
mean) IQ here in rgc seems to be about
125 or so, so that makes you one of the
/most deluded/, or else one of the very
smartest guys around-- impressive in
either case! We won't bother to discuss
my own IQ, since it is on a different (i.e.
real-world) scale from that of the rgc
delusionals.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 09:30:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 9, 9:29=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Meanwhile Ray was asked to, and solved a murder! They are making a tv
> > program about it.
>
> =A0 Let me guess -- he killed Edward Winter, then turned himself in. ;-)
I would not be so quick to credit any of
the hacks with an ability to locate and
correctly identify EW. From what I've
seen thus far, the best shot by a hack
was that EW was "some guy someone
I know beat in a simul in school years
ago".
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 16:27:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:38abe99e-611f-430e-a121-bf395df7eb25@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 9:29 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Meanwhile Ray was asked to, and solved a murder! They are making a tv
> > program about it.
>
> Let me guess -- he killed Edward Winter, then turned himself in. ;-)
I would not be so quick to credit any of
the hacks with an ability to locate and
correctly identify EW. From what I've
seen thus far, the best shot by a hack
was that EW was "some guy someone
I know beat in a simul in school years
ago".
**Rather like you guys. Of course, only a 'hack' could point this out = a
chess player - and real chess players get it. Get it?
PI
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 12:39:39
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
Chess One wrote:
.
> **Rather like you guys. Of course, only a 'hack' could point this out = a
> chess player - and real chess players get it. Get it?
>
> PI
What I don't get about Ray Keene solving a murder is whether any actual
murder was "solved" at all..
I mean the cops sometimes call in psychics, graphologists & whatnot so
why not the odd GM? - but was the suspected crime ever actually
solved?..
I still don't get it.. http://www.impalapublications.com/cat_GM.php
t.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2008 11:52:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
> .
>> **Rather like you guys. Of course, only a 'hack' could point this out = a
>> chess player - and real chess players get it. Get it?
>>
>> PI
>
> What I don't get about Ray Keene solving a murder is whether any actual
> murder was "solved" at all..
>
> I mean the cops sometimes call in psychics, graphologists & whatnot so
> why not the odd GM? - but was the suspected crime ever actually
> solved?..
>
> I still don't get it.. http://www.impalapublications.com/cat_GM.php
I think Ray got the cops on the track, to regnise it /was/ a murder - that
report ends:-
"The most sinister entry is a reference on January 21 to 'BK BP do this'".
Said Keene. "This could be the point when the woman died."
Detective Superintendent Roy Fletcher of Lancashire CID said last night: "We
are treating this as a murder mystery but as yet we have no body. Thanks to
Mr Keene, we may be much closer to solving this mystery."
PI
> t.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 09:19:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 8, 5:47=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **I hope you will find it equally interesting that Ray Keene has a pilot =
tv
> program - apparently he has solved a murder!
I don't watch TV much anymore. It seems
to cater to the weak-minded; to those who
accept being told what, when and even how
to "think" about issues. However, there are
some very interesting programs these days
on the relatively few channels which deal,
not with politics and such, but with nature.
> **You do? For myself, since I am modest, I have never exhausted their swi=
ll,
Who can even afford to purchase all of
it? Two hundred strong and rising quickly,
their "works" are overwhelming in numbers,
if not in fluff and swill.
> and while no doubt they make frequent errors, I make many more - and as y=
ou
> know, I was an almost-IM. Therefore, I refer you to the act of playing ch=
ess
> as a relative activity [as Einstein suggested is the operating principal
I think no one could be so dumb as to
get it wrong *every time*; hence, your
spelling errors must be deliberate. In
fact, your unique ability to get it exactly
wrong every time shows you to have a
very high IQ-- perhaps ten or twenty
points more than Mr. Sloan (the exact
figure has been hotly debated).
> **sorry to break in once again, but you have not mentioned a single fact =
so
> far
Just click on this link:
www.TheGreatPedantEdwardWinter.com
You'll find everything you never wanted to
know about hacks and their craft, neatly
explained and elaborated in his unique,
Victorian, holier-than-thou style. I daresay
he is exceedingly good at this sort of thing,
though it is neigh well impossible to find
things, with his jumbled Web site in which
things are tossed together as in a salad.
> **I too feel sorry for Winter, since these very popular hacks can literal=
ly
> beat him blindfold.
Do any of these dare challenge Mr. Winter
to such a match, or are they perhaps /afraid/
it could only serve to put the spotlight on their
own titanic weaknesses? I'll wager the latter.
As I recall, Mr. Winter *lambasted* Mr. Evans
in some petty dispute over spelling and dates.
The poor chap was made to look ridiculous,
and this was the direct result of his own
arrogance and clumsiness. (Why did he not
have Mr. Parr or Mr. Brennen check his work
before going to print?)
> **Or shut your fat mouth
Woof! Woof! The wannabe dog speaks.
But I maintain that Dr. IMnes lacks that
/certain something/ that makes dogs the
natural companions of mankind. Thus, it
might be wise to try a career change--
perhaps doorman to the rich and famous?
You could rub elbows with your superiors,
which is to say, everybody.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 15:57:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:962f583c-7357-4466-991b-1719569d6407@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 5:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **I hope you will find it equally interesting that Ray Keene has a pilot
> tv
> program - apparently he has solved a murder!
I don't watch TV much anymore. It seems
to cater to the weak-minded; to those who
accept being told what, when and even how
to "think" about issues. However, there are
some very interesting programs these days
on the relatively few channels which deal,
not with politics and such, but with nature.
**I watch 3 hours of tv a week. Plus material from net-flicks. Instead, I
read.
> **You do? For myself, since I am modest, I have never exhausted their
> swill,
Who can even afford to purchase all of
it? Two hundred strong and rising quickly,
their "works" are overwhelming in numbers,
if not in fluff and swill.
**It is a choice. What else to waste your money on, as an active player? Of
course, not buying chess books and not watching tv is not expensive. But let
us not have to explain that to, say, Louis Blair.
> and while no doubt they make frequent errors, I make many more - and as
> you
> know, I was an almost-IM. Therefore, I refer you to the act of playing
> chess
> as a relative activity [as Einstein suggested is the operating principal
I think no one could be so dumb as to
get it wrong *every time*; hence, your
spelling errors must be deliberate. In
fact, your unique ability to get it exactly
**You chose to say "it" because the noun it refers to is uncertainly spelled
to your understanding, or is a typo written by me at 60 wpm not to your
precious standards.
wrong every time shows you to have a
very high IQ-- perhaps ten or twenty
points more than Mr. Sloan (the exact
figure has been hotly debated).
**Mine is 165. But I see you make your posts about what you are not doing,
and of what you do not like. That is relatively easy to do. Unfortunately, I
must give you the Librarians prize for it, since you missed your calling.
> **sorry to break in once again, but you have not mentioned a single fact
> so
> far
Just click on this link:
www.TheGreatPedantEdwardWinter.com
You'll find everything you never wanted to
know about hacks and their craft, neatly
explained and elaborated in his unique,
**boring, usual, obvious, and mean
**Since I know what both Fritz and Rybka think about the Taimanov Fischer
game, but you don't, can't get over your own words to find out, and Our
Taylor only wants to find other's words absolutely right or wrong, I leave
you sweethearts to it.
**I just don't need more of your corn-boy opinions, certainly not submitting
to them, and your bitty abuse which necessarily accompanies your
'collaborations'. Get it, corn-fed? If not, complain to Taylor, he'll agree
with you.
Phil Innes
Victorian, holier-than-thou style. I daresay
he is exceedingly good at this sort of thing,
though it is neigh well impossible to find
things, with his jumbled Web site in which
things are tossed together as in a salad.
> **I too feel sorry for Winter, since these very popular hacks can
> literally
> beat him blindfold.
Do any of these dare challenge Mr. Winter
to such a match, or are they perhaps /afraid/
it could only serve to put the spotlight on their
own titanic weaknesses? I'll wager the latter.
As I recall, Mr. Winter *lambasted* Mr. Evans
in some petty dispute over spelling and dates.
The poor chap was made to look ridiculous,
and this was the direct result of his own
arrogance and clumsiness. (Why did he not
have Mr. Parr or Mr. Brennen check his work
before going to print?)
> **Or shut your fat mouth
Woof! Woof! The wannabe dog speaks.
But I maintain that Dr. IMnes lacks that
/certain something/ that makes dogs the
natural companions of mankind. Thus, it
might be wise to try a career change--
perhaps doorman to the rich and famous?
You could rub elbows with your superiors,
which is to say, everybody.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 06:29:27
From:
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 9, 9:10=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Meanwhile Ray was asked to, and solved a murder! They are making a tv
> program about it.
Let me guess -- he killed Edward Winter, then turned himself in. ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 08:41:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 7, 11:09=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
(much about Ray Keene)
Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
that interests me, is how such a hack could
receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
Nimzowitch! I find it interesting that such
writers as RK and Andy Soltis -- to name
but two -- will sometimes devote serious
effort to a particular work, while at other
times just "churning out" fluff or swill.
This is not to say that Mr. Keene has no
use-- far from it; it is writers like him that
keep our valued pedants employed; put
meat on their tables, as it were. And
yet... there is an old saying: "all things in
moderation". Too much fluff and swill
can overload even the most dedicated
pedant, driving him to pull at his thinning
hair, grind his teeth, or even emit groans
and gasping sounds. I feel sorry for Mr.
Winter in a way, for he gets precious
little help in his task of sorting out all the
flotsam from the jetsam which are both
jumbled together and mixed and stirred
by these very popular hacks.
In the old days, chess writing was
considered an art; nowadays, it is more
quantitative production, largely in areas
such as the chess openings, where
dullards seek easy answers via rote
memorization of moves. Certainly, it is
fitting that our most "productive" hacks
cater to these customers-- like serving
like.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2008 03:23:50
From:
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 08:41:06 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Sep 7, 11:09�am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>(much about Ray Keene)
>
>
> Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
>that interests me, is how such a hack could
>receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
>Nimzowitch! I find it interesting that such
>writers as RK and Andy Soltis -- to name
>but two -- will sometimes devote serious
>effort to a particular work, while at other
>times just "churning out" fluff or swill.
>
I'm rather enjoying his book
'Petrosian vs the Elite - 71 victories by the
master of manoeuvre 1946-1983' (ray keene and julian simpole, Batsford
Chess)
I find this book well written, just the right amount of commentary
(not just reams of variations behind each move) and gives an overall
'feel' for each of the games. My only complaint is that the books
binding is weak and is falling apart (im 2/3 the way through the
book). Ive found this book far better than alot of games collection
books that I've read.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 21:21:32
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
help bot wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (much about Ray Keene)
>
> Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
> that interests me, is how such a hack could
> receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
> Nimzowitch!
Really? - is this the only thing that interests you about the ignoble
sir ray Keene, who in any fair contest with an honest micky adams or a
creative nigel for examps. would shortly be reduced to a stewed carrot &
sour.cream side-dish..
Maybe another thing that slips down your craw, dear bot, is the fact
that @ one time mr. keene was part of the G. Kasparov world wide
entourage..
A crucial pin in inter-galactical relationships between Moscow, London &
the rest of the known universe so to speak..
Of course, Keene himself is loathe to admit his fringe status in a
professional literatti class which exults & drinks wine in his hometown
& is known to exclude outsiders..
Once, only once mind, I attended a gala where this prime specimen of
pomp was the star attraction & left vowing never to return - ever..
Some have ascribed penguin like attributes to this personage but I feel
this is wrong..
Animals, birds & fishes etc. aren't known to be arrogant - this is
specifically a human trait..
Lugubrious is a good word to describe mr keene..
t.
.
> In the old days, chess writing was
> considered an art; nowadays, it is more
> quantitative production, largely in areas
> such as the chess openings, where
> dullards seek easy answers via rote
> memorization of moves. Certainly, it is
> fitting that our most "productive" hacks
> cater to these customers-- like serving
> like.
>
> -- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 09:10:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> help bot wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 7, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> (much about Ray Keene)
>>
>> Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
>> that interests me, is how such a hack could
>> receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
>> Nimzowitch!
>
> Really? - is this the only thing that interests you about the ignoble
> sir ray Keene, who in any fair contest with an honest micky adams or a
> creative nigel for examps. would shortly be reduced to a stewed carrot &
> sour.cream side-dish..
I know both those characters too. I interviewed Adams recently. Nigel is
head of the Commonwealth Chess Assoc, and also Britains chess ambassador to
the world [not including Scotland] ;)))
Meanwhile Ray was asked to, and solved a murder! They are making a tv
program about it.
>> In the old days, chess writing was
>> considered an art; nowadays, it is more
>> quantitative production, largely in areas
>> such as the chess openings, where
>> dullards seek easy answers via rote
>> memorization of moves. Certainly, it is
>> fitting that our most "productive" hacks
>> cater to these customers-- like serving
>> like.
chess-bot needs to buy tournament versions fitting his elevated non-playing
status. unless you want a book a foot thick, much thought will be required,
and there is certainly nothing rote about that
Miles, Keene & Tisdall were the first English GMs, and spawned another 20
natives when the US with 5 times England's population, produced 10. I should
like to add this to the list of their crimes, to which they are justifiably
haughty. Indeed, maybe this 'cheap' sort of chess writing has something to
it after all?
;))
Phil Innes
>> -- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2008 17:47:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 7, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
(much about Ray Keene)
Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
that interests me, is how such a hack could
receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
Nimzowitch!
**I hope you will find it equally interesting that Ray Keene has a pilot tv
program - apparently he has solved a murder!
I find it interesting that such
writers as RK and Andy Soltis -- to name
but two -- will sometimes devote serious
effort to a particular work, while at other
times just "churning out" fluff or swill.
**You do? For myself, since I am modest, I have never exhausted their swill,
and while no doubt they make frequent errors, I make many more - and as you
know, I was an almost-IM. Therefore, I refer you to the act of playing chess
as a relative activity [as Einstein suggested is the operating principal of
the universe] compared with Platonic certainties [for which I would also
hold a candle] the battle between em, is the exploration of what actually
occurs. The thing of it is, you have to actually play chess to know what
works are useful to you, to know your fluff from your [in my experience]
very useful swill. But then again, I am much stronger than you as a player,
and still play all-comers.
This is not to say that Mr. Keene has no
use-- far from it; it is writers like him that
keep our valued pedants employed; put
meat on their tables, as it were. And
yet... there is an old saying: "all things in
moderation". Too much fluff and swill
can overload even the most dedicated
**sorry to break in once again, but you have not mentioned a single fact so
far, and, since you are an American, I do need to point out to you as
bluntly as possible that you are likely a typical neurotic whiner of your
culture, who seeks to find an excuse for why he is a patzer at chess.
pedant, driving him to pull at his thinning
hair, grind his teeth, or even emit groans
and gasping sounds. I feel sorry for Mr.
Winter in a way, for he gets precious
little help in his task of sorting out all the
flotsam from the jetsam which are both
jumbled together and mixed and stirred
by these very popular hacks.
**I too feel sorry for Winter, since these very popular hacks can literally
beat him blindfold. But I do understand your point that the experience of
actually playing chess is not the one you address.
In the old days, chess writing was
considered an art; nowadays, it is more
quantitative production, largely in areas
such as the chess openings, where
dullards seek easy answers via rote
memorization of moves. Certainly, it is
fitting that our most "productive" hacks
cater to these customers-- like serving
like.
**Spoken like a true theorist. Chess is not theory! Period! Show up and play
and let whatever informed you guide you.
**Or shut your fat mouth - is this a sufficiently expressed sentiment blunt
in your culture? I know I have been critised for being too subtle, and wish
to know my effect on native persons in USA. Do you in fact, understand my
blunt?
Phil Innes
-- help bot
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 21:54:27
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 7, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (much about Ray Keene)
>
> Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
> that interests me, is how such a hack could
> receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
> Nimzowitch!
>
> **I hope you will find it equally interesting that Ray Keene has a pilot tv
> program - apparently he has solved a murder!
Apparently Nick Bourbaki has yet to be informed of this momentous
occurrence..
Frankly, I feel that after people like yourself left, the country went
downhill but what's to be done in this age of dumbth - eh?..
Seemingly one might say that all these would-be causers of mayhem -
mustapha, walid & sharif are every bit, if not more so brit than you
phil - no?..
God is great..
t.
>
> I find it interesting that such
> writers as RK and Andy Soltis -- to name
> but two -- will sometimes devote serious
> effort to a particular work, while at other
> times just "churning out" fluff or swill.
>
> **You do? For myself, since I am modest, I have never exhausted their swill,
> and while no doubt they make frequent errors, I make many more - and as you
> know, I was an almost-IM. Therefore, I refer you to the act of playing chess
> as a relative activity [as Einstein suggested is the operating principal of
> the universe] compared with Platonic certainties [for which I would also
> hold a candle] the battle between em, is the exploration of what actually
> occurs. The thing of it is, you have to actually play chess to know what
> works are useful to you, to know your fluff from your [in my experience]
> very useful swill. But then again, I am much stronger than you as a player,
> and still play all-comers.
>
> This is not to say that Mr. Keene has no
> use-- far from it; it is writers like him that
> keep our valued pedants employed; put
> meat on their tables, as it were. And
> yet... there is an old saying: "all things in
> moderation". Too much fluff and swill
> can overload even the most dedicated
>
> **sorry to break in once again, but you have not mentioned a single fact so
> far, and, since you are an American, I do need to point out to you as
> bluntly as possible that you are likely a typical neurotic whiner of your
> culture, who seeks to find an excuse for why he is a patzer at chess.
>
> pedant, driving him to pull at his thinning
> hair, grind his teeth, or even emit groans
> and gasping sounds. I feel sorry for Mr.
> Winter in a way, for he gets precious
> little help in his task of sorting out all the
> flotsam from the jetsam which are both
> jumbled together and mixed and stirred
> by these very popular hacks.
>
> **I too feel sorry for Winter, since these very popular hacks can literally
> beat him blindfold. But I do understand your point that the experience of
> actually playing chess is not the one you address.
>
> In the old days, chess writing was
> considered an art; nowadays, it is more
> quantitative production, largely in areas
> such as the chess openings, where
> dullards seek easy answers via rote
> memorization of moves. Certainly, it is
> fitting that our most "productive" hacks
> cater to these customers-- like serving
> like.
>
> **Spoken like a true theorist. Chess is not theory! Period! Show up and play
> and let whatever informed you guide you.
>
> **Or shut your fat mouth - is this a sufficiently expressed sentiment blunt
> in your culture? I know I have been critised for being too subtle, and wish
> to know my effect on native persons in USA. Do you in fact, understand my
> blunt?
>
> Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Sep 2008 09:35:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sep 7, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> (much about Ray Keene)
>>
>> Ray Keene is a hack. The one aspect
>> that interests me, is how such a hack could
>> receive rave reviews for his book about Mr.
>> Nimzowitch!
>>
>> **I hope you will find it equally interesting that Ray Keene has a pilot
>> tv
>> program - apparently he has solved a murder!
>
> Apparently Nick Bourbaki has yet to be informed of this momentous
> occurrence..
>
> Frankly, I feel that after people like yourself left, the country went
> downhill but what's to be done in this age of dumbth - eh?..
Downhill from where? You could read a superb new book on what is in
Ackroyd's terminology [echoing Blake] 'English Music'.
The Same Man, [subtitled] in Love and War, a title on Orwell and Waugh, by
David Lebedoff. 2008 Random House.
How interesting that an American should write the book - illustrating that
the country contains the best and the worst. There is nary any chess in it,
but there is massive context of the times - utterly throwing into question
such things as discussed here recently re Alekhine - and to beware who
writes any histories.
Orwells difficulties in getting Animal Farm published were first a rejection
by a respectable mainstream publishing house which returned the MSS to him
immediately with a fatuous letter [on which letter Orwells wrote the single
words "balls"].
Then he was rejected from another publishing house because he was /not/ a
communist.
Then it transpired that the first publisher above [Cape] had actually asked
the government whether the material should be published! In fact they
inquired of a high official in the Ministry of Information, one Peter
Smollett. To be fair to Cape [which is nigh-on impossible considering their
clandestine act] they didn't know they were applying to a Soviet agent.
TS Eliot also rejected the title on behalf of Faber and Faber.
--so you see, the comtemptible refusal to publish a fable about Stalin, a
book about real egalitarianism was rejected since freedom of speech [for
which the Allies had fought WWII against the dictators] was subservient to
further appeasement policies of a dictator - and utterly pointless as it
soon became clear.
Eventually [Freddy] Warburg took the title.
--the author comments that politically correct speech is a fashion, and
whether from left or right, its dangerous. "And even today it prevent the
expression of the uncomfortable truths more effectively than any statute
could."
So what does this have to do with Ray Keene? Ray does a few other things
than play and write about chess. For example he smuggled out samizdat from
Refuseniks in the SU, and he too had trouble finding publishers for these
uncomfortable truths in the West. While Keene may be 'thought of' as being
aloof or superior, he was far less so than others in this instance, and for
no possible personal gain, in fact, like Orwell, acted to his own
disadvantage in, as they say here in America, speaking truth to power.
> Seemingly one might say that all these would-be causers of mayhem -
> mustapha, walid & sharif are every bit, if not more so brit than you
> phil - no?..
>
> God is great..
God is Merciful, the rest is commentary.
Phil Innes
> t.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I find it interesting that such
>> writers as RK and Andy Soltis -- to name
>> but two -- will sometimes devote serious
>> effort to a particular work, while at other
>> times just "churning out" fluff or swill.
>>
>> **You do? For myself, since I am modest, I have never exhausted their
>> swill,
>> and while no doubt they make frequent errors, I make many more - and as
>> you
>> know, I was an almost-IM. Therefore, I refer you to the act of playing
>> chess
>> as a relative activity [as Einstein suggested is the operating principal
>> of
>> the universe] compared with Platonic certainties [for which I would also
>> hold a candle] the battle between em, is the exploration of what actually
>> occurs. The thing of it is, you have to actually play chess to know what
>> works are useful to you, to know your fluff from your [in my experience]
>> very useful swill. But then again, I am much stronger than you as a
>> player,
>> and still play all-comers.
>>
>> This is not to say that Mr. Keene has no
>> use-- far from it; it is writers like him that
>> keep our valued pedants employed; put
>> meat on their tables, as it were. And
>> yet... there is an old saying: "all things in
>> moderation". Too much fluff and swill
>> can overload even the most dedicated
>>
>> **sorry to break in once again, but you have not mentioned a single fact
>> so
>> far, and, since you are an American, I do need to point out to you as
>> bluntly as possible that you are likely a typical neurotic whiner of your
>> culture, who seeks to find an excuse for why he is a patzer at chess.
>>
>> pedant, driving him to pull at his thinning
>> hair, grind his teeth, or even emit groans
>> and gasping sounds. I feel sorry for Mr.
>> Winter in a way, for he gets precious
>> little help in his task of sorting out all the
>> flotsam from the jetsam which are both
>> jumbled together and mixed and stirred
>> by these very popular hacks.
>>
>> **I too feel sorry for Winter, since these very popular hacks can
>> literally
>> beat him blindfold. But I do understand your point that the experience of
>> actually playing chess is not the one you address.
>>
>> In the old days, chess writing was
>> considered an art; nowadays, it is more
>> quantitative production, largely in areas
>> such as the chess openings, where
>> dullards seek easy answers via rote
>> memorization of moves. Certainly, it is
>> fitting that our most "productive" hacks
>> cater to these customers-- like serving
>> like.
>>
>> **Spoken like a true theorist. Chess is not theory! Period! Show up and
>> play
>> and let whatever informed you guide you.
>>
>> **Or shut your fat mouth - is this a sufficiently expressed sentiment
>> blunt
>> in your culture? I know I have been critised for being too subtle, and
>> wish
>> to know my effect on native persons in USA. Do you in fact, understand my
>> blunt?
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2008 22:51:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 28, 1:42=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What I've learned from Chernev's book is that until you've developed your
> pieces, you shouldn't try to put together any combinations for attack. If
> you are attacked, defend yourself and then continue with development.
>
> Now I'm reading Seirawan and an example game he provides goes:
>
> 1 e4 =A0Nf6
> 2 e5
>
> This is meant to demonstrate how you can gain an advantage in time and sp=
ace
> by forcing Black to move his knight again.
>
> But if I were to look at this through Chernev's eyes, I get the feeling h=
e'd
> balk at abandoning the good position on e4, not to mention not developing
> another piece, perhaps simply 2 Nc3 to defend the pawn.
>
> I suppose White's second move depends on the style of the player, but
> generally speaking, is it better to ignore such an early attack and just
> continue with development? Perhaps Seirawan wouldn't *actually* play 2 e5=
,
> maybe it's just a demonstration.
Vague generalities such as "don't move more
than one pawn in the opening" or "move each
piece only once" must always yield to tactics.
Here, we "know" (or at least, think we know)
that Black's Knight can safely be driven off to
the not-so-great square b6, with a resulting
gain of time for White, who nets a mass of
pawns in the center.
What we also know (or think we know) is
that not driving the Knight away with 2. e5
allows easy equality, as after: 1. e4 Nf6,
2. Nc3 d5, except for transpositions into
the French Defense (an atrocity whose
popularity stems from a lucky win by the
French in an infamous team match against
the British).
It really is handy to "know" such general
principles as "Knights before Bishops", but
there always will be exceptions-- specific
positions or types of positions where the
rule does not apply.
Here, the idea that a pawn on e4 is well-
positioned and should not be any further
advanced ignores the harsh reality that on
that square it can easily be challenged,
exchanged. In fact, more than a few
ignoramuses have attempted the clearly
ludicrous: 1. e4 d5, not realizing how
incredibly silly this makes them look.
The harsh reality is that at the top levels
of play, this, the Alekhine's Defense, now
has a terrible record in which White wins
a huge percentage of games, despite
Black's "preparations". Back when the
openings were less well-mapped, things
were not so clear. It is in essence, a
relic of the past, no longer viable in play
amongst decent chess players:
http://www.getclub.com/Chess.php?user=3Dhelp%20bot&playcode=3D374827&lang=
=3Den
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 08:27:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 3, 11:43=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Not always - for example I just ran through some of the course software=
to
> see if I could follow my own instructions [fear not, I have plenty of
> editors] and so installed Advanced Chess School
Um, /you/ are writing the advanced part?
(Chortle)
> =A0where some
> other horse played the part of an innocent
> racehorse, who got caught up in a dispute
> between the mob and a wealthy business
> man
>
> **Talk about acting your head off! I suppose that horse wudda got the Osc=
ar,
> but it was too much a bit part
A /bit part/-- ha, ha, ha!
> **NY State Championships: "There were NO Grandmasters in this years event=
.
Last time I attended the Indiana state
championship, I believe it was dominated
by such folks as appear even now on the
cover of Chess Lies magazine. The
name "GM Shabalov" leaps to mind.
> =A0 As for /bitterness/, I see it in the way the
> Evans ratpack strives to live in the distant
> past, rejecting the present. =A0The obsession
> with Mr. Fischer and the Cold War (which
> is long over, by the way) tells a tale of
>
> **What about the new cold war? That's what the BBC just called it, and yo=
ur
> VP of War just went over there to support people who want to breathe free=
. I
> don't think the cold-war was won, I think it was a draw, which may turn o=
ut
> to be merely a thaw!
Well, those with an agenda may "rewrite"
the script such that the old "Russia" now
equates to the new, smaller one, but that
is to deny history. As I recall, the once-
mighty USSR is broken to pieces, like an
Oreo cookie dropped onto cement.
> **Interesting that an AP report on Kasparov running for President of Russ=
ia
> surveyed young Russians who had no idea who he was.
Probably they were "surveying" Americans,
posing as Russians. (Hint: did they happen
to speak English, and were they wearing
Nike shoes and eating McDonald's French
fries?)
> =A0 Trying to live in the past-- now *that's*
> bitterness. =A0Note to present-deniers: the
> theories about time travel are bunk. =A0That
> garbage all stems from misconceptions
> regarding the fixed speed of light in a
> Hoover vacuum, /as perceived by/
> observers who are moving /relative/ to
> some other observer, in a different frame
> of reference.
>
> **You have attempted a complex sentence, but forgot to mention if the fir=
st
> set of observers are also in a Hoover or on a dam, and if the last observ=
er
> has a view from a Buick?
Look, although it is obvious that *I* can
understand the complexities of Quantum
Physics and Relativity, to expect that I
can instruct dullards like *you* in a chess
newsgroup is truly grasping at straws.
(Here, the straws are not moving relative
to the milkshake's frame of reference.)
> =A0 The fact remains that you
> are stuck here in the present, /in the
> real world/, whether you like it or not.
>
> **That's an aggressive statement I should only wish to modify it by sayin=
g
> that the present has the /potential/ one might show up in it, and not
> everyone makes it here, and that any such present is a continuum, an
> ever-present, the same ever-present potential there always was. Now... th=
e
> witness by some people of other manifestations of being present in time i=
s
> merely seperated from other ever-present moments that are possible to
> witness by the relatively trivial factor - if its raining outside or not,
> and not by any fundamental difference
May I interrupt here to point out that you
have already broken my all-time record for
run-on sentence construction, by a country
mile?
> in the nature of possible cosmic
> presences that may occur to individuals from time to time.
Ah, there it is-- the period. I knew it
would show up in my frame of reference,
provided I waited long enough and it was
not moving faster than the speed of light.
> At least Dostoyevski and myself
And *I*... .
> would like to propose this point of view to your
> attention.
It's very simple: just lop off the part about
/him/ (Dosto) and pretend you are the only
person doing this "proposing". In that case,
you would of course choose the term "I", as
in: "I would like...". Of course, people in
Hell would like ice-water, bot I'm not going
to give them any. Relative to me, they
aren't so bad off, as Mr. Einstein might say.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 12:25:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5e22b43f-bd79-4ccf-a974-68869ec9c23d@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 3, 11:43 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Not always - for example I just ran through some of the course software
> to
> see if I could follow my own instructions [fear not, I have plenty of
> editors] and so installed Advanced Chess School
Um, /you/ are writing the advanced part?
(Chortle)
**for someone talks more than he plays, /you/ are a critic, patzer? my Elo
has now sunk to 2172, though to my credit i am doing hour exercises in 10
minutes. by the end of the week, especially if i keep talking to you i'm
going to be sub 2150
> where some
> other horse played the part of an innocent
> racehorse, who got caught up in a dispute
> between the mob and a wealthy business
> man
>
> **Talk about acting your head off! I suppose that horse wudda got the
> Oscar,
> but it was too much a bit part
A /bit part/-- ha, ha, ha!
Thank you! I'll take an extra point in the competition for that
> **NY State Championships: "There were NO Grandmasters in this years event.
Last time I attended the Indiana state
championship, I believe it was dominated
by such folks as appear even now on the
cover of Chess Lies magazine. The
name "GM Shabalov" leaps to mind.
**that's not a pun, and GMs don't leap. You have a record of my sparring
partner there? Doug Wilkinson.
> **What about the new cold war? That's what the BBC just called it, and
> your
> VP of War just went over there to support people who want to breathe free.
> I
> don't think the cold-war was won, I think it was a draw, which may turn
> out
> to be merely a thaw!
Well, those with an agenda may "rewrite"
the script such that the old "Russia" now
equates to the new, smaller one, but that
is to deny history. As I recall, the once-
mighty USSR is broken to pieces, like an
Oreo cookie dropped onto cement.
If a Russian drop an Oreo Cookski onto cement his country is doomed. You're
supposed to eat them - didn't we put instruction on the packet?
> **Interesting that an AP report on Kasparov running for President of
> Russia
> surveyed young Russians who had no idea who he was.
Probably they were "surveying" Americans,
posing as Russians. (Hint: did they happen
to speak English, and were they wearing
Nike shoes and eating McDonald's French
fries?)
**Just the second two. Plus the Nike's aren't real - they're fake Czech ones
usually. Nikskis.
> Trying to live in the past-- now *that's*
> bitterness. Note to present-deniers: the
> theories about time travel are bunk. That
> garbage all stems from misconceptions
> regarding the fixed speed of light in a
> Hoover vacuum, /as perceived by/
> observers who are moving /relative/ to
> some other observer, in a different frame
> of reference.
>
> **You have attempted a complex sentence, but forgot to mention if the
> first
> set of observers are also in a Hoover or on a dam, and if the last
> observer
> has a view from a Buick?
Look, although it is obvious that *I* can
understand the complexities of Quantum
Physics and Relativity, to expect that I
can instruct dullards like *you* in a chess
newsgroup is truly grasping at straws.
**But I have written about quantum fields. You have written about
'pastures'. Who ever heard of quantum pastures?
(Here, the straws are not moving relative
to the milkshake's frame of reference.)
**Read some Sheldrake and get out of the 1970s.
> The fact remains that you
> are stuck here in the present, /in the
> real world/, whether you like it or not.
>
> **That's an aggressive statement I should only wish to modify it by saying
> that the present has the /potential/ one might show up in it, and not
> everyone makes it here, and that any such present is a continuum, an
> ever-present, the same ever-present potential there always was. Now... the
> witness by some people of other manifestations of being present in time is
> merely seperated from other ever-present moments that are possible to
> witness by the relatively trivial factor - if its raining outside or not,
> and not by any fundamental difference
May I interrupt here to point out that you
have already broken my all-time record for
run-on sentence construction, by a country
mile?
**Too many Russian conversation partners - sentences go on forever, like the
taiga, and even when you think they will end soon, some half-abandoned
phrase shows up, seeming to contradict what you read earlier in the sentence
several minutes ago - mcuh in fact like some Chinese poetry, the day is
dull, the river sluggish, brown, the heat and flies rise - then... the
bellies of wild geese!
> in the nature of possible cosmic
> presences that may occur to individuals from time to time.
Ah, there it is-- the period. I knew it
would show up in my frame of reference,
provided I waited long enough and it was
not moving faster than the speed of light.
**The periodicity of commas, periods and all are still matters for the high
literary table, and pedants. Some put in a comma when they pause and draw
breath, others a period at approximately half-time.
> At least Dostoyevski and myself
And *I*... .
**We would, he and me... only Rastafarians would write I and I.
> would like to propose this point of view to your
> attention.
It's very simple: just lop off the part about
/him/ (Dosto) and pretend you are the only
person doing this "proposing".
**The bit you cut was Kierkegard, and it was HE who (a) revelled on
Dostoyevski, and (b) simultaneously anticipated what I would say to you. Of
course, he was one of those Northern types, and they can do that in their
sleep.
In that case,
you would of course choose the term "I", as
in: "I would like...". Of course, people in
Hell would like ice-water, bot I'm not going
to give them any. Relative to me, they
aren't so bad off, as Mr. Einstein might say.
**Relative to one, they ain't so dowdy, as Queen Victoria would have said,
if indeed she held that sort of sentiment, which she wouldn't.
Cordially, Tonto.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 01:21:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 1, 5:34=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Ah but, and nothing to your point, at the supermarket I met my buddy an
> almost-1500 player, who told me the strongest player in vermont [about 22=
00]
You must be forgetting that Taylor Kingston was
2300+ at his peak, and so by not competing he
maintains his top ranking in that state, while all
others fall off due to ratings deflation or old age.
> is also in town, and was working as a dishwasher. i immediately wanted to
> contact this guy and of course play him, but mainly to see if he would be=
ok
> with kids, then i could offer him a teaching job at distance learning in
> chess, which likely would earn him a bit more, and besides, would earn hi=
m a
> decent wage for what he liked to do
Surely, you are not trying to suggest that
washing dishes is less fun that teaching
chess?
> =A0 Once -- and only once -- such a player
> showed up at my local club. =A0He slept in
> a chair in the middle of the room during
> play, needing only a few minutes to
> polish off most of his opponents.
> =A0 I, OTOH, kept him awake for the better
> part of an hour (G-61), and made him
> earn his prize money (which was to
> have been my prize money).
>
> **bully for you. did you enjoy the game, or were you possessed by fear th=
e
> whole time, grimly hanging on, trying a late trick to see if he was still
> awake? [I merely mention my own method]
Since I have been having such a rough time
with weak players, I had no fear of losing, for
how can one fear the inevitable-- as the rising
of the sun in the East?
No, my main problem was that I never play
well in these 5-rounders, due to the simple
fact that I generally stay up nights and sleep
all day, while the tournaments are the exact
reverse. This guy had a similar problem: he
had driven down from Chicago! How he got to
Chicago from the Philippines I have no idea;
he seems to have been brought in especially
for me.
> Do you remember in Blazing
> Saddles when some cowboy got off his horse and [I forget the joke which s=
et
> it up] slugged the horse with a right-cross?
Or was it an uppercut to the jaw?
> I thought that was magnificent
> acting, and the horse, who fell over on-cue, shudda gotta Oscar.
It was just bad luck that the very same year
they released The Godfather, where some
other horse played the part of an innocent
racehorse, who got caught up in a dispute
between the mob and a wealthy business
man
> =A0 But I suspect most areas of the world
> develop in a very different manner, not
> having a "Bernie Parham" so close as
> to exert such a powerful gravitational
> =A0force on their chess population. =A0In
> fact, I strongly suspect that my local
> club, with its 1500-rated players, is a
> far cry from what might be seen at the
> state championship, where the first-prize
> money draws in the chess professionals
> from this and several surrounding states.
>
> **you have become bitter, brother. the alternative is philosophy,
> companionship, unioversal brotherhood and so on. Having experienced both =
I
> feel your pain.
I'm not sure where you got that idea. My
point is that the folks I have been playing
OTB are not the same ones I might see at
say, our state championship. There is a
big difference in geographical location, and
in the entry fees, the time controls, the
fact that one takes an entire weekend, and
so forth.
My results in the local events mainly
depend on how badly I mess up, for I am
expected to win most of my games. In
say, the state championship, it would be
more a matter of how well I manage to
play /when it counts/, although the same
issues emerge with regard to endurance
and sleep-deprivation. Funny thing: the
more I play, the more my rating drops
and the easier will be my pairings if I ever
decide to play in a "real" tournament
again, in a weekend-long event with old
fashioned time controls.
As for /bitterness/, I see it in the way the
Evans ratpack strives to live in the distant
past, rejecting the present. The obsession
with Mr. Fischer and the Cold War (which
is long over, by the way) tells a tale of
regret, and of denial-- denial that the evil
Russians are better at chess, while we
Americans are obsessed with, say,
basketball or football or watching TV.
Trying to live in the past-- now *that's*
bitterness. Note to present-deniers: the
theories about time travel are bunk. That
garbage all stems from misconceptions
regarding the fixed speed of light in a
Hoover vacuum, /as perceived by/
observers who are moving /relative/ to
some other observer, in a different frame
of reference. The fact remains that you
are stuck here in the present, /in the
real world/, whether you like it or not.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:43:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:dfd79651-9620-4d08-a255-64307a289b76@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 5:34 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
Surely, you are not trying to suggest that
washing dishes is less fun that teaching
chess?
**Not always - for example I just ran through some of the course software to
see if I could follow my own instructions [fear not, I have plenty of
editors] and so installed Advanced Chess School, which ran fine, the lessons
I chose were endgame theory on Rule of the Square, then you can practice
that, then test yourself. I also chose some Opening Theory material and
followed same procedure. You know what? The dang thing told me I was not
2200 as I had 'claimed to be, just 2192! And I tell you why that is, first
of all I overlooked hanging my knight, but in a crafty 3-mover on the theme
of removing the guard, I got to the right result, but not 'mainline' it told
me, since I had differed from Keres! Wouldn't you think I should get extra
points for that? <pout >
> Once -- and only once -- such a player
> showed up at my local club. He slept in
> a chair in the middle of the room during
> play, needing only a few minutes to
> polish off most of his opponents.
> I, OTOH, kept him awake for the better
> part of an hour (G-61), and made him
> earn his prize money (which was to
> have been my prize money).
The true stories are often the tear-jerkers, no? Hopefully your suffering
improved your life unlike what happened in Anna Karenina - where all that
suffering never seems to improve anything.
> **bully for you. did you enjoy the game, or were you possessed by fear the
> whole time, grimly hanging on, trying a late trick to see if he was still
> awake? [I merely mention my own method]
Since I have been having such a rough time
with weak players, I had no fear of losing, for
how can one fear the inevitable-- as the rising
of the sun in the East?
**Good grief!
No, my main problem was that I never play
well in these 5-rounders, due to the simple
fact that I generally stay up nights and sleep
all day, while the tournaments are the exact
reverse. This guy had a similar problem: he
had driven down from Chicago! How he got to
Chicago from the Philippines I have no idea;
he seems to have been brought in especially
for me.
**I'm not going to ask. Just tell 'em if you got 'em.
> Do you remember in Blazing
> Saddles when some cowboy got off his horse and [I forget the joke which
> set
> it up] slugged the horse with a right-cross?
Or was it an uppercut to the jaw?
**Okay - there we have 'OT PUZZLE of the WEEK' Maybe Our Taylor will know
[from memory alone!] if it was a right cross or uppercut with either hand,
cowboys being unbed-extras, which is definitely pun of the week so far.
> I thought that was magnificent
> acting, and the horse, who fell over on-cue, shudda gotta Oscar.
It was just bad luck that the very same year
they released The Godfather,
**Where was he holed up? Is this a referernce to Bill Goichberg?
where some
other horse played the part of an innocent
racehorse, who got caught up in a dispute
between the mob and a wealthy business
man
**Talk about acting your head off! I suppose that horse wudda got the Oscar,
but it was too much a bit part
> But I suspect most areas of the world
> develop in a very different manner, not
> having a "Bernie Parham" so close as
> to exert such a powerful gravitational
> force on their chess population. In
> fact, I strongly suspect that my local
> club, with its 1500-rated players, is a
> far cry from what might be seen at the
> state championship, where the first-prize
> money draws in the chess professionals
> from this and several surrounding states.
**I just got a little report from a NY State event regretting the absense of
any GMs this year. Here we go -
**NY State Championships: "There were NO Grandmasters in this years event.
Alex Lenderman and Justin Sarkar were the top two seeds."
<random s*n*i*p age > :))
As for /bitterness/, I see it in the way the
Evans ratpack strives to live in the distant
past, rejecting the present. The obsession
with Mr. Fischer and the Cold War (which
is long over, by the way) tells a tale of
**What about the new cold war? That's what the BBC just called it, and your
VP of War just went over there to support people who want to breathe free. I
don't think the cold-war was won, I think it was a draw, which may turn out
to be merely a thaw!
regret, and of denial-- denial that the evil
Russians are better at chess, while we
Americans are obsessed with, say,
basketball or football or watching TV.
**Interesting that an AP report on Kasparov running for President of Russia
surveyed young Russians who had no idea who he was. Things are changing
there too! The evil Chinese seem to be taking over the reigns, and soon will
attempt to take over Fide, and that will be like, well, like..... HELP!
where is Our Taylor when you need him? Like Mussolini throwing a Tupperware
party for the NFL?
Trying to live in the past-- now *that's*
bitterness. Note to present-deniers: the
theories about time travel are bunk. That
garbage all stems from misconceptions
regarding the fixed speed of light in a
Hoover vacuum, /as perceived by/
observers who are moving /relative/ to
some other observer, in a different frame
of reference.
**You have attempted a complex sentence, but forgot to mention if the first
set of observers are also in a Hoover or on a dam, and if the last observer
has a view from a Buick?
The fact remains that you
are stuck here in the present, /in the
real world/, whether you like it or not.
**That's an aggressive statement I should only wish to modify it by saying
that the present has the /potential/ one might show up in it, and not
everyone makes it here, and that any such present is a continuum, an
ever-present, the same ever-present potential there always was. Now... the
witness by some people of other manifestations of being present in time is
merely seperated from other ever-present moments that are possible to
witness by the relatively trivial factor - if its raining outside or not,
and not by any fundamental difference in the nature of possible cosmic
presences that may occur to individuals from time to time. At least
Dostoyevski and myself would like to propose this point of view to your
attention.
Almost-a-Kierkegard, Phil Innes
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 08:47:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Sep 1, 10:47=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 =A0 BEST?
>
> While this is an interesting post, the word 'best' needs to be challenged=
,
> since it needs qualifying. Evidently, a move offering more chances to win
> can also offer more chances to lose - by virtue of it being less drawish.
I think that if you were to actually click on the
link I provided and take just a cursory glance,
you would be forced to conclude that among
those moves near the top -- that is, among
those with a reasonable sample size -- some
clearly fail, while others clearly have succeeded.
Among the most successful moves is the reply
1. ... c5, while a relative failure is 1. ...Nf6.
> I have 2 books [no one else in the world has even heard of them! and it i=
s
> completely unknown how they arrived in the highlands of Scotland] from th=
e
> program conceived by David Levy, Kevin O'Connell, and David Watt. Publish=
ed
> circa 1981 by Imprint Capablanca. There is a Sicialian title which I don'=
t
> have
Good. Socialism (and Communism) are for
Rook-odds players -- or so I've been told by
those who try to maintain that "our" system
is actually working, in spite of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary.
> mine being The English Opening, and The King's Indian.
>
> An example, after the moves
>
> 1d4 Nf6
> 2 c4 c5
> 3 d5 e6
> 4Nc3 exd5
> 5cxd5 d6
I don't want to disillusion you, but this is
*not* an English Opening, nor is it a King's
Indian Defense. But go ahead... .
> the book suggest what the two main continuations are and also how frequen=
tly
> played and with what result
>
> 6 *e4 =A077% =A021+ 11=3D 9-
> 6 *Nf3 =A023% =A010+ 5=3D 10-
>
> then continues with sub-lines for each, showing frequency and result for
> each line. The example I have just given is only interesting in that whil=
e
> the Win/Draw ratios are about the same in both examples
> chances of winning
> is for *e4 21/41 or abt 1:2 whereas the *Nf3 line only wins at 1:25 while
> also risking more loses
What maths, thou foul-breathed numskull!
Thy confoundeth thine own self with silliness
and miscalculations. The slightest glance
with open eyes reveals the vast difference
between these results, with e4 the vast
superior of Nf3. Who cares what yonder
draws bring? Mount up and follow me to
Camelot, for (with e4) we shall overcome
naysayers and infidels alike!
> But here is a declaritive example in the same Mod Ben opening:
>
> 8 * Be2 =A057% =A07+ 4=3D 5-
> 8 *Bg5 =A019% =A02+ 2=3D =A00-
>
> While winning chances are the same ratio, about half, losing chances are
> very different.
>
> I will look around for other examples from these books to find a line whi=
ch
> strongly increases winning chances over any other line, but also strongly
> increases losing chances.
Look, these samples are much too small
to derive significant conclusions therefrom.
It is akin to finding a single game in which
Mr. Sloan has won as Black with Damiano's
Defense, and concluding the line must
therefore be good.
> Anyone have any requests for stats from lines in either opening, write in=
.
> The games are drawn from master level and up. Dates of games seem all fro=
m
> 1980 [inc. lone Pine]. The title also provides a list of Players using th=
e
> opening, their opponents, and the result.
Lord help me, but I believe Dr. IMnes is
unaware of the invention of Chessbase,
the Chess Assistant, and even freeware
which puts this old-fangled mule out to
pasture, for stud-work only.
As was written here recently in some
other thread, most games are decided by
tactics or tactical blows, which is to say
randomly, though in relation to the
relative strength of the two players. As
such, you need big sample sizes from
which to derive meaningful conclusions.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 09:33:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 1, 10:47 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
Lord help me, but I believe Dr. IMnes is
unaware of the invention of Chessbase,
the Chess Assistant, and even freeware
which puts this old-fangled mule out to
pasture, for stud-work only.
**Lordy, Lordy, is it? The advantage of a book is that you can take it out
to the pasture - and besides, the use of the book is to evaluate what lines
might be playable by yourself, rather than analyse the games of others by
abstract statistics.
As was written here recently in some
other thread, most games are decided by
tactics or tactical blows, which is to say
randomly, though in relation to the
relative strength of the two players.
**Only true to a certain level. As the level rises so do the incidents of
tactical foibles diminish proportionally.
As
such, you need big sample sizes from
which to derive meaningful conclusions.
--------
**But pointedly, a very large sample of sub-2000 games will derive possibly
random results based on tactical errors, not on actual OTB potential of any
line.
Both books mentioned have all major clashes in the KID and the English for
an entire year of hi-level play.
The question about more abstract or wider analysis is what use is it to
players?
Commentators yack on endless about chess theory even declaring the game
dead, or soon to be - but they are evidently not very activeplayrs of it,
and their own playing potential is far from being exhausted.
Real players want technique not theory. They want to know from any study
what they will be able to reproduce over the board when the clock is ticking
and they have a live opponent.
These are quite different subjects, and theorizing on the subject is usually
codswallop - of no actual use to chess play. Chess is not a theoretical
exercise, but a /performance/ activity.
So players will look at technique, and those who don't play are free to
theorise about other things than actually playing the game.
That's today's lesson. Please make a note of it.
Phil Innes
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2008 09:20:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 1, 10:47 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
What maths, thou foul-breathed numskull!
Thy confoundeth thine own self with silliness
and miscalculations. The slightest glance
with open eyes reveals the vast difference
between these results, with e4 the vast
superior of Nf3. Who cares what yonder
draws bring?
**A rhetorical question? Very evidently 'draw-death' at top levels of play
is some result of not taking risky lines, even if they do produce more
opportunities to win. Players avoid the often equally incremented chance of
losing.
In any case, GM Alex Baburin is in Bilbao, and he will interview the players
there - he asked us for any questions we had - and on this theme of playing
aggressively, taking chances, et al, I asked:-
Dear GM Baburin,
I have 3 questions for your consideration:
1) Do you think the innovative scoring system motivates players to attempt
more wins?
2) Do you think the restrictions on draws are good as they are, or does the
TD take too much decision-making about the course of the game away from the
players?
3) What opening innovations are you observing at Bilbao? Which seem most
important to you?
Cordially, Phil Innes
Business Manager
www.chessville.com
cc: Publisher, Chessville.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2008 22:30:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 30, 3:38=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **I was with hep bot until the end. I would say that Alekhine's defence
> foxes almost all club players. We should define our terms - average adult
> club player is 1500 rated. To beat them if you are strong, involve them i=
n
> tactical complications - if not so strong take them away from their book
> knowledge - most 1500 players do not 10 moves of any opening.
This confirms my own experience lately;
although USCF ratings /seem/ somehow
lower than many years ago, many locals
are near 1500 and I suspect they would
not have the slightest clue how to deal
with such a queer opening, as White.
> But this is not good advice! The point is to understand whatever you play=
-
> and if 2300 players defeat you, well... they will defeat you anyway. But
> that is less than 1% of all rated players.
Once -- and only once -- such a player
showed up at my local club. He slept in
a chair in the middle of the room during
play, needing only a few minutes to
polish off most of his opponents.
I, OTOH, kept him awake for the better
part of an hour (G-61), and made him
earn his prize money (which was to
have been my prize money).
> Chess in not a theoretical game - what can you actually do over the board=
is
> the only real question - and that resides on your preparation and your
> willingness to follow what you studied through to its logical conclusions=
.
Egad man-- have you lost your mind?
Many, many players play the openings
by-rote, and this makes chess a bit of
a theoretical game, although there will
come a time when you have to convert,
or else torture your opponent until he
submits. (See Mel Brook's History of
the World, Part I).
> Short cuts in learning are for weak players, and 1500-average is mighty
> weak! So don't feel compelled to do as they do, don't be normal unless yo=
u
> want to be merely mediocre. Real progression is hard if you invest in
> mediocre preparation - you have to throw it all away and start over to
> progress.
Even my most prized Eric Schiller opening
books? (Gulp)
> So, what do you want, citizen? To progress quickly to average and likely
> stay there for ever, or something beyond? That is the question [tough
> question]!
This is more relevant than you might
think. In my area (more or less), there
is/was a player who trained his many,
many students to play chess in a
certain way. Far from the dogmatic
thinking of a Mr. Tarrasche, the idea
was to focus on making simple tactical
threats, one after another, while seeing
and defending against what few the
opponent might make. It worked in the
sense that a big chunk of his students
quickly rose above the "average" in
results.
However, later on these tacticians ran
into a bit of a wall, not being able to
progress beyond let us say, 2100
USCF or just below their master's own
level. In order to progress, they had to
"unlearn" everything they thought they
knew about chess, while somehow
trying to retain that tactical alertness
so they would not become patzers
all over again. In attempting to relearn
chess, real chess so to speak, they
invariably fall off hundreds of points,
fighting against their powerful desires
to "attack", to make cheap threats,
which had brought them easy success.
But I suspect most areas of the world
develop in a very different manner, not
having a "Bernie Parham" so close as
to exert such a powerful gravitational
force on their chess population. In
fact, I strongly suspect that my local
club, with its 1500-rated players, is a
far cry from what might be seen at the
state championship, where the first-prize
money draws in the chess professionals
from this and several surrounding states.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 17:34:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 30, 3:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **I was with hep bot until the end. I would say that Alekhine's defence
> foxes almost all club players. We should define our terms - average adult
> club player is 1500 rated. To beat them if you are strong, involve them in
> tactical complications - if not so strong take them away from their book
> knowledge - most 1500 players do not 10 moves of any opening.
This confirms my own experience lately;
although USCF ratings /seem/ somehow
lower than many years ago, many locals
are near 1500 and I suspect they would
not have the slightest clue how to deal
with such a queer opening, as White.
**Ah but, and nothing to your point, at the supermarket I met my buddy an
almost-1500 player, who told me the strongest player in vermont [about 2200]
is also in town, and was working as a dishwasher. i immediately wanted to
contact this guy and of course play him, but mainly to see if he would be ok
with kids, then i could offer him a teaching job at distance learning in
chess, which likely would earn him a bit more, and besides, would earn him a
decent wage for what he liked to do
but 1500 ffor adults is the average. course, averages are silly things to
discuss since they do not describe much of the range, but so far as i can
tell, that is for 95% of rated players 1300-1700. no wonder we are so proud
of ourselves ;)
> But this is not good advice! The point is to understand whatever you
> play -
> and if 2300 players defeat you, well... they will defeat you anyway. But
> that is less than 1% of all rated players.
Once -- and only once -- such a player
showed up at my local club. He slept in
a chair in the middle of the room during
play, needing only a few minutes to
polish off most of his opponents.
I, OTOH, kept him awake for the better
part of an hour (G-61), and made him
earn his prize money (which was to
have been my prize money).
**bully for you. did you enjoy the game, or were you possessed by fear the
whole time, grimly hanging on, trying a late trick to see if he was still
awake? [I merely mention my own method]
> Chess in not a theoretical game - what can you actually do over the board
> is
> the only real question - and that resides on your preparation and your
> willingness to follow what you studied through to its logical conclusions.
Egad man-- have you lost your mind?
**Lost it? maybe you have to in order to find it? Like one of those stories
which ends back at the beginning?
Many, many players play the openings
by-rote, and this makes chess a bit of
a theoretical game, although there will
come a time when you have to convert,
or else torture your opponent until he
submits. (See Mel Brook's History of
the World, Part I).
**I don't like you so much when you like me. Please revert to straight talk.
Mel Gibsons BIG chess movie! W#hat a Thou#ght! Do you remember in Blazing
Saddles when some cowboy got off his horse and [I forget the joke which set
it up] slugged the horse with a right-cross? I thought that was magnificent
acting, and the horse, who fell over on-cue, shudda gotta Oscar.
> Short cuts in learning are for weak players, and 1500-average is mighty
> weak! So don't feel compelled to do as they do, don't be normal unless you
> want to be merely mediocre. Real progression is hard if you invest in
> mediocre preparation - you have to throw it all away and start over to
> progress.
Even my most prized Eric Schiller opening
books? (Gulp)
**Well, Eric is a good TD, and needs a good editor for his works. You can't
have everthing.
> So, what do you want, citizen? To progress quickly to average and likely
> stay there for ever, or something beyond? That is the question [tough
> question]!
This is more relevant than you might
think.
**Hey! This is my idea, and here you are taking it over!
In my area (more or less), there
is/was a player who trained his many,
many students to play chess in a
certain way. Far from the dogmatic
thinking of a Mr. Tarrasche, the idea
was to focus on making simple tactical
threats, one after another, while seeing
and defending against what few the
opponent might make. It worked in the
sense that a big chunk of his students
quickly rose above the "average" in
results.
**So... what happened?
However, later on these tacticians ran
into a bit of a wall, not being able to
progress beyond let us say, 2100
**back to top, what is average of what range? but i intrude on your thoughts
USCF or just below their master's own
level. In order to progress, they had to
"unlearn" everything they thought they
knew about chess, while somehow
trying to retain that tactical alertness
so they would not become patzers
all over again. In attempting to relearn
chess, real chess so to speak, they
invariably fall off hundreds of points,
fighting against their powerful desires
to "attack", to make cheap threats,
which had brought them easy success.
**much as the young phil actually experienced 'growing pains'
But I suspect most areas of the world
develop in a very different manner, not
having a "Bernie Parham" so close as
to exert such a powerful gravitational
force on their chess population. In
fact, I strongly suspect that my local
club, with its 1500-rated players, is a
far cry from what might be seen at the
state championship, where the first-prize
money draws in the chess professionals
from this and several surrounding states.
**you have become bitter, brother. the alternative is philosophy,
companionship, unioversal brotherhood and so on. Having experienced both I
feel your pain.
Cordially, Sage [and onion] the Northern Marches
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2008 22:06:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 30, 11:21=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
(snipped idiocy)
Those comments were not my real points;
as so often happens, the main point is simply
"worked around" by idiots who don't like their
implications. Here, the idea is that playing
inferior openings hampers one's results at
the highest levels, and that Alekhine's
Defense is among those openings which do
not aid, but hamper, much like a number of
other "inferior" openings.
Now, here is a very good sample size: take
all the games between chess engines rated
over 2800 between one another, and throw
in for good measure the games between
2800+-rated humans between one another,
or against such computers (DeepBlue or
whatever). I suspect the sample size will
be many thousands of games, but if you
want to impose a restriction so as to
exclude the so-called Quick Chess and
Blitz, that's fine.
Many people may not realize it, but the
competition among the world's chess
programmers is fierce; this stems in large
part from the fact that "there can be only
one" best, or top-rated program at any
given time, and that's the one buyers will
gravitate to, albeit to a lesser extent if it
is not mass-marketed.
In addition to honing their program's
speed and positional understanding, the
top programmers will hire an openings
expert to aid in this venture. Now, what
do you suppose will happen here? Will
it be the case that a junk opening will
work its way into the repertoire of the
very top-rated programs, or is it more
likely that a team of good-programmer
and good-openings-theorist will combine
to form the ultimate chess machine? I
say the latter. What's more, I believe
that certain openings are simply bad--
against best play that is. Naturally,
thay can prove useful against weaklings,
such as most humans and sub-2800
chess engines.
A perfect example is the hideous, so-
called French Defense-- an opening
which was essentially refuted eons ago
in the play between Mr. Alekhine and
Mr. Capablanca. Despite his reputation
as an /invincible chess machine/, we
saw what happened when such a
powerhouse got wrenches in his giant
cogs, as with this pathetic imitation of
a real chess opening. But back to
Alekhine's defense.
Mr. Alekhine himself had no trouble
whatever in demolishing this nonsense.
Look at his games: the opponents are
made to look silly, and justly so. In fact,
most junky openings are treated in the
same way, as can be seen in the book
"My Best Games of Chess", by Mr.
Alekhine himself.
That brings us to Mr. Fischer; the fact
that BF was able to play this junk in a
world championship match just goes to
show how far Mr. Spassky had fallen
off from his peak form (such as when
he was undefeated against BF and
wrested the title away from TP). You
can loo at the games, and find where
White went wrong without much
trouble, using a decent program such
as Fritz 5.32 or Crafty (maybe 2600
strength). The way I see it, these
games were mainly ploys to throw the
opposing, supposedly-mighty Soviet
team off-track, and the strategy
worked.
This is /match strategy/, not an
endorsement of Alekhine's Defense by
Bobby Fischer. An endorsement would
have been him adopting this as his first-
line weapon against 1. e4. As we know,
BF's main weapon vs. 1. e4 was the
Sicilian Defense, and it's no coincidence
that this has also been the weapon of
choice of 2800+ Gary Kasparov and
others at the highest levels.
Now, if there is some correspondence
player I'm not aware of who is the best
in the world, and who *routinely* plays
this opening successfully, that would
mean something. But getting a few
hits in a mega-base search shows
only one thing: you have a heck of a
lot of games in there.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2008 15:38:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 28, 1:42 pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What I've learned from Chernev's book is that until you've developed your
> pieces, you shouldn't try to put together any combinations for attack. If
> you are attacked, defend yourself and then continue with development.
>
> Now I'm reading Seirawan and an example game he provides goes:
>
> 1 e4 Nf6
> 2 e5
>
> This is meant to demonstrate how you can gain an advantage in time and
> space
> by forcing Black to move his knight again.
>
> But if I were to look at this through Chernev's eyes, I get the feeling
> he'd
> balk at abandoning the good position on e4, not to mention not developing
> another piece, perhaps simply 2 Nc3 to defend the pawn.
>
> I suppose White's second move depends on the style of the player, but
> generally speaking, is it better to ignore such an early attack and just
> continue with development? Perhaps Seirawan wouldn't *actually* play 2 e5,
> maybe it's just a demonstration.
Vague generalities such as "don't move more
than one pawn in the opening" or "move each
piece only once" must always yield to tactics.
Here, we "know" (or at least, think we know)
that Black's Knight can safely be driven off to
the not-so-great square b6, with a resulting
gain of time for White, who nets a mass of
pawns in the center.
What we also know (or think we know) is
that not driving the Knight away with 2. e5
allows easy equality, as after: 1. e4 Nf6,
2. Nc3 d5, except for transpositions into
the French Defense (an atrocity whose
popularity stems from a lucky win by the
French in an infamous team match against
the British).
It really is handy to "know" such general
principles as "Knights before Bishops", but
there always will be exceptions-- specific
positions or types of positions where the
rule does not apply.
Here, the idea that a pawn on e4 is well-
positioned and should not be any further
advanced ignores the harsh reality that on
that square it can easily be challenged,
exchanged. In fact, more than a few
ignoramuses have attempted the clearly
ludicrous: 1. e4 d5, not realizing how
incredibly silly this makes them look.
The harsh reality is that at the top levels
of play, this, the Alekhine's Defense, now
has a terrible record in which White wins
a huge percentage of games, despite
Black's "preparations". Back when the
openings were less well-mapped, things
were not so clear. It is in essence, a
relic of the past, no longer viable in play
amongst decent chess players:
**I was with hep bot until the end. I would say that Alekhine's defence
foxes almost all club players. We should define our terms - average adult
club player is 1500 rated. To beat them if you are strong, involve them in
tactical complications - if not so strong take them away from their book
knowledge - most 1500 players do not 10 moves of any opening.
But this is not good advice! The point is to understand whatever you play -
and if 2300 players defeat you, well... they will defeat you anyway. But
that is less than 1% of all rated players. Play the Alekhine if you
understand it - that is the main point. If you understand positions you play
and fight them out, then there is no practical limit to your chess, even if
you abandon Alekhine's defence once you becoem a master, you will have got
there by knowing more about positions resulting from that defence than your
opponent. There is no other means to such superiority.
Hell-bot provides good overall advice, even very good - but unless you are a
child-genius aged 10, forget what the professionals do - it is unlikely you
will ever engage them, and besides, how far you go in chess is based on your
enjoyment of the game. That is a bigger factor than all else. If you don't
know what you yet enjoy, others can really not advise you very much, [though
they do!].
Chess in not a theoretical game - what can you actually do over the board is
the only real question - and that resides on your preparation and your
willingness to follow what you studied through to its logical conclusions.
Short cuts in learning are for weak players, and 1500-average is mighty
weak! So don't feel compelled to do as they do, don't be normal unless you
want to be merely mediocre. Real progression is hard if you invest in
mediocre preparation - you have to throw it all away and start over to
progress.
So, what do you want, citizen? To progress quickly to average and likely
stay there for ever, or something beyond? That is the question [tough
question]!
Phil Innes
http://www.getclub.com/Chess.php?user=help%20bot&playcode=374827&lang=en
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2008 08:21:08
From:
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 30, 12:32=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0but you see, I was not
> talking about playing around; I was talking
> about the 2800 players at their peaks, as
> in world championship matches.
Ah yes, our Greg does his usual wiggle-thing. Having made assertions
of an absolute nature, e.g. that Fischer played Alekhine's Defense
only once, and that Smyslov and Karpov never played it, and then
finding out to his embarrassment that his claims are false, he hurries
to say "Wait, I meant something else."
If you insist on looking only at "the 2800 players at their peaks,
as in world championship matches," then you have an *_awfully_* small
sample, Greg. Offhand, I don't recall a single match, world
championship or otherwise, in which both players were rated 2800+.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2008 23:57:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
While I don't have one of those fancy do-dads
which compile hundreds of thousands of recent
master games, I think the following link tells a
tale in itself, despite its seemingly random
compilation of grandmaster, master and
perhaps even patzer games:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720
Now, according to this particular page, one
can see that ...c5 has the best results versus
1. e4, while ...c6 leads to an inordinate number
of draws-- mainly taken from what would have
been Black's "win" column. Meanwhile, such
tries as ...e6 are summarily thumped for the
obvious reasons, while ...g6 scores rather
well for Black, affording relatively few draws.
This brings us to ...Nf6: 38.6% wins for
White-- not good. A smallish number of
draws is followed by an about-average
tally of wins for Black; the problem clearly
lies in White's big "wins" column. Only
...d5 scores "much worse", among those
moves with a reasonable number of games
by which to judge. These data fit with what
I read many years back and have been told
by one chess openings monger: that this
may be a very dangerous weapon at the
lower levels, but at the top, White does
quite well indeed.
A very long time ago, Indiana's top-
rated player was a fellow named Loren
Schmidt, and he always played this as
Black (and he always played the Benko
Gambit against 1. d4). The advantage is
that since ...Nf6 comes at you on move
one, it is nearly impossible to avoid. But
it still surprises me that so many players
had so much difficulty playing White
against him. If this opening were not
"foreign" to me, I might consider taking
it up myself for the simple reason that it
really is "impossible" to avoid (i.e. a
duck via 1. d4 runs into some other
killer opening).
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2008 10:47:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f08ec220-5b04-4a2a-b78c-c8d6f510a2db@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> While I don't have one of those fancy do-dads
> which compile hundreds of thousands of recent
> master games, I think the following link tells a
> tale in itself, despite its seemingly random
> compilation of grandmaster, master and
> perhaps even patzer games:
>
> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer?node=21720&move=1.5&moves=e4&nodes=21720
>
> Now, according to this particular page, one
> can see that ...c5 has the best results versus
> 1. e4, while ...c6 leads to an inordinate number
BEST?
While this is an interesting post, the word 'best' needs to be challenged,
since it needs qualifying. Evidently, a move offering more chances to win
can also offer more chances to lose - by virtue of it being less drawish.
I have 2 books [no one else in the world has even heard of them! and it is
completely unknown how they arrived in the highlands of Scotland] from the
program conceived by David Levy, Kevin O'Connell, and David Watt. Published
circa 1981 by Imprint Capablanca. There is a Sicialian title which I don't
have, mine being The English Opening, and The King's Indian.
An example, after the moves
1d4 Nf6
2 c4 c5
3 d5 e6
4Nc3 exd5
5cxd5 d6
the book suggest what the two main continuations are and also how frequently
played and with what result
6 *e4 77% 21+ 11= 9-
6 *Nf3 23% 10+ 5= 10-
then continues with sub-lines for each, showing frequency and result for
each line. The example I have just given is only interesting in that while
the Win/Draw ratios are about the same in both examples, chances of winning
is for *e4 21/41 or abt 1:2 whereas the *Nf3 line only wins at 1:25 while
also risking more loses
But here is a declaritive example in the same Mod Ben opening:
8 * Be2 57% 7+ 4= 5-
8 *Bg5 19% 2+ 2= 0-
While winning chances are the same ratio, about half, losing chances are
very different.
I will look around for other examples from these books to find a line which
strongly increases winning chances over any other line, but also strongly
increases losing chances.
Anyone have any requests for stats from lines in either opening, write in.
The games are drawn from master level and up. Dates of games seem all from
1980 [inc. lone Pine]. The title also provides a list of Players using the
opening, their opponents, and the result.
Phil Innes
> of draws-- mainly taken from what would have
> been Black's "win" column. Meanwhile, such
> tries as ...e6 are summarily thumped for the
> obvious reasons, while ...g6 scores rather
> well for Black, affording relatively few draws.
>
> This brings us to ...Nf6: 38.6% wins for
> White-- not good. A smallish number of
> draws is followed by an about-average
> tally of wins for Black; the problem clearly
> lies in White's big "wins" column. Only
> ...d5 scores "much worse", among those
> moves with a reasonable number of games
> by which to judge. These data fit with what
> I read many years back and have been told
> by one chess openings monger: that this
> may be a very dangerous weapon at the
> lower levels, but at the top, White does
> quite well indeed.
>
> A very long time ago, Indiana's top-
> rated player was a fellow named Loren
> Schmidt, and he always played this as
> Black (and he always played the Benko
> Gambit against 1. d4). The advantage is
> that since ...Nf6 comes at you on move
> one, it is nearly impossible to avoid. But
> it still surprises me that so many players
> had so much difficulty playing White
> against him. If this opening were not
> "foreign" to me, I might consider taking
> it up myself for the simple reason that it
> really is "impossible" to avoid (i.e. a
> duck via 1. d4 runs into some other
> killer opening).
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2008 21:32:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> > Suppose it is "normal" for White to score, say,
> > 56% and Black to score 44% overall. In this
> > case, any opening or variation which falls below,
> > say 40% or so for Black, is a disaster from the
> > perspective of the chess professional.
>
> In that case, the results for Alekhine's Defense in the CB database
> are entirely what you call normal. You claim that it "now has a
> terrible record," yet checking games from the year 2000 on in which
> both players were rated at least 2500, the score is 56% to 44% in
> White's favor.
Where do you get "from 2000 on" and your
other /arbitrary/ limit, "at least 2500" from? Do
you believe that such /arbitrary/ choices aid in
the determination of the facts?
> > Mr. Lasker? Nope;
>
> Really? This doesn't count?
>
> (27517) Maroczy,Geza - Lasker,Emanuel [C11]
> New York New York (7), 1924
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Nfd7 4.d4 e6
This just goes to show how very shallow is the
chess understanding of our hero, Mr. Kingston.
This is *obviously* a French Defense, and Black
is therefore in his last, agonizing throes--
theoretically speaking.
> > Mr. Capablanca? Dull as mud openings;
>
> Wrong again:
Wrong? You need to read more. This guy
was often considered the epitome of dullness
in the openings. In fact, it could be argued
that Mr. Capablanca's handling of the QGD
was a big part of the reason for talk about
the supposed "draw death" of chess.
> (29015) Yates,Frederick - Capablanca,Jose Raul [B29]
> Moscow Moscow, 1925
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3 d5 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bf4
This Yates fellow obviously has no clue, but
I will grant that our hero, Mr. Kingston, can
click his mouse and sometimes find things,
*if* it suits his whim. Most of the time, it is
uncertain whether or not the poor chap can
even manage to "find" his way home.
> > Mr. Smyslov? No;
>
> Wait a minute, Greg, you skipped a few world champions. I can
> understand you would want to hush up the fact that Alekhine himself
> actually did play Alekhine's Defense
Nonsense; if Mr. Alekhine had played the
opening, I think it is self-evident /they would
have named it after him/, for it goes without
saying that he would have been successful
on either side. Instead, it is known as
"Black's Funky Knight-f6 Attack" to this very
day.
> (34270) Becker,Albert - Euwe,Max [C42]
Oops! I did in fact forget about Mr. Euwe.
(How embarrassing!)
> Karlsbad Karlsbad, 1929
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Bb4 4.Bc4
Uh, that is not an Alekhine's Defense, mate.
> (38423) Kashdan,Isaac - Euwe,Max [B05]
> Hastings 3132 Hastings (6), 1931
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.exd6 exd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.h3 Bh5
> 8.Be2 Nc6 9.d5 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Ne5 11.Be2 Qh4 12.0=EF=BF=BD0 g5 13.Qc2 Rg8 1=
4.Nd2
> g4 15.hxg4 Nxg4 16.Qe4+ Be7 17.Nf3 Qh5 18.Bf4 f5 19.Qc2 0=EF=BF=BD0=EF=BF=
=BD0 20.Rfe1
> Nd7 21.Nh2 Qf7 22.Bd3 Nxh2 23.Bxh2 f4 24.Bf5 Rg5 25.Bh3 f3 26.Qe4 Qg7
> 27.Qxe7 Rxg2+ 28.Kh1 Rg8 29.Qe8+ Rxe8 30.Rxe8# 1=EF=BF=BD0
Amazing-- Mr. Kingston finally manages
to locate a real Alekhine's Defense game,
though it is from a time when Max Euwe
"was not yet Euwe".
> (38832) Naegeli,Oskar - Euwe,Max [B03]
> Bern Bern (12), 1932
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 Bf5 6.Nf3 dxe5 7.fxe5 e6
> 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Be3 Qd7 10.Be2 0=EF=BF=BD0=EF=BF=BD0 11.Qd2 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 1=
3.0=EF=BF=BD0 Rg8
> 14.Rfd1 Qg7 15.Bf1 Ne5 16.Nxe5 fxe5 17.Qf2 Bg4 18.Rd2 exd4 19.Bxd4
> Rxd4 20.Rxd4 Bc5 21.Rd8+ Rxd8 22.Qxc5 Rd2 23.Ne4 Rxb2 24.Nd6+ Kd7
> 25.Nb5 Kc8 26.Re1 Kb8 27.Re5 Bf5 28.Qd4 Rd2 29.Qe3 Rd1 30.Kf2 Qf6
> 31.Be2 Be4+ 0=EF=BF=BD1
Come on now-- Oscar- a type of fish?
I thought we were going to talk about 2800
players.
> (44726) Alekhine,Alexander - Euwe,Max [B05]
> World Championship 16th Netherlands (29), 12.12.1935
> [ChessBase]
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5
Hmm-- do you see how it makes a difference
when a /real/ chess player has White?
> Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 dxe5 7.c5 e4 8.cxb6
> [8.Ng5 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Nd5 10.0=EF=BF=BD0 Nc6 11.Rd1] 8...exf3 9.Bxf3 Bxf3 10=
.Qxf3
> axb6 [10...Nc6 11.0=EF=BF=BD0 Nxd4 (11...axb6 12.d5 Ne5 13.Qe4) 12.Qxb7 a=
xb6
> 13.Be3] 11.Qxb7 Nd7 12.Bf4 [12.0=EF=BF=BD0 e6 13.Bf4 Bd6; 12.Qc6 e6 13.Bf=
4
> Bb4+ 14.Nc3 Ra7 15.0=EF=BF=BD0 Bxc3 =EF=BF=BD16.0=EF=BF=BD0 =3D] 12...e5!=
13.Bxe5 [13.dxe5 Bb4+
> 14.Nc3 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 0=EF=BF=BD0 16.0=EF=BF=BD0 (16.Rd1 Nc5) 16...Nc5 17.=
Qc6 Ra3=3D
> Alekhine] 13...Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bb4+ 15.Nc3 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 0=EF=BF=BD0 17.0=EF=
=BF=BD0 Qe7=EF=BF=BD
> =EF=BF=BD c3, a2 18.Rfe1 Qc5 19.Re3 Ra3 [19...Qc4 20.h3! Rxa2 21.Rxa2 Qxa=
2
> 22.Qc6 Rc8 23.c4=EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDe6 Alekhine] 20.Qf3 Re8 21.h3! Ra5 [21=
...Rxe5
> 22.Rd1 h6 23.Rd7 Rf5 24.Qe4=EF=BF=BD Alekhine] 22.Rd1 Qe7 [22...Rxa2 23.R=
d7
> Rf8 24.Qg4=EF=BF=BD Alekhine] 23.Qc6! Rc5 [23...Rxe5 24.Qxe8+ Qxe8 25.Rxe=
5 Qf8
> 26.Red5+- Alekhine] 24.Qd7 [24.Qa4 Ra5; 24.Qe4 f6] 24...g6 25.f4 Rc4!
> 26.Qxe7 Rxe7 27.Rd4 Rc5 28.Kf2 c6 29.a4 Ra7 30.Rb4 b5 31.axb5 cxb5
> 32.Kf3 Rac7 [32...Ra3 33.Kg4 (33.Ke4 Rcxc3 34.Rxc3 Rxc3 35.Rxb5 Rg3)
> 33...Rcxc3 34.Rxc3 Rxc3 35.Rxb5 Kg7 Whte should win.] 33.Rb3 Kf8
> 34.g4? [34.g3 =EF=BF=BDKd2 +- Alekhine] 34...Ke7 =EF=BF=BDKe6, Tc4=EF=BF=
=BDf4 35.f5 gxf5
> 36.gxf5 f6=3D 37.Kf4 fxe5+ 38.Rxe5+ Rxe5 39.Kxe5 Rc5+ 40.Ke4 Kf6 41.Ra3
> Rc4+ The sealed move. [41...Re5+=3D] 42.Kd3 Rh4 43.Rb3 Kxf5 44.Rxb5+ Ke6
> 45.c4 Rxh3+ 46.Kd4 Kd6 47.Rb6+ Kc7 48.Rf6 Rh5 49.Kc3 Kb7 50.Kb4 Kc7 =EF=
=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD
> =EF=BF=BD
Hey-- what happened to the result? I'm
getting funky-looking boxes, instead of ones
and zeros or halfs.
> (164449) Lein,Anatoly
Groan.
> > Mr. Fischer? Once. (Nobody's perfect);
>
> Good grief, Greg. He played it twice in the Spassky match alone.
> Count the games below (hint: there's more than one):
>
> (155694) Ciocaltea,Victor - Fischer,Robert James [B03]
> Capablanca mem Havana (3), 1965
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.h4 h6 8.Be3
> Bg7 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.d5 Ne5 11.b3 Nbd7 12.f3 Nc5 13.Nh3 Bf5 14.Nf2 b5
> 15.cxb5 Qa5 16.Rc1 0=EF=BF=BD0 17.Na4 Qd8 18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.f4 Ng4 20.Nxg4 =
Bxg4
> 21.Rxc5 e5 22.f5 gxf5 23.Bxh6 f4 24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.Be2 Bd7 26.Qc3 Qf6
> 27.b4 Rg8 28.Bf3 e4 29.Be2 Qxc3+ 30.Rxc3 Kf6 31.Rh2 Rac8 32.Rc5 Ke5
> 33.h5 Kd4 34.h6 Rxc5 35.bxc5 Kxc5 36.Rh4 f5 37.h7 Rh8 38.Rh6 Kxd5
> 39.Kd2 Kc5 40.a4 Kb4 41.Ra6 Rxh7 42.Rxa7 e3+ 43.Kc2 Bxb5 44.Rxh7 Bxe2
> 45.Rf7 f3 46.gxf3 Bxf3 47.Kd3 Be4+ 48.Kxe3 Kxa4 =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=
=BD
>
>
> (204538) Browne,Walter S - Fischer,Robert James [B04]
> Rovinj/Zagreb Zagreb (15), 03.05.1970
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Be2 Bg7 6.c4 Nb6 7.exd6 cxd6
> 8.Nc3 0=EF=BF=BD0 9.0=EF=BF=BD0 Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 11.b3 d5 12.c5 Nc8 13.h3 B=
xf3 14.Bxf3
> e6 15.Qd2 N8e7 16.Nb5 Nf5 17.Bg4 a6 18.Bxf5 axb5 19.Bc2 Ra3 20.b4 f5
> 21.Bb3 Qf6 22.Qd3 f4 23.Bc1 Ra6 24.Bb2 f3 25.g3 Qf5 26.Qxf5 gxf5
> 27.Rad1 Nxb4 28.Rfe1 f4 29.a3 Nc6 30.Rxe6 fxg3 31.Bxd5 gxf2+ 32.Kxf2
> Kh8 33.Re3 b4 34.axb4 Nxb4 35.Bxf3 Ra2 36.Rb3 Nc6 37.Kg3 Rg8 38.Kf4
> Rf8+ 39.Ke4 Rf7 40.Bg4 Re7+ 41.Kd3 Ra4 42.Ra1 Rxd4+ 43.Bxd4 Bxd4
> 44.Ra8+ Kg7 45.Rb5 Bf2 46.Bf5 Ne5+ 47.Kc3 Be1+ 48.Kd4 Nc6+ 49.Kc4 Bh4
> 50.Bc8 Nd8 51.Ra2 Rc7 52.Bg4 Be7 53.Kd5 Nc6 54.Rab2 Nd8 55.Rb1 Bf8
> 56.R1b2 Be7 57.Rg2 Kh8 58.Ra2 Kg7 59.Ra8 Bh4 60.Rb8 Rf7 61.Rb2 Kh6
> 62.Rb6+ Kg7 63.Rb3 h5 64.Bc8 Be7 65.Rb5 Rf3 66.Bxb7 Rxh3 67.c6 Rc3
> 68.Ra8 h4 69.Ra4 h3 70.Rc4 h2 71.Rb1 Rxc4 72.Kxc4 Bd6 73.Kd5 Bg3
> 74.Bc8 Kf7 75.Bh3 Ke7 76.Rc1 Kf6 77.Ra1 Ke7 78.Rf1 Nf7 79.Bg2 Ng5
> 80.Kc5 Ne6+ 81.Kb6 Bc7+ 82.Kb7 Bd6 83.Bd5 Nc5+ 84.Kb6 Na4+ 85.Ka5 Nc5
> 86.Kb5 Kd8 87.Rf7 Kc8 88.c7 Nd7 89.Kc6 h1Q 90.Bxh1 Ne5+ 91.Kb6 Bc5+
> 92.Kxc5 Nxf7 93.Kb6 Nd6 94.Bd5 Kd7 95.Bc6+ Kc8 96.Bd5 Kd7 97.Bb3 Nc8+
> 98.Kb7 Ne7 =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD
I get two games, but you see, I was not
talking about playing around; I was talking
about the 2800 players at their peaks, as
in world championship matches. Clicking
on the mouse brings up all sorts of junk, if
you have a big database.
You have to ask yourself: what do the very
strongest players do when the chips are
down? Do they play the Grob? Alekhine's
Defense? The Budapest Gambit? No! In
these cases. you will find that the openings
which come up most often are the ones
they believe are sound and true. In the case
of a world championship match, entire
openings (not merely lines) are tossed into
the junk-pile, as we saw with the French
Defense, for instance.
> (226397) Spassky,Boris V (2660) - Fischer,Robert James (2785) [B04]
> World Championship 28th Reykjavik (13), 10.08.1972
> [ChessBase]
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Nbd2 0=EF=BF=BD0=
8.h3
> a5! Purdy 9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Na6 11.0=EF=BF=BD0 Nc5 12.Qe2 Qe8 13.Ne4 Nbxa=
4
> 14.Bxa4 Nxa4 15.Re1 Nb6 16.Bd2 a4 =EF=BF=BD Purdy 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bh4 Bf5 19=
.g4
> [19.Nd4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4N Smyslov] 19...Be6 20.Nd4 Bc4 21.Qd2 Qd7
> [21...Bxe5 22.Qxh6 =EF=BF=BD 23.Sg5] 22.Rad1 Rfe8! 23.f4 Bd5 24.Nc5 Qc8 =
=EF=BF=BD
> 25... a3! Purdy 25.Qc3 [25.e6! Nc4 26.Qe2 Nxb2 27.Nf5!=EF=BF=BD Smyslov]
> 25...e6! Purdy 26.Kh2 Nd7! Purdy 27.Nd3 c5! Purdy 28.Nb5 Qc6 29.Nd6
> Qxd6 30.exd6 Bxc3 31.bxc3 f6 32.g5 hxg5 [32...c4! 33.Nb4 hxg5=EF=BF=BD Pu=
rdy]
> 33.fxg5 f5 34.Bg3 Kf7 [34...a3! 35.Ne5 Nxe5 36.Bxe5 Red8 37.Rf1 Ra4
> 38.Kg3 a2=EF=BF=BD Smyslov] 35.Ne5+ Nxe5 36.Bxe5 b5 37.Rf1! =EF=BF=BD 38.=
=EF=BF=BDf4, 39.=EF=BF=BDh4
> Purdy 37...Rh8!! Purdy 38.Bf6 a3 39.Rf4 a2 40.c4! Purdy 40...Bxc4
> 41.d7 Bd5 42.Kg3 Abgabezug / sealed 42...Ra3+ 43.c3 Rha8 [43...Rb8
> 44.Be5 Rd8 45.Rh4=3D Purdy; 43...a1Q? 44.Rxa1 Rxa1 45.Rh4!! Rg1+
> (45...Raa8 46.Bxh8 Rd8 47.Bf6=3D) 46.Kf2 Rg2+ 47.Kf1 Rxh4 48.d8Q Rf4+
> 49.Ke1 Rg1+ 50.Kd2 Rf2+ 51.Ke3 Rf3+ 52.Ke2 Rg2+ 53.Ke1=3D Purdy] 44.Rh4
> e5 45.Rh7+ Ke6 46.Re7+ Kd6 47.Rxe5 Rxc3+ 48.Kf2 Rc2+ 49.Ke1 Kxd7
> 50.Rexd5+ Kc6 51.Rd6+ Kb7 52.Rd7+ Ka6 53.R7d2 Rxd2 54.Kxd2 b4 55.h4
> Kb5 56.h5 c4 57.Ra1 gxh5 58.g6 h4 59.g7 [59.Bxh4 b3 60.Kc3 Rg8=EF=BF=BD+
> Purdy] 59...h3 60.Be7 Rg8 61.Bf8 [61.Rxa2?? Rxg7=EF=BF=BD+] 61...h2 62.Kc=
2 Kc6
> 63.Rd1 b3+ 64.Kc3 h1Q [64...f4 65.Rd6+ Kc7 66.Rd1 f3 67.Kb2=3D Purdy]
> 65.Rxh1 Kd5 66.Kb2 f4 67.Rd1+ Ke4 68.Rc1 Kd3 69.Rd1+? [69.Rc3+=3D Kd4
> 70.Rf3 c3+ (70...Ke4 71.Rc3 f3 72.Rxc4+ Ke3 73.Rc1 =EF=BF=BD 74.=EF=BF=BD=
b3 =3D Purdy)
> 71.Ka1 c2 72.Rxf4+ Kc3 (72...Kd3 73.Rf1 =EF=BF=BD 74.=EF=BF=BDb2 +- Purdy=
) 73.Rf3+ Kd2
> 74.Ba3 Rxg7 75.Rxb3 Rc7 76.Bb2=3D (76.Kxa2?? Ra7!=EF=BF=BD+) ] 69...Ke2 7=
0.Rc1
> f3 71.Bc5 Rxg7 72.Rxc4 Rd7! Purdy 73.Re4+ Kf1 74.Bd4 f2 [74...f2
> 75.Rf4 Rxd4 76.Rxd4 Ke2 77.Re4+ Kf3 78.Re8 f1Q 79.Rf8+ Ke2 80.Rxf1
> Kxf1 81.Ka1 Ke2 82.Kb2 Kd3 83.Ka1 Kd2 84.Kb2 a1Q+ 85.Kxa1 Kc3 86.Kb1
> b2 87.Ka2 Kc2=EF=BF=BD+ Purdy] 0=EF=BF=BD1
The exceptions are where it serves a
strategical purpose, such as throwing the
enemy's team off the scent and leading
them down a false trail, as here.
> (226403) Spassky,Boris V (2660) - Fischer,Robert James (2785) [B05]
> World Championship 28th Reykjavik (19), 27.08.1972
> [ChessBase]
> 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0=EF=BF=BD0 Be7 7.h3 Bh5
> [7...Bxf3 8.Bxf3 Nc6 9.c4 Nb6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.b3 0=EF=BF=BD0 12.Nc3 a5?!
> 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Qh5!=EF=BF=BD Vasjukov-Torre/Manila/1974/] 8.c4 Nb6 9.Nc3 0=
=EF=BF=BD0
> [9...dxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Qxd4 12.Rd1 Qc5 13.b4 Qxb4 14.Nb5 =EF=BF=
=BD/+-
> Timman] 10.Be3 d5 [10...Nc6 11.exd6 cxd6 12.d5 Bxf3 (12...exd5 13.Nxd5
> Nxd5 14.Qxd5=EF=BF=BD) 13.Bxf3 Ne5 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Bg4=EF=BF=BD Timman] 1=
1.c5 [11.cxd5
> Nxd5 12.Qb3 Nb6 13.Rfd1 Qc8 14.d5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Rxd5 Nc6
> Sznapik-Schmidt/Polen ch/1977/] 11...Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nc4 13.b3! Purdy
> [13.Bf4 Nc6 14.b3 N4a5 15.Rc1 b6 16.Na4! (16.Qd2 bxc5 17.dxc5 Rb8!
> 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Nxd5 Rb5! 20.b4 Nxb4 21.Nxb4 Qxd2 22.Bxd2 Rxc5=3D Geller-
> Timman/Wijk aan Zee/1973) 16...Bg5 17.Bxg5 Qxg5 18.Qd3 Rab8 19.Bg4 Qf4
> 20.Rfd1 f5 21.exf6 Rxf6 22.Qe3=EF=BF=BD Geller-Timman/Teeside/1975/; 13.B=
c1?!
> b6=3D Purdy] 13...Nxe3 14.fxe3 b6 [14...f6 15.Bg4 a) 15.e4 dxe4 16.Bxe4
> (16.Nxe4 fxe5 17.dxe5 Nc6) 16...Nc6 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Qg4 f5=3D Timman; b)
> 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Bg4 Qe7=3D Timman; 15...Qd7 (15...f5 16.Be2=EF=BF=BD) 16.=
exf6
> (16.e4? dxe4 17.exf6 gxf6!) 16...Bxf6 17.b4=EF=BF=BD Timman; 14...Nc6
> Petrosjan 15.Rb1 (15.b4 Nxb4 16.Rb1 Nc6 17.Rxb7 Na5) 15...b6 16.b4 =EF=BF=
=BD
> 17.=EF=BF=BDa4 =EF=BF=BD Timman] 15.e4! Timman/Purdy [15.b4 a5 16.a3 (16.=
Qa4 Nd7)
> 16...axb4 17.axb4 Nc6!=3D Timman] 15...c6 [15...bxc5 16.exd5 cxd4
> 17.dxe6! (17.d6 cxd6 18.Bxa8 dxc3=EF=BF=BD) 17...c6 18.exf7+ Rxf7 19.Ne4=
=EF=BF=BD]
> 16.b4 bxc5 [16...a5 17.a3 (17.b5 bxc5 18.bxc6 cxd4 19.exd5 (19.Nxd5=EF=BF=
=BD)
> 19...dxc3 20.d6 Nxc6! 21.dxe7 Qxe7=EF=BF=BD Timman) 17...axb4 18.axb4 Rxa=
1
> 19.Qxa1 Bg5 20.Re1=EF=BF=BD Timman] 17.bxc5 Qa5 ! Purdy [17...Nd7 =EF=BF=
=BD Purdy
> 18.Qa4 Qc7 19.Rab1 Rab8 20.Qa6=EF=BF=BD Timman] 18.Nxd5 !! Purdy [=EF=BF=
=BD18.Qe1
> Olafsson 18...Bg5 (18...Qb4 19.Rd1 a5 20.exd5 cxd5 21.Bxd5! exd5
> 22.Nxd5 Qb7 23.Qe4 Ra7 24.Rb1 =EF=BF=BD/+- Timman/Olafsson; =EF=BF=BD18..=
.Qd8 19.Rb1=EF=BF=BD
> Timman) 19.exd5 cxd5 20.Nxd5 Qxe1 21.Raxe1 exd5 22.Bxd5 Na6 23.e6!+-
> (23.Rxf7 Rxf7 24.Bxa8 Kf8=EF=BF=BD) 23...Rad8 24.Rf5 Olafsson/Timman(24.B=
c4 =EF=BF=BD
> 25.e7) ] 18...Bg5 [18...exd5 19.exd5 cxd5 20.Bxd5 Nd7 21.Rxf7!
> (21.Bxa8?!) 21...Rxf7 22.Bxa8 Kh8 23.Qh5 Rf8 24.Be4+- Purdy] 19.Bh5!
> Timman [19.Qd3 ! Purdy 19...Na6 (19...Rd8 20.Bh5! g6 21.Qf3! +-
> Gligoric; 19...exd5! 20.exd5 Na6 21.dxc6 Rad8=3D Purdy) 20.Qc4 (20.Ne3
> Rad8 (20...Nb4 21.Nc4 Qxc5 22.Qc3 Be3+ 23.Qxe3 Qxc4 24.Be2 Nc2 25.Bxc4
> Nxe3 26.Rfc1 Rfd8 27.Kf2=EF=BF=BD) 21.Nc4 Qxc5 22.Nd6 Nb4=EF=BF=BD Timman=
) 20...Qb5!
> (20...cxd5 21.exd5 exd5 22.Bxd5 =EF=BF=BD/+- 22...Qc7 23.e6!) 21.Qxb5 cxb=
5=3D
> Timman; 19.Qe2 Na6 20.Ne3 Qc3! 21.Nc2 Nb4=EF=BF=BD Timman; 19.Qe1 Qd8=EF=
=BF=BD Timman;
> 19.h4!? Krogius 19...Bxh4 20.Qe2 (20.Ne3?! Qc3! 21.Nc2 Na6=EF=BF=BD Purdy=
)
> 20...Na6 21.Ne3=EF=BF=BD Timman] 19...cxd5 [19...g6? 20.Nf6++- Timman]
> 20.Bxf7+ [=EF=BF=BD20.exd5 Na6 Nej (20...exd5 21.Bxf7+ Rxf7 22.Rxf7 Nc6
> (22...Qd2 23.Qg4 (23.Rc7 Na6 24.Rb7 Be3+ 25.Kh1 Qxd4 26.Qxd4 Bxd4
> 27.Rd1 Nxc5 28.Rc7 Na6=3D) 23...Nc6 (23...Kxf7 24.Rf1+ Ke7 25.Qf5+-
> Timman) 24.Rd1!! Qe3+ 25.Kh1 Kxf7 26.Rf1+ Kg8 (26...Ke7 27.Qf5 =EF=BF=BD/=
+-)
> 27.Qe6+ Kh8 28.Qxc6 Rd8 (28...Rg8 29.Qxd5 Bf4 30.Qf3) 29.Qb7! (29.Qxd5
> g6) 29...Qxd4 30.c6 Qb6 (30...Qc4) 31.Rb1 Qxb7 32.Rxb7+- Timman)
> 23.Qf3! (23.Qh5 Nxd4 24.Raf1 Bh6! (24...Ne6?? 25.Rxg7+ Nxg7 26.Qf7+
> Kh8 27.Qf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8# Timman) ) 23...Qb4 24.Rf1 Qxd4+ 25.Kh1 Qxc5
> 26.Rc7!+- Timman) 21.Bxf7+ (21.dxe6 fxe6 22.Qg4 Be3+ 23.Kh1 Nc7=3D Nej;
> 21.d6 g6=3D) 21...Rxf7 22.Rxf7 Kxf7 23.Qh5+ Kg8 24.Qxg5 Qc3 25.Rd1 exd5
> 26.e6 Nc7 27.Qe5 =EF=BF=BD/+- Timman] 20...Rxf7 21.Rxf7 Qd2! Timman [21..=
.Be3+
> 22.Kh2 Kxf7 23.Qh5+ Ke7 24.Rf1 Nd7 25.Qf7+ Kd8 26.c6+- Timman;
> 21...Nc6 22.Qg4 (22.Qh5 Olafsson) 22...Kxf7 23.Rf1+ Kg8 24.Qxe6+ =EF=BF=
=BD/+-
> Timman; 21...Qc3 22.Rf1! Olafsson =EF=BF=BD 23.=EF=BF=BDa4, 23.=EF=BF=BDg=
4, 23.=EF=BF=BDh5 (22.exd5
> exd5 23.Rb1 Nc6 24.Rbb7 Bh6 25.Qg4 Qxd4+ 26.Qxd4 Nxd4 27.Rxa7=EF=BF=BD Ne=
j, =EF=BF=BD
> Timman) 22...Nc6 23.Qg4! Qxd4+ 24.Kh1 Qxe5 25.exd5 exd5 (25...Qxd5
> 26.Rad1 Qe5 27.Qf3+-) 26.Rae1 Be3 27.Qf3+- Timman] 22.Qxd2 !! Purdy
> [22.Rc7 Na6 23.Rc6 Nb4 24.Rxe6 dxe4 =EF=BF=BD/=EF=BF=BD Timman; 22.Qh5? Q=
xd4+ 23.Kh2
> Qxe5+ 24.g3 Qb2+!=EF=BF=BD+ Purdy] 22...Bxd2 23.Raf1 Nc6 24.exd5=3D [24.R=
c7 dxe4
> Olafsson a) 24...Nxd4 25.Rff7 Bh6 26.exd5 exd5 27.Rxa7=EF=BF=BD Byrne/Nej=
vgl.
> Anmerkung zu 21...=EF=BF=BDd2!, Variante 21... =EF=BF=BDc3; b) 24...Nd8 2=
5.Re7
> (25.exd5 exd5 26.Rd7 =EF=BF=BD/ Timman) 25...Nc6 26.Rxe6 (26.Rc7=3D) 26.=
..Nxd4
> 27.Re7 Be3+ 28.Kh1 dxe4 29.Rff7 Ne6!=EF=BF=BD Byrne/Nej; 25.Rxc6 e3 26.Rf=
4!!
> (26.Rxe6 e2 27.Rb1 Rf8 =EF=BF=BD 28.... =EF=BF=BDf1, 29.... =EF=BF=BDe3 =
=EF=BF=BD+) 26...e2 27.Re4 e1Q
> + 28.Rxe1 Bxe1 29.Rxe6=EF=BF=BD Timman] 24...exd5 25.Rd7 Be3+ 26.Kh1 Bxd4
> 27.e6 =EF=BF=BD 28.=EF=BF=BDd6 Purdy 27...Be5! 28.Rxd5 Re8 29.Re1 Rxe6 30=
.Rd6! Kf7 !
> Purdy [30...Rxd6 31.cxd6 Kf8 (31...Bxd6?? 32.Re6 Purdy; 31...Kf7
> 32.Rc1=EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD 33.=EF=BF=BDc7 Purdy) 32.Rc1 Nd8 33.Rc8 Ke8 34.=
Rc7 =EF=BF=BD/ Timman]
> 31.Rxc6 Rxc6 32.Rxe5 Kf6 33.Rd5 Ke6 34.Rh5 h6 35.Kh2 Ra6 36.c6 Rxc6
> 37.Ra5 a6 38.Kg3 Kf6 39.Kf3 Rc3+ 40.Kf2 Rc2+ =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD
Whoa! That's a lotta annotations. But they
include gibberish and miscellaneous symbols --
much like a Phil Innes post -- on my screen.
But these are mere 2600 or 2700s; the true test
is "what do the 2800+ players play?" in a pinch.
For instance, suppose Rybka is giving me
Queen odds, and it's the final game of a long,
tough match. The score is tied, 9 -- 9, and
the first to ten wins clinches all the money.
Do you imagine for one second that she would
play 1. e4 Nf6?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2008 09:47:41
From:
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 29, 11:23=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 1:51 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0The harsh reality is that at the top levels
> > > of play, this, the Alekhine's Defense, now
> > > has a terrible record in which White wins
> > > a huge percentage of games, despite
> > > Black's "preparations".
>
> > =A0 A "huge" percentage, Greg? What do you consider a huge percentage?
> > Out of 100 GM games beginning 1.e4 Nf6, how many would White have to
> > win for it to be "huge"?
>
> =A0 That depends on what is "normal".
>
> =A0 Suppose it is "normal" for White to score, say,
> 56% and Black to score 44% overall. =A0In this
> case, any opening or variation which falls below,
> say 40% or so for Black, is a disaster from the
> perspective of the chess professional.
In that case, the results for Alekhine's Defense in the CB database
are entirely what you call normal. You claim that it "now has a
terrible record," yet checking games from the year 2000 on in which
both players were rated at least 2500, the score is 56% to 44% in
White's favor.
> > > =A0Back when the
> > > openings were less well-mapped, things
> > > were not so clear. =A0It is in essence, a
> > > relic of the past, no longer viable in play
> > > amongst decent chess players:
> =A0 Mr. Morphy? =A0Strictly double-King-pawn;
Morphy was notably unadventurous in his openings.
> =A0 Mr. Steinitz? =A0No Alekhine's Defense there;
True.
> =A0 Mr. Lasker? =A0Nope;
Really? This doesn't count?
(27517) Maroczy,Geza - Lasker,Emanuel [C11]
New York New York (7), 1924
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Nfd7 4.d4 e6 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 Be7 8.Nf3
0=960 9.g3 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nb6 11.Bh3 Bd7 12.0=960 Rc8 13.g4 f6 14.exf6 Bxf6
15.g5 Be7 16.Kh1 Nc4 17.Nc3 Bb4 18.Qe2 Re8 19.Qd3 Nd6 20.f5 Nxf5
21.Nxd5 Bd6 22.Bxf5 exf5 23.Nf4 Re4 24.Qb3+ Kh8 25.Nh4 Nxd4 26.Qh3 Rc2
27.g6 Bc6 28.Nf3 h6 29.Ne6 Nxe6 30.Bxh6 Rh4 0=961
> =A0 Mr. Capablanca? =A0Dull as mud openings;
Wrong again:
(29015) Yates,Frederick - Capablanca,Jose Raul [B29]
Moscow Moscow, 1925
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3 d5 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bf4 Nc6 7.Qd2 Bg4
8.0=960=960 e6 9.h3 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Qc7 11.Bg3 c4 12.f4 g6 13.Kb1 h5 14.Bh4
Be7 15.Bg5 Bxg5 16.fxg5 Nxe5 17.Qe3 0=960 18.Be2 Nc6 19.f4 Ne7 20.Rhg1
Nf5 21.Qf2 Rfe8 22.Rge1 b5 23.Bf1 a5 24.Re5 b4 25.Qe1 Reb8 26.Ka1 Rb6
27.Qd2 Rab8 28.Rb1 Nd6 29.Bg2 Nb5 30.cxb4 c3 31.bxc3 Nxc3 32.Rb3 axb4
33.a3 Ra6 34.Re3 Rba8 35.Rexc3 bxc3 36.Qc1 Qc5 37.Ka2 Qc4 38.Ka1 Qxb3
0=961
> Mr. Smyslov? No;
Wait a minute, Greg, you skipped a few world champions. I can
understand you would want to hush up the fact that Alekhine himself
actually did play Alekhine's Defense, but let's not forget the man who
defeated him:
(34270) Becker,Albert - Euwe,Max [C42]
Karlsbad Karlsbad, 1929
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Bb4 4.Bc4 d6 5.Nd5 Nxd5 6.Bxd5 0=960 7.c3 Ba5
8.d3 c6 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.Bb3 Kh8 11.Qe2 Na6 12.Nh4 Nc5 13.Be3 Nxb3 14.axb3
Bd8 15.Nf5 Qe6 16.b4 b6 17.0=960 g6 18.Ng3 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4 Bd7
21.Rae1 Bc7 22.c4 Rae8 23.Bd2 Kg8 24.Bc3 Qg6 25.Qd1 c5 26.b5 exf4
27.Nh5 d5 28.cxd5 Bd8 29.Rxe8 Rxe8 30.Nxf4 Qd6 31.Qh5 Bf6 32.Rf3 Bxc3
33.bxc3 Qe5 34.Rg3+ Kf8 35.Qh6+ Ke7 36.Ng6+ hxg6 37.Re3 Qxe3+ 38.Qxe3+
Kf6 39.Qg3 Bxb5 40.c4 Ba4 41.h4 Re5 42.Qg5+ Kf7 43.h5 gxh5 44.Qxh5+
Kg7 45.Qg5+ Kf7 46.Qf4 Re1+ 47.Kf2 Re7 48.Qxf5+ Ke8 49.Qc8+ Kf7 50.Qd8
Rd7 51.Qh8 Kg6 52.g4 Rg7 53.Qh5+ Kf6 54.Qf5+ Ke7 55.d6+ Ke8 56.Qc8+ 1=96
0
(34364) Maroczy,Geza - Euwe,Max [B02]
Karlsbad Karlsbad, 1929
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3 d6 5.exd6 Qxd6 6.Qxd6 cxd6 7.Bd3
Nd7 8.Nf3 g6 9.h4 h5 10.Bg5 Nc5 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Bxd7+ Kxd7 13.0=960=960 Ne4
14.Be3 Bh6 15.Ng5 Nxf2 16.Bxf2 f6 17.Be3 fxg5 18.hxg5 Bg7 19.Rhf1 Rhf8
20.Rxf8 Rxf8 21.Bxa7 Ra8 22.Be3 Rxa2 23.Rd3 Ra4 24.b4 e5 25.Bf2 Ke6
26.Rh3 Ra8 27.c4 Rf8 28.Be3 Rf5 29.Kd2 Rf1 30.Rh4 Bf8 31.g4 hxg4
32.Rxg4 Rh1 33.Rg2 Rb1 34.b5 d5 35.cxd5+ Kxd5 36.Rg4 Rb4 37.Rxb4 Bxb4+
38.Ke2 Ke4 39.Kf2 Bc3 40.Ke2 Bb2 41.Kf2 Bd4 42.Bxd4 exd4 43.b6 Kf4
44.Ke2 Kxg5 45.Kd3 Kh4 46.Kxd4 g5 47.Ke3 Kh3 48.Kf2 Kh2 49.Kf3 Kh3
50.Kf2 =BD=96=BD
(34490) Yates,Frederick - Euwe,Max [B02]
Karlsbad Karlsbad, 1929
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3 d6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Bc4 e6 7.h3 Bh5
8.Bf4 Be7 9.Qe2 d5 10.Bd3 Nd7 11.0=960 Nc5 12.Qe3 Nxd3 13.cxd3 h6 14.Nd4
g5 15.Bh2 Qd7 16.a4 a6 17.Ra2 0=960=960 18.b4 g4 19.b5 a5 20.Nc6 d4
21.Nxe7+ Qxe7 22.cxd4 gxh3 23.Qxh3 Bg6 24.Qe3 Qd7 25.Rc1 Qxd4 26.Rac2
Qxe3 27.Rxc7+ Kb8 28.fxe3 Rxd3 29.Bg3 Rxe3 30.Bh4 Rg8 31.Be7 Re1+
32.Kf2 Rxc1 33.Rxc1 Be4 34.Bd6+ Ka7 35.g3 Bd5 36.Bc5+ b6 37.Bd6 Rg4
38.Rc7+ Ka8 39.Rc8+ Ka7 40.Rc7+ =BD=96=BD
(38423) Kashdan,Isaac - Euwe,Max [B05]
Hastings 3132 Hastings (6), 1931
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.exd6 exd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.h3 Bh5
8.Be2 Nc6 9.d5 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Ne5 11.Be2 Qh4 12.0=960 g5 13.Qc2 Rg8 14.Nd2
g4 15.hxg4 Nxg4 16.Qe4+ Be7 17.Nf3 Qh5 18.Bf4 f5 19.Qc2 0=960=960 20.Rfe1
Nd7 21.Nh2 Qf7 22.Bd3 Nxh2 23.Bxh2 f4 24.Bf5 Rg5 25.Bh3 f3 26.Qe4 Qg7
27.Qxe7 Rxg2+ 28.Kh1 Rg8 29.Qe8+ Rxe8 30.Rxe8# 1=960
(38437) Jackson,Edward Mackenzie - Euwe,Max [B02]
Hastings 3132 Hastings (9), 1931
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 c5 6.d3 Nc6 7.Qf3 e6
8.Nge2 Nd4 9.Nxd4 cxd4 10.Ne2 Be7 11.0=960 0=960 12.Qe4 Bf6 13.Bf4 Nd7
14.Bd6 Re8 15.f4 Qb6 16.Be5 Bxe5 17.fxe5 Qc5 18.Rae1 Nxe5 19.Qxd4
Qxd4+ 20.Nxd4 Ng6 21.Nf3 Bd7 22.d4 Bc6 23.Ne5 Nxe5 24.Rxe5 Red8 25.c3
Rd6 26.Rfe1 Kf8 27.Kf2 a5 28.Bc4 Be8 29.R1e2 b6 30.a3 Rb8 31.d5 exd5
32.Rxd5 Rxd5 33.Bxd5 Rd8 34.Bf3 Bb5 35.Re5 Rd2+ 36.Be2 Bd7 37.b4 a4
38.c4 Ra2 39.Re3 Bg4 40.h3 Bxe2 41.Rxe2 Rxa3 42.Rc2 Ke7 43.c5 bxc5
44.Rxc5 Rb3 45.b5 a3 46.Rc7+ Kd6 47.Rxf7 Rxb5 48.Ra7 Rb2+ 49.Kf3 a2
50.g4 Kc5 51.Ke3 Kb4 52.Kd3 Rb3+ 53.Kd4 Ra3 54.Rb7+ Ka4 55.Kc4 Rc3+ 0=96
1
(38832) Naegeli,Oskar - Euwe,Max [B03]
Bern Bern (12), 1932
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 Bf5 6.Nf3 dxe5 7.fxe5 e6
8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Be3 Qd7 10.Be2 0=960=960 11.Qd2 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13.0=960 Rg8
14.Rfd1 Qg7 15.Bf1 Ne5 16.Nxe5 fxe5 17.Qf2 Bg4 18.Rd2 exd4 19.Bxd4
Rxd4 20.Rxd4 Bc5 21.Rd8+ Rxd8 22.Qxc5 Rd2 23.Ne4 Rxb2 24.Nd6+ Kd7
25.Nb5 Kc8 26.Re1 Kb8 27.Re5 Bf5 28.Qd4 Rd2 29.Qe3 Rd1 30.Kf2 Qf6
31.Be2 Be4+ 0=961
(44726) Alekhine,Alexander - Euwe,Max [B05]
World Championship 16th Netherlands (29), 12.12.1935
[ChessBase]
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 dxe5 7.c5 e4 8.cxb6
[8.Ng5 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 Nd5 10.0=960 Nc6 11.Rd1] 8...exf3 9.Bxf3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3
axb6 [10...Nc6 11.0=960 Nxd4 (11...axb6 12.d5 Ne5 13.Qe4) 12.Qxb7 axb6
13.Be3] 11.Qxb7 Nd7 12.Bf4 [12.0=960 e6 13.Bf4 Bd6; 12.Qc6 e6 13.Bf4
Bb4+ 14.Nc3 Ra7 15.0=960 Bxc3 =8516.0=960 =3D] 12...e5! 13.Bxe5 [13.dxe5 Bb=
4+
14.Nc3 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 0=960 16.0=960 (16.Rd1 Nc5) 16...Nc5 17.Qc6 Ra3=3D
Alekhine] 13...Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bb4+ 15.Nc3 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 0=960 17.0=960 Qe7=B3
=D7 c3, a2 18.Rfe1 Qc5 19.Re3 Ra3 [19...Qc4 20.h3! Rxa2 21.Rxa2 Qxa2
22.Qc6 Rc8 23.c4=83 =85e6 Alekhine] 20.Qf3 Re8 21.h3! Ra5 [21...Rxe5
22.Rd1 h6 23.Rd7 Rf5 24.Qe4=82 Alekhine] 22.Rd1 Qe7 [22...Rxa2 23.Rd7
Rf8 24.Qg4=B1 Alekhine] 23.Qc6! Rc5 [23...Rxe5 24.Qxe8+ Qxe8 25.Rxe5 Qf8
26.Red5+- Alekhine] 24.Qd7 [24.Qa4 Ra5; 24.Qe4 f6] 24...g6 25.f4 Rc4!
26.Qxe7 Rxe7 27.Rd4 Rc5 28.Kf2 c6 29.a4 Ra7 30.Rb4 b5 31.axb5 cxb5
32.Kf3 Rac7 [32...Ra3 33.Kg4 (33.Ke4 Rcxc3 34.Rxc3 Rxc3 35.Rxb5 Rg3)
33...Rcxc3 34.Rxc3 Rxc3 35.Rxb5 Kg7 Whte should win.] 33.Rb3 Kf8
34.g4? [34.g3 =85Kd2 +- Alekhine] 34...Ke7 =85Ke6, Tc4=82f4 35.f5 gxf5
36.gxf5 f6=3D 37.Kf4 fxe5+ 38.Rxe5+ Rxe5 39.Kxe5 Rc5+ 40.Ke4 Kf6 41.Ra3
Rc4+ The sealed move. [41...Re5+=3D] 42.Kd3 Rh4 43.Rb3 Kxf5 44.Rxb5+ Ke6
45.c4 Rxh3+ 46.Kd4 Kd6 47.Rb6+ Kc7 48.Rf6 Rh5 49.Kc3 Kb7 50.Kb4 Kc7 =BD=96
=BD
> =A0 Mr. Smyslov? =A0No;
Lord, Greg, if ignorance was blubber you'd be a whale:
(60026) Poliak,Abram Borisovich - Smyslov,Vassily [B03]
Moscow-ch Moscow (11), 1945
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.exd6 exd6 6.Be3 d5 7.c5 N6d7
8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Bd3 Be7 10.Qc2 0=960 11.Nge2 b6 12.b4 bxc5 13.bxc5 Nc6
14.Rb1 Na5 15.0=960 c6 16.Bf4 g6 17.Qa4 Be6 18.Rb4 Nh5 19.Bh6 Re8 20.Nf4
Bf8 21.Nxe6 Rxe6 22.Bd2 Nf6 23.f3 Nc4 24.Bxc4 dxc4 25.Rxc4 Nd5 26.Ne4
Rb8 27.Rc2 Qd7 28.Ng5 Re2 29.Qc4 Rxd2 30.Rxd2 Bh6 31.f4 Ne3 32.Qd3
Nxf1 33.Kxf1 Qg4 34.Qf3 Rb1+ 35.Kf2 Qh4+ 36.Qg3 Bxg5 37.fxg5 Qe4
38.Qe5 Qh4+ 39.Qg3 Qe4 40.Qe5 Qh4+ =BD=96=BD
(58604) Boleslavsky,Isaak - Smyslov,Vassily [B05]
Sverdlovsk Sverdlovsk (6), 1943
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 c6 6.Ng5 Bxe2 7.Qxe2 dxe5
8.dxe5 e6 9.0=960 Be7 10.Ne4 0=960 11.c4 Nb6 12.b3 c5 13.Bb2 Nc6 14.Nbd2
Nd4 15.Qh5 Nd7 16.Bxd4 cxd4 17.f4 Qa5 18.Qh3 Nc5 19.Nxc5 Bxc5 20.Ne4
d3+ 21.Kh1 Rad8 22.Rad1 Be7 23.Rxd3 Qxa2 24.Nd6 Qe2 25.Rfd1 f5 26.R3d2
Qg4 27.Qxg4 fxg4 28.g3 g5 29.fxg5 Bxg5 30.Rd3 b6 31.Ne4 Rxd3 32.Rxd3
Rd8 33.Rd6 Be7 34.Rxe6 Kf7 35.Rc6 Rd1+ 36.Kg2 Re1 37.Nd6+ Bxd6 38.exd6
Ke6 39.Rc7 Kxd6 40.Rxa7 h5 41.Rh7 Re5 42.Kf2 b5 43.Rb7 bxc4 44.bxc4
Re4 45.Rb6+ =BD=96=BD
(127007) Bakulin,Nikolac I - Smyslov,Vassily [B02]
Moscow ZCC Moscow (9), 1961
1.e4 Nf6 2.d3 c5 3.f4 Nc6 4.c4 d6 5.Nf3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.0=960 0=960 8.Nc3
a6 9.Bd2 b5 10.Qe1 Rb8 11.Rb1 e6 12.Kh1 bxc4 13.dxc4 Bb7 14.Rd1 Nd4
15.Bd3 Re8 16.Bc1 Nd7 17.Ng5 f6 18.Nh3 f5 19.Qg3 Nf6 20.Rfe1 Qc7
21.Ng5 h6 22.Nf3 Qf7 23.Nh4 Kh7 24.h3 Bc6 25.Qf2 Rb4 26.a3 Rb3 27.e5
dxe5 28.Rxe5 Nd7 29.Ree1 Bf6 30.Nf3 Nxf3 31.gxf3 Bd4 32.Qg2 Nf6 33.Bc2
Bxc3 34.Bxb3 Bxe1 35.Rxe1 Nh5 36.Re5 Rd8 37.Bc2 Qb7 38.Kh2 Bxf3 39.Qg1
Qxb2 40.Re2 Qd4 41.Qxd4 Rxd4 0=961
(131392) Khasin,Abram - Smyslov,Vassily [B04]
URS-ch29 Baku (6), 25.11.1961
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Ng5 d5 8.a4
f6 9.exf6 exf6 10.Qe2+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.Nf3 a5 13.0=960 Bg4 14.Nbd2
Na6 15.h3 Bd7 16.Re1+ Kf7 17.Ne4 Rhe8 18.Bd2 Kf8 19.Nc3 c6 20.Rxe8+
Bxe8 21.Na2 Nc7 22.Re1 Bf7 23.Nc3 Ne6 24.Ne2 Nc4 25.Bc1 Re8 26.Ba2 Kg8
27.c3 g5 28.Bb1 Bg6 29.Bxg6 hxg6 30.Kf1 Kf7 31.Nd2 Nd6 32.f3 Bf8
33.Kf2 Nf5 34.Nb3 b6 35.Bd2 Bd6 36.g4 Ne7 37.Nbc1 c5 38.Rh1 Nc6 39.c4
Nc7 40.cxd5 Nxd5 41.dxc5 Bxc5+ 42.Kg3 Ne5 43.Nc3 Nc4 44.Nxd5 Nxd2
45.Rd1 Nc4 46.Nd3 Bd4 47.b3 Ne3 48.Nxe3 Rxe3 49.b4 Re2 50.bxa5 bxa5
51.f4 Ra2 52.fxg5 fxg5 53.Kf3 Rxa4 54.Rc1 Bf6 55.Rc7+ Ke8 56.Ra7 Bd4
57.Ra8+ Kf7 58.Ra6 Kg7 59.Ra8 Kh6 60.Ra6 Kh7 61.Ra8 Bc3 62.Nc5 Rf4+
63.Kg2 Kh6 64.Ne6 Re4 65.Ra6 Re2+ 66.Kf3 Re1 67.Kf2 Rb1 68.Ke3 Bb4
69.Ke4 Re1+ 70.Kd5 Rd1+ 71.Ke5 Rh1 72.Kf6 Rf1+ 73.Ke5 Rf3 74.Nd8 Re3+
75.Kd4 =BD=96=BD
(131455) Shianovsky,Vladislav I - Smyslov,Vassily [B03]
URS-ch29 Baku (12), 04.12.1961
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 Bf5 6.Nc3 e6 7.Be3 dxe5
8.fxe5 Be7 9.Nf3 0=960 10.Be2 f6 11.0=960 fxe5 12.Nxe5 N8d7 13.Nf3 c6
14.Qd2 Qe8 15.Rae1 Rd8 16.Qc1 Nf6 17.h3 h6 18.Ne5 Nfd7 19.Nxd7 Nxd7
20.Bf4 Qg6 21.Rf3 Bh4 22.Ref1 Nf6 23.Be5 Nh7 24.Kh2 Bc2 25.Rxf8+ Rxf8
26.Bg4 Rxf1 27.Qxf1 Bf5 28.Bxf5 Qxf5 29.Qxf5 exf5 30.Bb8 a6 31.Na4 Be7
32.d5 cxd5 33.cxd5 Nf8 34.d6 Bf6 35.Nc5 b6 36.Nxa6 Bxb2 37.Bc7 Nd7
38.Nb8 Nxb8 39.Bxb8 Kf7 40.d7 Ke7 41.Bc7 Kxd7 42.Bxb6 Kc6 43.Be3 Ba3
44.Kg3 g5 45.Bd2 Kd5 46.h4 Be7 47.Kf2 Ke4 =BD=96=BD
(155715) Wade,Robert Graham - Smyslov,Vassily [B07]
Capablanca mem Havana (4), 1965
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.h4 h5 6.Nh3 Nc6 7.Ng5 0=960 8.Be3
e5 9.d5 Nd4 10.Bxd4 exd4 11.Qxd4 c6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.0=960 Nd5 14.Qc4 Nf4
15.Qxc6 Bxc3 16.Bf3 Bxb2 17.Qxa8 Bxa1 18.Rxa1 Qb6 19.e5 d5 20.g3 Bg4
21.Qxf8+ Kxf8 22.Bxg4 hxg4 23.gxf4 Qb4 24.Kg2 Qxf4 25.Re1 Ke8 26.Re3
g3 27.Rxg3 Qxh4 28.c3 Ke7 29.Kg1 Qf4 30.Nh7 a5 31.Nf6 Qxe5 0=961
(158188) Cuellar Gacharna,Miguel - Smyslov,Vassily [B08]
Santiago Santiago (5), 1965
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.h3 0=960 6.Be3 c6 7.Be2 b5 8.a3
Nbd7 9.0=960 Nb6 10.Nd2 e5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nb3 Qc7 13.Nc5 Nfd7 14.Qc1
Nxc5 15.Bxc5 Rd8 16.Rd1 Rxd1+ 17.Nxd1 Be6 18.b3 Nd7 19.Be3 Bf8 20.Nb2
Nc5 21.Bf3 a5 22.a4 b4 23.Qe1 Re8 24.Rd1 Bc8 25.Bxc5 Bxc5 26.Nc4 Bd4
27.Bg4 Ba6 28.Be2 Rd8 29.Kh1 Kg7 30.Ne3 Bxe2 31.Qxe2 Bxe3 32.fxe3
Rxd1+ 33.Qxd1 Qe7 34.Qd3 Qh4 35.Kh2 h5 36.g3 Qe7 37.Kg2 h4 38.g4 Kf6
39.Kf3 Kg5 40.Ke2 f6 41.Kf3 =BD=96=BD
(164449) Lein,Anatoly - Smyslov,Vassily [B05]
URS-ch34 Tbilisi (15), 1966
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0=960 Be7 7.c4 Nb6
8.exd6 cxd6 9.Nc3 0=960 10.Be3 Nc6 11.d5 exd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Qxd5 Bf6
14.Rfd1 Qc8 15.Rd2 Rd8 16.Rad1 Ne7 17.Qe4 Bf5 18.Qf4 Ng6 19.Qg3 Be4
20.Bd4 Be7 21.Ng5 Bxg5 22.Qxg5 b6 23.Bc3 Qe6 24.Bf1 Rac8 25.Qe3 Bf5
26.Qg3 h5 27.Rxd6 Rxd6 28.Rxd6 h4 29.Rxe6 hxg3 30.Re3 gxh2+ 31.Kxh2
Bb1 32.a3 Ba2 33.Bd3 Bxc4 34.Bxg6 fxg6 35.Re7 Bf7 36.Rxa7 Rc5 37.g4 b5
38.Kg3 g5 39.Kf3 Rc4 40.Ke3 Rxg4 41.Rb7 Bc4 42.Rxg7+ Kf8 43.Rc7 Rh4
44.Be5 Bf1 45.Bd6+ Kg8 46.Rc5 Rh5 47.Be7 Rh3+ 48.Kd2 g4 49.Rg5+ Kf7
50.Bb4 Rh4 51.Bc3 Bc4 52.Be5 Ke6 53.Bg3 Rh1 54.Rxg4 Rb1 55.Kc2 Re1
56.a4 Ra1 57.b3 Ra2+ 58.Kc3 Bf1 59.Re4+ Kd5 60.Re5+ Kc6 61.Re6+ Kd5
62.Rd6+ Ke4 63.Rd4+ Kf3 64.Rf4+ Kg2 65.axb5 Bxb5 66.Kb4 Bf1 67.Kc5
Ra5+ 68.Kb4 Rd5 69.Re4 Rf5 70.Re3 Rd5 71.Re1 Ba6 72.Ra1 Be2 73.Ra2 Kf3
74.Ra8 Rb5+ 75.Kc3 Rc5+ 76.Kd4 Rb5 77.Rf8+ Kg2 78.Kc3 Bf3 79.b4 Rh5
80.Rf4 Be2 81.Kd2 Bb5 82.Ke3 Rh1 83.Rf5 Bd7 84.Rd5 Bc6 85.Rd2 Rb1
86.Bd6 Rb3+ 87.Kd4 Rf3 88.Kc5 Be8 89.Bg3 Ba4 90.Ra2 Rf5+ 91.Kb6 Rf6+
92.Ka5 Bc6 93.b5 Bb7 94.Rc2 Rf7 95.Kb6 Be4 96.Rb2 Bd3 97.Kc6 Be4+
98.Kd6 Bb7 99.Bh4 Rf4 100.Bg3 Rf7 101.b6 Kf3 102.Rb3+ Kg2 103.Re3 Bf3
104.Rxf3 Kxf3 105.Kc6 Rf6+ 106.Bd6 Rf7 107.Bc5 Rf6+ 108.Kb5 1=960
(167320) Liebert,Heinz - Smyslov,Vassily [B05]
Rubinstein mem 04th Polanica Zdroj (12), 1966
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3 Bxf3 6.Qxf3 dxe5 7.dxe5 e6
8.Qe4 Nd7 9.Bc4 c6 10.0=960 Qc7 11.Re1 0=960=960 12.Nd2 Nc5 13.Qe2 h6 14.Nf=
3
Be7 15.Be3 Nxe3 16.Qxe3 Kb8 17.a3 g5 18.b4 Nd7 19.Bf1 Rhg8 20.Rad1 h5
21.Nd2 Nb6 22.c4 g4 23.hxg4 Rxg4 24.Qb3 c5 25.b5 Rgd4 26.Nf3 Rxd1
27.Rxd1 Rxd1 28.Qxd1 Nd7 29.Qe2 =BD=96=BD
(174293) Lehmann,Heinz - Smyslov,Vassily [B70]
Palma de Mallorca Palma de Mallorca (11), 1967
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 0=960 6.Nf3 c5 7.0=960 cxd4
8.Nxd4 Bg4 9.Nde2 Qd7 10.Be3 Nc6 11.f3 Bh3 12.Bxh3 Qxh3 13.Qe1 Ne5
14.Nf4 Qd7 15.Rd1 Nc4 16.Bc1 Rac8 17.Qe2 Ne8 18.Qd3 b5 19.Rde1 b4
20.Nd1 a5 21.Kh1 Ne5 22.Qe2 Nc7 23.b3 Nb5 24.Bb2 Rc5 25.Nd3 Nxd3
26.Qxd3 Bxb2 27.Nxb2 Rc3 28.Qd1 Na3 29.Re2 Qc7 30.Rff2 Rc8 31.Qd5 Rc5
32.Qd3 Nxc2 33.Nc4 Na3 34.Ne3 e6 35.Ng4 h5 36.Ne3 Rc3 37.Qa6 Qc5
38.Kg2 Rc7 39.Qa8+ Kg7 40.Nd1 Rc1 41.Rd2 Nc2 42.Nb2 Rc8 43.Qa6 Ne3+
44.Kh3 Rh8 45.Rfe2 Qg5 46.Rxe3 Qxe3 47.Qxd6 Qxf3 48.Qe5+ Qf6 49.Qxf6+
Kxf6 50.Nc4 Rxc4 51.bxc4 Rc8 52.Rf2+ Ke7 53.Rc2 Kd6 54.g4 hxg4+
55.Kxg4 Kc5 56.Kf4 a4 57.Ke3 b3 58.axb3 axb3 59.Rf2 Rb8 0=961
(188369) Basman,Michael J - Smyslov,Vassily (2620) [B02]
Lugano ol (Men) qual-A Lugano (6), 23.10.1968
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3 d6 5.Bc4 Nc6 6.Nf3 dxe5 7.Qe2 e6
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Qxe5 Bd7 10.Qg3 Qf6 11.Bf4 Qg6 12.Qf3 0=960=960 13.Ba6 c6
14.Bd3 f5 15.0=960=960 Bc5 16.Rhe1 Qg4 17.Qxg4 fxg4 18.Rd2 Rdf8 19.g3 Rf7
20.Bc4 Re8 21.Red1 b5 22.Bf1 e5 23.Be3 Bxe3 24.fxe3 Kc7 25.Bg2 Ree7
26.b3 Rf6 27.Rf1 Ref7 28.Rfd1 h5 29.Kb2 g5 30.c4 bxc4 31.b4 h4 32.Kc3
h3 33.Be4 Be6 34.Rd8 Rd7 35.R1xd7+ Bxd7 36.Ra8 Rf2 37.Rxa7+ Kd6 38.a4
Rxh2 39.Kxc4 Re2 40.Kd3 Re1 41.b5 cxb5 42.a5 b4 43.Rb7 h2 44.Rb6+ Kc5
45.Rh6 Bb5+ 46.Kd2 Re2+ 47.Kd1 Rxe3 48.Bb7 Ra3 49.Rxh2 Rxa5 50.Rh8 Ra3
51.Kd2 Rxg3 52.Rc8+ Kb6 53.Be4 Rh3 54.Rg8 Rh2+ 55.Kc1 Rh5 56.Kd2 Kc5
57.Bf5 g3 58.Rc8+ Kd6 59.Ke3 g2 60.Kf2 Bc6 61.Rg8 Rh1 0=961
(193081) Rossolimo,Nicolas - Smyslov,Vassily [B04]
Monte Carlo Monte Carlo, 1969
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c4 Nb6 6.exd6 exd6 7.Be2 Be7
8.Be3 0=960 9.Nc3 Bg4 10.b3 f5 11.Qd2 Bf6 12.0=960 Qe7 13.h3 Bh5 14.Rfe1
Kh8 15.Rad1 Rae8 16.d5 Nd8 17.Nd4 Bg6 18.Bd3 Qd7 19.Nce2 c5 20.Nf3 Nc8
21.Bg5 Bh5 22.Bxf6 Rxf6 23.Nh2 =BD=96=BD
(199507) Medina Garcia,Antonio Angel - Smyslov,Vassily [B03]
Hastings 6970 Hastings (9), 1969
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 Bf5 6.Nc3 e6 7.Be2 dxe5
8.fxe5 Be7 9.Nf3 0=960 10.0=960 Nc6 11.Be3 f6 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.Qd2 Qe7
14.Rad1 Rad8 15.Qc1 h6 16.Kh1 Kh8 17.h3 Bh7 18.Rfe1 Qf7 19.b3 Rfe8
20.Rf1 Qe7 21.Rfe1 Rd7 22.d5 Nb4 23.Nd4 exd5 24.Bh5 Nd3 25.Rxd3 Bxd3
26.Bf2 Bxd4 27.Bxe8 Bxf2 28.Rxe7 Rxe7 29.Qf4 Re1+ 30.Kh2 Bg1+ 31.Kg3
Rxe8 32.cxd5 Re3+ 33.Kg4 Nd7 0=961
(209615) Minic,Dragoljub - Smyslov,Vassily [B05]
Palma de Mallorca Interzonal Palma de Mallorca (18), 03.12.1970
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 exd6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Be2 0=960
8.Nf3 Bg4 9.b3 c5 10.Be3 Nc6 11.Rc1 f5 12.dxc5 dxc5 13.Nd5 Nxd5
14.cxd5 Nb4 15.a3 f4 16.Bxc5 Bxc5 17.Rxc5 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Na6 19.Rc3 Qf6
20.Qd2 Rfe8 21.Kf1 Rad8 22.Bd3 Qd6 23.Rg1 Kh8 24.Rg4 Qxd5 25.Qxf4 Nc5
26.Bc2 Qe5 27.Qxe5 Rxe5 28.b4 Ne6 29.Re4 Rxe4 30.Bxe4 b6 31.Rd3 Rxd3
32.Bxd3 Nf4 33.Be4 g6 34.Ke1 Kg7 35.Kd2 =BD=96=BD
(216133) Kapengut,Albert Z (2450) - Smyslov,Vassily (2620) [B05]
URS-ch39 Leningrad (13), 03.10.1971
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0=960 Be7 7.h3 Bh5 8.c4
Nb6 9.exd6 cxd6 10.Nc3 0=960 11.Be3 N8d7 12.b3 Nf6 13.Rc1 Rc8 14.Re1 a6
15.Bf1 d5 16.c5 Nbd7 17.Bf4 Nb8 18.g4 Bg6 19.Ne5 Nc6 20.Nxc6 Rxc6
21.b4 Ne4 22.f3 Nxc3 23.Rxc3 Bh4 24.Re2 f5 25.Be5 fxg4 26.hxg4 Bf6
27.a4 Bxe5 28.Rxe5 Qf6 29.Rce3 Qf4 30.Qd2 h5 =BD=96=BD
> =A0 Mr. Petrosian? =A0I think not;
Think again:
(61397) Kasparian,Genrikh Moiseevich - Petrosian,Tigran V [B02]
ARM-ch m Yerevan (8), 1946
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4.Bc4 Nxc3 5.Qf3 e6 6.Qxc3 c5 7.Nf3 Nc6
8.0=960 Qf6 9.Qe3 Bd6 10.c3 Qf4 11.d4 Qxe3 12.fxe3 h6 13.e4 Bd7 14.d5
Na5 15.Be2 exd5 16.exd5 0=960 17.c4 Rfe8 18.Bd3 b5 19.b3 b4 20.Bb2 Re3
21.Rad1 Bg4 22.Bc1 Re7 23.Rde1 Rxe1 24.Nxe1 Nb7 25.h3 Bd7 26.Bf5 Bxf5
27.Rxf5 Re8 28.Kf1 a5 29.Nd3 a4 30.Bf4 Bxf4 31.Rxf4 Re3 32.Rf3 Rxf3+
33.gxf3 a3 34.Ke2 Kf8 35.Ne5 Ke7 36.Ke3 Nd6 37.Kd2 Nc8 38.Nd3 Kd6
39.Nf2 Kc7 40.Nd3 Kd6 41.Nf2 =BD=96=BD
(109646) Gurgenidze,Bukhuti - Petrosian,Tigran V [B22]
Gagra training Gagra, 1958
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Bc4 e6 6.d4 d6 7.cxd6 cxd6
8.Nf3 Nc6 9.0=960 Be7 10.Nbd2 0=960 11.Ne4 Nb6 12.Bd3 dxe5 13.dxe5 Nb4
14.Bb1 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 Bd7 16.a3 Ba4 17.Rd2 Rac8 18.Nc3 N4d5 19.Ne2 Rc7
20.Ba2 Rfc8 21.b3 Bb5 22.Bb2 Bxe2 23.Rxe2 Nc3 24.Rc2 Nxa2 25.Rxc7 Rxc7
26.Rxa2 Rc2 27.Nd4 Rd2 28.Kf1 Bc5 29.Ke1 Rxb2 30.Rxb2 Bxd4 31.Re2 Nd7
32.f4 Kf8 33.Kd2 g5 34.Kd3 Bg1 35.g3 g4 36.Rg2 Bb6 37.b4 f5 38.h3 h5
39.Rh2 Kg7 40.hxg4 hxg4 41.Rd2 Kf7 42.Kc4 Ke7 43.a4 Bc7 44.a5 Nf8
45.Rh2 a6 46.Rh8 Bb8 47.b5 axb5+ 48.Kxb5 Ba7 49.Rh2 Nd7 50.Rh7+ Kd8
51.a6 Bf2 52.axb7 Nb8 53.Rh2 Ba7 54.Ra2 Bg1 55.Rc2 Ba7 56.Rd2+ Kc7
57.Rd6 Bf2 58.Rxe6 Bxg3 59.Rf6 Bxf4 60.Rf7+ Kd8 61.Rxf5 Bh2 62.Kc5 Ke7
63.Kd5 g3 64.Rg5 Kf7 65.Kd6 Na6 66.Rg4 Nb8 67.Rg5 Na6 68.Kd5 Ke7
69.Rg7+ Kf8 70.Rg6 Nb8 71.Ke6 Na6 72.Kf6 1=960
(163028) Boleslavsky,Isaak - Petrosian,Tigran V [B02]
Moscow Training Moscow (6), 1966
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ng8 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bc4 c6 7.h3 d5 8.Bb3
b6 9.0=960 e6 10.Re1 Ba6 11.Ne2 Ne7 12.Nf4 h6 13.c3 Nd7 14.Bc2 c5 15.b3
Rc8 16.a4 Qc7 17.Ra2 0=960 18.h4 Rfd8 19.Bb1 Nf8 20.Ne2 Bxe2 21.Raxe2 h5
22.g3 Rd7 23.Rc2 Qb7 24.b4 cxb4 25.cxb4 Rc4 26.Rb2 Nc6 27.b5 Na5
28.Bd2 Rc8 29.Ra2 Nc4 30.Bf4 Nh7 31.g4 hxg4 32.Nh2 Na5 33.Nxg4 Rc4
34.h5 Nf8 35.Bg5 Qc8 36.Nf6+ Bxf6 37.Bxf6 Rdc7 38.Qd2 Nh7 39.hxg6 fxg6
40.Qh6 Qf8 41.Qxg6+ Rg7 42.Bxg7 Qxg7 43.Qxg7+ Kxg7 44.f4 Nf8 45.f5
Rxd4 46.Rg2+ Kf7 47.Rf1 1=960
(300821) Rodriguez Cespedes,Amador (2470) - Petrosian,Tigran V (2620)
[B04]
Buenos Aires ol (Men) Buenos Aires (4), 1978
[Rodriguez,Am]
Inf.26/157 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 c6 5.c4 Nc7 6.exd6 [6.Be2!?
Bg4 (6...Bf5 7.Nh4 =85 f4) 7.Ng5] 6...exd6 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.0=960 Be7 9.Nbd2
Nd7 [9...0=960?! 10.Qc2=B1] 10.Qc2 Nf6 11.b3 Bh5 12.Nh4 Bg6 13.Nf5 Bxf5
14.Bxf5 0=960 15.Nf3 g6 16.Bh3!=B1 =AD 16...Re8 17.Re1 Bf8 18.Bg5 h6!
[18...Bg7 19.Qd2 =85 =A3f4-h4=B1] 19.Rxe8 Ncxe8 20.Be3 Qa5 21.g3 Qh5 22.Bg2
[=85 h3=B1] 22...Qg4! 23.h3 Qd7=B2 =BD=96=BD
(321365) Fernandez Garcia,Jose Luis (2390) - Petrosian,Tigran V (2615)
[B05]
Las Palmas Las Palmas, 1980
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0=960 Be7 7.c4 Nb6 8.h3
Bh5 9.Nc3 0=960 10.Be3 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Ne1 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Nc6 14.f4 f5
15.Nd3 Qd7 16.Rad1 Nd8 17.Kh2 c6 18.g4 Ne6 19.Qg2 g6 20.Ne2 Ng7 21.b3
Rad8 22.Bd2 Na8 23.Bb4 Bxb4 24.Nxb4 Nc7 25.Nd3 Nce6 26.g5 Kf7 27.Qf2
Rh8 28.Qh4 Qe7 29.Qh6 Rdg8 30.Ng1 Ke8 31.Nf3 Nh5 32.Nh4 Rf8 33.b4 Kd8
34.Ng2 Nxd4 35.Nc5 Ne6 36.Nxe6+ Qxe6 37.Ne3 Kc8 38.Rd4 Rd8 39.Rc1 Kb8
40.Rcd1 Rd7 41.Nf1 b6 42.Ng3 Nxg3 43.Kxg3 c5 44.bxc5 bxc5 45.R4d2 c4 0=96
1
(342337) Dolmatov,Sergey (2545) - Petrosian,Tigran V (2585) [B04]
Moscow-4teams Moscow (6.4), 28.02.1981
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Be2 g6 6.c4 Nc7 7.exd6 Qxd6
8.Nc3 Bg7 9.Be3 Nba6 10.Qd2 Bg4 11.0=960 0=960 12.Rad1 Rad8 13.Qc1 b5
14.b3 bxc4 15.bxc4 Qb4 16.a3 Qa5 17.Ne5 Bxe5 18.Bxg4 Bg7 19.Ne2 Qa4
20.Nf4 Ne8 21.d5 Nf6 22.Bf3 cxd5 23.Nxd5 Nxd5 24.Rxd5 Nc7 25.Rxd8 Rxd8
26.c5 Rd3 27.Qb1 Rb3 28.Qd1 Ne6 29.c6 Rxa3 30.Qd7 h5 31.Qxe7 Bf8
32.Qd7 a5 33.g3 Qb5 34.Rc1 h4 35.Qb7 Qe5 36.c7 Nxc7 37.Bf4 Qf6 38.Rxc7
g5 39.Rxf7 h3 40.Rc7 1=960
> =A0 Mr. Spassky? =A0Nyet;
Nyet? Da!
(116462) Vasiukov,Evgeni - Spassky,Boris V [B02]
URS-ch26 Tbilisi (3), 1959
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Nxd5 exd5
8.Bxd5 c6 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.cxd6 Qe8 11.Qf3+ Kg8 12.Qe3 Be6 13.Ne2 Nd7
14.0=960 Nxe5 15.Qxe5 Bc4 16.Qxe8 Rxe8 17.d3 Bxd3 18.Rd1 Bxe2 19.d7 Rd8
20.Bg5 Bxd1 21.Rxd1 Be7 22.Bxe7 Kf7 23.Bxd8 Rxd8 24.f4 Ke7 25.Kf2 Rxd7
26.Rxd7+ Kxd7 27.Ke3 Ke6 28.Ke4 g6 29.b4 h5 30.g3 Kf6 31.h3 Ke6 32.g4
b6 33.Kd4 Kf6 34.a4 Ke6 35.Ke4 Kd6 36.a5 Ke6 =BD=96=BD
(116610) Nezhmetdinov,Rashid - Spassky,Boris V [B02]
URS-ch26 Tbilisi (18), 1959
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 dxe5 7.Qxd8+
Nxd8 8.Nxe5 f6 9.Nd3 e5 10.0=960 Be6 11.Bb3 Bd6 12.Re1 g5 13.Be3 Kf7
14.f3 Nc6 15.Nf2 Rhd8 16.Ne4 Ne7 17.c4 Nf5 18.Bxg5 Be7 19.Bd2 a5 20.a4
Nd4 21.Bc3 c5 22.Bxd4 cxd4 23.c5 Rac8 24.f4 Bxb3 25.cxb3 Bxc5 26.fxe5
fxe5 27.Rf1+ Ke6 28.Rf3 d3+ 29.Kf1 Rd4 30.Ng5+ Kd5 31.Rd1 h6 32.Nh3 e4
33.Rf5+ Ke6 34.g4 Bd6 35.Kf2 Rd5 36.Nf4+ Bxf4 37.Rxf4 Rc2+ 38.Kg3 Ke5
39.h4 Rg2+ 40.Kxg2 Kxf4 0=961
(120335) Smyslov,Vassily - Spassky,Boris V [B05]
Moscow-Leningrad m Moscow (2.2), 1960
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 Nc6 6.c4 Nb6 7.exd6 exd6 8.0=96
0 Be7 9.Nc3 0=960 10.b3 Bf6 11.Be3 Re8 12.h3 Bh5 13.Qd2 d5 14.c5 Nc8
15.Rad1 a5 16.Rfe1 N8a7 17.Bf4 Qd7 18.g4 Bg6 19.Bg3 h6 20.Qf4 Re7
21.Bf1 Rae8 22.Rxe7 Rxe7 23.h4 Re4 24.Nxe4 dxe4 25.h5 Bh7 26.g5 hxg5
27.Nxg5 Bxg5 28.Qxg5 f6 29.Bc4+ 1=960
(121257) Gufeld,Eduard - Spassky,Boris V [C11]
URS-ch27 Leningrad (13), 1960
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Nfd7 4.d4 e6 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4 Bxc5
8.Bd3 h6 9.Bg3 a6 10.0=960 b5 11.Re1 0=960 12.Ne2 b4 13.c3 bxc3 14.bxc3 a5
15.Nf4 Ba6 16.Bc2 Rc8 17.Qd2 Re8 18.Nh5 Bf8 19.Rac1 Ne7 20.Nd4 Nc5
21.Bh4 Qd7 22.Bxe7 Qxe7 23.Re3 Red8 24.Rg3 Kh8 25.Qf4 Nd7 26.Ba4 Nxe5
27.Qxe5 Qc7 28.Qe3 e5 29.Nf3 e4 30.Qd4 exf3 31.Rxg7 Qc5 32.Qg4 Rd6
33.Rg8+ Kh7 34.Bc2+ 1=960
> =A0 Mr. Fischer? =A0Once. =A0(Nobody's perfect);
Good grief, Greg. He played it twice in the Spassky match alone.
Count the games below (hint: there's more than one):
(155694) Ciocaltea,Victor - Fischer,Robert James [B03]
Capablanca mem Havana (3), 1965
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.h4 h6 8.Be3
Bg7 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.d5 Ne5 11.b3 Nbd7 12.f3 Nc5 13.Nh3 Bf5 14.Nf2 b5
15.cxb5 Qa5 16.Rc1 0=960 17.Na4 Qd8 18.Nxc5 dxc5 19.f4 Ng4 20.Nxg4 Bxg4
21.Rxc5 e5 22.f5 gxf5 23.Bxh6 f4 24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.Be2 Bd7 26.Qc3 Qf6
27.b4 Rg8 28.Bf3 e4 29.Be2 Qxc3+ 30.Rxc3 Kf6 31.Rh2 Rac8 32.Rc5 Ke5
33.h5 Kd4 34.h6 Rxc5 35.bxc5 Kxc5 36.Rh4 f5 37.h7 Rh8 38.Rh6 Kxd5
39.Kd2 Kc5 40.a4 Kb4 41.Ra6 Rxh7 42.Rxa7 e3+ 43.Kc2 Bxb5 44.Rxh7 Bxe2
45.Rf7 f3 46.gxf3 Bxf3 47.Kd3 Be4+ 48.Kxe3 Kxa4 =BD=96=BD
(204538) Browne,Walter S - Fischer,Robert James [B04]
Rovinj/Zagreb Zagreb (15), 03.05.1970
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Be2 Bg7 6.c4 Nb6 7.exd6 cxd6
8.Nc3 0=960 9.0=960 Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 11.b3 d5 12.c5 Nc8 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3
e6 15.Qd2 N8e7 16.Nb5 Nf5 17.Bg4 a6 18.Bxf5 axb5 19.Bc2 Ra3 20.b4 f5
21.Bb3 Qf6 22.Qd3 f4 23.Bc1 Ra6 24.Bb2 f3 25.g3 Qf5 26.Qxf5 gxf5
27.Rad1 Nxb4 28.Rfe1 f4 29.a3 Nc6 30.Rxe6 fxg3 31.Bxd5 gxf2+ 32.Kxf2
Kh8 33.Re3 b4 34.axb4 Nxb4 35.Bxf3 Ra2 36.Rb3 Nc6 37.Kg3 Rg8 38.Kf4
Rf8+ 39.Ke4 Rf7 40.Bg4 Re7+ 41.Kd3 Ra4 42.Ra1 Rxd4+ 43.Bxd4 Bxd4
44.Ra8+ Kg7 45.Rb5 Bf2 46.Bf5 Ne5+ 47.Kc3 Be1+ 48.Kd4 Nc6+ 49.Kc4 Bh4
50.Bc8 Nd8 51.Ra2 Rc7 52.Bg4 Be7 53.Kd5 Nc6 54.Rab2 Nd8 55.Rb1 Bf8
56.R1b2 Be7 57.Rg2 Kh8 58.Ra2 Kg7 59.Ra8 Bh4 60.Rb8 Rf7 61.Rb2 Kh6
62.Rb6+ Kg7 63.Rb3 h5 64.Bc8 Be7 65.Rb5 Rf3 66.Bxb7 Rxh3 67.c6 Rc3
68.Ra8 h4 69.Ra4 h3 70.Rc4 h2 71.Rb1 Rxc4 72.Kxc4 Bd6 73.Kd5 Bg3
74.Bc8 Kf7 75.Bh3 Ke7 76.Rc1 Kf6 77.Ra1 Ke7 78.Rf1 Nf7 79.Bg2 Ng5
80.Kc5 Ne6+ 81.Kb6 Bc7+ 82.Kb7 Bd6 83.Bd5 Nc5+ 84.Kb6 Na4+ 85.Ka5 Nc5
86.Kb5 Kd8 87.Rf7 Kc8 88.c7 Nd7 89.Kc6 h1Q 90.Bxh1 Ne5+ 91.Kb6 Bc5+
92.Kxc5 Nxf7 93.Kb6 Nd6 94.Bd5 Kd7 95.Bc6+ Kc8 96.Bd5 Kd7 97.Bb3 Nc8+
98.Kb7 Ne7 =BD=96=BD
(209568) Minic,Dragoljub - Fischer,Robert James [B03]
Palma de Mallorca Interzonal Palma de Mallorca (14), 28.11.1970
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Bd3 Bg7
8.Nge2 0=960 9.b3 Nc6 10.Be3 d5 11.c5 Nd7 12.Bb5 e5 13.0=960 Nxc5 14.dxe5
d4 15.Nxd4 Nxe5 16.h3 Ne6 17.Nxe6 Bxe6 18.f4 Qa5 19.fxe5 Qxc3 20.Qd4
Qa5 21.a4 Bxb3 22.Bf4 a6 23.Be2 Rae8 24.Ra3 Bd5 25.Rb1 Bc6 26.Bf3 Bxe5
27.Bxe5 Rxe5 28.Bxc6 bxc6 29.Rc3 Re2 30.Rxc6 Qg5 31.Qg4 Qxg4 32.hxg4
Rd8 33.g5 Rd5 34.Kf1 Ree5 35.Rxa6 Rxg5 36.Rb2 Rd1+ 37.Kf2 Rf5+ 38.Kg3
Rd3+ 39.Kh2 Ra3 40.Ra7 h5 41.Kg1 Kg7 42.Rb1 Kh6 43.Rf1 Rxf1+ 44.Kxf1
f5 45.Ra8 0=961
(209597) Ujtumen,Tudev - Fischer,Robert James [B03]
Palma de Mallorca Interzonal Palma de Mallorca (16), 01.12.1970
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 Bf5 6.Nc3 e6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Nf3
0=960 9.exd6 cxd6 10.b3 d5 11.c5 N6d7 12.Bd3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 b6 14.cxb6
Qxb6 15.0=960 Qa6 16.Qd1 Nc6 17.Ne5 Ncxe5 18.fxe5 Rac8 19.Rc1 f6 20.exf6
Nxf6 21.h3 Bb4 22.Na4 Rxc1 23.Bxc1 Ne4 24.Rxf8+ Bxf8 25.Bf4 Bd6 26.Qg4
Bxf4 27.Qxf4 Qd6 28.Qxd6 Nxd6 29.Nc3 Nf5 30.Ne2 Ne3 31.Kf2 Nc2 32.Kf3
Kf7 33.Kf4 Kf6 34.h4 h6 35.h5 Ne1 36.g3 Nc2 37.Kg4 e5 38.dxe5+ Kxe5
39.Kf3 Nb4 40.Nc1 Kd4 41.g4 a5 42.Ne2+ Ke5 43.Nc1 =BD=96=BD
(209642) Suttles,Duncan - Fischer,Robert James [B03]
Palma de Mallorca Interzonal Palma de Mallorca (20), 07.12.1970
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.Be3 g6 7.d5 Bg7
8.Bd4 Bxd4 9.Qxd4 0=960 10.Nc3 e5 11.Qd2 f5 12.Nf3 N8d7 13.0=960=960 Qf6
14.Qh6 Qe7 15.Re1 e4 16.Nd2 Ne5 17.h3 Nbd7 18.Qe3 Qh4 19.g3 Qf6 20.Kb1
Nc5 21.f4 exf3 22.Nxf3 f4 23.gxf4 Nxf3 24.Qxf3 Qh4 25.Be2 Bf5+ 26.Ka1
Rae8 27.Rc1 Be4 28.Nxe4 Rxe4 29.Rh2 Rfxf4 30.Qc3 Qe7 31.Bf1 Re3 32.Qd2
Ref3 33.Re2 Qf6 34.Bg2 Rf2 35.Rce1 Rxe2 36.Rxe2 Rxc4 37.Qe3 Qe5 38.Kb1
Qxe3 39.Rxe3 Rf4 40.Bf3 h5 41.Kc2 Kf7 42.Kd2 Rb4 43.Kc3 Rh4 44.b4 Nd7
45.Be2 Nf6 46.Rf3 Kg7 47.Rd3 g5 48.a3 g4 49.Bf1 Ne4+ 50.Kc2 Nf2 51.Re3
gxh3 52.Re7+ Kf8 0=961
(226397) Spassky,Boris V (2660) - Fischer,Robert James (2785) [B04]
World Championship 28th Reykjavik (13), 10.08.1972
[ChessBase]
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Nbd2 0=960 8.h3
a5! Purdy 9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Na6 11.0=960 Nc5 12.Qe2 Qe8 13.Ne4 Nbxa4
14.Bxa4 Nxa4 15.Re1 Nb6 16.Bd2 a4 =B3 Purdy 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bh4 Bf5 19.g4
[19.Nd4 Bxe4 20.Qxe4N Smyslov] 19...Be6 20.Nd4 Bc4 21.Qd2 Qd7
[21...Bxe5 22.Qxh6 =85 23.Sg5] 22.Rad1 Rfe8! 23.f4 Bd5 24.Nc5 Qc8 =85
25... a3! Purdy 25.Qc3 [25.e6! Nc4 26.Qe2 Nxb2 27.Nf5!=F7 Smyslov]
25...e6! Purdy 26.Kh2 Nd7! Purdy 27.Nd3 c5! Purdy 28.Nb5 Qc6 29.Nd6
Qxd6 30.exd6 Bxc3 31.bxc3 f6 32.g5 hxg5 [32...c4! 33.Nb4 hxg5=B3 Purdy]
33.fxg5 f5 34.Bg3 Kf7 [34...a3! 35.Ne5 Nxe5 36.Bxe5 Red8 37.Rf1 Ra4
38.Kg3 a2=B5 Smyslov] 35.Ne5+ Nxe5 36.Bxe5 b5 37.Rf1! =85 38.=A6f4, 39.=A6h=
4
Purdy 37...Rh8!! Purdy 38.Bf6 a3 39.Rf4 a2 40.c4! Purdy 40...Bxc4
41.d7 Bd5 42.Kg3 Abgabezug / sealed 42...Ra3+ 43.c3 Rha8 [43...Rb8
44.Be5 Rd8 45.Rh4=3D Purdy; 43...a1Q? 44.Rxa1 Rxa1 45.Rh4!! Rg1+
(45...Raa8 46.Bxh8 Rd8 47.Bf6=3D) 46.Kf2 Rg2+ 47.Kf1 Rxh4 48.d8Q Rf4+
49.Ke1 Rg1+ 50.Kd2 Rf2+ 51.Ke3 Rf3+ 52.Ke2 Rg2+ 53.Ke1=3D Purdy] 44.Rh4
e5 45.Rh7+ Ke6 46.Re7+ Kd6 47.Rxe5 Rxc3+ 48.Kf2 Rc2+ 49.Ke1 Kxd7
50.Rexd5+ Kc6 51.Rd6+ Kb7 52.Rd7+ Ka6 53.R7d2 Rxd2 54.Kxd2 b4 55.h4
Kb5 56.h5 c4 57.Ra1 gxh5 58.g6 h4 59.g7 [59.Bxh4 b3 60.Kc3 Rg8=96+
Purdy] 59...h3 60.Be7 Rg8 61.Bf8 [61.Rxa2?? Rxg7=96+] 61...h2 62.Kc2 Kc6
63.Rd1 b3+ 64.Kc3 h1Q [64...f4 65.Rd6+ Kc7 66.Rd1 f3 67.Kb2=3D Purdy]
65.Rxh1 Kd5 66.Kb2 f4 67.Rd1+ Ke4 68.Rc1 Kd3 69.Rd1+? [69.Rc3+=3D Kd4
70.Rf3 c3+ (70...Ke4 71.Rc3 f3 72.Rxc4+ Ke3 73.Rc1 =85 74.=A2b3 =3D Purdy)
71.Ka1 c2 72.Rxf4+ Kc3 (72...Kd3 73.Rf1 =85 74.=A2b2 +- Purdy) 73.Rf3+ Kd2
74.Ba3 Rxg7 75.Rxb3 Rc7 76.Bb2=3D (76.Kxa2?? Ra7!=96+) ] 69...Ke2 70.Rc1
f3 71.Bc5 Rxg7 72.Rxc4 Rd7! Purdy 73.Re4+ Kf1 74.Bd4 f2 [74...f2
75.Rf4 Rxd4 76.Rxd4 Ke2 77.Re4+ Kf3 78.Re8 f1Q 79.Rf8+ Ke2 80.Rxf1
Kxf1 81.Ka1 Ke2 82.Kb2 Kd3 83.Ka1 Kd2 84.Kb2 a1Q+ 85.Kxa1 Kc3 86.Kb1
b2 87.Ka2 Kc2=96+ Purdy] 0=961
(226403) Spassky,Boris V (2660) - Fischer,Robert James (2785) [B05]
World Championship 28th Reykjavik (19), 27.08.1972
[ChessBase]
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0=960 Be7 7.h3 Bh5
[7...Bxf3 8.Bxf3 Nc6 9.c4 Nb6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.b3 0=960 12.Nc3 a5?!
13.Be3 Nd7 14.Qh5!=B1 Vasjukov-Torre/Manila/1974/] 8.c4 Nb6 9.Nc3 0=960
[9...dxe5 10.Nxe5 Bxe2 11.Qxe2 Qxd4 12.Rd1 Qc5 13.b4 Qxb4 14.Nb5 =B1/+-
Timman] 10.Be3 d5 [10...Nc6 11.exd6 cxd6 12.d5 Bxf3 (12...exd5 13.Nxd5
Nxd5 14.Qxd5=B1) 13.Bxf3 Ne5 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Bg4=B1 Timman] 11.c5 [11.cxd5
Nxd5 12.Qb3 Nb6 13.Rfd1 Qc8 14.d5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Rxd5 Nc6
Sznapik-Schmidt/Polen ch/1977/] 11...Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nc4 13.b3! Purdy
[13.Bf4 Nc6 14.b3 N4a5 15.Rc1 b6 16.Na4! (16.Qd2 bxc5 17.dxc5 Rb8!
18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Nxd5 Rb5! 20.b4 Nxb4 21.Nxb4 Qxd2 22.Bxd2 Rxc5=3D Geller-
Timman/Wijk aan Zee/1973) 16...Bg5 17.Bxg5 Qxg5 18.Qd3 Rab8 19.Bg4 Qf4
20.Rfd1 f5 21.exf6 Rxf6 22.Qe3=B1 Geller-Timman/Teeside/1975/; 13.Bc1?!
b6=3D Purdy] 13...Nxe3 14.fxe3 b6 [14...f6 15.Bg4 a) 15.e4 dxe4 16.Bxe4
(16.Nxe4 fxe5 17.dxe5 Nc6) 16...Nc6 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Qg4 f5=3D Timman; b)
15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Bg4 Qe7=3D Timman; 15...Qd7 (15...f5 16.Be2=B1) 16.exf6
(16.e4? dxe4 17.exf6 gxf6!) 16...Bxf6 17.b4=B2 Timman; 14...Nc6
Petrosjan 15.Rb1 (15.b4 Nxb4 16.Rb1 Nc6 17.Rxb7 Na5) 15...b6 16.b4 =85
17.=A3a4 =B1 Timman] 15.e4! Timman/Purdy [15.b4 a5 16.a3 (16.Qa4 Nd7)
16...axb4 17.axb4 Nc6!=3D Timman] 15...c6 [15...bxc5 16.exd5 cxd4
17.dxe6! (17.d6 cxd6 18.Bxa8 dxc3=F7) 17...c6 18.exf7+ Rxf7 19.Ne4=B1]
16.b4 bxc5 [16...a5 17.a3 (17.b5 bxc5 18.bxc6 cxd4 19.exd5 (19.Nxd5=B5)
19...dxc3 20.d6 Nxc6! 21.dxe7 Qxe7=B5 Timman) 17...axb4 18.axb4 Rxa1
19.Qxa1 Bg5 20.Re1=B1 Timman] 17.bxc5 Qa5 ! Purdy [17...Nd7 =B9 Purdy
18.Qa4 Qc7 19.Rab1 Rab8 20.Qa6=83 Timman] 18.Nxd5 !! Purdy [=B918.Qe1
Olafsson 18...Bg5 (18...Qb4 19.Rd1 a5 20.exd5 cxd5 21.Bxd5! exd5
22.Nxd5 Qb7 23.Qe4 Ra7 24.Rb1 =B1/+- Timman/Olafsson; =B918...Qd8 19.Rb1=B1
Timman) 19.exd5 cxd5 20.Nxd5 Qxe1 21.Raxe1 exd5 22.Bxd5 Na6 23.e6!+-
(23.Rxf7 Rxf7 24.Bxa8 Kf8=F7) 23...Rad8 24.Rf5 Olafsson/Timman(24.Bc4 =85
25.e7) ] 18...Bg5 [18...exd5 19.exd5 cxd5 20.Bxd5 Nd7 21.Rxf7!
(21.Bxa8?!) 21...Rxf7 22.Bxa8 Kh8 23.Qh5 Rf8 24.Be4+- Purdy] 19.Bh5!
Timman [19.Qd3 ! Purdy 19...Na6 (19...Rd8 20.Bh5! g6 21.Qf3! +-
Gligoric; 19...exd5! 20.exd5 Na6 21.dxc6 Rad8=3D Purdy) 20.Qc4 (20.Ne3
Rad8 (20...Nb4 21.Nc4 Qxc5 22.Qc3 Be3+ 23.Qxe3 Qxc4 24.Be2 Nc2 25.Bxc4
Nxe3 26.Rfc1 Rfd8 27.Kf2=B2) 21.Nc4 Qxc5 22.Nd6 Nb4=B5 Timman) 20...Qb5!
(20...cxd5 21.exd5 exd5 22.Bxd5 =B1/+- 22...Qc7 23.e6!) 21.Qxb5 cxb5=3D
Timman; 19.Qe2 Na6 20.Ne3 Qc3! 21.Nc2 Nb4=B5 Timman; 19.Qe1 Qd8=B5 Timman;
19.h4!? Krogius 19...Bxh4 20.Qe2 (20.Ne3?! Qc3! 21.Nc2 Na6=B5 Purdy)
20...Na6 21.Ne3=84 Timman] 19...cxd5 [19...g6? 20.Nf6++- Timman]
20.Bxf7+ [=B920.exd5 Na6 Nej (20...exd5 21.Bxf7+ Rxf7 22.Rxf7 Nc6
(22...Qd2 23.Qg4 (23.Rc7 Na6 24.Rb7 Be3+ 25.Kh1 Qxd4 26.Qxd4 Bxd4
27.Rd1 Nxc5 28.Rc7 Na6=3D) 23...Nc6 (23...Kxf7 24.Rf1+ Ke7 25.Qf5+-
Timman) 24.Rd1!! Qe3+ 25.Kh1 Kxf7 26.Rf1+ Kg8 (26...Ke7 27.Qf5 =B1/+-)
27.Qe6+ Kh8 28.Qxc6 Rd8 (28...Rg8 29.Qxd5 Bf4 30.Qf3) 29.Qb7! (29.Qxd5
g6) 29...Qxd4 30.c6 Qb6 (30...Qc4) 31.Rb1 Qxb7 32.Rxb7+- Timman)
23.Qf3! (23.Qh5 Nxd4 24.Raf1 Bh6! (24...Ne6?? 25.Rxg7+ Nxg7 26.Qf7+
Kh8 27.Qf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8# Timman) ) 23...Qb4 24.Rf1 Qxd4+ 25.Kh1 Qxc5
26.Rc7!+- Timman) 21.Bxf7+ (21.dxe6 fxe6 22.Qg4 Be3+ 23.Kh1 Nc7=3D Nej;
21.d6 g6=3D) 21...Rxf7 22.Rxf7 Kxf7 23.Qh5+ Kg8 24.Qxg5 Qc3 25.Rd1 exd5
26.e6 Nc7 27.Qe5 =B1/+- Timman] 20...Rxf7 21.Rxf7 Qd2! Timman [21...Be3+
22.Kh2 Kxf7 23.Qh5+ Ke7 24.Rf1 Nd7 25.Qf7+ Kd8 26.c6+- Timman;
21...Nc6 22.Qg4 (22.Qh5 Olafsson) 22...Kxf7 23.Rf1+ Kg8 24.Qxe6+ =B1/+-
Timman; 21...Qc3 22.Rf1! Olafsson =85 23.=A3a4, 23.=A3g4, 23.=A3h5 (22.exd5
exd5 23.Rb1 Nc6 24.Rbb7 Bh6 25.Qg4 Qxd4+ 26.Qxd4 Nxd4 27.Rxa7=F7 Nej, =B2
Timman) 22...Nc6 23.Qg4! Qxd4+ 24.Kh1 Qxe5 25.exd5 exd5 (25...Qxd5
26.Rad1 Qe5 27.Qf3+-) 26.Rae1 Be3 27.Qf3+- Timman] 22.Qxd2 !! Purdy
[22.Rc7 Na6 23.Rc6 Nb4 24.Rxe6 dxe4 =84/=B3 Timman; 22.Qh5? Qxd4+ 23.Kh2
Qxe5+ 24.g3 Qb2+!=96+ Purdy] 22...Bxd2 23.Raf1 Nc6 24.exd5=3D [24.Rc7 dxe4
Olafsson a) 24...Nxd4 25.Rff7 Bh6 26.exd5 exd5 27.Rxa7=B1 Byrne/Nej vgl.
Anmerkung zu 21...=A3d2!, Variante 21... =A3c3; b) 24...Nd8 25.Re7
(25.exd5 exd5 26.Rd7 =B1/ Timman) 25...Nc6 26.Rxe6 (26.Rc7=3D) 26...Nxd4
27.Re7 Be3+ 28.Kh1 dxe4 29.Rff7 Ne6!=B5 Byrne/Nej; 25.Rxc6 e3 26.Rf4!!
(26.Rxe6 e2 27.Rb1 Rf8 =85 28.... =A6f1, 29.... =A5e3 =96+) 26...e2 27.Re4 =
e1Q
+ 28.Rxe1 Bxe1 29.Rxe6=B1 Timman] 24...exd5 25.Rd7 Be3+ 26.Kh1 Bxd4
27.e6 =85 28.=A6d6 Purdy 27...Be5! 28.Rxd5 Re8 29.Re1 Rxe6 30.Rd6! Kf7 !
Purdy [30...Rxd6 31.cxd6 Kf8 (31...Bxd6?? 32.Re6 Purdy; 31...Kf7
32.Rc1=F7 =85 33.=A6c7 Purdy) 32.Rc1 Nd8 33.Rc8 Ke8 34.Rc7 =B1/ Timman]
31.Rxc6 Rxc6 32.Rxe5 Kf6 33.Rd5 Ke6 34.Rh5 h6 35.Kh2 Ra6 36.c6 Rxc6
37.Ra5 a6 38.Kg3 Kf6 39.Kf3 Rc3+ 40.Kf2 Rc2+ =BD=96=BD
> =A0 Mr. Karpov? =A0No way;
Way!
(192596) Rytov,Boris - Karpov,Anatoly [B02]
Leningrad tt Leningrad (5), 1969
1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e5 Ne4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.d4 exd3 6.Bxd3 Nc6 7.Nf3 Bg4
8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qd4 10.0=960 Qxe5 11.Bf4 Qf6 12.Rad1 g5 13.Bxc7 Qxf3
14.gxf3 Bg7 15.Bf5 0=960 16.Be4 Rac8 17.Rd7 Ne5 18.Bxe5 Bxe5 19.Rxb7 Rc7
20.Rb5 Bf4 21.Rd1 e6 22.c3 f5 23.Bc2 Kf7 24.Kf1 Kf6 25.Ke2 h5 26.Rd4
Rff7 27.Bd3 h4 28.a4 Rfd7 29.Rxd7 Rxd7 30.a5 Rd5 31.b4 g4 32.fxg4 fxg4
33.hxg4 h3 34.Rxd5 exd5 35.Kf3 Kg5 36.b5 h2 37.Kg2 Kxg4 38.Be2+ Kf5
39.Bf3 Ke6 40.Kf1 Bc7 41.b6 axb6 42.a6 Bb8 43.Ke2 b5 =BD=96=BD
(209839) Dementiev,Oleg I - Karpov,Anatoly [B04]
URS-ch38 Riga (15), 1970
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7
8.h3 0=960 9.Be2 Nc6 10.0=960 Bf5 11.b3 d5 12.c5 Nc8 13.Bf4 b6 14.Bb5 Qd7
15.Rc1 a6 16.Bxc6 Qxc6 17.cxb6 Nxb6 18.Na4 Qb7 19.Nc5 Qa7 20.Re1 Bc8
21.Qd2 Re8 22.Ne5 Bb7 23.a4 Rad8 24.Qb4 Bxe5 25.Bxe5 Bc8 26.Nd3 Na8
27.Nc5 Nb6 28.Nxa6 Bxa6 29.Rc7 Qa8 30.Qxb6 Rb8 31.Qc5 Rxb3 32.Rxe7 Bd3
33.Qxd5 1=960
Our Greg lives by Orwell's motto: Ignorance Is Strength. But
ignorance, Greg, is just ignorance, no matter how vehemently it is
spouted.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2008 08:23:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:51=EF=BF=BDam, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The harsh reality is that at the top levels
> > of play, this, the Alekhine's Defense, now
> > has a terrible record in which White wins
> > a huge percentage of games, despite
> > Black's "preparations".
>
> A "huge" percentage, Greg? What do you consider a huge percentage?
> Out of 100 GM games beginning 1.e4 Nf6, how many would White have to
> win for it to be "huge"?
That depends on what is "normal".
Suppose it is "normal" for White to score, say,
56% and Black to score 44% overall. In this
case, any opening or variation which falls below,
say 40% or so for Black, is a disaster from the
perspective of the chess professional.
> > Back when the
> > openings were less well-mapped, things
> > were not so clear. It is in essence, a
> > relic of the past, no longer viable in play
> > amongst decent chess players:
(link deliberately snipped by TK)
> Hmmm, checking my CB Database 2005
Hmm. Obviously an amateur, for any pro
worth his salt would have mega-duper-base
2008.5.
> for GM games beginning 1.e4 Nf6
> played from the year 2000 on, I see in the "Black" column such names
> as Morozevich, Short, Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Timman, Shabalov,
> Vaganian, Nakamura, Mamedyarov, Kazimdzhanov, Tseshkovsky, Akopian, De
> Firmian, Yermolinsky, Christiansen, Adams, and Miles.
Note how not one of these "experimenters"
has managed to stay over 2800. In my day,
a fellow named Gary Kasparov -- a diehard
Sicilian player -- used to thump, to use a
technical term, such players regularly.
> Let's see: that list includes a Dutch champion, two British
> champions, five US champions
Notable among these is Lev Alburt-- who
in fact did rather well with this junk until
everybody-and-his-brother prepared for him.
> at least two USSR champions
Big deal; it's not like they were any good
at chess (see commentaries by Mr. Evans,
Mr. Fine, Mr. Keene, etc.)
> two FIDE world champions (sic)
---should be "chumpions"; see LE, RF, RK,
etc.
> and several GMs who have perennially been in the
> world's top 10 or 20.
There you have it-- they obviously were
in the "top 20" as a result of playing junk
openings, when it suited a whim. Real
chess players -- those in the "top 1" or
"top 2" -- do not play junk openings.
Mr. Morphy? Strictly double-King-pawn;
Mr. Steinitz? No Alekhine's Defense there;
Mr. Lasker? Nope;
Mr. Capablanca? Dull as mud openings;
Mr. Smyslov? No;
Mr. Botvinnik? The French or Caro-Kan;
Mr. Tal? Doesn't count-- a coffeehouse
player;
Mr. Petrosian? I think not;
Mr. Spassky? Nyet;
Mr. Fischer? Once. (Nobody's perfect);
Mr. Karpov? No way;
Mr. Kasparov? ...e6 AND ...d6 Sicilian;
After the two-K era, it's all a blur of mere
2700 players, none better than the others;
even Mr. Ivanchuk is back in the running.
But let's have a look at the truly strongest
chess players on the planet: what does the
openings expert for Rybka have her play?
What about Zappa, and any other 2900+
engines? I say they will very likely *not*
have this opening in their books, except of
course as White, or for play against mere
humans (a bunch of relative patzers); this
is not a mere coincidence. (Why do you
suppose Mr. Sloan has been stuck below
2600 all these years?)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2008 23:41:39
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
help bot wrote:
>.. It really is handy to "know" such general
> principles as "Knights before Bishops", but
> there always will be exceptions-- specific
> positions or types of positions where the
> rule does not apply.
>
> Here, the idea that a pawn on e4 is well-
> positioned and should not be any further
> advanced ignores the harsh reality that on
> that square it can easily be challenged,
> exchanged. In fact, more than a few
> ignoramuses have attempted the clearly
> ludicrous: 1. e4 d5, not realizing how
> incredibly silly this makes them look.
>
> The harsh reality is that at the top levels
> of play, this, the Alekhine's Defense, now
> has a terrible record in which White wins
> a huge percentage of games, despite
> Black's "preparations". Back when the
> openings were less well-mapped, things
> were not so clear. It is in essence, a
> relic of the past, no longer viable in play
> amongst decent chess players:
>
> http://www.getclub.com/Chess.php?user=help%20bot&playcode=374827&lang=en
>
> -- help bot
Yers,
My experience with the young'uns is to be ferocious & to the point..
Dinnae gie em' lee-way. Crush 'em down, & there will fructify in 'em a
spirit that rises up & sez to the world - ah am so desolate, asa punt ma
toby like-a no-one, ah lik to put it on ma trolly an roll it 'steaming'
& smelling so perfumed under the noses of my father's esteemed guests! -
I mean is this bollocked reference to Wolfe's satire on contemporary
umerican society all that the USA adds up to? - I'm coming over real
soon, but [they] banned me in '71 so you don't have to worry to much
about your daughters - [laughter]..
Well, y'know - that was real funny 'sheet' Clem. Really got off on it
son..
t.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2008 06:41:21
From:
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 29, 1:51=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 The harsh reality is that at the top levels
> of play, this, the Alekhine's Defense, now
> has a terrible record in which White wins
> a huge percentage of games, despite
> Black's "preparations". =A0
A "huge" percentage, Greg? What do you consider a huge percentage?
Out of 100 GM games beginning 1.e4 Nf6, how many would White have to
win for it to be "huge"?
> Back when the
> openings were less well-mapped, things
> were not so clear. =A0It is in essence, a
> relic of the past, no longer viable in play
> amongst decent chess players:
Hmmm, checking my CB Database 2005 for GM games beginning 1.e4 Nf6
played from the year 2000 on, I see in the "Black" column such names
as Morozevich, Short, Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Timman, Shabalov,
Vaganian, Nakamura, Mamedyarov, Kazimdzhanov, Tseshkovsky, Akopian, De
Firmian, Yermolinsky, Christiansen, Adams, and Miles.
Let's see: that list includes a Dutch champion, two British
champions, five US champions, at least two USSR champions, two FIDE
world champions, and several GMs who have perennially been in the
world's top 10 or 20. One wonders what it takes for our Greg to
consider someone a "decent chess player."
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2008 14:45:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
"John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What I've learned from Chernev's book is that until you've developed your
> pieces, you shouldn't try to put together any combinations for attack. If
> you are attacked, defend yourself and then continue with development.
>
> Now I'm reading Seirawan and an example game he provides goes:
>
> 1 e4 Nf6
> 2 e5
>
> This is meant to demonstrate how you can gain an advantage in time and
> space by forcing Black to move his knight again.
>
> But if I were to look at this through Chernev's eyes, I get the feeling
> he'd balk at abandoning the good position on e4, not to mention not
> developing another piece, perhaps simply 2 Nc3 to defend the pawn.
That's right. Black's move is a provocation to white to abandon his
development, and by enticing White to advance his pawns to overextend them
where they will then need big defence from White's pieces - then it is black
who gains developing moves and if White does nothing other than defend,
black takes over the initiative and decides the path of things.
The possibility for white is to gain space immediately, but not to keep the
space without becoming defensive, so he may need to convert his space to
intiative, sometimes by giving up a pawn for an attack against the black
King [whose natural deender the g-Knight, has departed f6, or simply to
equalise space but gain better piece placements.
The corollary is Nimzovitch'd defence to 1. d4 Nc6, and if White chasing the
knight this favors whom?... in the longer term?
So what you correctly anticipate, trades one thing for another, immediate
gain of space for long-term difficulty - the point being what is going to be
critical in the position 10 moves later? If I were to play you I would
/intrigue/ you to make non-developing moves, which may not seem so good to
you 5 or 10 moves afterwards. Especially if I then gambit a pawn for an
attack against your less developed position.
> I suppose White's second move depends on the style of the player, but
> generally speaking, is it better to ignore such an early attack and just
> continue with development?
If you want to contest your tactical skill with me, then you accept my
provocation. Which of us is determing the style of that game to what they
think is their own advantage? If you want to develop all your pieces before
making big commitments in the center, which is the recommendation for
learners, then do not be tempted! In fact, you might like to not play e4 at
all. That is a most aggressive opening, and in a contest of aggression I eat
even 2000 level players alive, except <laugh > when I lose :)))
> Perhaps Seirawan wouldn't *actually* play 2 e5, maybe it's just a
> demonstration.
Seirawan can play e5, so can I. But we know what comes next. Where your
knight will go, and if to chase it, and how much to chase it - so if N-d5
then d4 before c4, but not d5 too. Against any level of player I would
attempt a King-side attack if the king castles k-side, expecting to
sacrifice a minor piece to get at it, since the natural defender of the K
side went away, and it is indicated!
I could even play more aggressively and develop the White Queen early to the
g file after you play e6, so it 'looks at' g7 so that you can't really
castle on the K-side, can you? This is called the Winawer variation. Then I
may try to open lines against your Q side too, since that is the only
safe-haven for your King.
I don't need to know much to do this - but you need to know a lot to defend
properly, and if you are ok with that... and don't mind defending a lot
until white exhausts his initiative... but when you are still getting the
hell of it tactically, the liklihood that you will make a mistake when the
other player commands the initiative is very great. When you are stronger
you can weather the storm knowing the bigger strategic picture, and pick up
the pieces [literally] left behind by the other guy's attack, since he
likely has not made any defensive structure he can hold by gung-ho attacking
you.
This is strategy - avoid it!
Find openings where you can evolve each piece just once, get an ok position
that you understand, and that is more than even average players often
accomplish.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Thanks.
>
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2008 11:11:53
From:
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
On Aug 28, 1:42=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> What I've learned from Chernev's book is that until you've developed your
> pieces, you shouldn't try to put together any combinations for attack. If
> you are attacked, defend yourself and then continue with development.
>
> Now I'm reading Seirawan and an example game he provides goes:
>
> 1 e4 =A0Nf6
> 2 e5
>
> This is meant to demonstrate how you can gain an advantage in time and sp=
ace
> by forcing Black to move his knight again.
>
> But if I were to look at this through Chernev's eyes, I get the feeling h=
e'd
> balk at abandoning the good position on e4, not to mention not developing
> another piece, perhaps simply 2 Nc3 to defend the pawn.
>
> I suppose White's second move depends on the style of the player, but
> generally speaking, is it better to ignore such an early attack and just
> continue with development? Perhaps Seirawan wouldn't *actually* play 2 e5=
,
> maybe it's just a demonstration.
>
> Thanks.
John, this is a once radical, now well-established opening called
Alekhine's Defense. It got that name when the future world champion
Alekhine played it against Steiner at Budapest 1921, although it was
known in master chess long before that. I don't think it was very
popular around the time Chernev wrote his book, which may explain why
he gives it little or no attention. It became more popular later on,
for example Fischer played it against Spassky in 1972. GMs Korchnoi
and Alburt have played it often in recent decades.
2.e5 Nd5 is the critical and main-line continuation, but there are
several branches from there, ranging from the highly aggressive Four
Pawns Attack (3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4), to more circumspect lines such
as 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 or 4.exd6.
Replies other than 2.e5 are generally considered to be too easy on
Black. After 2.Nc3 he can either transpose into the Vienna with
2...e5, or play 2...d5.
With the more aggressive lines White is not really "trying to put
together any combinations for attack," at least not yet. Rather, he's
trying to prove that Black, by failing to counter with a central pawn
move, is conceding too much, and he's using the tempi Black grants by
having to move his knight so much to further his central advantage.
Black, on the other hand, is trying to tempt White into over-reaching,
opening his position too much, so that Black can successfully counter-
attack. It's a real clash of ideas that leads to interesting chess!
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2008 15:30:20
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Opening: be aggressive or no?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:bf025af8-2f89-4b50-bd92-b6d02fbac362@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John, this is a once radical, now well-established opening called
Alekhine's Defense.
Interesting, I didn't realize that 2. e5 was a normal follow-up to Black's
move! It seems strange to me (as a beginner, I suppose), but then again,
it's nice to know that there are some crazier openings out there that
provide for very different games.
|
|
