| |
Main
Date: 22 Mar 2008 16:45:21
From: Albert
Subject: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:
'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4
Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'
Why?
'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
(eventually)...'
Why?
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 21:19:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 27, 8:42 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> >> > A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
> >> >> > *not* limited in his success with the King's
> >> >> > Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
> >> >> > most famous wins include one against
> >> >> > Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
> >> >> > seems to have had no particular limit
> >> >> > whatever here.
Absurd Innesian jibberish omitted.
> >> Which was in 1960! [ del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
> >> Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?
>
> > Okay, my computer was unconcerned by
> > this purported error, seeing Black as on top
> > all the way through until a single blunder at
> > the end.
>
> I mentioned this anecdote since it returns the subject to chess [and indeed
> to our recently rehersed discussion if 1700 players can analyse as well as
> GMs
Well, that program has not been awarded the
GM title, but it is nonetheless, of super-GM
*strength* the way I wield it.
> <grin>] and it provokes the issue if black's 11th move is actually
> playable. It is interesting that your computer evaluation seems to think so.
More than that, it seems to indicate that the
source you copied (as always) was mistaken.
Black's (i.e. GM Fischer's) decisive error was
not this move at all, but came much later.
The graphic representation of a game does
a fine job in pinpointing the most significant
errors therein. In this particular game, the
graph indicates objectively that Black was
hunky-dory both before and after ...c5, but
fell apart near the finish, where his Queen
was being chased about. In sum, GM
Fischer's idea was okay, if not brilliant.
> As above, perhaps some people can understand what's going on - Spassky
> could! Which is why he didn't play the KG very much after he got good, since
> it was too predictable and offered insufficient winning chances with white.
Wrong. You are stuck like a stick in the
mud, with this nonsense. In reality, GM
Spassky beat up on players of all strengths,
with the KG, as White. Just put that book
down and look at the facts.
> Or perhaps that is your answer right there! Boris is a good guy, and
> expanded his own repetoire far beyond the KG
I have no problem with this part of your
copied-out book. Where we seem to run
aground is in the nonsense regarding BS
not being able to win as White in the KG
against players above the 2600 level;
whoever wrote the book you are copying
out of this time, just didn't have his facts
straight.
> >> Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear
"carrier"
> > I generally carry only one: a chess game
> > (or set), in a zip-up nylon bag which also
> > protects my roll-up vinyl chess board.
>
> I hope you know to roll it with the checkered side outward? That stops the
> curl and means the rooks in the corners don't skateboard on a and h files
> all on their own. [Messages from the Masters, vol twa.]
I knew that, even though after a long absence
from active play I somehow managed to roll it
the wrong way! Surprisingly, it was a total
patzer who first informed me of this (I had been
using anything but vinyl boards up until then),
and by strange coincidence, I am now reminded
once again by the very same!
> >> This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
> >> exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying,
> >> since
> >> if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still
> >> as
> >> much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?
Whatever you think you are saying with regard
to GM Spassky's openings repertoire, you
missed the k by copying out that part of
the book which insists that BS could not beat
2600+ opponents, as White, with the KG.
Look, when copying all these other writers,
you might want to think about what they are
saying, now and then. Do random spot-checks
to see whether or not it's all a bunch of hooey.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 16:17:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 26, 8:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> >> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
> >> >> opinions.
> >> >> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably
> >> >> no
> >> >> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
>
> >> > A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
> >> > *not* limited in his success with the King's
> >> > Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
> >> > most famous wins include one against
> >> > Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
> >> > seems to have had no particular limit
> >> > whatever here.
>
> >> I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
> >> statement.
>
> > Who said it was a singular instance?
>
> To take your question literarally, you did.
It is really hard for me to try and explain
simple logic to a simpleton, but here goes:
My providing one example in no way
indicates that *only* one such example
exists! In fact, I leave it to those lucky
fellows who own super-duper-chess-base
to determine what's what here, as I am
at a huge disadvantage, having only the
internet, where people upload games at
random.
> > For those who are not lost in a fog of
> > ignorance, several such wins can quite
> > easily be located in a matter on minutes.
> > For instance, in addition to beating BF,
> > GM Spassky also nailed GM Bronstein
> > and GM Karpov with his King's Gambit.
>
> Once!
Well, how many times have *you* beaten
those guys on the White side of the KG?
Zero-- that's how many. Look, in half the
games GM Spassky didn't even get White,
and there were a lot of draws.
> > The game with GM Bronstein reminded
> > me of the one with GM Fischer,
>
> Which was in 1960! [ del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
> Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?
Okay, my computer was unconcerned by
this purported error, seeing Black as on top
all the way through until a single blunder at
the end. That's not to say it preferred ...c5,
but it simply considered White to be a pawn
down nonetheless.
> > in that
> > GM Spassky seemed to not be bothered
> > a bit by his "material shortage"; he just
> > played to win, which to his mind involved
> > direct attacks on the enemy King.
>
> Yes - his other tradek was B x N on f6, and he made a living out of that
> too.
Hmm. So, I could maybe become a great
player by simply switching to B-g5 and Bxf6! ?
(With my luck they would all reply to B-g5 with
...Ng8!! and go on to trap my Bishop....)
> >> Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at the top level.
>
> > This /could/ explain why the wins I
> > found were not from his peak years, but
> > from those both before and afterward.
>
> > But then, that was in a database of
> > "uploaded" games which is undoubtedly
> > far from comprehensive.
>
> >> And it
> >> doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.
GM Karpov *was* at that level when he
lost to GM Spassky.
I think it is rejected because, after all,
Black has good winning chances too, and
nobody can understand what the heck is
really going on -- except Rybka and Fritz.
> > The closest *win* I found was against
> > GM Karpov, in 1982.
>
> Spassky -Xie Jun, Monaco 1994 [Kieseritzky]
> Spassky-Seirawan, Monpellier 1985, 1-0
I was referring to wins by Spassky as
White, in the King's Gambit, which exceeded
your set limit of 2500-2600. In other words, I
wanted to find B. Spassky-- G. Kasparov, 1-0,
in 16 moves from GM Kasparov's 2800 era; all I
found were two really big names, sans ratings,
and they were GM Karpov and GM Bronstein--
both world champion types. Offhand, I just
happen to know that in 1982, GM Karpov was
the world champ and he had a rating well
*above* your stated limit. True, BS probably
did not mind if AK knew a way to draw-- that's
a draw against the reigning world champ, for
him!
A better idea would be for someone with a
comprehensive games database to figure out
Boris Spassky's performance-rating as White
in the King's Gambit, let's say, decade by
decade since he ultimately morphed into a
mere 2500+ player.
> > I did not check to
> > see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
> > White in the King's Gambit. Let's see...
> > World Champion Karpov was rated what
> > back then? 2700ish? Oh-- did I mention
> > that he was the world champion? LOL!
>
> Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear
I generally carry only one: a chess game
(or set), in a zip-up nylon bag which also
protects my roll-up vinyl chess board. I
am not into backgammon or checkers--
you can have 'em. ; >D
>- since
> indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level,
> he surely would have utilised it much more.
Another interesting idea would be to see
how this opening has done overall-- all
results by all strong players. My guess is
that Black gets a lot of wins due to things
like neither player understanding what's
going on tactically (like Fritz does), and of
course, the extra gambit pawn.
When you consider that other openings
are "safer", there is a strong incentive to
chuck those openings in which Black can
score not only draws, but lots of wins as
well. In addition, the onus of justifying the
missing pawn is on White; this bothers
some people more than others.
> This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
> exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying, since
> if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still as
> much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?
I have no idea. As I say, someone with a
comprehensive-style database could find
the answer. I usually resort to something
like www.chessgames.com, where people
upload their favorite games, seemingly at
random. For instance, while there might
be 100 games by Emory Tate, you will not
find *even one* by such talents as Larry
Parr, help bot, Phil Innes, nomorechess,
Rob Mitchell, or the inimitable VeniVidiVici.
> >> But this is to escape help-not's own point, which was to challenge the d6
> >> pawn and d4 being the only way.
>
> > My computer examined the famous
> > game GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer
> > from 1960, and rejected our man's
> > commentary from MSMG, saying:
>
> > "Black was just losing the whole time!
> > A pawn down, some interesting
> > complications, but nothing *I* couldn't
> > handle easily. Black tossed it away
> > by a single tactical blunder, and White
> > mopped up neatly." -- Fritz
>
> You should make it clearer in the first place if it is help-bot or Fritz who
> is offering opinions.
I think it is common knowledge that Fritz
is incapable of posting here without help.
By the same token, help bot is incapable
of comprehending what the heck is going
on in a King's Gambit without help from
Fritz. You're just a chronic complainer,
you are!
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 08:42:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b19e554e-2f66-4a87-9f03-6352c32e7d1d@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 26, 8:50 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
>> >> >> opinions.
>> >> >> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is
>> >> >> probably
>> >> >> no
>> >> >> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
>>
>> >> > A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
>> >> > *not* limited in his success with the King's
>> >> > Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
>> >> > most famous wins include one against
>> >> > Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
>> >> > seems to have had no particular limit
>> >> > whatever here.
>>
>> >> I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
>> >> statement.
>>
>> > Who said it was a singular instance?
>>
>> To take your question literarally, you did.
>
>
> It is really hard for me to try and explain
> simple logic to a simpleton, but here goes:
>
> My providing one example in no way
> indicates that *only* one such example
> exists!
It illustrates that you argued from a single instance. And your subsequent
writing is now supplemented by Taylor Kingston's dozen references, which
include KGs played immediately before and after the W Ch match with Fischer,
both drawn, and the last 5 outings of the KG, all drawn.
> In fact, I leave it to those lucky
> fellows who own super-duper-chess-base
> to determine what's what here, as I am
> at a huge disadvantage, having only the
> internet, where people upload games at
> random.
And therefore your comments are random too. But you still make strong
statements about them, without knowing if they are typical or otherwise.
>> > The game with GM Bronstein reminded
>> > me of the one with GM Fischer,
>>
>> Which was in 1960! [ del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
>> Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?
>
>
> Okay, my computer was unconcerned by
> this purported error, seeing Black as on top
> all the way through until a single blunder at
> the end.
I mentioned this anecdote since it returns the subject to chess [and indeed
to our recently rehersed discussion if 1700 players can analyse as well as
GMs <grin >] and it provokes the issue if black's 11th move is actually
playable. It is interesting that your computer evaluation seems to think so.
> That's not to say it preferred ...c5,
> but it simply considered White to be a pawn
> down nonetheless.
>> Yes - his other tradek was B x N on f6, and he made a living out of
>> that
>> too.
>
>
> Hmm. So, I could maybe become a great
> player by simply switching to B-g5 and Bxf6! ?
> (With my luck they would all reply to B-g5 with
> ...Ng8!! and go on to trap my Bishop....)
BxN has to do with your willingness to invest in a King hunt.
>> >> And it
>> >> doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.
>
> GM Karpov *was* at that level when he
> lost to GM Spassky.
>
> I think it is rejected because, after all,
> Black has good winning chances too, and
> nobody can understand what the heck is
> really going on -- except Rybka and Fritz.
As above, perhaps some people can understand what's going on - Spassky
could! Which is why he didn't play the KG very much after he got good, since
it was too predictable and offered insufficient winning chances with white.
>> > The closest *win* I found was against
>> > GM Karpov, in 1982.
>>
>> Spassky -Xie Jun, Monaco 1994 [Kieseritzky]
>> Spassky-Seirawan, Monpellier 1985, 1-0
>
>
> I was referring to wins by Spassky as
> White, in the King's Gambit, which exceeded
> your set limit of 2500-2600. In other words, I
> wanted to find B. Spassky-- G. Kasparov, 1-0,
> in 16 moves from GM Kasparov's 2800 era; all I
> found were two really big names, sans ratings,
> and they were GM Karpov and GM Bronstein--
> both world champion types. Offhand, I just
> happen to know that in 1982, GM Karpov was
> the world champ and he had a rating well
> *above* your stated limit. True, BS probably
> did not mind if AK knew a way to draw-- that's
> a draw against the reigning world champ, for
> him!
>
>
> A better idea would be for someone with a
> comprehensive games database to figure out
> Boris Spassky's performance-rating as White
> in the King's Gambit, let's say, decade by
> decade since he ultimately morphed into a
> mere 2500+ player.
Or perhaps that is your answer right there! Boris is a good guy, and
expanded his own repetoire far beyond the KG, and indeed, included The Rest
of Life too - otherwise he would have wound up as mad as Fischer. So I think
the real answer of his performance does not rest in chess.
>> > I did not check to
>> > see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
>> > White in the King's Gambit. Let's see...
>> > World Champion Karpov was rated what
>> > back then? 2700ish? Oh-- did I mention
>> > that he was the world champion? LOL!
>>
>> Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear
>
>
> I generally carry only one: a chess game
> (or set), in a zip-up nylon bag which also
> protects my roll-up vinyl chess board.
I hope you know to roll it with the checkered side outward? That stops the
curl and means the rooks in the corners don't skateboard on a and h files
all on their own. [Messages from the Masters, vol twa.]
>>- since
>> indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700
>> level,
>> he surely would have utilised it much more.
>
>
> Another interesting idea would be to see
> how this opening has done overall-- all
> results by all strong players. My guess is
> that Black gets a lot of wins due to things
> like neither player understanding what's
> going on tactically (like Fritz does), and of
> course, the extra gambit pawn.
The KG has made a comeback - see the Johansson title I mentioned previously,
thanks in part to efforts by the Brits, Spielman and Nunn. Basically if
Basman can open with a steady diet of Grobs and Borgs and gain his IM-ship,
then certainly the KG is very playable at master level. Probably the Modern
Defence
1 e4 e5
2 f4 ef
3 Nf3 d5
[modern def, looks like a poorer var of the Scandinavian already - and is
very sharp and dangerous for both sides]
4 ed Nf6 [then, why not ...]
5 Bc4 !?
then as black do you like 5. Bd6 or Nd5 :)
> When you consider that other openings
> are "safer", there is a strong incentive to
> chuck those openings in which Black can
> score not only draws, but lots of wins as
> well. In addition, the onus of justifying the
> missing pawn is on White; this bothers
> some people more than others.
As above - here is black playing to win, but by substantially increasing his
own losing chances, which, I think if you essay the White side of the KG is
what you are looking to provoke - a fight!
>> This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
>> exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying,
>> since
>> if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still
>> as
>> much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?
>
>
> I have no idea.
Okay then :)
And I snipped the rest, since Fritz doesn't either.
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 15:37:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 26, 8:30 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 24, 10:41 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The key term "here" clearly specified that
> > what was being discussed was the exact
> > paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
> > this thread -- not the book. LOL!
>
> So then you condemn a whole book because of one paragraph!
Actually, my "condemnation" was based on
the knowledge that this book is hopelessly
out-of-date (i.e. see my comment regarding
descriptive notation), along with the fact that
"Albert" could not understand why Dr. Fine's
comments made no apparent sense. You
see, a /good writer/ would not just gloss over
such things as *why* Black must end up with
a pawn at d6, for instance. In a sense, GM
Fine was writing as though his readers were
on a much higher level than in reality; he
simply assumed automatic understanding of
such things as this, along with his rather
dogmatic use of terms like "normal" and
"natural" with regard to classical piece
development; one gets the feeling that
hypermodern piece development must
therefore be "abnormal", "unnatural"-- like
zombies, necrophilia, or killer space aliens.
My view is that modern writers, like Yasser
Seirawan for instance, discuss the same ideas
in a superior way; that is, in algebraic notation
and without any hopelessly outdated notions
regarding "normality", nor overestimating the
readers by a wide gin. I also like the fact
that thus far, not one author has deemed it
necessary or profitable to compile an entire
book based on corrections to GM Seirawan's
multitudinous errors; not so with GM Fine!
(That was of course Basic Chess Endings,
not Ideas Behind the Chess Openings,
which gets rave reviews by nostalgic old
fogies.)
I would suggest that if there are other parts
of the book that TK wishes to discuss, he
should quote a few lines here, like "Albert"
did.
As for entire books, I can say this: I
didn't particularly like Jose Capablanca's,
Emanuel Lasker's, or Dr. Fine's, even though
I have no trouble reading descriptive notation;
to me, these guys are simply too arrogant or
too far above everyone else to really be good
instructors for beginners/intermediates-- their
target audience. I hate to admit it, but Bruce
Pandolfini's The ABCs of Chess was *far*
superior in that respect. My theory is that
something happens to people when they get
/really good/ at chess; they morph into
arrogant, self-worshiping nutters. Thank
goodness that could never happen to me; I
can't even recall my own pet lines at the
chess board, with the clock ticking... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 06:30:38
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 26, 8:50=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:63903d7b-4ef7-4c95-bb18-b3b99fe558dc@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25, 6:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
> >> >> opinions.
> >> >> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably=
> >> >> no
> >> >> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
>
> >> > =A0A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
> >> > *not* limited in his success with the King's
> >> > Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
> >> > most famous wins include one against
> >> > Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
> >> > seems to have had no particular limit
> >> > whatever here.
>
> >> I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
> >> statement.
>
> > =A0Who said it was a singular instance?
>
> To take your question literarally, you did.
>
> > =A0For those who are not lost in a fog of
> > ignorance, several such wins can quite
> > easily be located in a matter on minutes.
> > For instance, in addition to beating BF,
> > GM Spassky also nailed GM Bronstein
> > and GM Karpov with his King's Gambit.
>
> Once!
>
> > =A0The game with GM Bronstein reminded
> > me of the one with GM Fischer,
>
> Which was in 1960! [ del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
> Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?
>
> > in that
> > GM Spassky seemed to not be bothered
> > a bit by his "material shortage"; he just
> > played to win, which to his mind involved
> > direct attacks on the enemy King.
>
> Yes - his other tradek was B x N on f6, and he made a living out of tha=
t
> too.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at the top level.
>
> > =A0This /could/ explain why the wins I
> > found were not from his peak years, but
> > from those both before and afterward.
>
> > =A0But then, that was in a database of
> > "uploaded" games which is undoubtedly
> > far from comprehensive.
>
> >> And it
> >> doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.
>
> > =A0The closest *win* I found was against
> > GM Karpov, in 1982.
>
> Spassky -Xie Jun, Monaco 1994 [Kieseritzky]
> Spassky-Seirawan, Monpellier 1985, 1-0
>
> > =A0I did not check to
> > see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
> > White in the King's Gambit. =A0Let's see...
> > World Champion Karpov was rated what
> > back then? =A02700ish? =A0Oh-- did I mention
> > that he was the world champion? =A0LOL!
>
> Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear - since
> indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level=
,
> he surely would have utilised it much more.
>
> This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
> exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying, sinc=
e
> if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still a=
s
> much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> But this is to escape help-not's own point, which was to challenge the =
d6
> >> pawn and d4 being the only way.
>
> > =A0My computer examined the famous
> > game GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer
> > from 1960, and rejected our man's
> > commentary from MSMG, saying:
>
> > "Black was just losing the whole time!
> > A pawn down, some interesting
> > complications, but nothing *I* couldn't
> > handle easily. =A0Black tossed it away
> > by a single tactical blunder, and White
> > mopped up neatly." =A0-- Fritz
>
> You should make it clearer in the first place if it is help-bot or Fritz w=
ho
> is offering opinions. Both are nothing more than argumentative declaration=
s.
> Only Greg Kennedy can have an understanding of what he himself knows of
> chess ~ and let that be a lesson to you about your psychological use of a
> persona ~ one which has been refuted recently by the entire newsgroup on
> chess understanding and chess history.
>
> Phil Innes
To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:
Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
Liberzon, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 =BD-=BD, 34
P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
Fischer, del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, =BD-=BD, 27
Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,=BD-=BD, 21
Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, =BD-=BD, 41
Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, =BD-=BD, 45
Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
Bronstein, Moscow 1971, =BD-=BD, 18
Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, =BD-=BD, 74
Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, =BD-=BD, 13
Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
J. tinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
A. David, France, 1993, =BD-=BD, 60
Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, =BD-=BD, 25
Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, =BD-=BD, 34
Fressinet, France, 2001, =BD-=BD, 23
Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, =BD-=BD, 14
This is an overall record of +15 -0 =3D13. Surprising to me that
Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2008 00:29:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Apr 1, 7:44 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> You *asserted* that. Who disputed your assertion about what his
> trainers said? Nobody. So, there WAS no argument, unless you were
> arguing with yourself.
I wouldn't rule that out; nearly-an-IMnes has
often been found to be arguing with the wrong
person, and once he even got into a dispute of
sorts with his puppet-master, Larry Parr. LOL!
> >> We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
> >> against top-level players.
> You lost that one, Phil, and it makes you look the fool. Deal with
> it.
> >> At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
> >> Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot reked
> >> there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
> >> and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
> >> Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
> >> Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.
> >28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
> >is his point?
> Murray's point is that when the 28 games included opponents like
> Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
> Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others, Spassky must have
> considered the KG a viable tool against super-GMs.
>
> >> How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
> >> falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
> >> disappointment.
> >That way!
> You mean, of course, the way of bluster, fuming, denial, insult.
> Sure. it's your standard modus operandi. No surprises there.
What's up with all this Latin gibber-jabber?
(Qui bono?)
> >> You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."
> >> Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
> >> talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
> >> practiced.
> >28 games in his carear - right or wrong?
Wrong. It's spelled "career". I seriously
doubt that /every game/ played by Boris
Spassky appears in the 2005 Megabase,
so it would be silly to argue from this as if
it were known to be /comprehensive/.
> >> Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
> >> use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
> >> Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
> >> (Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
> >> Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
> >> loss of a game!
I think he would have lost if he had tried it
against Deeper Blue. But then, we weren't
talking about 2900+ players. The book
which nearly-IMnes is coping out of this
time put the cutoff at only 2600.
> >But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
> >could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
> >against anyone the calibre of Fischer.
> >So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
> >failed to mention. What way?
They appear to contradict and *refute* the idea
that nearly-an-IMnes copied out of some book;
that idea was that BS could not use the KG
against players above the 2600 level, as we
already know. (Some people are merely slow,
while others have the four winds howling within
their empty craniums!)
> They included super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer,
> Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and
> others
>
> >> And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
> >> it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."
> >> Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
> >> Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
> >> moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
> >> inclined to be a bit more peaceful.
The cold hard truth is that Boris Spassky's
rating dropped hundreds of points-- far more
than would be expected due to his aging.
I would like to know what BS has to say
about this.
> >Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
> >? Nothing... :)
> I said nothing about Spassky's age versus Korchnoi's.
Are you trying to suggest that the above
bluster was less than creative?
> Spassky was older when he played the last five games than he was when
> he played the other 23.
If listed chronologically, he was older in each
and every game than in the ones before. And
younger the closer you get to the first game.
In fact, he is still aging today! But what the
Sam Hill has this got to do with... .
> when caught saying something dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the
> subject and pretends he said something else.
Nearly-an-IMnes is nothing if not consistent.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 09:51:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Wed, 26 2008 06:30:38 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
>all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
>King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
>opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:
>Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
>Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
>Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
>Liberzon, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 �-�, 34
>P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
>P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
>Fischer, del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
>Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, �-�, 27
>Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
>Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,�-�, 21
>Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, �-�, 41
>Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, �-�, 45
>Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
>Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
>Bronstein, Moscow 1971, �-�, 18
>Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, �-�, 74
>Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
>Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
>Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
>Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, �-�, 13
>Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
>Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
>J. tinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
>A. David, France, 1993, �-�, 60
>Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, �-�, 25
>Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, �-�, 34
>Fressinet, France, 2001, �-�, 23
>Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, �-�, 14
> This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
>Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
>opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
>Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.
Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 18:04:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 2008 06:30:38 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>> To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
>>all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
>>King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
>>opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:
>
>>Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
>>Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
>>Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
>>Liberzon, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 �-�, 34
>>P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
>>P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
>>Fischer, del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
>>Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, �-�, 27
>>Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
>>Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,�-�, 21
>>Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, �-�, 41
>>Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, �-�, 45
>>Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
>>Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
>>Bronstein, Moscow 1971, �-�, 18
>>Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, �-�, 74
>>Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
>>Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
>>Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
>>Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, �-�, 13
>>Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
>>Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
>>J. tinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
>>A. David, France, 1993, �-�, 60
>>Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, �-�, 25
>>Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, �-�, 34
>>Fressinet, France, 2001, �-�, 23
>>Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, �-�, 14
>
>> This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
>>Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
>>opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
>>Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.
>
>
> Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
> earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
> bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.
Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings? and will Mike
Murray still think this is ignurunt?
Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at all.
The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein apr�s
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all draws
with him as White?
What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?
Phil Innes
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 11:10:55
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Wed, 26 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
>> earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
>> bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.
>Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
>are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
>While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of the
>players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?
Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?
> and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?
Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.
Said our Phil earlier:
"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."
So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
(twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
saved it for certain situations.
>Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at all.
I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.
>The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein after
>a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein apr�s
>Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is such
>a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all draws
>with him as White?
But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.
>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
>than the usual?
No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 14:19:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
>>> earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
>>> bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.
>
>>Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
>>are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
>>While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of
>>the
>>players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?
>
> Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
> bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
> did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?
Usual straw-man diversion from Murray. The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can't
understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
instead divert to Fischer. Typical!
>> and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?
>
> Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.
>
> Said our Phil earlier:
>
> "Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
> since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
> 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."
>
> So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
> (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
> Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
> Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
> he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
> saved it for certain situations.
Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?
I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their lies
and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, and
they haven't read anything.
Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new news
not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
be much the same. The End!
It seems hardly worth my time writing in this newsgroup, and I can
understand why other people, far more significant than me, would resign
their attention to evolving chess in this country. The only problem here is
that those who do so, don't really like to suffer the opinion of those who
did rather more, elsewhere.
Phil Innes
Vermont
>>Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at
>>all.
>
> I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.
>
>>The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein
>>after
>>a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein apr�s
>>Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is
>>such
>>a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all
>>draws
>>with him as White?
>
> But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
> is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
> it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.
>
>>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
>>than the usual?
>
> No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
> dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
> something else.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 11:37:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Mon, 31 2008 14:19:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
>> bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
>> did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?
>Usual straw-man diversion from Murray.
Phil confuses analogy with diversion. He's had that problem before.
The point he misses: Fischer's percentage of games with the Gruenfeld
was very small compared with, say, the King's Indian, but he utilized
the former on some very important occasions and evidently considered
it fully viable. The analogy with Spassky and the King's Gambit seems
clear enough.
> The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can't
>understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
>and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
>instead divert to Fischer. Typical!
You can't infer his opinion about the viability of an opening from the
percentage of time he played it. Many other factors are involved: the
respective styles of the players, tournament and match context, the
committing nature of the play, etc.
>>> and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?
>> Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.
>> Said our Phil earlier:
>> "Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
>> since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
>> 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."
>> So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
>> (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
>> Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
>> Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
>> he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
>> saved it for certain situations.
>Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
>draws - though that's not what you meant is it?
You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat? You mean that
because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??
>I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their lies
>and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, and
>they haven't read anything.
So are we Phil. That's why we've been trying our best to improve the
quality of your postings (and your thinking -- keep working on
analogy, you'll be glad you did).
>Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new news
>not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
>be much the same. The End!
And who opened with a complaint about "diversions" ?
>>>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
>>>than the usual?
>> No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
>> dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
>> something else.
He played it again, Sam.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Apr 2008 10:16:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 2008 14:19:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
>>> bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
>>> did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?
>
>>Usual straw-man diversion from Murray.
>
> Phil confuses analogy with diversion. He's had that problem before.
> The point he misses: Fischer's percentage of games with the Gruenfeld
> was very small compared with, say, the King's Indian, but he utilized
> the former on some very important occasions and evidently considered
> it fully viable. The analogy with Spassky and the King's Gambit seems
> clear enough.
Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
reporting that he did not use it very successfully at the top levels, and
his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
than him.
That seems hardly any analog of Fischer and the KID. Murray's problem which
he alwas has, is that he can't figure out what he is arguing against.
>
>>Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
>>draws - though that's not what you meant is it?
>
> You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat?
You know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?
> You mean that
> because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
> opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??
I didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I suffer
your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition - and
that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not the
record, knock yourself out!
>>I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their
>>lies
>>and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either,
>>and
>>they haven't read anything.
>
> So are we Phil. That's why we've been trying our best to improve the
> quality of your postings (and your thinking -- keep working on
> analogy, you'll be glad you did).
"we" you prat! You don't even know what you are disagreeing with - but have
to write shit about other people. If you could talk chess then you would,
but you can't can't do it.
unless by "we" you mean a bunch of net-nancy-nazi's ?
1) Look at the name of the thread
2) Daft isn't it?
3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?
Phil Innes
>>Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new
>>news
>>not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
>>be much the same. The End!
>
> And who opened with a complaint about "diversions" ?
>
>>>>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
>>>>than the usual?
>
>>> No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
>>> dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
>>> something else.
>
> He played it again, Sam.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Apr 2008 08:35:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:16:48 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
>reporting that he did not use [the KG] very successfully at the top levels, and
>his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
>than him.
We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
him. We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.
Spassky's advisors told him to press for a forfeit and go back to the
USSR in the first match against Fischer -- would Phil argue this
implies the match was terminated? Oh, analogy again. See, Phil, you
can't avoid it.
>>>Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
>>>draws - though that's not what you meant is it?
>> You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat?
>You know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?
You seem to imply the King's Gambit accelerates the aging process.
>> You mean that
>> because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
>> opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??
>I didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I suffer
>your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition - and
>that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not the
>record, knock yourself out!
Ahhh, Phil, your words come back to haunt you. Let us recapitulate
to help you capitulate. You first said:
"..people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
opinions. It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players".
Then, when the Bot pointed out that Spassky used it not only against
2500-2600 players, but used it to beat Fischer, you retorted,
"I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any
'whatever' statement. Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at
the top level. And it doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700
level, and we do not."
When the Bot found a few more games, you sniffed,
"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised it much more."
At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot reked
there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.
How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
disappointment.
You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."
Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
practiced.
Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
(Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
loss of a game!
And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."
Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
inclined to be a bit more peaceful. What's really fun is to go back
to your FIRST statement, to wit, "It certainly served him against
2500-2600 players". Looks like you once again came full circle and
are arguing against yourself!!
>If you could talk chess then you would,
>but you can't can't do it.
Spassky's use of the King's Gambit seems at least to touch upon the
subject of chess. And correcting some of your writings about same is
at least on topic at a meta-level.
>3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?
Hopefully, this has clarified things a bit.
>>>>>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
>>>>>than the usual?
>>>> No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
>>>> dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
>>>> something else.
>> He played it again, Sam.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Apr 2008 18:06:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:16:48 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
>>reporting that he did not use [the KG] very successfully at the top
>>levels, and
>>his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
>>than him.
>
> We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
> him.
'We'?
I fuckin was. Who the hell is 'we'?
> We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
> against top-level players.
You were arguing this?
> Spassky's advisors told him to press for a forfeit and go back to the
> USSR in the first match against Fischer -- would Phil argue this
> implies the match was terminated? Oh, analogy again. See, Phil, you
> can't avoid it.
?
>>>>Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
>>>>draws - though that's not what you meant is it?
>
>>> You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat?
>
>>You know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?
>
> You seem to imply the King's Gambit accelerates the aging process.
Actually, its your point.
>>> You mean that
>>> because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
>>> opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??
>
>>I didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I
>>suffer
>>your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition -
>>and
>>that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not
>>the
>>record, knock yourself out!
>
> Ahhh, Phil, your words come back to haunt you. Let us recapitulate
> to help you capitulate. You first said:
>
> "..people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
> opinions. It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players".
>
> Then, when the Bot pointed out that Spassky used it not only against
> 2500-2600 players, but used it to beat Fischer, you retorted,
>
> "I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any
> 'whatever' statement. Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at
> the top level. And it doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700
> level, and we do not."
>
> When the Bot found a few more games, you sniffed,
>
> "Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear -
> since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
> 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised it much more."
>
> At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
> Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot reked
> there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
> and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
> Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
> Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.
28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
is his point?
> How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
> falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
> disappointment.
That way!
> You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."
>
> Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
> talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
> practiced.
28 games in his carear - right or wrong?
> Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
> use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
> Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
> (Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
> Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
> loss of a game!
But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
against anyone the calibre of Fischer.
So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
failed to mention. What way?
> And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
> it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."
>
> Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
> Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
> moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
> inclined to be a bit more peaceful.
Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
? Nothing... :)
> What's really fun is to go back
> to your FIRST statement, to wit, "It certainly served him against
> 2500-2600 players". Looks like you once again came full circle and
> are arguing against yourself!!
Does it look like that to whom? But what is Murray really agrueing with,
rather than fussing over... see below [I challenged Murray with 3 topical
comments - let's see how honest he is]
>>If you could talk chess then you would,
>>but you can't can't do it.
>
> Spassky's use of the King's Gambit seems at least to touch upon the
> subject of chess. And correcting some of your writings about same is
> at least on topic at a meta-level.
>
>
>>3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?
ah! There is something Murray does not care to answer, since he has cut 2
items from what I said, and not responded to the third. What an arse!
What a bloody numbskull rubbishing sort of bloke is Mike Murray! He cut the
very thing I re-iterated was the point of this discussion.
Murray - you are a coward and a cheat! Stop pretending you care anything for
chess or conversation about it. You would rather rubbish people, by such
obvious evasions that your opinion is bent any possibility of civil
discourse.
What a coward! He CUT the very issue AGAIN~ and Murray has the gall to
attack others and pretend he has some objective interest.
Put it back Murray, and answer it. Otherwise 'we' all see what you do and
you become as ignorable to content as help-twat. This is, technically
speaking, a pure chess thread. It is about the title [see above] and you
Murray obscure what others say about chess, the KG, without mentioning any
chess because you Murray are as sick as help--bog. You can't help yourself,
right? Its like a red gfalg to you, actual chess comment?
And then you don't have the balls to reply to any response like a man.
Phil Innes
> Hopefully, this has clarified things a bit.
>
>>>>>>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything
>>>>>>other
>>>>>>than the usual?
>
>>>>> No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
>>>>> dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
>>>>> something else.
>
>>> He played it again, Sam.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Apr 2008 16:44:32
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:06:33 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
>> him.
>I fuckin was. Who the hell is 'we'?
You *asserted* that. Who disputed your assertion about what his
trainers said? Nobody. So, there WAS no argument, unless you were
arguing with yourself.
>> We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
>> against top-level players.
>You were arguing this?
You argued that he DIDN'T when you said "if Spassky HAD felt that it
was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised
it much more." Remember saying that, Phil?
I disagreed and argued that since he played it against Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others, he must have considered it
viable.
You lost that one, Phil, and it makes you look the fool. Deal with
it.
>> At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
>> Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot reked
>> there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
>> and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
>> Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
>> Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.
>28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
>is his point?
Murray's point is that when the 28 games included opponents like
Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others, Spassky must have
considered the KG a viable tool against super-GMs.
>> How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
>> falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
>> disappointment.
>That way!
You mean, of course, the way of bluster, fuming, denial, insult.
Sure. it's your standard modus operandi. No surprises there.
>> You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."
>> Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
>> talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
>> practiced.
>28 games in his carear - right or wrong?
Games against Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi,
Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others -- right or
wrong?
>> Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
>> use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
>> Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
>> (Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
>> Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
>> loss of a game!
>But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
>could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
>against anyone the calibre of Fischer.
>So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
>failed to mention. What way?
They included super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer,
Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and
others
>> And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
>> it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."
>> Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
>> Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
>> moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
>> inclined to be a bit more peaceful.
>
>Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
>? Nothing... :)
I said nothing about Spassky's age versus Korchnoi's.
Spassky was older when he played the last five games than he was when
he played the other 23. Surely, Phil, even someone as defective in
logic as you cannot argue with that. I mean, you *did* use the word
"tautology" earlier.
But even more: how does the fact that he drew the games imply that he
didn't consider the opening viable? Phil, can you spell non sequitur?
Can you use it in a sentence?
>>>3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?
Well, one example is when you said, "Let you not get overexcited about
half a dozen games in a career". Last time I checked, a half dozen is
six, somewhat less than 28.
But I was mostly arguing the implausibility of your assertions about
what Spassky's opinion must have been when you said (remember this?),
"if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilised it much more." In light of his
employing it against super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice),
Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic,
Krogius, and others, your comment reveals astonishing ignorance on
your part.
>ah! There is something Murray does not care to answer, since he has cut 2
>items from what I said, and not responded to the third. What an arse!
I wasn't responding to the first two items. It's standard convention
to snip the non-essentials (no, no, Phil, put down the scissors and
don't hurt yourself -- I didn't mean it *that* way)
>What a bloody numbskull rubbishing sort of bloke is Mike Murray! He cut the
>very thing I re-iterated was the point of this discussion.
>
>Murray - you are a coward and a cheat! Stop pretending you care anything for
>chess or conversation about it. You would rather rubbish people, by such
>obvious evasions that your opinion is bent any possibility of civil
>discourse.
>
>What a coward! He CUT the very issue AGAIN~ and Murray has the gall to
>attack others and pretend he has some objective interest.
>
>Put it back Murray, and answer it. Otherwise 'we' all see what you do and
>you become as ignorable to content as help-twat. This is, technically
>speaking, a pure chess thread. It is about the title [see above] and you
>Murray obscure what others say about chess, the KG, without mentioning any
>chess because you Murray are as sick as help--bog. You can't help yourself,
>right? Its like a red gfalg to you, actual chess comment?
>
>And then you don't have the balls to reply to any response like a man.
>
>Phil Innes
when caught saying something dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the
subject and pretends he said something else.
He just played it again, Sam.
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 05:30:10
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 24, 10:41=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 The key term "here" clearly specified that
> what was being discussed was the exact
> paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
> this thread -- not the book. =A0LOL!
So then you condemn a whole book because of one paragraph! And you
condemn it because that one paragraph does not discuss the King's
Gambit, or hypermodern openings. Yet Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
*_does_* discuss those very things, at considerable length.
We are often advised not to judge a book by its cover, but our Greg
has a new method: if the first paragraph does not discuss the whole of
chess theory, the book is no good.
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 17:49:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 25, 8:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > The key term "here" clearly specified that
> > what was being discussed was the exact
> > paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
> > this thread -- not the book. LOL!
I will add that I do not even have the
book which is imagined by TK to be
what I was discussing above. I did at
one time, long, long ago, but like all
books by GM Fine, I distanced my-
self from them upon learning of the
man's Freudian psychological issues.
; >P
> What an ignorant yet arrogant fool you are, Greg. Larry Parr looks
> like William F. Buckley compared to you.
Was WFB a psychotic liar, too? I'm
wondering why he is being dragged into
such a comparison as this. To my mind,
Larry Parr is best compared, not to WFB
or GK, but to the famous chess player
who imagined himself plagued by flies--
at least in common anecdotes. Both
were good chess players, and both quite
batty. The other fellow you mentioned is
perhaps comparable to Max Euwe-- a
boring player who is largely forgotten; of
course, ME was somewhat stronger.
Now I may go to Wikipedia just to try
and figure out why WFB was dragged into
a simple discussion of our topmost post.
I expect to find that it's merely a red
herring, as Mr. TK has grave difficulties in
admitting his many flubs; as we know, he
can't even set the pieces up right before
whipping off an analysis (of the wrong
position).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 17:27:57
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 25, 7:33 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> My computer examined the famous
> game GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer
> from 1960, and rejected our man's
> commentary from MSMG, saying:
>
> "Black was just losing the whole time!
My mistake; I meant of course that
*White* was losing the whole game,
not Black.
-- backwards bot
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 17:05:06
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 24, 10:41=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 23, 10:21 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Here, he also seems to reject so-called
> > > hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
> > > classical.
>
> > =A0 Utter nonsense. Ideas Behind the Chess Openings devotes 5 pages to
> > Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6), one page to Nimzovitch's Defense (1.e4
> > Nc6), 27 pages to the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), 16
> > pages to the King's Indian and Gr=FCnfeld, and 10 pages to the R=E9ti-
> > Catalan -- hypermodern openings all.
>
> =A0 Fella, you *really* ought to learn how to
> read.
Oh, I can read just fine, Greg. Quite well enough to read between
your lines, and know that you're pulling a Parr-style "shifting
ground" ploy.
> =A0 The key term "here" clearly specified that
> what was being discussed was the exact
> paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
> this thread -- not the book. =A0LOL!
No, Greg. You were caught talking through your hat, and your hat was
shown to be nonsense.
> =A0 Just take your time, TK; we will try to
> understand if you can't keep up with the
> rest of us.
What an ignorant yet arrogant fool you are, Greg. Larry Parr looks
like William F. Buckley compared to you.
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 16:33:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 25, 6:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
> >> opinions.
> >> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably no
> >> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
>
> > A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
> > *not* limited in his success with the King's
> > Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
> > most famous wins include one against
> > Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
> > seems to have had no particular limit
> > whatever here.
>
> I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
> statement.
Who said it was a singular instance?
For those who are not lost in a fog of
ignorance, several such wins can quite
easily be located in a matter on minutes.
For instance, in addition to beating BF,
GM Spassky also nailed GM Bronstein
and GM Karpov with his King's Gambit.
The game with GM Bronstein reminded
me of the one with GM Fischer, in that
GM Spassky seemed to not be bothered
a bit by his "material shortage"; he just
played to win, which to his mind involved
direct attacks on the enemy King.
> Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at the top level.
This /could/ explain why the wins I
found were not from his peak years, but
from those both before and afterward.
But then, that was in a database of
"uploaded" games which is undoubtedly
far from comprehensive.
> And it
> doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.
The closest *win* I found was against
GM Karpov, in 1982. I did not check to
see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
White in the King's Gambit. Let's see...
World Champion Karpov was rated what
back then? 2700ish? Oh-- did I mention
that he was the world champion? LOL!
> But this is to escape help-not's own point, which was to challenge the d6
> pawn and d4 being the only way.
My computer examined the famous
game GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer
from 1960, and rejected our man's
commentary from MSMG, saying:
"Black was just losing the whole time!
A pawn down, some interesting
complications, but nothing *I* couldn't
handle easily. Black tossed it away
by a single tactical blunder, and White
mopped up neatly." -- Fritz
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2008 07:42:02
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
Correcting my previous post, which had the age differential off by
one year. I really should not try to do even simple arithmetic before
my morning coffee has kicked in:
> On Apr 1, 6:06=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky,
>
=A0 Mike is correct, then. Korchnoi is almost six years older than
Spassky. Their dates of birth, as given in Gaige's "Chess Personalia":
=A0 Korchnoi: 23 ch 1931
=A0 Spassky: 30 January 1937
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2008 06:31:57
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On Apr 1, 6:06=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky,
Mike is correct, then. Korchnoi is almost seven years older than
Spassky. Their dates of birth, as given in Gaige's "Chess Personalia":
Korchnoi: 23 ch 1931
Spassky: 30 January 1937
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 08:50:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:63903d7b-4ef7-4c95-bb18-b3b99fe558dc@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 25, 6:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
>> >> opinions.
>> >> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably
>> >> no
>> >> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
>>
>> > A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
>> > *not* limited in his success with the King's
>> > Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
>> > most famous wins include one against
>> > Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
>> > seems to have had no particular limit
>> > whatever here.
>>
>> I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
>> statement.
>
> Who said it was a singular instance?
To take your question literarally, you did.
> For those who are not lost in a fog of
> ignorance, several such wins can quite
> easily be located in a matter on minutes.
> For instance, in addition to beating BF,
> GM Spassky also nailed GM Bronstein
> and GM Karpov with his King's Gambit.
Once!
> The game with GM Bronstein reminded
> me of the one with GM Fischer,
Which was in 1960! [ del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?
> in that
> GM Spassky seemed to not be bothered
> a bit by his "material shortage"; he just
> played to win, which to his mind involved
> direct attacks on the enemy King.
Yes - his other tradek was B x N on f6, and he made a living out of that
too.
>> Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at the top level.
>
>
> This /could/ explain why the wins I
> found were not from his peak years, but
> from those both before and afterward.
>
> But then, that was in a database of
> "uploaded" games which is undoubtedly
> far from comprehensive.
>
>
>> And it
>> doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.
>
>
> The closest *win* I found was against
> GM Karpov, in 1982.
Spassky -Xie Jun, Monaco 1994 [Kieseritzky]
Spassky-Seirawan, Monpellier 1985, 1-0
> I did not check to
> see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
> White in the King's Gambit. Let's see...
> World Champion Karpov was rated what
> back then? 2700ish? Oh-- did I mention
> that he was the world champion? LOL!
Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear - since
indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilised it much more.
This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying, since
if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still as
much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?
>
>> But this is to escape help-not's own point, which was to challenge the d6
>> pawn and d4 being the only way.
>
>
> My computer examined the famous
> game GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer
> from 1960, and rejected our man's
> commentary from MSMG, saying:
>
> "Black was just losing the whole time!
> A pawn down, some interesting
> complications, but nothing *I* couldn't
> handle easily. Black tossed it away
> by a single tactical blunder, and White
> mopped up neatly." -- Fritz
You should make it clearer in the first place if it is help-bot or Fritz who
is offering opinions. Both are nothing more than argumentative declarations.
Only Greg Kennedy can have an understanding of what he himself knows of
chess ~ and let that be a lesson to you about your psychological use of a
persona ~ one which has been refuted recently by the entire newsgroup on
chess understanding and chess history.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 20:00:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 24, 1:12 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> > A subtlety often overlooked is that there is
> > no such thing as perfect "symmetry", as one
> > side or the other always has the right as well
> > as the obligation to move something.
>
> And Fischer had some startling comments about symmetry.
> After the moves 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O
> 5. d3 d6 ( asymmetrical position), Fischer wrote:
>
> '"Believe it or not", Black stands better! Now whatever White does,
> Black will vary it and get an asymmetrical position and have the
> superior position due to his better pawn structure!
Well, BF was a nutter. There is no way that
Black "stands better" just because White has
the move here. A more rational person might
suggest that, no matter what White does, he
cannot achieve an edge or that no matter what
White does, Black can vary and play for a win;
but only a total loon would insist that having
the move was such a handicap.
And I can prove that having the move is not
a problem; just give me *two* moves to BF's
one, and I can easily (okay, it will be a bit of
a struggle for me) draw-- maybe even win
Now that BF is dead, I can play Rybka or GM
Anand or somebody like that; heck, I'll even
let 'em have White.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 19:52:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 23, 10:47 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating opinions.
> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably no
> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
*not* limited in his success with the King's
Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
most famous wins include one against
Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
seems to have had no particular limit
whatever here.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 18:38:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6569dc94-8382-4c6e-987d-92815943edc8@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 23, 10:47 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> **people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
>> opinions.
>> It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably no
>> inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
>
>
> A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
> *not* limited in his success with the King's
> Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
> most famous wins include one against
> Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
> seems to have had no particular limit
> whatever here.
I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
statement.
Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at the top level. And it
doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.
But this is to escape help-not's own point, which was to challenge the d6
pawn and d4 being the only way. Not that I personally mind a bad black King
Bishop, and etc zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 19:41:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 23, 10:21 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Here, he also seems to reject so-called
> > hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
> > classical.
>
> Utter nonsense. Ideas Behind the Chess Openings devotes 5 pages to
> Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6), one page to Nimzovitch's Defense (1.e4
> Nc6), 27 pages to the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), 16
> pages to the King's Indian and Gr=FCnfeld, and 10 pages to the R=E9ti-
> Catalan -- hypermodern openings all.
Fella, you *really* ought to learn how to
read.
The key term "here" clearly specified that
what was being discussed was the exact
paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
this thread -- not the book. LOL!
Just take your time, TK; we will try to
understand if you can't keep up with the
rest of us.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 19:37:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 22, 10:23 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> No. All he is saying is that 1.e4 e5 is `natural and normal'
Bingo! This assertion is the giveaway
that the writer rejects the hyper-modern
strategies (i.e. abnormal) in favor of
classical (i.e. normal).
> and
> that, if those two moves are played, White's only hope for an
> advantage is to play d4 at some point.
Perhaps it is okay to believe White
cannot obtain a *theoretical advantage*
via 2. f4, but I read it as an assertion
that there is no other way to fight for an
advantage, which is simply incorrect.
> This in no way excludes the
> possibility that other first moves might be played by Black (or even
> by White!) or that different strategies might be called for against
> those moves. He's not `rejecting' hypermodernism; he's just not
> discussing it in the section `OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4' because they
> don't belong there.
Perhaps not, but the "KIA" lines belong
in there, somewhere; maybe GM Fine is
tossing such moves because they achieve
no "theoretical advantage"? Or maybe he
considered them "abnormalities", like say,
schizophrenia... .
> > If you don't want to have to deal with all the dogmatic commentary
> > and mis-statements, just go with a book by one of the many modern
> > writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan. (Okay, I'm showing my age here;
> > ...by say, GM Nakamura.)
>
> Which book by Nakamura would that be?
Any book by him would be more up-to-date
than those by Yasser Seirawan, which have
already been written and published. By the
same token, books by YS are in modern,
algebraic notation, while this stuff by GM
Fine is way, way out of date.
> I can't find anything beyond a
> chapter in each of _Secrets of Opening Surprises_ volumes 5 and 7.
In the near /future/, SGM Nakamura will
come to dominate chess "books" (videos,
actually), replacing hacks like Ray Keene
and Eric Schiller. You would know that,
if you weren't so old and so stuck in the
present... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 22:12:30
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 23, 12:13 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 22, 7:45 pm, Albert <[email protected]> wrote:
> A subtlety often overlooked is that there is
> no such thing as perfect "symmetry", as one
> side or the other always has the right as well
> as the obligation to move something.
And Fischer had some startling comments about symmetry.
After the moves 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. d3 d6 ( a
symmetrical position), Fischer wrote:
'"Believe it or not", Black stands better! Now whatever White does,
Black will vary it and get an asymmetrical position and have the
superior position due to his better pawn structure! In Filip vs
Fischer, 1962, similarly Black gets the upper hand: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3
g3 c6 4 Bg2 d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Nf3 Bg7 7 O-O O-O 8 Nc3 ...; and Black,
breaking the symmetry at the proper time, gets the advantage by
8...Ne4.'
That is genius! Let him who hath the understanding...!
After only 5 moves - a symmetrical position - and /black/ is better!
This is the game he was commenting on:
[Event "Bay City Rd: 2"]
[Site "Bay City Rd: 2"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "A Reinhard"]
[Black "Robert James Fischer"]
[ECO "A05"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "48"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. d3 d6 6. e4 c5
7. Nc3 Nc6 8. h3 Rb8 9. Be3 b5 10. e5 dxe5 11. Bxc5 b4 12. Ne4
Nxe4 13. dxe4 Qa5 14. Be3 Ba6 15. Re1 Rfd8 16. Qc1 Nd4 17. Kh2
Rbc8 18. Nxd4 exd4 19. Bg5 d3 20. a3 Rxc2 21. axb4 Qb6 22. Qe3
Bd4 23. Qf3 Rxf2 24. Qg4 d2 0-1
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 07:21:10
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 22, 8:13=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 22, 7:45 pm, Albert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:
>
> > 'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4
>
> > Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
> > normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
> > As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
> > advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
> > his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
> > White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'
>
> > Why?
>
> =A0 GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
> err in claiming White has no advantage in
> having /the first move/, but he seems to have
> forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
> attack e5 pawn.
Our Greg returns to his usual modus operandi, which involves
ignorance of the book in question, and disconnecting mouth from brain.
Actually Fine devoted several pages to the King's Gambit in that book.
If Greg had troubled to read pages 58-61 of Idea's Behind the Chess
Openings he would have seen that Fine hardly forgot about "p-
f4" [sic].
> =A0 Here, he also seems to reject so-called
> hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
> classical.
Utter nonsense. Ideas Behind the Chess Openings devotes 5 pages to
Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6), one page to Nimzovitch's Defense (1.e4
Nc6), 27 pages to the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), 16
pages to the King's Indian and Gr=FCnfeld, and 10 pages to the R=E9ti-
Catalan -- hypermodern openings all.
However, a discussion of "hyper-modern strategy" is not very
appropriate to the chapter on symmetrical king pawn openings. Guess
what kind of opening Fine was discussing when he wrote the paragraph
the OP cites above? For most of us, the heading "OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4,
P-K4" serves as a fairly strong hint, but our Greg goes his own way.
> =A0 If you don't want to have to deal with all the
> dogmatic commentary and mis-statements,
> just go with a book by one of the many
> modern writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan.
If you want to know what GM Fine actually wrote, read the book,
rather than what help-bot imagines its contents to be.
> (Okay, I'm showing my age here;
Oh, you're showing much more than that, Greg.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 16:33:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 26, 12:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> > This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
> >Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
> >opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
> >Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.
>
> Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
> earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
> bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.
I'm "all-in" on nearly-IMnes continuing to
bluster.
----------------------------------------------------------------
However, I would guess that in constructing
that database, "brilliant wins" were favored,
and there's a decent chance that some
losses by GM Spassky were simply omitted,
and maybe even some boring draws.
I believe that the fallen hero played quite a
few games in Europe, eventually dropping to
a low of somewhere around 2500 FIDE, and
it seems likely that he may have drawn more
than a few King's Gambits during that period,
even lost one or two. Somewhere out there
(no, I'm not leading into a song...) is a
database containing many more games by
Boris Spassky than just these few. (Heck,
maybe he just switched to being a die-hard
1.d4 player... ).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 15:24:23
From:
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 26, 6:04=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 26 2008 06:30:38 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> =A0To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
> >>all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
> >>King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
> >>opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:
>
> >>Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
> >>Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
> >>Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
> >>Liberzon, =A027th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 =BD-=BD, 34
> >>P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
> >>P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
> >>Fischer, del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
> >>Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, =BD-=BD, 27
> >>Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
> >>Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,=BD-=BD, 21
> >>Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, =BD-=BD, 41
> >>Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, =BD-=BD, 45
> >>Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
> >>Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
> >>Bronstein, Moscow 1971, =BD-=BD, 18
> >>Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, =BD-=BD, 74
> >>Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
> >>Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
> >>Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
> >>Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, =BD-=BD, 13
> >>Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
> >>Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
> >>J. tinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
> >>A. David, France, 1993, =BD-=BD, 60
> >>Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, =BD-=BD, 25
> >>Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, =BD-=BD, 34
> >>Fressinet, France, 2001, =BD-=BD, 23
> >>Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, =BD-=BD, 14
>
> >> =A0This is an overall record of +15 -0 =3D13. Surprising to me that
> >>Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
> >>opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
> >>Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.
>
> > Hmmm. =A0Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
> > earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? =A0If I were a
> > bettin' man, =A0I know where I'd put my money.
>
> Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me
I just want to say that I am taking no side or part in the Innes-
Murray-Helpbot argument over the importance of the KG as part of
Spassky's opening repertoire. I just wanted to supply some stats about
his record with it; others may interpret as they see fit.
One caveat: the ChessBase data may not be complete or entirely
accurate.
> - that these KGs
> are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
> While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of th=
e
> players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings? and will Mik=
e
> Murray still think this is ignurunt?
>
> Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at al=
l.
>
> The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein aft=
er
> a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein apr=E8s
> Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is su=
ch
> a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all draw=
s
> with him as White?
>
> What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
> than the usual?
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 08:06:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:670a59e1-83f7-4a8f-82bd-a383984568b6@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 26, 6:04 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me
I just want to say that I am taking no side or part in the Innes-
Murray-Helpbot argument over the importance of the KG as part of
Spassky's opening repertoire. I just wanted to supply some stats about
his record with it; others may interpret as they see fit.
One caveat: the ChessBase data may not be complete or entirely
accurate.
---
**No one is required to 'take sides' or 'interpret' what 12 games against
top GMs illustrate in a player's entire carear!
All that is illustrated here are the exceptions to the normal Spassky
repetoire against 2600+ players. That's what I wrote in the first place.
I am not dissing the KG at all, but initially stated that Spassky's trainers
strongly encouraged him to develop a much broader opening repetoire since
the KG was not going to be good enough to combat the top-tier - and Spassky
did - though serious study was not his metier.
Its interesting that in Cafferty's book, published 1972, there are 4 KGs
[some brilliant ones], and more than 100 other openings, and the long
forward by Leonard Barden makes the same point I did above - and cites
Krogius and also Ray Keene.
If USCF ever (a) find their own archives currently moldering in a
wharehouse, and (b) put them on line, then (c) a CL article 1970 has
extracts 'Portrait of a world champion', also published British Chess Mag,
May 1970, with interviewers, Krogius, Keene & Levy.
Barden's forward is very good on Boris's psychology, and the 'surprise
factor' of his opening repetoire- eg, playing the shall 3 times against
Tal, 'because' said Boris 'the shall is good enough to draw, which is all
I aimed at', and indeed Tal couldn't make headway against it.
His trainers were Tolush, then Zak then Bondarevsky, who seemed to
revitalise Boris after his year's ban from chess for 'underperformance' in
1961. Then Klaman knocked more sense into him and sharpened his play,
especially King attacks.
Spassky himself admitted he was a bit lazy, and indeed, would prefer reading
serious non-chess books, like Dostoyevski, eg - and personally I'm glad he
did, otherwise after similar struggles to Fischer's he would have lived half
his embittered, which was Fischer's fate for his devotion to chess and not
to his own maturity.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 10:47:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:657e79e5-20a2-48c2-bf35-cb8a4b6bcd52@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 22, 8:13 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 22, 7:45 pm, Albert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:
>
> > 'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4
>
> > Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
> > normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
> > As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
> > advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
> > his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
> > White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'
>
> > Why?
>
> GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
> err in claiming White has no advantage in
> having /the first move/, but he seems to have
> forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
> attack e5 pawn.
Our Greg returns to his usual modus operandi, which involves
ignorance of the book in question, and disconnecting mouth from brain.
Actually Fine devoted several pages to the King's Gambit in that book.
If Greg had troubled to read pages 58-61 of Idea's Behind the Chess
Openings he would have seen that Fine hardly forgot about "p-
f4" [sic].
**Yes. In fact the King's Gambit is a very powerful opening against all
comers* - and the particular point, to quote Thomas Johansson in his "The
King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor!"
Das Konigsgambit fur den erfindungsreichen angriffsspieler! [ROFL]
is that after
1. e4 e5
2. f4 d6
the author says "this 'Philidor approach' gives white a small advantage,
almost instantly, in control of the centre and easy development." and he
says this on the first page of chapter 1.
**people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating opinions.
It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably no
inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.
Phil Innes
> Here, he also seems to reject so-called
> hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
> classical.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 17:04:34
From: Rob
Subject: Polgar News??!!??
|
On 31, 1:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 26 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
> >>> earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
> >>> bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.
>
> >>Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KG=
s
> >>are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.=
> >>While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of
> >>the
> >>players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?
>
> > Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
> > bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
> > did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?
>
> Usual straw-man diversion from Murray. The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can=
't
> understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
> and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
> instead divert to Fischer. Typical!
>
>
>
> >> and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?
>
> > Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.
>
> > Said our Phil earlier:
>
> > "Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
> > since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
> > 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."
>
> > So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
> > (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
> > Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
> > Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
> > he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
> > saved it for certain situations.
>
> Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
> draws - though that's not what you meant is it?
>
> I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their li=
es
> and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, an=
d
> they haven't read anything.
>
> Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new new=
s
> not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will=
> be much the same. The End!
>
> It seems hardly worth my time writing in this newsgroup, and I can
> understand why other people, far more significant than me, would resign
> their attention to evolving chess in this country. The only problem here i=
s
> that those who do so, don't really like to suffer the opinion of those who=
> did rather more, elsewhere.
>
> Phil Innes
> Vermont
>
> >>Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at
> >>all.
>
> > I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.
>
> >>The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein
> >>after
> >>a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein apr=E8s=
> >>Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is
> >>such
> >>a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all
> >>draws
> >>with him as White?
>
> > But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
> > is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
> > it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.
>
> >>What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other=
> >>than the usual?
>
> > No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
> > dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
> > something else.
Whats going on? Is the rumor true? Did Kirsan really approve it?
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 02:36:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
Albert <[email protected] > wrote:
> In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:
>
> 'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4
>
> Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
> normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
> As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
> advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give
> up his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at
> K4. White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'
>
> Why?
Because, once Black has defended his pawn on e5 by advancing his
queen's pawn, White can only capture the Pe5 with a pawn of his own
(assuming he doesn't want to lose material). The only pawns that can
capture on e5 are the d-pawn and the f-pawn and advancing the f-pawn
weakens White's king by opening up the e1-h4 diagonal to Black's queen
and dark-squared bishop.
The alternative would be for White to try to remove the Pd6 and then
take the Pe5 with a piece. However, dislodging the Pd6 will take an
awfully long time. That has to be done with a pawn, too, since the
Pd6 is protected by the Pc7.
> 'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
> (eventually)...'
>
> Why?
Three reasons.
1) White will almost surely have played Nf3 before he plays d4. So,
when d4 is played, e5 is attacked twice. If Black isn't going to lose
material, it needs to be defended twice, too. The most natural way is
to play ... d6 and the alternatives are bad: ... Qe7 blocks in the
king's bishop; ... Qf6 blocks in the king's knight; ... Bd6 blocks in
the queen's bishop and demotes the king's bishop to acting as little
more than a pawn.
2) It discourages White from playing e5.
3) It lets Black get his queen's bishop out in the most natural way.
The alternative is to fianchetto it (i.e., play ... b6 and ... Bb7),
which is slower.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Homicidal Painting (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a Renaissance masterpiece
but it wants to kill you and it's
twice as fast!
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 17:13:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
On 22, 7:45 pm, Albert <[email protected] > wrote:
> In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:
>
> 'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4
>
> Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
> normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
> As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
> advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
> his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
> White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'
>
> Why?
GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
err in claiming White has no advantage in
having /the first move/, but he seems to have
forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
attack e5 pawn.
A subtlety often overlooked is that there is
no such thing as perfect "symmetry", as one
side or the other always has the right as well
as the obligation to move something.
Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.
> 'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
> (eventually)...'
>
> Why?
Here GM Fine is assuming that Black either
a) has already played ...d6 earlier, to defend
his e-pawn, or b) Black cannot safely get in
the pawn advance ...d5. and must therefore
advance the pawn one square in order to
develop his QB "normally", which is to say,
not fianchettoed nor hyper-fianchettoed.
The thing to remember when reading such
authors is that, despite their often dogmatic
approach, there are a lot of instructive /ideas/
intermixed. A player who knows nothing
whatever about the openings can gleam a
lot from even the stubbornest dogmatists,
then later refine it to better fit with reality.
If you don't want to have to deal with all the
dogmatic commentary and mis-statements,
just go with a book by one of the many
modern writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan.
(Okay, I'm showing my age here; ...by say,
GM Nakamura.)
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 02:23:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: d4 the only way to make black give up his e5?
|
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Albert <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4
>>
>> Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
>> normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
>> As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
>> advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
>> his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
>> White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.' -- Fine
>
> [...] he also seems to reject so-called hyper-modern strategy
> altogether, in favor of classical.
No. All he is saying is that 1.e4 e5 is `natural and normal' and
that, if those two moves are played, White's only hope for an
advantage is to play d4 at some point. This in no way excludes the
possibility that other first moves might be played by Black (or even
by White!) or that different strategies might be called for against
those moves. He's not `rejecting' hypermodernism; he's just not
discussing it in the section `OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4' because they
don't belong there.
> If you don't want to have to deal with all the dogmatic commentary
> and mis-statements, just go with a book by one of the many modern
> writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan. (Okay, I'm showing my age here;
> ...by say, GM Nakamura.)
Which book by Nakamura would that be? I can't find anything beyond a
chapter in each of _Secrets of Opening Surprises_ volumes 5 and 7.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hungry Nuclear Sushi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a raw fish that's made of atoms but
it'll eat you!
|
|
