I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Date: 28 Apr 2006 22:04:26
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

First one to reply wins the free lesson.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 09 May 2006 13:15:59
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Terry wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Terry wrote:
> >> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Earine wrote:
> >> >> Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> >> > I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from
> >> >> > me.
> >> >
> >> > So should a student 'seeking opening guidance from' Ray Gordon
> >> > expect Ray Gordon just to hand out chess engine evaluations?
> >> >
> >> > As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
> >> > more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
> >> > Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.
> >> >
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> > > 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
> >> >>
> >> >> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder
> >> >> why Ray - the opening expert - does not comment it at all?
> >> >
> >> > 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is known as shall's Defence (or sometimes as
> >> > the American Defence), after an Alekhine-shall game (1925).
> >> >
> >> > I prefer 4 Nf3 to 4 e4, which is inaccurate on account of
> >> > 4...Nf6 5 Bd3 e5 6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 Bg5 Be7
> >> > 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nc3 Ncxe5 11 Nxe5 when Alekhine
> >> > believed that 11...Nxe5 (shall played 11...Qxe5)
> >> > could have gained equality for Black.
> >> >
> >> > --Nick
> >>
> >> Ray has been very brave posting this analysis.

'This analysis'? Most of the analysis in the post (above)
was written by me, not by Ray Gordon.

> >> How mant of us would. Bravo Ray.
> >
> > I am not Ray Gordon, if anyone's confused about that.
> >
> > May I ask Terry Bean why he has chosen to express his
> > sarcastic criticism of Ray Gordon in response (according
> > to thread order) to a post in which I explained why 4 e4
> > is inaccurate after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 3 cxd5 Nxd5 ?
> >
> > Was Terry Bean criticising Ray Gordon's analysis
> > (largely chess engine evaluations) in response to
> > Antonio Torrecillas's post or was Terry Bean
> > criticising my analysis (above)?

I asked--in civil terms--Terry Bean to clarify his intent.
But Terry Bean's response has been far from civil.

> Amazing !!!! . I was complimenting Ray on his bravery
> in posting analysis.

Given Terry Bean's record of criticising Ray Gordon, the
sincerity of Terry Bean's compliment seems in doubt.

> Sometimes you just cant win. No sarcasm was intended.

Whatever you say.

> There seems to be many arseholes on usenet. Ah well.

And Terry Bean has shown that he's such an 'arsehole'.

--Nick

Date: 08 May 2006 20:41:39
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Terry wrote:
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > (snipped)
> > One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life,
> > and my rating there was listed as 1956.
> >
> > You should check your facts before you go making yourself
> > look so idiotic and juvenile, if not just plain jealous.
>
> Jealous of a 1956 - no way ?

Terry Bean is rated 168 BCF and 2079 FIDE.

> My information comes from previous posts in this newsgroup.
> There seems to be dispute about your actual strength.

I already have posted this USCF record for 'Ray Gordon',
who's officially known as Gordon R Parker:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482187

His OTB rating (as of 1990) is 1900 USCF.

Given his self-described intensive training, Ray Gordon
may have been able to improve significantly from his
past 1900 USCF rating. But who can extrapolate his
claimed results from one-minute internet games to
slow OTB games under tournament conditions?

--Nick

Date: 08 May 2006 19:48:24
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ray Gordon wrote:
> First one to reply wins the free lesson.

Did Ray Gordon mean that 'you get the value that you pay for'?
Or did he mean that his chess engine would not ask to be paid
for giving 'the free lesson'? :-)

--Nick

Date: 08 May 2006 19:40:22
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Terry wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Earine wrote:
> >> Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> > I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.
> >
> > So should a student 'seeking opening guidance from' Ray Gordon
> > expect Ray Gordon just to hand out chess engine evaluations?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
> > more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
> > Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> > > 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
> >>
> >> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder
> >> why Ray - the opening expert - does not comment it at all?
> >
> > 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is known as shall's Defence (or sometimes as
> > the American Defence), after an Alekhine-shall game (1925).
> >
> > I prefer 4 Nf3 to 4 e4, which is inaccurate on account of
> > 4...Nf6 5 Bd3 e5 6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 Bg5 Be7
> > 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nc3 Ncxe5 11 Nxe5 when Alekhine
> > believed that 11...Nxe5 (shall played 11...Qxe5)
> > could have gained equality for Black.
> >
> > --Nick
>
> Ray has been very brave posting this analysis.
> How mant of us would. Bravo Ray.

I am not Ray Gordon, if anyone's confused about that.

May I ask Terry Bean why he has chosen to express his
sarcastic criticism of Ray Gordon in response (according
to thread order) to a post in which I explained why 4 e4
is inaccurate after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 3 cxd5 Nxd5 ?

Was Terry Bean criticising Ray Gordon's analysis
(largely chess engine evaluations) in response to
Antonio Torrecillas's post or was Terry Bean
criticising my analysis (above)?

--Nick

Date: 09 May 2006 13:45:03
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Terry wrote:
>> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Earine wrote:
>> >> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> >> > I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from
>> >> > me.
>> >
>> > So should a student 'seeking opening guidance from' Ray Gordon
>> > expect Ray Gordon just to hand out chess engine evaluations?
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
>> > more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
>> > Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.
>> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >> > > 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>> >>
>> >> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder
>> >> why Ray - the opening expert - does not comment it at all?
>> >
>> > 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is known as shall's Defence (or sometimes as
>> > the American Defence), after an Alekhine-shall game (1925).
>> >
>> > I prefer 4 Nf3 to 4 e4, which is inaccurate on account of
>> > 4...Nf6 5 Bd3 e5 6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 Bg5 Be7
>> > 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nc3 Ncxe5 11 Nxe5 when Alekhine
>> > believed that 11...Nxe5 (shall played 11...Qxe5)
>> > could have gained equality for Black.
>> >
>> > --Nick
>>
>> Ray has been very brave posting this analysis.
>> How mant of us would. Bravo Ray.
>
> I am not Ray Gordon, if anyone's confused about that.
>
> May I ask Terry Bean why he has chosen to express his
> sarcastic criticism of Ray Gordon in response (according
> to thread order) to a post in which I explained why 4 e4
> is inaccurate after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 3 cxd5 Nxd5 ?
>
> Was Terry Bean criticising Ray Gordon's analysis
> (largely chess engine evaluations) in response to
> Antonio Torrecillas's post or was Terry Bean
> criticising my analysis (above)?
>
> --Nick
>

Amazing !!!! . I was complimenting Ray on his bravery in posting analysis.

Sometimes you just cant win. No sarcasm was intended.

There seems to be many arseholes on usenet. Ah well.

Regards

Date: 07 May 2006 18:56:53
From: Nick
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Earine wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.

So should a student 'seeking opening guidance from' Ray Gordon
expect Ray Gordon just to hand out chess engine evaluations?

As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.

> [snip]
> > > 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>
> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder
> why Ray - the opening expert - does not comment it at all?

1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is known as shall's Defence (or sometimes as
the American Defence), after an Alekhine-shall game (1925).

I prefer 4 Nf3 to 4 e4, which is inaccurate on account of
4...Nf6 5 Bd3 e5 6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 Bg5 Be7
9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nc3 Ncxe5 11 Nxe5 when Alekhine
believed that 11...Nxe5 (shall played 11...Qxe5)
could have gained equality for Black.

--Nick

Date: 08 May 2006 14:06:48
From: James
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Nick wrote :
> 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is known as shall's Defence (or sometimes as
> the American Defence), after an Alekhine-shall game (1925).
>
> I prefer 4 Nf3 to 4 e4, which is inaccurate on account of
> 4...Nf6 5 Bd3 e5 6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 Bg5 Be7
> 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nc3 Ncxe5 11 Nxe5 when Alekhine
> believed that 11...Nxe5 (shall played 11...Qxe5)
> could have gained equality for Black.
>
> --Nick
>

Three opening reports available here:

http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/d06e.html
http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/d06h.html
http://www.chess-lovers.org/scid/d06i.html

Regarding three positions of the shall defense.

Date: 08 May 2006 11:59:04
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Earine wrote:
>> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> > I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.
>
> So should a student 'seeking opening guidance from' Ray Gordon
> expect Ray Gordon just to hand out chess engine evaluations?
>
> As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
> more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
> Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.
>
>> [snip]
>> > > 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>>
>> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder
>> why Ray - the opening expert - does not comment it at all?
>
> 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6 is known as shall's Defence (or sometimes as
> the American Defence), after an Alekhine-shall game (1925).
>
> I prefer 4 Nf3 to 4 e4, which is inaccurate on account of
> 4...Nf6 5 Bd3 e5 6 dxe5 Ng4 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 Bg5 Be7
> 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 10 Nc3 Ncxe5o 11 Nxe5 when Alekhine
> believed that 11...Nxe5 (shall played 11...Qxe5)
> could have gained equality for Black.
>
> --Nick
>

Ray has been very brave posting this analysis.
How mant of us would. Bravo Ray.

Regards

Date: 08 May 2006 01:40:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> > I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.
>
> So should a student 'seeking opening guidance from' Ray Gordon
> expect Ray Gordon just to hand out chess engine evaluations?

Not at all.

> As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
> more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
> Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.

Well fortunately "nick" is posting from the UK, where trade libel isn't
tolerated by ISPs. Maybe if he loses an account or two for such an
unfounded attack, it'll do something.

My students would know to submit ONE game to me when I ask for ONE game.
They wouldn't submit THREE games unless they were prepared to pay me TRIPLE.
Of course my analysis is going to be diluted.

If you offered one meal to someone you were kind enough to take into your
home, and they took three meals instead (or brought two other people
unnannounced), you wouldn't concern yourself with their opinion of it
either, since their conduct was wrong.

Date: 08 May 2006 13:13:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, Ray Gordon has spent perhaps 100 times
>> more time than I have done on chess. I would not trust
>> Ray Gordon's judgement in evaluating chess positions.
>
> Well fortunately "nick" is posting from the UK, where trade libel
> isn't tolerated by ISPs. Maybe if he loses an account or two for
> such an unfounded attack, it'll do something.

I see nothing libellous in saying that you have spent much more time
studying chess than Nick has or that Nick does not trust your
evaluation.

> My students would know to submit ONE game to me when I ask for ONE
> game. They wouldn't submit THREE games unless they were prepared to
> pay me TRIPLE. Of course my analysis is going to be diluted.

You could have ignored the SECOND and THIRD games and just analyzed
the FIRST one? Besides, you offered to analyze ONE game for free so
you have been paid TRIPLE what you asked.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Mexi-Tongs (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pair of tongs that comes from Mexico
but it'll blow your mind!

Date: 08 May 2006 08:53:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> My students would know to submit ONE game to me when I ask for ONE
>> game. They wouldn't submit THREE games unless they were prepared to
>> pay me TRIPLE. Of course my analysis is going to be diluted.
>
> You could have ignored the SECOND and THIRD games and just analyzed
> the FIRST one?

Sure could have. I wanted to analyze the player's style.

I pinpointed the key error in the white side of the Najdorf (11. f4).

As for using engines, they are right about 95 percent of the time, so that's
only natural.

I assume someone "under 1800" doesn't need to be taught the basics, though
from the games I saw, there were some pretty bad moves played.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 08 May 2006 15:30:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> My students would know to submit ONE game to me when I ask for ONE
>>> game. They wouldn't submit THREE games unless they were prepared to
>>> pay me TRIPLE. Of course my analysis is going to be diluted.
>>
>> You could have ignored the SECOND and THIRD games and just analyzed
>> the FIRST one?
>
> Sure could have. I wanted to analyze the player's style.

Then it's hardly fair to blame somebody else for your own decision to
do more than you'd offered to.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Confusing Smokes (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pack of cigarettes but you can't
understand it!

Date: 01 May 2006 12:59:00
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> First one to reply wins the free lesson.

Trying to help you I have asked to a local junior to provide (give) me
his last defeats, ... here you have three to choose.
(I particulary like first one, and second one is very interesting too)

I hope you having a good work to help him to improve!
It's your turn!

[Event "??"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "local junior"]
[Black "Lorenzo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D06"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4 Bd6 7. e5 Bb4
8. Nf3 a6 9. a3 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 Nc6 11. Bd3 Nd5 12. Qd2 b5 13. Be4 Bb7
14. Rb1 Rb8 15.a4 bxa4 16. c4 Nde7 17. Bg5 Qc8 18. d5 Nd8 19. Bxe7 Kxe7
20. d6+ cxd6 21. exd6+ Ke8 22. Ne5 Kf8 23. d7 Qc7 24. Qb4+ Kg8 25. Qe7
g6 26. Rxb7 Qa5+ 27. Ke2 Qxe5 28. Rxb8 Qxb8 29. Rb1 Qc7 30. Rb7 Qa5
31.Rb8 Kg7 32. g4 a3 33. g5 Rf8 34. h4 a2 35. h5 a1=Q 36. h6+ Kg8 0-1

[Event "??"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gonzalez, Gerardo"]
[Black "local junior"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C01"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Be2
dxc4 8.O-O Bxc3 9. bxc3 b5 10. a4 c6 11. Ne5 Nd5 12. Qc2 f6 13. Ng4 Nd7
14. Ne3 N7b6 15. axb5 cxb5 16. Bf3 Bb7 17. Nf5 Bc8 18. Re1 Re8 19. Bd2
Be6 20. Ng3 Qd7 21.Be4 g6 22. Ne2 a5 23. Nf4 Ra6 24. Nxe6 Rxe6 25. Bxg6
hxg6 26. Qxg6+ Kf8 27.Rxe6 Qxe6 28. Re1 Qxe1+ 29. Bxe1 a4 30. Qb1 Ra5
31. h4 a3 32. Kf1 a2 33. Qa1 Na4 34. Qxa2 Kg7 1-0

[Event "??"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "local junior"]
[Black "Negre"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B92"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be7
8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O b5 10. a3 Bb7 11. f4 Rc8 12. Bf3 O-O 13. Qe2 exf4
14.Bxf4 Ne5 15.Rad1 Qc7 16. Nd4 Nc4 17. Nf5 Rfe8 18. Qf2 Nxb2 19. Qg3 g6
20. Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Nxd6 Qb6+ 22. Kh1 Rxc3 23. Nxe8 Nxe8 24. Qe5 Nxd1
25.Qxe8+ Kg7 26. Bxd1 Qe6 27. Qd8 Rc4 28. Bg4 Qxg4 29. Qf6+ Kh6 30. Rf4
Rxc2 31. g3 Qd1+ 0-1

Antonio

Date: 07 May 2006 05:09:24
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>
> Trying to help you I have asked to a local junior to provide (give) me his
> last defeats, ... here you have three to choose.
> (I particulary like first one, and second one is very interesting too)
>
> I hope you having a good work to help him to improve!
> It's your turn!

I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.

> [Event "??"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "local junior"]
> [Black "Lorenzo"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "D06"]
>
> 1. d4

He played 1. e4 in the other game, which suggests that he's sacrificing
depth in his repertoire in exchange for a "broader" one. I'm from the
"Fischer School" in that I believe a player should have a priy repertoire
that doesn't vary much, and which is strong enough that it doesn't
matter if people see it coming.

>1...d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4

Not what I would choose here (I'm a 1. e4 player anyway), but not bad.
White is trying to load up pressure on the queenside, but committing the
bishop early could backfire. 6. Be2 seems more noncomittal and aids White's
development a little more.

>6...Bd6 7. e5 Bb4

Black has made White's bishop look a bit foolish here.

> 8. Nf3 a6 9. a3 Bxc3+

Terrible. Black should retreat with 9...Be7 with a good chance at
equalizing. Instead he gives up his good bishop while supporting White's
pawn center and opening up the b-file. Black may already be lost here.

>10. bxc3 Nc6 11. Bd3 Nd5 12. Qd2

12. Bd2 snuffs out Black's counterplay more efficiently. No need to
complicate matters or surrender what will likely be a useful bishop for
later on.

>12...b5 13. Be4 Bb7 14. Rb1

White would have been better off completing his development with 14. O-O.
The move played isn't horrible, however.

>14...Rb8 15.a4 bxa4

The silicon prefers 15...Nce7, and I would tend to agree. This plays more
into White's hands.

>16. c4 Nde7 17. Bg5

17. d5 rips Black to shreds: 17...Na7 18. Ng5 exd5 19. e6 (2.24).

>17...Qc8 18. d5 Nd8 19. Bxe7?

Why trade? Black's knight isn't well-positioned, and White can use as much
firepower as possible to uncork after he finishes developing. Still, he's
winning even here. After 19. O-O exd5 20. cxd5, Black is rapidly running
out of moves.

>19... Kxe7 20. d6+ cxd6 21. exd6+ Ke8 22. Ne5 Kf8 23. d7

23. Qa5 would have ended this.

>23...Qc7 24. Qb4+ Kg8 25. Qe7 g6 26. Rxb7 Qa5+ 27. Ke2 Qxe5

Silicon says Black is better after 27...Rxb7. White has already lost the
thread, however.

>28. Rxb8 Qxb8 29. Rb1 Qc7 30. Rb7??

30. c5 is 0.57 according to my engine. This move loses.

>30... Qa5

All Black had to do was play 30...Nxb7 to win.

> 31.Rb8 Kg7 32. g4

Terrible and antipositional, but White is already facing problems.

>32...a3 33. g5 Rf8

33...Qe5 all but puts White out of business.

>34. h4

34. Rb3 was necessary here but probably only delays the inevitable.

>34...a2 35. h5 a1=Q 36. h6+ Kg8 0-1

White seems to be more booked up than Black, but hasn't yet figured out how
to transition to the middlegame. If he's young, that problem will correct
itself as he gains experience. His first 5-10 moves were very solid.

> [Event "??"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Gonzalez, Gerardo"]
> [Black "local junior"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C01"]
>
> 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+

I recommend 4...Nf6. This move is playable, however.

>5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Be2 dxc4 8.O-O Bxc3

8...Be6 would have retained an advantage for Black.

>9. bxc3 b5 10. a4 c6 11. Ne5 Nd5 12. Qc2 f6 13. Ng4 Nd7 14. Ne3 N7b6 15.
>axb5 cxb5 16. Bf3 Bb7 17. Nf5 Bc8 18. Re1 Re8 19. Bd2 Be6 20. Ng3 Qd7
>21.Be4 g6 22. Ne2 a5 23. Nf4 Ra6?

Horrid. Black will die a quick death on the kingside.

> 24. Nxe6

24. Bxg6 also works: 24..hxg6 25. Qg6+ Kh8 26. Rxe6 Rxe6 27. Qh6+ Kg8
(27...Qh7?? 28. Ng6+ and 29. Qf8#). 28. Nxe6 (2.33).

>24...Rxe6 25. Bxg6

Same attack. "Resigns" works well for Black here.

>25...hxg6 26. Qxg6+ Kf8 27.Rxe6 Qxe6 28. Re1 Qxe1+ 29. Bxe1 a4 30. Qb1 Ra5
>31. h4 a3 32. Kf1 a2 33. Qa1 Na4 34. Qxa2 Kg7 1-0
>

> [Event "??"]
> [Site "?"]
> [Date "????.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "local junior"]
> [Black "Negre"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "B92"]
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3

This move was practically thought an error 20-30 years ago. Now it's the
main line. I prefer 6. Bg5, but the Poisoned Pawn is a bitch and may only
be a forced draw.

>6...e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O b5 10. a3 Bb7 11. f4

This appears to be the key error, and there doesn't seem to be a way for
White to make this pawn advance useful in a way that avoids what happened in
the game.

11. Nd5, 11. Qd2, and 11. Qd3 are all worth considering, as is 11. f3 and
even 11. Kh1.

11. f3 is probably strongest here, and is definitely the most thematic move.

>11...Rc8 12. Bf3 O-O 13. Qe2 exf4 14.Bxf4 Ne5 15.Rad1 Qc7 16. Nd4 Nc4 17.
>Nf5 Rfe8 18. Qf2 Nxb2

19. RESIGNS should be played here.

19. Qg3 g6
> 20. Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Nxd6 Qb6+ 22. Kh1 Rxc3 23. Nxe8 Nxe8 24. Qe5 Nxd1
> 25.Qxe8+ Kg7 26. Bxd1 Qe6 27. Qd8 Rc4 28. Bg4 Qxg4 29. Qf6+ Kh6 30. Rf4
> Rxc2 31. g3 Qd1+ 0-1

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 10 May 2006 01:15:09
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>[Event "??"]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "????.??.??"]
>>[Round "?"]
>>[White "local junior"]
>>[Black "Negre"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>>[ECO "B92"]
>>
>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3
>
> This move was practically thought an error 20-30 years ago. Now it's the
> main line. I prefer 6. Bg5, but the Poisoned Pawn is a bitch and may only
> be a forced draw.
>

No words from me about that.

>
>>6...e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O b5 10. a3 Bb7 11. f4
>
> This appears to be the key error, and there doesn't seem to be a way for
> White to make this pawn advance useful in a way that avoids what happened in
> the game.
>
> 11. Nd5, 11. Qd2, and 11. Qd3 are all worth considering, as is 11. f3 and
> even 11. Kh1.
>
> 11. f3 is probably strongest here, and is definitely the most thematic move.
>

I do not agree, 11.f3 is thematic with the idea of 0-0-0 g4-g5.
I do not agree about that move being the most tematic here and also
being the strongest here

11.f4 is as playable as other suggestions here. We have a normal
position similar to positions played by many strong players.

>
>>11...Rc8 12. Bf3 O-O 13. Qe2 exf4 14.Bxf4 Ne5 15.Rad1 Qc7 16. Nd4 Nc4 17.
>>Nf5 Rfe8 18. Qf2 Nxb2
>
> 19. RESIGNS should be played here.

True that white miscalculated something here and should to be lost, but
black did not continued with best moves and white obtained many chances
during the game.

It seems no analysis as made. No problem!

>
> 19. Qg3 g6
>>20. Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Nxd6 Qb6+ 22. Kh1 Rxc3 23. Nxe8 Nxe8 24. Qe5 Nxd1
>>25.Qxe8+ Kg7 26. Bxd1 Qe6 27. Qd8 Rc4 28. Bg4 Qxg4 29. Qf6+ Kh6 30. Rf4
>>Rxc2 31. g3 Qd1+ 0-1

Date: 10 May 2006 01:05:16
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>[Event "??"]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "????.??.??"]
>>[Round "?"]
>>[White "Gonzalez, Gerardo"]
>>[Black "local junior"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[ECO "C01"]
>>
>>1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Bb4+
>
> I recommend 4...Nf6. This move is playable, however.
>
>>5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Be2 dxc4 8.O-O Bxc3
>
> 8...Be6 would have retained an advantage for Black.
>
>>9. bxc3 b5 10. a4 c6 11. Ne5 Nd5 12. Qc2 f6 13. Ng4 Nd7 14. Ne3 N7b6 15.
>>axb5 cxb5 16. Bf3 Bb7 17. Nf5 Bc8 18. Re1 Re8 19. Bd2 Be6 20. Ng3 Qd7
>>21.Be4 g6 22. Ne2 a5 23. Nf4 Ra6?
>
> Horrid. Black will die a quick death on the kingside.
>

23... Nxf4! 24.Bxa8 Nd3 seems good for black.

It seems black consolidated a pawn plus, but this mistake turned the
position.

>
>>24. Nxe6
>
> 24. Bxg6 also works: 24..hxg6 25. Qg6+ Kh8 26. Rxe6 Rxe6 27. Qh6+ Kg8
> (27...Qh7?? 28. Ng6+ and 29. Qf8#). 28. Nxe6 (2.33).
>
>>24...Rxe6 25. Bxg6
>
> Same attack. "Resigns" works well for Black here.
>

Curious, ... I agree that white should be better but few moves later
black is winning!!

33...Na4?? was a mistake in time presurre, 33...Ra3 followed by Na4
seems to give black a clear advantage.

>
>>25...hxg6 26. Qxg6+ Kf8 27.Rxe6 Qxe6 28. Re1 Qxe1+ 29. Bxe1 a4 30. Qb1 Ra5
>>31. h4 a3 32. Kf1 a2 33. Qa1 Na4 34. Qxa2 Kg7 1-0

Well, ... there is no analysis in this game!

Date: 10 May 2006 00:44:43
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.
>
>>[Event "??"]
>>[Site "?"]
>>[Date "????.??.??"]
>>[Round "?"]
>>[White "local junior"]
>>[Black "Lorenzo"]
>>[Result "0-1"]
>>[ECO "D06"]
>>
>>1. d4
>
> He played 1. e4 in the other game, which suggests that he's sacrificing
> depth in his repertoire in exchange for a "broader" one. I'm from the
> "Fischer School" in that I believe a player should have a priy repertoire
> that doesn't vary much, and which is strong enough that it doesn't
> matter if people see it coming.
>

I do not agree, my advice is "first enjoy chess and improve your chess
skills (tactics, endings strategical themes, ...) and only later study
openings"

>
>>1...d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>
> Not what I would choose here (I'm a 1. e4 player anyway), but not bad.
> White is trying to load up pressure on the queenside, but committing the
> bishop early could backfire. 6. Be2 seems more noncomittal and aids White's
> development a little more.
>

I do not agree.
The move I would choose is 6.Nf3, in some positions it's not clear where
the bishop will be well placed (here e2 and d3 are possible targets) and
I prefer not to decide where to put it if there are a useful move.
Later in the game d3 prove to be more useful but with another
continuations maybe e2 would be preferable.

>
>>6...Bd6 7. e5 Bb4
>>8. Nf3 a6 9. a3 Bxc3+

>
> Terrible. Black should retreat with 9...Be7 with a good chance at
> equalizing. Instead he gives up his good bishop while supporting White's
> pawn center and opening up the b-file. Black may already be lost here.
>

I think 9...Bxc3?! is not best option but "lost" is a bit exagerated.

It's clear that 8...a6 was a nonsense move.

And another interesting option was 8.Qg4. It's a thematic move in french
defence positions and here seem good enough to force 8...Bf8.
Here we can see the importance of adquire chess knowledge in general: a
typical strategical idea in a very different opening can be useful here.

>
>>10. bxc3 Nc6 11. Bd3 Nd5 12. Qd2
>>12...b5 13. Be4 Bb7 14. Rb1
>
> White would have been better off completing his development with 14. O-O.
> The move played isn't horrible, however.
>

Here we have a very interesting position. Sometimes 0-0 is a good option
but sometimes it's too slow allowing blacj to have defece enough.

Here white idea was to open the center and black king in the center was
a big problem but white king in the center was not to bad. You can
compare the force of white attack ideas with black king in g8 with the
situation ocurred in the game.

I do not assure that 14.Rb1 was best move but I think that to decide
when to play 0-0 or not is a big question in chess.

>
>>14...Rb8 15.a4 bxa4
>
> The silicon prefers 15...Nce7, and I would tend to agree. This plays more
> into White's hands.
>

15...Nce7! is a typical engine move being main idea to answer 16.axb5?
with 16...Nxc3!. Maybe too much difficult to find for an amateur player.
I do not criticise both players not seeing that defence idea.

>
>>16. c4 Nde7 17. Bg5
>
> 17. d5 rips Black to shreds: 17...Na7 18. Ng5 exd5 19. e6 (2.24).
>

Here I do not understand. It seems actual move lead to a easy win.
Why to criticise a move which wins easily?

>
>>17...Qc8 18. d5 Nd8 19. Bxe7?
>
> Why trade? Black's knight isn't well-positioned, and White can use as much
> firepower as possible to uncork after he finishes developing. Still, he's
> winning even here. After 19. O-O exd5 20. cxd5, Black is rapidly running
> out of moves.
>

I will write the same as in the previous move:
Why to criticise a move which wins easily?

>
>>19... Kxe7 20. d6+ cxd6 21. exd6+ Ke8 22. Ne5 Kf8 23. d7
>
> 23. Qa5 would have ended this.
>

White has played better and has a winnig position.

Here moves like 23.Qb4, 23.0-0 also wins easily. There are many moves
which lead to an easy win, including the move played in the game.

>
>>23...Qc7 24. Qb4+ Kg8 25. Qe7 g6 26. Rxb7 Qa5+ 27. Ke2 Qxe5
>
> Silicon says Black is better after 27...Rxb7. White has already lost the
> thread, however.
>

It's very difficult to manage silicon monsters in those positions to
discover the truth.

First I think the best way to win the game was 25.f4! and 25.Qe7? was bad.
Then I tink 26.Ng4! lead to clear advantage for white and 26.0-0 is
better for white too.

26.Rxb7? allows 26...Qe5! 27.Rxb8 Qxe4! with equality

- Respect to your 27...Rxb7 I think black has to face many problems
after 28.Ng4!! (maybe white is winning here). Sure that engines will
have big trouble to see all the attacking possibilities for white and
many time is needed to see all lines.

>
>>28. Rxb8 Qxb8 29. Rb1 Qc7 30. Rb7??
>
> 30. c5 is 0.57 according to my engine. This move loses.

30.Kd3 is interesting too, but if black would have played 28...Qxe4
white advantage have disapeared.

30.Rb7? is a calculation mistake which loses.

>
>>30... Qa5
>
> All Black had to do was play 30...Nxb7 to win.
>

ok, 30....Qxc4 followed by Nxb7 also wins for black.

The move played (30....Qa5??) allows 31. Qf6! winning for white

>
>>31.Rb8 Kg7 32. g4
>
> Terrible and antipositional, but White is already facing problems.
>

My engine tells me that best move was 32.Qa3! Qc7 33.Rc8! Qxd7 34.Qc5!
followed by Rc7 but I think that line is very difficult to see, GM level
included.

>
>>32...a3 33. g5 Rf8
>
> 33...Qe5 all but puts White out of business.

My engine evaluates as equal that position

There are still inacuracies in following moves but I will stop here.

>
>>34. h4
>>34...a2 35. h5 a1=Q 36. h6+ Kg8 0-1
>
> White seems to be more booked up than Black, but hasn't yet figured out how
> to transition to the middlegame. If he's young, that problem will correct
> itself as he gains experience. His first 5-10 moves were very solid.

I think there are many tactical inacuracies in that game but here we can
see white having nice attacking ideas (He obtained an strong attack
position) and only losing the treath when failed to combine attack with
secure position of his king.

I have only pointed some of the tactical inacuracies/mistakes in that
game. I think those mistakes/inacuracies to be difficult to avoid but
with chess analisys white would improve.

I'm dissapointed with your advice.

You have mainly suggested moves (engine suggestions). Some of those
engines suggestions are not acurate because it's very difficult to
manage chess engines to discover the truth (maybe I'm wrong in some of
my criticism but sure you are wrong in many lines/evaluations). I also
think your engine to be old (or computer slow) or you have spend too
much few time.

Respect to suggesting ideas, I have not see much ideas in your advice:
- I have seen attacking ideas from white and I would have comment that
having more pieces around the king usually help to attacker (that can
help analist to trust in white position and find moves like some Ng4 in
diferent moments). I think attacking intuition to be as important as
concrete calculation during the game and engine calculation after the game.
- I would have written that initiative is more important than material
to evaluate correctly moves like 26...Qe5! 27.Rxb8 Qxe4!. White failed
not protecting his king in critical moments allowing black entering in
the game.

And respect to opening knowledge to tell something interesting to white:
- I would have payed attention to 4.Nf3! and would have commented the
idea 4.e4?! Nf6 5.Nc3 e5!
- I would have commented the idea 8.Qg4 obtained form French positions.
- I would have comented the known "general idea" of developing knights
before bishops in the same wing as I have done in move 6th.

I hope you will take all I have written as a material study to improve
and not only criticism.

Antonio Torrecillas

Date: 09 May 2006 01:47:21
From: Earine
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ray Gordon wrote:
>> [Event "??"]
>> [Site "?"]
>> [Date "????.??.??"]
>> [Round "?"]
>> [White "local junior"]
>> [Black "Negre"]
>> [Result "0-1"]
>> [ECO "B92"]
>>
>> 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3
>
> This move was practically thought an error 20-30 years ago. Now it's the
> main line. I prefer 6. Bg5, but the Poisoned Pawn is a bitch and may only
> be a forced draw.
>
>
>> 6...e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. Be2 Nc6 9. O-O b5 10. a3 Bb7 11. f4
>
> This appears to be the key error, and there doesn't seem to be a way for
> White to make this pawn advance useful in a way that avoids what happened in
> the game.
>
> 11. Nd5, 11. Qd2, and 11. Qd3 are all worth considering, as is 11. f3 and
> even 11. Kh1.
>
> 11. f3 is probably strongest here, and is definitely the most thematic move.

11. f3 may be the strongest, but I don't think that 11. f4 is an error.
It seems to me that it was White next moves (12. Bf3 and 13. Qe2) that
were too passive. After 11. f4 Rc8, how about 12. Nd5 or 12. Bg4, trying
to get the initiative?

>
>> 11...Rc8 12. Bf3 O-O 13. Qe2 exf4 14.Bxf4 Ne5 15.Rad1 Qc7 16. Nd4 Nc4 17.
>> Nf5 Rfe8 18. Qf2 Nxb2
>
> 19. RESIGNS should be played here.

It was not necessary to give the pawn. For example 18. b3 was possible.
But if you do sacrifice, you don't resing the next move! The position is
not easy and there are possibilities for both Black and White to go wrong.

>
> 19. Qg3 g6
>> 20. Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Nxd6 Qb6+ 22. Kh1 Rxc3 23. Nxe8 Nxe8 24. Qe5 Nxd1
>> 25.Qxe8+ Kg7 26. Bxd1 Qe6 27. Qd8 Rc4 28. Bg4 Qxg4 29. Qf6+ Kh6 30. Rf4
>> Rxc2 31. g3 Qd1+ 0-1
>
>

-Earine

Date: 07 May 2006 19:03:58
From: Earine
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>> Trying to help you I have asked to a local junior to provide (give) me his
>> last defeats, ... here you have three to choose.
>> (I particulary like first one, and second one is very interesting too)
>>
>> I hope you having a good work to help him to improve!
>> It's your turn!
>
> I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.
>

[snip]

>
>> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>

There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder why Ray - the
opening expert - does not comment it at all?

Dan Heisman wrote about this "Incorrect Queen's Gambit Defense" in his
ch 2006 column on Chesscafe.com.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman62.pdf

Here's a quote from Dan:
"1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6(?) This natural but weak move seems to be the
granddaddy of opening inaccuracies and, of course, it also occurs
after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5(?). If White meets this move sequence correctly,
it allows him more than the usual opening advantage. One way to avoid
this sequence is to remember that the only three common moves for Black
after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 are pawn moves: 2�dxc4 (Queen�s Gambit Accepted);
2�c6 (Slav); and 2�e6 (Queen�s Gambit Declined). All other moves are
rare, suspicious, or inaccurate!"

Nunn's Chess Openings gives white +/- for the variation starting with 2.
...Nf6.

Perhaps the move 2. ...Nf6 is in the book of Ray's computer. Therefore
it is ok for him. (My computer is still "in book" after 2. ...Nf6).

For the rest of the analysis (or "lesson"): as an amateur I don't find
it very helpful. I can check the computer evaluations and variations by
myself. There's very little explanation why some move is weak and
another is better instead of it.

With the first game he has at least tried, but I would not call the
notes for the second or the third game *analysis*.

-Earine

Date: 07 May 2006 18:29:06
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>>>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>>> Trying to help you I have asked to a local junior to provide (give) me
>>> his last defeats, ... here you have three to choose.
>>> (I particulary like first one, and second one is very interesting too)
>>>
>>> I hope you having a good work to help him to improve!
>>> It's your turn!
>>
>> I'll answer as if it were a student seeking opening guidance from me.
>>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>>
>
> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder why Ray - the
> opening expert - does not comment it at all?
>
> Dan Heisman wrote about this "Incorrect Queen's Gambit Defense" in his
> ch 2006 column on Chesscafe.com.
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman62.pdf
>
> Here's a quote from Dan:
> "1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6(?) This natural but weak move seems to be the granddaddy
> of opening inaccuracies and, of course, it also occurs
> after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5(?). If White meets this move sequence correctly, it
> allows him more than the usual opening advantage. One way to avoid this
> sequence is to remember that the only three common moves for Black after
> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 are pawn moves: 2�dxc4 (Queen�s Gambit Accepted); 2�c6
> (Slav); and 2�e6 (Queen�s Gambit Declined). All other moves are rare,
> suspicious, or inaccurate!"

I did see that and commented that White had outplayed Black in the opening.
If it were my student, however, he'd be playing 1.e4 or 1. c4 in all
likelihood.

> Nunn's Chess Openings gives white +/- for the variation starting with 2.
> ...Nf6.

When I train, I often "forgive" move-order errors if I can't force the same
line in tournament play, to get better practice.

> Perhaps the move 2. ...Nf6 is in the book of Ray's computer. Therefore it
> is ok for him. (My computer is still "in book" after 2. ...Nf6).
>
> For the rest of the analysis (or "lesson"): as an amateur I don't find it
> very helpful. I can check the computer evaluations and variations by
> myself. There's very little explanation why some move is weak and another
> is better instead of it.

I did more than check the computer in a cursory way. With the Najdorf, I
tried many variations to make 11. f4 work, and said that f3 was more
thematic.

> With the first game he has at least tried, but I would not call the notes
> for the second or the third game *analysis*.

I did say ONE game in my post, and I was given THREE....so my time was cut
in thirds.

One reason I don't make bold statements about opening moves is that time and
again, computers are showing that what was once thought unplayable, isn't
always.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 08 May 2006 00:22:30
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Earine ha escrit:
>>> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>
> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder why Ray - the
> opening expert - does not comment it at all?
>
> Dan Heisman wrote about this "Incorrect Queen's Gambit Defense" in his
> ch 2006 column on Chesscafe.com.
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman62.pdf
>
> Here's a quote from Dan:
> "1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6(?) This natural but weak move seems to be the
> granddaddy of opening inaccuracies and, of course, it also occurs
> after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5(?). If White meets this move sequence correctly,
> it allows him more than the usual opening advantage. One way to avoid
> this sequence is to remember that the only three common moves for Black
> after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 are pawn moves: 2�dxc4 (Queen�s Gambit Accepted);
> 2�c6 (Slav); and 2�e6 (Queen�s Gambit Declined). All other moves are
> rare, suspicious, or inaccurate!"
>
> Nunn's Chess Openings gives white +/- for the variation starting with 2.
> ...Nf6.
>
> Perhaps the move 2. ...Nf6 is in the book of Ray's computer. Therefore
> it is ok for him. (My computer is still "in book" after 2. ...Nf6).

Hello,

Long ago I read somewhere that after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5
- 4. e4 is premature due to 4...Nf6 5. Nc3 e5!
That key position need to be clarified, ... but if it is good for black
(I mean "equal") only implies that white played inacurately.
- 4.Nf3! is best option preparing 5.e4 (and being controled ....e5)
I think that move lead to a little advantage for white but completely
playable at under top 10 level.

If my old knowledge is correct the actual moves should be annotated as:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! (well, maybe a bit exagerated) 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4?!
Nb6?! 5. Nc3 e6.

I will add something about the entire game soon.

Antonio T.

PS: I completely disagree with Dan words, a top 10 player as Morozevic
has played other black 2th moves like 2...e5 and 2...Nc6. Other playable
move is 2...Bf5.
I suppose Mr Heisman tried to explain those moves are not suitable for
amateur players (being playable but for more difficult to understand
explanations)

Date: 07 May 2006 18:30:33
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> Here's a quote from Dan:
>> "1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6(?) This natural but weak move seems to be the
>> granddaddy of opening inaccuracies and, of course, it also occurs
>> after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5(?). If White meets this move sequence correctly,
>> it allows him more than the usual opening advantage. One way to avoid
>> this sequence is to remember that the only three common moves for Black
>> after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 are pawn moves: 2�dxc4 (Queen�s Gambit Accepted); 2�c6
>> (Slav); and 2�e6 (Queen�s Gambit Declined). All other moves are rare,
>> suspicious, or inaccurate!"
>>
>> Nunn's Chess Openings gives white +/- for the variation starting with 2.
>> ...Nf6.
>>
>> Perhaps the move 2. ...Nf6 is in the book of Ray's computer. Therefore it
>> is ok for him. (My computer is still "in book" after 2. ...Nf6).
>
> Hello,
>
> Long ago I read somewhere that after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5
> - 4. e4 is premature due to 4...Nf6 5. Nc3 e5!
> That key position need to be clarified, ... but if it is good for black (I
> mean "equal") only implies that white played inacurately.
> - 4.Nf3! is best option preparing 5.e4 (and being controled ....e5)
> I think that move lead to a little advantage for white but completely
> playable at under top 10 level.
>
> If my old knowledge is correct the actual moves should be annotated as:
> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6?! (well, maybe a bit exagerated) 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4?!
> Nb6?! 5. Nc3 e6.
>
> I will add something about the entire game soon.
>
> Antonio T.
>
> PS: I completely disagree with Dan words, a top 10 player as Morozevic has
> played other black 2th moves like 2...e5 and 2...Nc6. Other playable move
> is 2...Bf5.
> I suppose Mr Heisman tried to explain those moves are not suitable for
> amateur players (being playable but for more difficult to understand
> explanations)

I did think the move order was a bit odd, but declaring victory for White so
early would seem foolish.

White also seemed to handle the opening very well.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 07 May 2006 23:42:19
From: James
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Earine wrote :

>>> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4 Nb6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bf4
>>
>
> There is an inaccuracy already in this sequence. I wonder why Ray - the
> opening expert - does not comment it at all?
>
> Dan Heisman wrote about this "Incorrect Queen's Gambit Defense" in his
> ch 2006 column on Chesscafe.com.
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman62.pdf
>
> Here's a quote from Dan:
> "1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6(?) This natural but weak move seems to be the
> granddaddy of opening inaccuracies and, of course, it also occurs
> after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5(?). If White meets this move sequence correctly,
> it allows him more than the usual opening advantage. One way to avoid
> this sequence is to remember that the only three common moves for Black
> after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 are pawn moves: 2�dxc4 (Queen�s Gambit Accepted);
> 2�c6 (Slav); and 2�e6 (Queen�s Gambit Declined). All other moves are
> rare, suspicious, or inaccurate!"
>
> Nunn's Chess Openings gives white +/- for the variation starting with 2.
> ...Nf6.
True indeed, but...
The only continuation usually found is 3...Nxd5 (sometimes Qxd5)
There is however another possibility 3...c6
This continuation has been very rarely used by players above 2000, but
the only two examples I have are a draw and a black victory.
In the positions I have analyzed, I found that white are slightly
better, but not that much.
Comments welcomed...

Date: 03 May 2006 01:33:38
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Just a note: I was swamped with work the past weekend so I'm behind on a lot
of things.

I'm assuming that the "junior" isn't some GM player or whatever.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918s

Date: 03 May 2006 22:06:03
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
> Just a note: I was swamped with work the past weekend so I'm behind on a lot
> of things.
>
> I'm assuming that the "junior" isn't some GM player or whatever.

a GM? not at all!

just have a look at the games: too many mistakes, no deep opening
theory, ...

AT

Date: 02 May 2006 23:09:21
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:

> En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>
> Trying to help you I have asked to a local junior to provide (give) me
> his last defeats, ... here you have three to choose.
> (I particulary like first one, and second one is very interesting too)
>
> I hope you having a good work to help him to improve!
> It's your turn!
>
> [Event "??"]
> (...)

Ray, I saw you have no more pretenders to that lesson and I thought my
young team "mate" would have that free help from you.
It can be good for him and I was interested too in reading your comments
(simple curiosity, that would be the first time I read you here posting
your thoughs and advice about a concrete game of another people ... of
course if your comments are like the 1/x rule I will be very critic)

I suggested it to him, and He provided us the three defeats I posted.
(only the moves and players, if you want I can ask him about the
tournament/chesserver, time control and concrete date) I think there are
slow time control games.

If I have time I will have a look at those games too in some days.

I suppose there are no problem being me the messenger.

Thanks
AT

Date: 30 Apr 2006 07:49:01
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
> Eastern District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>

How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:15:47
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>>
>> --
>> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
>> Eastern District of PA Judge
>> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>>
>
> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?

Probably the same way that the sexless loser who still lives at home with
his mommy and says he has to be convinced he is a woman in order to get off,
can give lessons on how to seduce women....

________________________________________________________________
http://www.inraptured.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=465

I don't rate myself but my style as done by Hellen works on me enough to
convince me briefly that I'm female and get me off.
_______________________________________________________________

Date: 30 Apr 2006 12:54:13
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > writes:

>>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>>
>>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Based on correspondance results - I understand.
>
> Pretty shitty understanding then.
>
> One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my rating
> there was listed as 1956.

It's a pity you didn't get proper training in your youth. Clearly, you
were World Champion material.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:24:50
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>>>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>>>
>>>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Based on correspondance results - I understand.
>>
>> Pretty shitty understanding then.
>>
>> One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my
>> rating
>> there was listed as 1956.
>
>
> It's a pity you didn't get proper training in your youth. Clearly, you
> were World Champion material.
>

Gordo has OTHER interests....

________________________________________________________________
http://www.inraptured.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=465

I don't rate myself but my style as done by Hellen works on me enough to
convince me briefly that I'm female and get me off.
________________________________________________________________

Date: 30 Apr 2006 15:18:37
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>>>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>>>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>>>
>>>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Based on correspondance results - I understand.
>>
>> Pretty shitty understanding then.
>>
>> One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my
>> rating
>> there was listed as 1956.
>
>
> It's a pity you didn't get proper training in your youth. Clearly, you
> were World Champion material.

I played priily against a group of four friends, one of whom had some
tournament experience. He was actually stronger than me until we were 17,
so he was even more "material" if you go by that standard.

When I was 20-24 years old and training seriously, I had a number of
patrons, a few groupies, and even won a few "big" games and reasonably sized
class or quad prizes (including tying Asa Hoffman for first in one).

If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now, but I knew that when I
quit. A few of my sparring partners from those years were part-time players
who were expert strength as well. I quit because I took a full-time job and
built a social life. Within about three weeks of quitting, I suddenly had a
ton of cash in my pocket, my bills easily paid, lots of free time on my
hands, and more women in my life.

Nightlife isn't so kind to older folk, and the reduced energy that comes
with age lends itself to chess, particularly with computers to teach us and
the internet to provide world-class training literally at all times.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:36:08
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>>>>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>>>>
>>>>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on correspondance results - I understand.
>>>
>>> Pretty shitty understanding then.
>>>
>>> One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my
>>> rating
>>> there was listed as 1956.
>>
>>
>> It's a pity you didn't get proper training in your youth. Clearly, you
>> were World Champion material.
>
> I played priily against a group of four friends, one of whom had some
> tournament experience. He was actually stronger than me until we were 17,
> so he was even more "material" if you go by that standard.
>
> When I was 20-24 years old and training seriously, I had a number of
> patrons, a few groupies,

LOL!!! Chess groupies... LOL!!!

> and even won a few "big" games and reasonably sized class or quad prizes
> (including tying Asa Hoffman for first in one).
>
> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now, but I knew that when
> I quit. A few of my sparring partners from those years were part-time
> players who were expert strength as well. I quit because I took a
> full-time job and built a social life. Within about three weeks of
> quitting, I suddenly had a ton of cash in my pocket, my bills easily paid,
> lots of free time on my hands, and more women in my life.
>

HAHAHAHA!!! More women in your life... that's odd since you come to
alt.seduction.fast to brag about your chess groupies from 20 years ago, then
you come to chess groups and claim to left the game to get women....

And you talk about paid bills and cash in your pocket, yet you are currently
a jobless loser who still lives at home with your mommy at age 40. Anybody
who wishes can do a public records search to find your bankrupcy, wherein it
states clearly that you have NO assets.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA
In Re PARKER,GORDON R
COUNTY: PHILADELPHIA
PETITIONER: PARKER,GORDON R
NUMBER: 9812584
FILED: 02/27/1998
TYPE: CHAPTER 7 FILING (NEW/REOPEN)
STATUS: Discharged
FIRST MEETING DATE: 04/07/1998
DISCHARGE/DISMISS DATE: 06/10/1998
HEARING TIME: 04:30 P.M.
ATTORNEY: PRO SE
FIRM: PRO SE
TRUSTEE: GLORIA SATRIALE
ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION: NO

Date: 01 May 2006 01:30:26
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

30.04.2006 21:18, Ray Gordon:

> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,

If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that
you would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs.
They usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - and I
am not talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do you know
did start playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 07 May 2006 18:31:27
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,
>
> If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that you
> would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs. They
> usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - and I am not
> talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do you know did start
> playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?

Bogo.

The reasons for this theory on age have very little to do with the ability
of a human to do it, but rather the motivation for doing so.

Also, most championship calibre chess players take the game up early in
life.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 08 May 2006 09:48:33
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

08.05.2006 00:31, Ray Gordon:
>>> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,
>> If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that you
>> would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs. They
>> usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - and I am not
>> talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do you know did start
>> playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?
>
> Bogo.
>
> The reasons for this theory on age have very little to do with the ability
> of a human to do it, but rather the motivation for doing so.

That most GMs become very strong after a few years is not really a
theory. Based on this observation I just say, that I see it as unlikely
that you will become a GM.

>
> Also, most championship calibre chess players take the game up early in
> life.

What was the age you started?

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 09 May 2006 12:05:30
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>>>> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,
>>> If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that
>>> you would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs.
>>> They usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - and I
>>> am not talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do you know
>>> did start playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?
>>
>> Bogo.
>>
>> The reasons for this theory on age have very little to do with the
>> ability of a human to do it, but rather the motivation for doing so.
>
> That most GMs become very strong after a few years is not really a theory.
> Based on this observation I just say, that I see it as unlikely that you
> will become a GM.

How about you put up say your ENTIRE NET WORTH to back up your mouth? I
don't make GM by age 45, you win.

I'll put up a dollar, since there's *no way* I'll make it, right?

GMs generally take almost a decade or more to get the title, btw.

>> Also, most championship calibre chess players take the game up early in
>> life.
>
> What was the age you started?

I learned the rules as a toddler, but didn't study seriously until I was 17,
then again at age 20-24, then I quit. Took it up a few years ago, for six
serious years of study.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:43:54
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,
>>>> If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that
>>>> you would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs.
>>>> They usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - and
>>>> I am not talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do you
>>>> know did start playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?
>>>
>>> Bogo.
>>>
>>> The reasons for this theory on age have very little to do with the
>>> ability of a human to do it, but rather the motivation for doing so.
>>
>> That most GMs become very strong after a few years is not really a
>> theory. Based on this observation I just say, that I see it as unlikely
>> that you will become a GM.
>
> How about you put up say your ENTIRE NET WORTH to back up your mouth? I
> don't make GM by age 45, you win.
>

I'd take that bet.

I'll bet Gordo's entire net worth... that by age 45, he'll still be the same
sad pathetic loser that he is today.

> I'll put up a dollar, since there's *no way* I'll make it, right?
>

Well a dollar is significantly more than your entire net worth, but OK... a
buck it is.

> GMs generally take almost a decade or more to get the title, btw.
>
>
>>> Also, most championship calibre chess players take the game up early in
>>> life.
>>
>> What was the age you started?
>
> I learned the rules as a toddler,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

> but didn't study seriously until I was 17, then again at age 20-24, then I
> quit. Took it up a few years ago, for six serious years of study.
>

And yet you still rate only 1900.

Date: 25 Jun 2006 12:20:24
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

In article <iuhng.43175$fG3.30997@dukeread09 >
"Odious" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,
> >>>> If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that
> >>>> you would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs.
> >>>> They usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - and
> >>>> I am not talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do you
> >>>> know did start playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?
> >>>
> >>> Bogo.
> >>>
> >>> The reasons for this theory on age have very little to do with the
> >>> ability of a human to do it, but rather the motivation for doing so.
> >>
> >> That most GMs become very strong after a few years is not really a
> >> theory. Based on this observation I just say, that I see it as unlikely
> >> that you will become a GM.
> >
> > How about you put up say your ENTIRE NET WORTH to back up your mouth? I
> > don't make GM by age 45, you win.
> >
>
> I'd take that bet.
>
> I'll bet Gordo's entire net worth... that by age 45, he'll still be the same
> sad pathetic loser that he is today.
>
>
> > I'll put up a dollar, since there's *no way* I'll make it, right?
> >
>
> Well a dollar is significantly more than your entire net worth, but OK... a
> buck it is.
>
>
> > GMs generally take almost a decade or more to get the title, btw.
> >
> >
> >>> Also, most championship calibre chess players take the game up early in
> >>> life.
> >>
> >> What was the age you started?
> >
> > I learned the rules as a toddler,
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
>
> > but didn't study seriously until I was 17, then again at age 20-24, then I
> > quit. Took it up a few years ago, for six serious years of study.
> >
>
> And yet you still rate only 1900.

Too funny. Gotta love his arrogance ("ONE game") when NO one is
wanting his advice. That's NPD for ya. To be desperately dependent
on the very same people he needs to feel better than.

Date: 11 May 2006 16:47:58
From: Shut up and Sue Me
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

In article <[email protected] >
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> How about you put up say your ENTIRE NET WORTH to back up your mouth? I
> don't make GM by age 45, you win.
>
> I'll put up a dollar, since there's *no way* I'll make it, right?

It is pretty generous of you to match with *twice* your own net
worth.

Date: 10 May 2006 03:31:19
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

09.05.2006 18:05, Ray Gordon:

> How about you put up say your ENTIRE NET WORTH to back up your mouth? I
> don't make GM by age 45, you win.

I never had a high regard of this pubertal habit in this group of
"backing up" with bets for money. If I say something is unlikely, I say
it is unlikely, not impossible. And I gave a reason for my opinion. I
look at what I see, put it together with what I know and come to my
conclusions. They might be wrong or right, but I see absolutely no sense
in betting on them.

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:45:25
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 09.05.2006 18:05, Ray Gordon:
>
>> How about you put up say your ENTIRE NET WORTH to back up your mouth? I
>> don't make GM by age 45, you win.
>
> I never had a high regard of this pubertal habit in this group of "backing
> up" with bets for money. If I say something is unlikely, I say it is
> unlikely, not impossible. And I gave a reason for my opinion. I look at
> what I see, put it together with what I know and come to my conclusions.
> They might be wrong or right, but I see absolutely no sense in betting on
> them.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

I advise you to take that bet.... granted gordo will never pay when he
loses, but it should be well worth the entertainment value of seeing kookjob
gordo screaming about the vast chess conspiracy that prevented him from
attaining his rightful ranking as GM.

Date: 01 May 2006 15:13:08
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ralf Callenberg Wrote:
> 30.04.2006 21:18, Ray Gordon:
>
> If I hadn't quit at 24 I probably would be GM by now,
>
> If you were 24 and just had a rating of about 2000 it's unlikely that
> you would have become a GM. Just look at the biographies of some GMs.
> They usually were much stronger than that already in their youth - an
> I
> am not talking about those 16 years old super GMs. Which GM do yo
> know
> did start playing chess on a serious level beyond 20?
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf

There was a world champion who learned the moves at 16. Petrosian

--
alexmagnus

Date: 02 May 2006 14:57:36
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

alexmagnus <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ralf Callenberg Wrote:
>> Which GM do you know did start playing chess on a serious level
>> beyond 20?
>
> There was a world champion who learned the moves at 16. Petrosian.

That's not true. chessgames.com has several games played by Petrosian
in 1944, the year of his fifteenth birthday. (They also have a game
from 1942 but one of the comments claims that the game was actually
played in 1944.)

Wikipedia claims that Petrosian learnt to play aged eight.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Ghost (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ haunting spirit but it's huge!

Date: 07 May 2006 18:32:30
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

\ >>> Which GM do you know did start playing chess on a serious level
>>> beyond 20?
>>
>> There was a world champion who learned the moves at 16. Petrosian.
>
> That's not true. chessgames.com has several games played by Petrosian
> in 1944, the year of his fifteenth birthday. (They also have a game
> from 1942 but one of the comments claims that the game was actually
> played in 1944.)
>
> Wikipedia claims that Petrosian learnt to play aged eight.

Botvinnik learned at 12.

Those players also didn't have the computers to learn from, and I did spend
my childhood playing video games as well as anyone (had the high scores on
all the machines, etc.). That theory is very applicable to chess.

It's a new ballgame.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:38:17
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>\>>> Which GM do you know did start playing chess on a serious level
>>>> beyond 20?
>>>
>>> There was a world champion who learned the moves at 16. Petrosian.
>>
>> That's not true. chessgames.com has several games played by Petrosian
>> in 1944, the year of his fifteenth birthday. (They also have a game
>> from 1942 but one of the comments claims that the game was actually
>> played in 1944.)
>>
>> Wikipedia claims that Petrosian learnt to play aged eight.
>
> Botvinnik learned at 12.
>
> Those players also didn't have the computers to learn from, and I did
> spend my childhood playing video games as well as anyone (had the high
> scores on all the machines, etc.). That theory is very applicable to
> chess.
>

So gordo's high score on pac man and donkey kong means he's a master chess
player.

LOL!!!

Date: 08 May 2006 09:44:07
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

08.05.2006 00:32, Ray Gordon:

> Botvinnik learned at 12.
>
> Those players also didn't have the computers to learn from,

But they had other strong players around to teach them. This is much
more effective than computers.

and I did spend
> my childhood playing video games as well as anyone (had the high scores on
> all the machines, etc.). That theory is very applicable to chess.
>
> It's a new ballgame.

This is nonsense. Bullet might be something of a video game. That's why
most chess players don't take it serious. Which ballgame do you know, do
the top players think an hour for the next move they make?

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 08 May 2006 10:28:29
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote:
> Which ballgame do you know, do the top players think an hour for the
> next move they make?

Soccer. It looks much smoother on TV because they edit out the pauses.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Miniature Tool (TM): it's like a handy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ household tool but you can hold in it
your hand!

Date: 01 May 2006 21:47:04
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

01.05.2006 16:13, alexmagnus:

> There was a world champion who learned the moves at 16. Petrosian.

And how long did it take him to reach master level?

Greetings,
Ralf

Date: 02 May 2006 15:03:33
From: alexmagnus
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Ralf Callenberg Wrote:
> 01.05.2006 16:13, alexmagnus:
>
> There was a world champion who learned the moves at 16. Petrosian.
>
> And how long did it take him to reach master level?
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
Well, I'm not good enough to see if a game is played on master level
but my impression from his games is he did it in less than one year

--
alexmagnus

Date: 30 Apr 2006 19:23:24
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

Date: 30 Apr 2006 23:27:16
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> It's a pity you didn't get proper training in your youth. Clearly, you
>> were World Champion material.
>>
>
> LOL

Is this a jealous 1200 player like that other fuckwad who used to post here?

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:25:28
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> It's a pity you didn't get proper training in your youth. Clearly, you
>>> were World Champion material.
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>
> Is this a jealous 1200 player like that other fuckwad who used to post
> here?
>

________________________________________________________________
http://www.inraptured.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=465

I don't rate myself but my style as done by Hellen works on me enough to
convince me briefly that I'm female and get me off.
________________________________________________________________

Date: 30 Apr 2006 08:36:50
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>>
>> --
>> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
>> Eastern District of PA Judge
>> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>>
>
> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?

Who's the 1500-rated player?

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 30 Apr 2006 14:09:31
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> First one to reply wins the free lesson.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
>>> Eastern District of PA Judge
>>> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>>>
>>
>> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?
>
> Who's the 1500-rated player?
>
>
>
That is your approx blitz rating on icc

Regards

Date: 30 Apr 2006 10:55:39
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>>> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?
>>
>> Who's the 1500-rated player?
>>
>>
>>
> That is your approx blitz rating on icc

As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a one-minute
player, not a blitz player.

My USCF peak rating was 2000.

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:21:44
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?
>>>
>>> Who's the 1500-rated player?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That is your approx blitz rating on icc
>
> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>
> My USCF peak rating was 2000.

Not according to the USCF...

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482187

They say you only rated 1900 and that was back in 1990.

Date: 30 Apr 2006 16:52:37
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?
>>>
>>> Who's the 1500-rated player?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That is your approx blitz rating on icc
>
> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>
> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>
>
>

Based on correspondance results - I understand.

Date: 24 Jun 2006 13:22:37
From: Odious
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> How can a 1500 player give a lesson to a sub 1800 player ?
>>>>
>>>> Who's the 1500-rated player?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is your approx blitz rating on icc
>>
>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>
>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Based on correspondance results - I understand.

Only 1968 via correspondance according to the USCF.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12482187

Date: 30 Apr 2006 13:36:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>
>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Based on correspondance results - I understand.

Pretty shitty understanding then.

One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my rating
there was listed as 1956.

You should check your facts before you go making yourself look so idiotic
and juvenile, if not just plain jealous.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918

Date: 30 Apr 2006 18:45:26
From: Terry
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>>
>>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Based on correspondance results - I understand.
>
> Pretty shitty understanding then.
>
> One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my rating
> there was listed as 1956.
>
> You should check your facts before you go making yourself look so idiotic
> and juvenile, if not just plain jealous.
>
>
Jealous of a 1956 - no way ?

My information comes from previous posts in this newsgroup. There seems to
be
dispute about your actual strength.

Regards

Date: 30 Apr 2006 15:11:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: I will analyze ONE game for anyone under 1800

>>>> As of when? Your info might be a little out of date. I'm also a
>>>> one-minute player, not a blitz player.
>>>>
>>>> My USCF peak rating was 2000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Based on correspondance results - I understand.
>>
>> Pretty shitty understanding then.
>>
>> One of my games was published in the August 1990 Chess Life, and my
>> rating there was listed as 1956.
>>
>> You should check your facts before you go making yourself look so idiotic
>> and juvenile, if not just plain jealous.
>>
>>
> Jealous of a 1956 - no way ?
>
> My information comes from previous posts in this newsgroup. There seems to
> be
> dispute about your actual strength.

USCF has the records.

I still get postcards with my rating, which was "1900P" meaning I had once
been an Expert.

Of course, if I suck so bad, no one will care if I hit my new floor of 1700
before playing in say the World Open, I presume.

--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918