| |
Main
Date: 21 Jun 2008 16:10:24
From: Chess One
Subject: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
Now here is a curious opening.
1. d4 f5
the Dutch, but what happens after
2. Bg5
quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, and
Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and maybe
even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
Therefore...
Black typically choses other move 2's. either
a) g6 or
b) h6
I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 18:09:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 27, 10:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Um, no. I think it was Polgarhontas who went west after marrying Captain
> Truong
Nonsense: Mr. Truong was just a Private.
Those battles he talked about winning in the
far distant Philippines? Pure invention. It
was the U.S. Cavalry that actually spear-
headed the attack-- led by Colonel Custer
himself. Most of the horses drowned en
route.
> > She cleverly led them way up North toward
> > Alaska, and away from California-- where
> > the gold was.
>
> On the coin she has a baby - interesting to think the child wound up in
> California, couldn't handle the discrimination against natives, took off for
> the gold rush itself, died on the way of pneumonia.
What did I tell you? They just weren't hardy
enough to make good slaves; they steal our
land, try to pretend they were here first-- it's an '
outrage! Why don't they just go back to where
they came from-- to Mongolia or wherever.
We can re-build the land bridge -- if that's all
that's stopping them -- out of discarded tires
and depleted uranium and stuff like that.
> > You know, you're the seventeenth person
> > in rgc to /claim/ to be a genius-- out of only
> > twenty-two posters total! Something is not
> > quite right about that, but I haven't quite
> > figured it out.
>
> Can it be that you are in the wrong group?
Why-- because I'm the only /real/ genius here?
Hey, I can get along with anybody-- even dimwits
and numb-skulls. Unlike /some people/, I don't
need to act superior, just because I am.
> a women once told me that she likes or dislikes men by their shoes!
> <alarming, no?>
Um, no. If you are desperate to try and impress
this ignorant woman, try wearing "Aussies" and
see how she reacts.
> women want good looks on movie stars
They're not likely to find them there... .
> but at home, they want guys who will carry out the garbage
> - could even look like the garbage
(Barely supresses powerful urge to provide link
to chessville.com's "about us" Web page photo.)
; >D
> Don't you think that winning outright in 27 moves without allowing any
> counter-play to be impressive?
Certainly. If only that were a description of
the game in question! In reality, WB self-
destructed; he abandoned his own King--
the traitor! A terrible game, really.
> I think that is often the refutation of Bxg5.
Never try to refute a weak move; such a
move is invariably followed by an even
weaker one!
> In terms of US championships, I think the generation before Fischer proved
> they were actually the premier group on the planet. 4 Olympiad golds in a
> row ain't nuthin'.
Tell me, oh wise one-- did wars have any
impact on this apparently stellar record?
The reason I ask is that, if you take the
reports of Jose Capablanca's astounding
winning streak and look at them closely,
you will find that /the reporters/ have
deliberately downplayed or even omitted
entirely the fact of his relative inactivity.
In short, such reports are not always
what they are quacked up to be. (There
are numerous other such examples.)
> And since that is a team event, this indicated 'the black
> earth' of American talent was actually very deep.
Or did it? What about the devastation upon
the other side of the pond, rendered by the
Great War and WWII? Is it not possibly that
the Atlantic Ocean played a part, by shielding
"us" (some of us, anyway) to a certain degree?
> The hiatus in US chess fortunes of course was that the comparison pre and
> post WWII was that whem the Soviets emerged they were professional players,
You mean the few who were not killed?
An amazing recovery!
> whereas Americans were still generally amateurs. Secondly, because of the
> continental distance from the ROW Americans couldn't evolve their game in
> mainland Europe as could the English.
Bingo. Long ago, a trip across the ocean was
a longish and rather dangerous undertaking.
Now we can fly across quickly, in a plane or a
sub.
> But there is some sort of return to
> prominence now, with, what is it, 2 x 2700 players, or is it 3?
Doesn't count. Imports may not be taxed,
but they still must wear the stamp "made
in Russia". What about /developing/ our
own talent, here? Oops-- chess is not so
popular here, is it? Football, basketball, and
stearoids-ball are the national obsessions,
not chess. Oh, and pro-wrestling, and kill-
each-other martial "arts", and money, of
course. And fancy cars.
> And although we laugh at retro-ratings, then get angry, to take these top
> players back to say 1970 and engage 'em with the Greats of that time is
> certainly an interesting topic. It is the general view of even 2nd tier
> Russian players that they are as good as the first tier some 40 years ago.
> Certainly they are equivalent by ratings - though these may be inflated?
Openings theory and computer training
aside, there are some things you just can't
transport through time. Since I know just
about nothing, I can look at the games of
the old timers and tell if they were any good
or not-- without judging them harshly as to
their subtle openings-theory gaffes.
> > Anyway, Walter Browne had a bad
> > tournament, and from this single game it
> > is fairly obvious /why/. Even when given
> > several opportunities, he declined to
> > defend his King in any way. It reminds
> > me of the game they chose for Chess
> > Lies magazine to demonstrate the chess
> > skill of Boris Gulko; a very poor choice,
> > considering that the opponent was far
> > outclassed, and that BG messed up
> > rather badly near the end. Nobody
> > seems to put any thought or effort into
> > their chess writing anymore; the bar is
> > so low that even folks like Ray Keene
> > can belly-roll over it.
>
> If you truly think so - then can continue to mention it. Or you could do
> something about it.
You mean to say that I can go back in
time and warn Walter Browne to defend
his King? What is he just brushes me off,
tells me I'm a lowly patzer, a Rook-odds
player- what do I do then? It's not like I
can beat him in a blitz game-- I would
have to take Mr. Tal back with me, and
he's not around anymore.
> As you see in this newsgroup commentaries about chess
> writing are rarely from anyone's demonstrated ability to do that - much
> similar in fact to people's talk about their chess, or even liking for the
> game.
Indeed you are right. Even when the world's
foremost authority on everything showed up,
he turned out to be all hat and no cattle. :<(
> The writing trap is something like the old saw about sailing; there being
> some people who use more naval terms than do actual sailors.
What about tying fancy knots? I thought
you could tell the real ones by the fact that
they could tie all sorts of tricky ones-- not
just the one they taught me so I could tie
my tennis shoes.
> Cordially, Phil Innes
The drugs have worn off then? No more
hissing and spitting?
> PS: I assume you are not interested in editing games?
Are games not entered into a database of
some sort-- which tags bad data instantly?
> But if you want your
> own on-line column you can write in the same place as does Ray Keene.
On his throne?
> You
> probably will need to pick a subject, and we got a new guy, ex-military, to
> write a well-received col on tactics. We also got us a psychologist to write
> about attitudes, and a real woman to write about women in the game.
A real woman, you say? Not many of those
left. In fact, if a real woman showed up at our
local tourneys, we might have more than just
a few players show up, for once. Bad for the
concentration, though... oh, what does it
matter-- we're all patzers anyway.
Now, psychology is an interesting subject.
Not as much posturing and strutting about
there. A lot of games are decided by it, by
psychology I mean. In fact, it may be a
close second to tactics in that regard.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 21:14:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 26, 9:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> but surely, one of us knows something about interior decorating?
> who here knows something about wallpaper?
Of course I know all about interior decorating!
Wallpaper? You stick it on with something...
er... glue, maybe.
> & to be on topic, what about "I torre whole in my nylons?" which is exterior
> decorating
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how
Torre got the blame for a move in the Dutch
Defense. Why not that guy who won two
games in a row? (Or did he have Black?)
> if i have to explain again that the King's Indian in /not/ a reference to
> Pochahontas ...
I know who she was; she's the Indian who
was supposed to help Jerry Lewis and Mr.
Martin (or was it Clark?) explore the West.
She cleverly led them way up North toward
Alaska, and away from California-- where
the gold was.
> what i said. anyway, i wasn't trying to attract /you/, i was waiting for
> chess net-chicks to show up in a reasonably sized horde so they could say
> they had an opportunity to talk with me, a real genius
You know, you're the seventeenth person
in rgc to /claim/ to be a genius-- out of only
twenty-two posters total! Something is not
quite right about that, but I haven't quite
figured it out.
> - as for your
> chances, we could suppress your origins, not mention corn at all, and say
> you are not exactly a genius, but the best the mid-west has got?
What about my good looks-- surely, that
is a selling point? Other folks around here
are even more overweight than I am, and a
few of them play even worse chess!
> but seems like we are the only two here interested in women, and i need a
> side-kick who is not completely hideously stupid, but with a clear enough
> difference between us - no need to put you down or ad hominize
You already have Larry Parr, and he can
spell. Just trade jobs with him-- you be
the self-important nitwit, and he, the toady.
But I don't see how it really matters.
> do it for chess, man, just act normal
Hey, can't blame you for giving up on
"supporting" Mr. Soltis' commentary. The
poor chap hasn't got a clue, as we saw
with his notorious "brilliancies" book, which
included one game where even a duffer
could refute what he thought was brilliant.
This is one reason that BF was able to
*demolish* the field so easily; the U.S.
Championship was not even in the same
class as, say, a Russian championship
or a big international event. Take the
position where Mr. Kavalek missed Bxg5,
for instance; Bobby Fischer or Anatoly
Karpov would have seen such a move
easily.
Anyway, Walter Browne had a bad
tournament, and from this single game it
is fairly obvious /why/. Even when given
several opportunities, he declined to
defend his King in any way. It reminds
me of the game they chose for Chess
Lies magazine to demonstrate the chess
skill of Boris Gulko; a very poor choice,
considering that the opponent was far
outclassed, and that BG messed up
rather badly near the end. Nobody
seems to put any thought or effort into
their chess writing anymore; the bar is
so low that even folks like Ray Keene
can belly-roll over it.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 10:21:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:631e80e2-2c94-44cd-99f1-85cf36f1a99a@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 9:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> if i have to explain again that the King's Indian in /not/ a reference to
>> Pochahontas ...
>
> I know who she was; she's the Indian who
> was supposed to help Jerry Lewis and Mr.
> Martin (or was it Clark?) explore the West.
Um, no. I think it was Polgarhontas who went west after marrying Captain
Truong
> She cleverly led them way up North toward
> Alaska, and away from California-- where
> the gold was.
On the coin she has a baby - interesting to think the child wound up in
California, couldn't handle the discrimination against natives, took off for
the gold rush itself, died on the way of pneumonia.
-------
> You know, you're the seventeenth person
> in rgc to /claim/ to be a genius-- out of only
> twenty-two posters total! Something is not
> quite right about that, but I haven't quite
> figured it out.
Can it be that you are in the wrong group?
>> - as for your
>> chances, we could suppress your origins, not mention corn at all, and say
>> you are not exactly a genius, but the best the mid-west has got?
>
> What about my good looks-- surely, that
> is a selling point? Other folks around here
> are even more overweight than I am, and a
> few of them play even worse chess!
a women once told me that she likes or dislikes men by their shoes!
<alarming, no? > women want good looks on movie stars, but at home, they want
guys who will carry out the garbage - could even look like the garbage
>> but seems like we are the only two here interested in women, and i need a
>> side-kick who is not completely hideously stupid, but with a clear enough
>> difference between us - no need to put you down or ad hominize
>
> You already have Larry Parr, and he can
> spell. Just trade jobs with him-- you be
> the self-important nitwit, and he, the toady.
> But I don't see how it really matters.
you ask introducing ad hom comments once again, fortunately you narrowly
avoided it - but at least you can understand what I write, since as ani ful
know, that has a lot to do with if you are attracted to the subject matter
>> do it for chess, man, just act normal
>
> Hey, can't blame you for giving up on
> "supporting" Mr. Soltis' commentary.
You can't?
> The
> poor chap hasn't got a clue, as we saw
> with his notorious "brilliancies" book, which
> included one game where even a duffer
> could refute what he thought was brilliant.
Ssshhh! He will intuit that you mean him - then there will be a great
hissing. Besides, its not duffer week, its duffus week according to the
official USCF calendar of terms.
> This is one reason that BF was able to
> *demolish* the field so easily; the U.S.
> Championship was not even in the same
> class as, say, a Russian championship
> or a big international event. Take the
> position where Mr. Kavalek missed Bxg5,
> for instance; Bobby Fischer or Anatoly
> Karpov would have seen such a move
> easily.
Don't you think that winning outright in 27 moves without allowing any
counter-play to be impressive? I think that is often the refutation of Bxg5.
In terms of US championships, I think the generation before Fischer proved
they were actually the premier group on the planet. 4 Olympiad golds in a
row ain't nuthin'. And since that is a team event, this indicated 'the black
earth' of American talent was actually very deep.
The hiatus in US chess fortunes of course was that the comparison pre and
post WWII was that whem the Soviets emerged they were professional players,
whereas Americans were still generally amateurs. Secondly, because of the
continental distance from the ROW Americans couldn't evolve their game in
mainland Europe as could the English. But there is some sort of return to
prominence now, with, what is it, 2 x 2700 players, or is it 3?
And although we laugh at retro-ratings, then get angry, to take these top
players back to say 1970 and engage 'em with the Greats of that time is
certainly an interesting topic. It is the general view of even 2nd tier
Russian players that they are as good as the first tier some 40 years ago.
Certainly they are equivalent by ratings - though these may be inflated?
> Anyway, Walter Browne had a bad
> tournament, and from this single game it
> is fairly obvious /why/. Even when given
> several opportunities, he declined to
> defend his King in any way. It reminds
> me of the game they chose for Chess
> Lies magazine to demonstrate the chess
> skill of Boris Gulko; a very poor choice,
> considering that the opponent was far
> outclassed, and that BG messed up
> rather badly near the end. Nobody
> seems to put any thought or effort into
> their chess writing anymore; the bar is
> so low that even folks like Ray Keene
> can belly-roll over it.
If you truly think so - then can continue to mention it. Or you could do
something about it. As you see in this newsgroup commentaries about chess
writing are rarely from anyone's demonstrated ability to do that - much
similar in fact to people's talk about their chess, or even liking for the
game.
The writing trap is something like the old saw about sailing; there being
some people who use more naval terms than do actual sailors.
Cordially, Phil Innes
PS: I assume you are not interested in editing games? But if you want your
own on-line column you can write in the same place as does Ray Keene. You
probably will need to pick a subject, and we got a new guy, ex-military, to
write a well-received col on tactics. We also got us a psychologist to write
about attitudes, and a real woman to write about women in the game.
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2008 17:18:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 25, 4:28 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> Kavalek - Browne
> >> US Champ 1986
>
> >> 1 d4 Nf6
> >> 2 c3 g6 [I don't understand why black wants his bishop to 'bite on
> >> granite',
> >> but I guess Walter does, vis; where else to put it?]
> > How about on e7?
> smiting h4!, but that means moving the e-pawn to e6, and if so, where does
> the d-pawn go other than d5, and the B is better in d6 - and where to put
> the other Bishop when there are pawns on e6, d5, maybe a6?
The simple question was, where could the KB
be developed to /other than g6/. One need not
guess the entire setup in order to answer such
a silly question.
> for white, there is no necessity to play the gN to f3, since it can arrive
> on f4. but even from f3 it supports h4 and does black want to castle in the
> face of a B on d3, h4, Nf3? 0-0-0 sac the g pawn, aRg1 etc. Blacks position
> is defended by a single N.
Is Black not also allowed to move?
> >> 3 Bg5 Bg7
> >> 4 Nd2 d5 [otherwise on d6, e4 sooner or later]
> >> 5 Ngf3 0-0
> >> 6 e3 b6
> >> 7 b4 [the first non-standard move in the set-up, but indicated says
> >> Soltis
> >> to restrain the c pawn: eg 7 ...c5 8 bc! bc 9 Qa4 "after which White
> >> controls key Q-side diagonals"]
> > The "restraint" is largely imaginary, for
> > Black can on a whim advance ...a5, or
> > prepare for ..e5, or both.
> true, e5 is what he would like to play, but such a double-edged advance@!
> After a5 black simply has committed his pawn structure at the expense of a
> tempo - the point in all K side fianchettos is that the KB does not patrol
> the diagonal a3 - f8, and black's other bishop is commited to defence of the
> white squares but by sitting on d7 with no immediate prospects
Alas, you are ever the pessimist-- seeing
only the bad, while ignoring the good.
> >> 7... Bb7 [another, for now, 'bad bishop']
> >> 8 Be2 Nbd7
> >> 9 0-0 Ne4?
>
> >> again, and to support other points made about this opening by Taylor
> >> against
> >> Dutch set-ups, a strong GM goes wrong before move 12. Black cannot quite
> >> figure out how to get free by either c5 or e5 pawn advances.
> > Really?
> yes - his major pieces are sad, never play a part in the game, and his own
> provocations take the place of his own development of them
Perhaps getting mated early played a role
here. It often happens that one's major pieces
have such difficulties when one's King is
checkmated quickly like this.
> >> 10 Nxe4!
> > Kazaam! What's with the funky exclams?
> > This was a move any patzer might play. (See
> > my games at GetClub for proof.)
> Browne is no patzer
Change of subject duly noted.
>- and their are more prudent moves!
Nonsense. Trading off an invader at the
first opportunity is the simplest and most
prudent solution-- when possible.
In addition, Black's pawns become
doubled-- a famous weakening, known
since the time of King Arthur.
> But he senses he
> needs to do something, even a bad thing, to get into the game. see - all the
> time black must strive against future passivity in such positions, otherwise
> white simply takes all the time their is to optimise his own piece placement
> before striking
This "striking" is best prevented, not by
focusing on some illusory "perfect" piece
development, but by simply avoiding crude
blunders.
> >> ... dxe4
> >> 11 Nd2 h6
> >> 12 Bh4
>
> >> [player's assessment??: the usual result of playing through an opening is
> >> to
> >> ask yourself at somewhere between move 10 to 15, which side would you
> >> rather
> >> have? I think the challenge in this game is, if you think its equal, what
> >> plan to use as black?]
> > Maybe Mr. Browne needed to win, and
> > didn't want an "equal" position? Not that
> > it would have done him any good, since
> > not only was Mr. Seirawan a stronger
> > player, but he also got on the cover of
> > GQ magazine, so there.
> Mr. Browne, as you say, played weekly, because he adopted a poor plan -
> caught out by a quiet opening before he could express his remarkable
> middle-game finnesse.
A VERY well-hidden talent, I suppose.
> GQ is a magazine about men, but read by men or New
> Yorkers?
I wouldn't know. Time after time I've
tried to make their cover, but they say I'm
too ugly, and buy my clothes off the rack;
what does it mean, "off the rack"? Am I
supposed to walk into Wal-mart and pick
them up off the floor? Don't all Wal-marts
have clothing racks?!
> GQ is the sort of magazine you steal from your Dentist's office, because
> s/he didn't have WIRED! And no-way would you steal a Martha Stewart since
> you have no intention of steciling your driveway.
Sadly, my dentist doesn't have GQ. In
fact, it doesn't have Inside Chess either.
But they do give away free ballpoint pens!
> >> 12. ... f5? [black goes wrong again but wait for the Marshall anecdote]
>
> >> 13 Bg3 f5
> > Oh no-- not AGAIN! It's bad enough to
> > play this kind of move once, but to repeat
> > the error is unforgivable. (Just kidding.)
> I am not going to say too much bad about Walter since he is the only known
> American to possess a copy of BBC's Master Game, and I wouldn't want him to
> read what we frankly think, since I still want to get a copy of it, and
> release via Sloan-Enterprises.
I think a subtlety was missed here; it
was of course a joke, aimed at a rather
obvious error in the game's score. The
actual move was ...g5 (not ...f5 a second
time).
> >> ["a bad plan," said Frank, "is better than no plan at all." Soltis
> >> comments that black needs to activate his heavy pieces, Queen and rooks.
> >> Here the apparent pressure is achieving is a double-edged situation, and
> >> Whites 'hidden resources' says Soltis, come into view]
> > Try annotating the game in English!
> Too subtle for you Yanks? Well, neither will I comment on the current
> president who you all elected
Al Gore is not the President! Besides-- he
only got a few more votes than did GWB,
before the latter was aided by his cousin
or uncle down in Florida. All you critics
seem to have forgotten what the previous
guy -- a Democrat -- spent his time doing
in the Oval Office; conducting, um, er,
well... /private/ business.
> and his English. I do this to spare Americans
> what they bloody deserve, but are unwilling to face. Fortunately President
> Obama is demonstrably able to not flip out, send the bombers in, not even
> after being provoked by Hillery and the American Broadcasting Company.
You mean to say the kid might actually
focus on the job, not on his private
business? Or are you trying to say
something against using bombers? It's
incoherent gibberish.
Look: first you knock out the enemy's
communications; then you send in the
fighters; and only THEN do you send the
bombers. If you don't these details right,
you'll end up like Colonel Custer did in
'Nam.
> Anyway, white's hidden resources are not unlike America's. You can be as
> dumb as you want, but its a choice! And if other people, including
> politicians, in the rest of the world think stuff, you don't have to be dumb
> to be different. You have to look to hidden resources - hidden from public
> view, but known actually better by the public than by
>
> I'm ranting again, no? But actually not.
(It's called a diversion. You've lost the thread
on the game, and so wish to change the
subject to something -- anything -- else.)
> I'm being as plain as day about the
> people, what they are fed by media, and psycho-mismanaged by their elected
> monarchs, in contradistinction to what is plain as your face evident to
> street people.
>
> You think this sort of annotation acceptible these days? I doubt it, since
> you never read the Gerz's book so you don't know what even Greek coves said
> about it, couple thousand years ago, and everybody since.
(Now it's ad hominem jabber.)
> >> 14 f3! f4? [question mark by Soltis - though I suppose it follows-on to
> >> with
> >> the previous plan with 12 ... f5? I suppose there may still be wiggle
> >> room
> >> for black here, if he at least delays the push]
> > Mr. Soltis knows nothing; it is as obvious as
> > the nose on Boris Men's face (sorry) that ...e5
> > was superior to ...g5 (or playing ...f5 twice in
> > a row, for that matter).
> And here you hide your light under a Boris. No one else will get it ;)
Everybody in the state of Ohio should.
I would pick someone better known
internationally, but I can't think of anyone.
(Jimmy Durante?)
> And for sure, no one reading here will know the strengths and weaknesses of
> that move. Including you. But it does bear investigation!
> >> 15 Bf2 exf3
> >> 16 Bxf3 Bxf3
> >> 17 Nxf3 fxe3
> >> 18 Bxe3 e5
>
> >> [and black escapes the opening having resolved all his problems, right?
> >> no...]
> > Black pretty much created his own
> > problems here.
No comment, eh?
> >> 19 Qb3+!
> > There's another one! They're all over
> > the darned place, those exclams; like
> > them, you do!
> Sometimes people write me on the quiet asking where to put them. Naturally I
> charge for this service. One means of doing so economically is to just say
> the odd moves - and for an extra fee, which even moves to "!"
> >> ... Kh8
> >> 20 Qe6!
> > Oh, I see how it is: if Black plays the
> > perfect move (...Kh8), you say nothing;
> > but if White plays any old howler, the
> > crowd goes wild!!
> Unlike me, and possible the result of your weak rating, you have no predator
> in your soul, [that you admit] and so, as a raptor you would hover, never
> pounce after hours of careful observation - never swoop in when the time was
> right and take what you, and also presumably severl baby Kennedy's need for
> nourishment? Instead you would starve, fall from the sky, [in rational way,
> of course] and you and your tribe would perish forever.
This habitual recourse to ad hominem is
telling; have you nothing to say about the
move Qg6, about the exclam appended to
it? A "strong grandmaster" would have
found a way out, would have defended his
King and made it to an ending. (Ah, but
ad hom. is so much easier, no? )
> Man does not live by rationality alone. You must be silly. You must take
> flights, and even, and even if in public, your flight is as a drunken
> chicken cross the cornfield, the crash... still... you must strive for upper
> atmosphere.
>
> ...singing lulling
> Cadences and playing, in religious intoxication,
There is *definitely* some sort of intoxication
here. : >D
> Comforting sounds of love and mystery and nostalgia
> For a century!
Don't underestimate me; I made it through
the Great War, and I may yet make it to the
next one.
> But living for ever, for forever things.
>
> >> Qc8 [chosing that over Re8 since the resulting pressure on his King
> >> and weak pawns would 'crump' him]
> > Huh? The "elephant in the room" move
> > was ...Qe8, defending. You called him a
> > "strong grandmaster", remember? So,
> > where's the double question mark, eh?
> > (Let's just blame Mr. Soltis-- the duffer!)
> One move doth not a game-plan make.
I see. If ...Qc8 is part of a "plan", then it
must have been a plan to throw the game.
> >> 21 Rae1
> > Fritz prefers Bxg5 after a half-second of
> > thought, while simultaneously watching TV.
> > (Shrugs.)
> I am unfamiliar with (Shrugs), is it about people whose lives are filled
> with ennui, sometimes only because they split their attention between
> several things? On being asked things, that say, 'whatever', or 'what the
> fuck?', if it seems to challenge their comfort.
Comfort? Are you /comfortable/ with the
lies and fabrications and impersonations on
the infamous Web site of Susan Polgar? If
so, does honesty and decency then make
you /uncomfortable/, I wonder?
> >> ... Re8
> > Here was another chance to defend with
> > ...Qe8. (You sure this game wasn't simply
> > thrown?)
> Defend what?
The King; you know, the object of the game
and all that is to get the King, so... .
> White is about to play Nxg5, bringing the whole house down.
> Black has no time to mess with single clapbaords.
Many a critic has skewered Sanny for not
bothering with elementary tactical defense
of the King; I think it fair to hold grandmaster
Browne to the same standard (at least!).
> >> 22 Qg6!
> > Okay, well... he did see that his Queen
> > was attacked by a Rook, but... .
> >> ... e4
> > Um, let me see... is it five moves to mate,
> > or six, or four?
> >> 23 Nxg5!
> > Hello! The Knight was attacked by a
> > pawn... so of course he looked at Nxg5.
> > Duh.
> >> ... hxg5
> > Zzzzz. That's no better than Sanny's
> > program on Easy level, that move. :>(
> I wouldn't know about forced moves.
You always seem to come up short in
that department (i.e. knowing), when things
aren't going as you had hoped.
> Though I am surprised Sammy's engine
> didn't cheat.
By definition, if the "errors" are random,
it's not cheating, per se. But GetClub's
errors always seem to favor the program,
which is an astounding "coincidence", I
think.
> >> 24 Rf7 and /tilt!/ black resigned
> > Mr. Browne had a bad tournament, okay?
> > You try playing all those guys, one after
> > another, while wearing bell bottoms and
> > having a long beard and all that. (Oops,
> > wrong decade!)
> Right, by 1986 even Californians had figured out that bell-bottoms were
> always dirty, and wet. Then, if you didn't wash and dry them regularly they
> simply rotted around your 'pumps'.
A very unusual attack upon Californians;
elsewhere, East Coasters bashed away at
Texas, Tennessee, and seemed jealous of
corn titans like Iowa, Illinois and Indiana.
> But that is merely the tactical trap. Black was sucked into a strategic one,
> where he played as if tactical moves on the K side would resolve his overall
> problems. That was the lack of plan for all his pieces. White has another
> idea entirely.
That's an odd take on this game; the fact
remains that WB made a series of poor
moves, which is not a particularly good
idea.
> > This was not a very good
> > game. Remember that fellow who ranks
> > moves according to Fritz? How do you
> > think Mr. Brown's ...Qc8 incredi-blunder
> > would do, relative to, say, GetClub?
> You want to write directly to him?
A simple question is *ducked*; what are
you afraid of? Do you fear that perhaps the
annotations are flawed? That this may be
akin to the pxR game which Mr. Soltis not
only picked for his collection, but insisted
he had gone over with a fine-toothed comb?
> He is currently writing vol 2 - you could
> be his Don Shultz.
I'm a good "editor", or finder of obvious
errors. But what Mr. Soltis needs may be
someone who can teach him something
about chess-- someone like, say, a real
grandmaster. : >D
> > I say he threw the
> > game, and this move (among others) is
> > "the smoking dumb"; Parr-logic proves it.
I goofed there. Mr. Parr mindlessly parrots
whatever nonsense his mentors churn out;
in this case, the "credit" for the logic error
lies squarely on Mr. Evans' shoulders
(although the source could be traced back
even further, if desired).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 10:08:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d31a0b2d-afe6-49b0-aa60-aece13ec60b2@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 4:28 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Kavalek - Browne
>> >> US Champ 1986
>>
>> >> 1 d4 Nf6
>> >> 2 c3 g6 [I don't understand why black wants his bishop to 'bite on
>> >> granite',
>> >> but I guess Walter does, vis; where else to put it?]
>
>> > How about on e7?
>
>> smiting h4!, but that means moving the e-pawn to e6, and if so, where
>> does
>> the d-pawn go other than d5, and the B is better in d6 - and where to put
>> the other Bishop when there are pawns on e6, d5, maybe a6?
>
> The simple question was, where could the KB
> be developed to /other than g6/. One need not
> guess the entire setup in order to answer such
> a silly question.
that's why you are a patzer, citizen
or rather, why you pretend to be one, to catch the unwary
[try not to say anything too daft for a few days, in case chess net-chicks
show up - as you know, i can cover for you only so well]
>> for white, there is no necessity to play the gN to f3, since it can
>> arrive
>> on f4. but even from f3 it supports h4 and does black want to castle in
>> the
>> face of a B on d3, h4, Nf3? 0-0-0 sac the g pawn, aRg1 etc. Blacks
>> position
>> is defended by a single N.
>
> Is Black not also allowed to move?
i suggested what black might get up to above, but this is indeed the point -
how to develop all your pieces - in the event Browne should have read Sam
Palatnik's Tarrasch book, because he never got his main artillery
developed - get it?
>> true, e5 is what he would like to play, but such a double-edged advance@!
>> After a5 black simply has committed his pawn structure at the expense of
>> a
>> tempo - the point in all K side fianchettos is that the KB does not
>> patrol
>> the diagonal a3 - f8, and black's other bishop is commited to defence of
>> the
>> white squares but by sitting on d7 with no immediate prospects
>
> Alas, you are ever the pessimist-- seeing
> only the bad, while ignoring the good.
as it happens, finding a way to play e5 without immediately suffering a
counter-attack by a more developed opponent would still have been preferable
to the actual game
>> But he senses he
>> needs to do something, even a bad thing, to get into the game. see - all
>> the
>> time black must strive against future passivity in such positions,
>> otherwise
>> white simply takes all the time their is to optimise his own piece
>> placement
>> before striking
>
> This "striking" is best prevented, not by
> focusing on some illusory "perfect" piece
> development, but by simply avoiding crude
> blunders.
the point is that Browne made no tactical blunders at all - he made one big
strategic one, as Soltis says, proceeded without a plan.
>> GQ is a magazine about men, but read by men or New
>> Yorkers?
>
> I wouldn't know. Time after time I've
> tried to make their cover, but they say I'm
> too ugly, and buy my clothes off the rack;
You are an old fashioned Jesuit? Man, that stuff is often too blood-stained!
> what does it mean, "off the rack"? Am I
> supposed to walk into Wal-mart and pick
> them up off the floor? Don't all Wal-marts
> have clothing racks?!
you have used an unnessary complicated term, foreign to their ears,
'clothing racks' should be 'clothes racks'
you have probably gone in there and asked, 'dear sir or madam, where might
one find your clothing racks in this fine establishment?'
that will have gotten you the supervisor to understand your sense, who will
have waived an arm to someplace in the far corner of the great cave - and
while you make your way to the guys XXXL shirt area, you have to walk past
15 times more women's clothes including very very small items in pink and
lavender - so, nauseated, you probably give up the journey, buy chewing-gum
at the check out, and figure you saved yourself $12.50
>> I am not going to say too much bad about Walter since he is the only
>> known
>> American to possess a copy of BBC's Master Game, and I wouldn't want him
>> to
>> read what we frankly think, since I still want to get a copy of it, and
>> release via Sloan-Enterprises.
>
> I think a subtlety was missed here; it
> was of course a joke, aimed at a rather
> obvious error in the game's score. The
> actual move was ...g5 (not ...f5 a second
> time).
it was a deliberate mistake to test if you could read a game score to move
13. of course the first move was g5 the next f5
>> Too subtle for you Yanks? Well, neither will I comment on the current
>> president who you all elected
>
> Al Gore is not the President! Besides-- he
> only got a few more votes than did GWB,
> before the latter was aided by his cousin
> or uncle down in Florida. All you critics
> seem to have forgotten what the previous
> guy -- a Democrat -- spent his time doing
> in the Oval Office; conducting, um, er,
> well... /private/ business.
what's worse, 'that' or Iraq? personally i think its a no-brainer. some
people think that politicians should only be allowed to (a) finish doing
whatever they or others started already, (b) after that, they should remove
laws which conflict with what they finished already. Less is more! They
should never be encouraged to (c) do anything new.
>> and his English. I do this to spare Americans
>> what they bloody deserve, but are unwilling to face. Fortunately
>> President
>> Obama is demonstrably able to not flip out, send the bombers in, not even
>> after being provoked by Hillery and the American Broadcasting Company.
>
> You mean to say the kid might actually
> focus on the job, not on his private
> business?
Or his privates!
> Or are you trying to say
> something against using bombers? It's
> incoherent gibberish.
There aughta be a law that you can't bomb anyone unless you solve (a)
child-care, (b) health-care, and (c) littering -oh, (d) education. If you
can do that then you are allowed to bomb anyone you want, but only if you
have their permission. For example, most people in Detroit have voted for
the government to bomb their own city - and by the looks of the place, it
may have already happened.
> Look: first you knock out the enemy's
> communications;
MTV?
> then you send in the
> fighters;
the CJA!
> and only THEN do you send the
> bombers.
I suppose you could drop obese Americans onto unsuspecting aboriginal
peoples and study their reactions? Do they want to become obese Americans
like this? If not, don't buy that SUV and don't compete for /our/ oil. Also,
get out more, walk, and never eat a philly-cheesesteak sandwich or you'll
look like these coneheads.
> If you don't these details right,
> you'll end up like Colonel Custer did in
> 'Nam.
Stupid Saxon!
>> You think this sort of annotation acceptible these days? I doubt it,
>> since
>> you never read the Gerz's book so you don't know what even Greek coves
>> said
>> about it, couple thousand years ago, and everybody since.
>
> (Now it's ad hominem jabber.)
you called me a twit first! you twit! And you also don't permit my pun on
Greek Coves, like the bay of...
>> > Black pretty much created his own
>> > problems here.
>
> No comment, eh?
Your comment being the same as what Soltis said, I thought I wouldn't rub it
in, in case you changed your mind.
>> Unlike me, and possible the result of your weak rating, you have no
>> predator
>> in your soul, [that you admit] and so, as a raptor you would hover, never
>> pounce after hours of careful observation - never swoop in when the time
>> was
>> right and take what you, and also presumably severl baby Kennedy's need
>> for
>> nourishment? Instead you would starve, fall from the sky, [in rational
>> way,
>> of course] and you and your tribe would perish forever.
>
> This habitual recourse to ad hominem is
> telling; have you nothing to say about the
> move Qg6, about the exclam appended to
> it? A "strong grandmaster" would have
> found a way out, would have defended his
> King and made it to an ending. (Ah, but
> ad hom. is so much easier, no? )
Yes, and no. An even stronger grandmaster would have resigned on the spot.
>> One move doth not a game-plan make.
>
> I see. If ...Qc8 is part of a "plan", then it
> must have been a plan to throw the game.
well, no plan, bad plan, we already did Marshall's comment.
>> >> 21 Rae1
>
>> > Fritz prefers Bxg5 after a half-second of
>> > thought, while simultaneously watching TV.
>> > (Shrugs.)
>
>> I am unfamiliar with (Shrugs), is it about people whose lives are filled
>> with ennui, sometimes only because they split their attention between
>> several things? On being asked things, that say, 'whatever', or 'what the
>> fuck?', if it seems to challenge their comfort.
>
> Comfort? Are you /comfortable/ with the
> lies and fabrications and impersonations on
> the infamous Web site of Susan Polgar?
No, I hardly ever read Sloan - but I understand there are sometimes as many
as 2,546 per day!
> If
> so, does honesty and decency then make
> you /uncomfortable/, I wonder?
I just reviewed today's lies: it falsely states that
AMD has appointed Vishawanathan Anand
The Sparkassen Open A and B in the Town Hall World will be in Dortmund's
town hall
A consultation match took place between St-Albans, London - CREB, Bruxelles
The howler that New Orleans has a long history with the game of chess,
dating back to the Civil War
and worst of all
"We all know some of the biggest and most read chess websites in the world
such as: FIDE, ChessBase, ChessCafe, TWIC, Chessville, Chessdom, Chessvibes,
etc"
Anyway, I have to go soon to buy some spikes - good 8 inch ones in case of
visitors.
but if /you/ think Andy Soltis could do with your advise, please do it for
me, since I actually didn't have a problem with his commentary, but then
again I read all of it, and also understood what he said.
---
>> > This was not a very good
>> > game. Remember that fellow who ranks
>> > moves according to Fritz? How do you
>> > think Mr. Brown's ...Qc8 incredi-blunder
>> > would do, relative to, say, GetClub?
>
>> You want to write directly to him?
>
> A simple question is *ducked*; what are
> you afraid of? Do you fear that perhaps the
> annotations are flawed? That this may be
> akin to the pxR game which Mr. Soltis not
> only picked for his collection, but insisted
> he had gone over with a fine-toothed comb?
>
>
>> He is currently writing vol 2 - you could
>> be his Don Shultz.
>
> I'm a good "editor", or finder of obvious
> errors.
brown-noser!
hang on!
let me repharse that.
you want to be Chesville's game-editor?
> But what Mr. Soltis needs may be
> someone who can teach him something
> about chess-- someone like, say, a real
> grandmaster. :>D
Ray/Roy?Ringo? meanwhile: your homework;-
A grandmaster walked into a bar, and the barman said, "hey... "
Phil Innes
>
>> > I say he threw the
>> > game, and this move (among others) is
>> > "the smoking dumb"; Parr-logic proves it.
>
> I goofed there. Mr. Parr mindlessly parrots
> whatever nonsense his mentors churn out;
> in this case, the "credit" for the logic error
> lies squarely on Mr. Evans' shoulders
> (although the source could be traced back
> even further, if desired).
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2008 16:02:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 25, 10:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I read great things about certain books,
> > just one of which was by an Australian
> > (not Austrian, but the one with kangaroos)
> > player. I'm *always* disappointed when
> > expecting great things like this. I bought
> > the book, and just glanced through it,
> > seeing nothing all that special.
> Well, there you go, as McCloud used to say.
Oh yes, I remember him. From Texas, right?
Oops: I meant Tajos, NM. I have the same
sheepskin coat somewhere (never wear it
though-- ketchup stains and all that).
> What was pleasing to me was the
> guy's honesty about what he thought his chances were throughout the game -
> and how come, he would ask himself, could I have thought that? At least, I
> can relate to that approach.
Ah. After reading so many books by Dr.
Rev. Keene, honesty would be like a breath
of fresh air.
> >> If I personally knew how to play inmates at chess I would gladly engage
> >> them. You?
> > No. They might get mad at me for
> I have an idea! Don't sign your name, John, and use an alias, change it
> every two years.
What, and not write a return address on
the postcards? Is that legal? I tore off one
of those "do not remove" tags once, but
landed in the slammer for it (they were
mighty strict in Pasadena, in those days).
> That would be the main benefit to playing inmates, no? To help the time
> fly-by.
Wrong approach. If the time just flies by,
they will be out and right back at it, thinking
"they won't catch me, /this time/".
> But I think its a well-known fact [laugh] that there are 40 million
> chessplayers in the USA, and it is also a fact [sad, but true] that 1 in 100
> citiziens are incarcerated - therefore the number of incarcerated chess
> players is, to use a mathematical term, 'a lot'.
Invalid extrapolation. The ratio of folks
who get caught -- and convicted -- may not
be the same as the overall ratio. That's
because /chess makes you smart/, while
spending time in prison just makes you
cantankerous.
> > Hint: they could arrange an attempted
> > escape and then set fire to their computer
> > to destroy the evidence.
> Of their chess?
Hmm-- not a bad idea. Sanny, for instance,
could destroy all evidence of his games.
> > Just go to ICC.
> If it was so easy to do that, lots of people would have done it. :(
> Just to think that USCF could have partnered with them a while back.
> As you know, I use the slow English outfit for cc - still, it seems to get
> about 1700 hits per hour. USCF cudda done that too.
> For fast stuff I recently tried Chessville's engine as produced by Convekta.
> Sleezed a draw against an 1800 player at 5 minutes.
I played on FICS (I think) and had some
trouble with the computer's mouse and in
seeing the screen. ( I'm used to a touch-
pad and no glare from sunlight and way
more than five minutes per game. Heck,
Sanny's computer sometimes takes five
hours *per move*... .)
> > You can always tell who the Republicans
> > are
> They drive Detroit's gas-guzzlers?
Or they buy a Chevy Impala because it's
an "American" car, not realizing it was
actually made in Canada. They refuse to
buy a "foreign" car, even if the assembly
plant is right down the street. What a
bunch of loons.
> No no. What's new is that anyone admits they did, or has ever made a
> self-deprecating joke.
You are perhaps the king of self-deprecation.
(Don't be fooled by all the name-dropping and
toadyism and posturing.)
> what are you getting at, stupid?
I have no idea.
> Sorry, someone has to use pretentious words around here, spruce the place up
> a bit. Of course we are all like this because we are men [all 3 types,
> hetero - dunno - homo], and while you think computers will fix it, or fix
> us, I have another idea. Women! If only we could get women to write here
> then people would obviously try to impress them, and not write incredibly
> long complicated and obscure comments that go on and on. In short, we would
> behave.
But why on Earth would women waste their
time here in rgc? What a stupid idea. Only
men would do that-- waste their time here.
Women have much more important things to
do.
> TORA TORA TORRE GALS
>
> Therefore, your task should you decide to accept it, is to contact a Wimmin
> Warden, talk her into running for Governor in the unique role of
> Compassionate Republican, get the gals signed up, and also suggest they
> receive all our offerings in any week in this newsgroup, and make comments
> on the most interesting ones - and post 'em back here.
To drive them away from chess? Silly
notion. Women are already uninterested
in chess; you need do nothing whatever
to maintain the status quo.
> Or course, those who don't like women can go off to chess.computer which is
> at least partially compatible, since its designed for those who don't like
> people.
Nonsense; rgc.computers is for people who
are interested in computers, regardless of
how they feel about women or less important
people, like men.
> Sanny can be forced [bribed] to go with them.
But he has no business there. What does
Sanny know of computers? Or of chess, for
that matter? What Sanny needs is to find a
newsgroups where he can be schooled in
how the real world works.
> Genius level ideas, no?
No.
-- help not
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 09:15:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 25, 10:21 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> But why on Earth would women waste their
> time here in rgc? What a stupid idea. Only
> men would do that-- waste their time here.
> Women have much more important things to
> do.
shopping, and shopping?
we could try talking about that to see if its 'an attractor', but the only
shopping I do is for hardware stuff, like windows, sheets of plyboard,
plasterboard, non-power tools, and 6d nails [brights] + occasional non-chess
spikes
but surely, one of us knows something about interior decorating?
who here knows something about wallpaper?
& to be on topic, what about "I torre whole in my nylons?" which is exterior
decorating
>> TORA TORA TORRE GALS
>> Or course, those who don't like women can go off to chess.computer which
>> is
>> at least partially compatible, since its designed for those who don't
>> like
>> people.
>
> Nonsense; rgc.computers is for people who
> are interested in computers, regardless of
> how they feel about women or less important
> people, like men.
that's what i said nearly
>> Sanny can be forced [bribed] to go with them.
>
> But he has no business there. What does
> Sanny know of computers?
what do they?
> Or of chess, for
> that matter?
again, he is on more level ground there than here
if i have to explain again that the King's Indian in /not/ a reference to
Pochahontas ...
> What Sanny needs is to find a
> newsgroups where he can be schooled in
> how the real world works.
a for-girls and girlie-men power-shopping chat group? (& how does the real
world work, actually?)
>> Genius level ideas, no?
>
> No.
what i said. anyway, i wasn't trying to attract /you/, i was waiting for
chess net-chicks to show up in a reasonably sized horde so they could say
they had an opportunity to talk with me, a real genius - as for your
chances, we could suppress your origins, not mention corn at all, and say
you are not exactly a genius, but the best the mid-west has got?
but seems like we are the only two here interested in women, and i need a
side-kick who is not completely hideously stupid, but with a clear enough
difference between us - no need to put you down or ad hominize
do it for chess, man, just act normal
cordially, &c
>
> -- help not
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 04:58:45
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> Now here is a curious opening.
>
> 1. d4 f5
>
> the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> 2. Bg5
>
> quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, and
> Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
> then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and maybe
> even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> Therefore...
>
> Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> a) g6 or
> b) h6
>
> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
(f) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora!_Tora!_Tora!
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 19:32:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 24, 12:44 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > I've seen your game record. Much of it was played against the same
> > weak opponent. You really think rabbit-bashing is worth bragging
> > about?
> I see our resident 'researcher' or stalker, the person so fascinated by me
> and who always has to read and respond to what I write
You talking about Rob Mitchell? He's quite
harmless-- really; true, he stalks you, but all
celebrities have to learn to deal with these
sycophants eventually.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile, just for kicks, here is a little delay play, and chess, glorious
> chess!
>
> Kavalek - Browne
> US Champ 1986
>
> 1 d4 Nf6
> 2 c3 g6 [I don't understand why black wants his bishop to 'bite on granite',
> but I guess Walter does, vis; where else to put it?]
How about on e7?
> 3 Bg5 Bg7
> 4 Nd2 d5 [otherwise on d6, e4 sooner or later]
> 5 Ngf3 0-0
> 6 e3 b6
> 7 b4 [the first non-standard move in the set-up, but indicated says Soltis
> to restrain the c pawn: eg 7 ...c5 8 bc! bc 9 Qa4 "after which White
> controls key Q-side diagonals"]
The "restraint" is largely imaginary, for
Black can on a whim advance ...a5, or
prepare for ..e5, or both.
> 7... Bb7 [another, for now, 'bad bishop']
> 8 Be2 Nbd7
> 9 0-0 Ne4?
>
> again, and to support other points made about this opening by Taylor against
> Dutch set-ups, a strong GM goes wrong before move 12. Black cannot quite
> figure out how to get free by either c5 or e5 pawn advances.
Really?
> 10 Nxe4!
Kazaam! What's with the funky exclams?
This was a move any patzer might play. (See
my games at GetClub for proof.)
> ... dxe4
> 11 Nd2 h6
> 12 Bh4
>
> [player's assessment??: the usual result of playing through an opening is to
> ask yourself at somewhere between move 10 to 15, which side would you rather
> have? I think the challenge in this game is, if you think its equal, what
> plan to use as black?]
Maybe Mr. Browne needed to win, and
didn't want an "equal" position? Not that
it would have done him any good, since
not only was Mr. Seirawan a stronger
player, but he also got on the cover of
GQ magazine, so there.
> 12. ... f5? [black goes wrong again but wait for the Marshall anecdote]
>
> 13 Bg3 f5
Oh no-- not AGAIN! It's bad enough to
play this kind of move once, but to repeat
the error is unforgivable. (Just kidding.)
> ["a bad plan," said Frank, "is better than no plan at all." Soltis
> comments that black needs to activate his heavy pieces, Queen and rooks.
> Here the apparent pressure is achieving is a double-edged situation, and
> Whites 'hidden resources' says Soltis, come into view]
Try annotating the game in English!
> 14 f3! f4? [question mark by Soltis - though I suppose it follows-on to with
> the previous plan with 12 ... f5? I suppose there may still be wiggle room
> for black here, if he at least delays the push]
Mr. Soltis knows nothing; it is as obvious as
the nose on Boris Men's face (sorry) that ...e5
was superior to ...g5 (or playing ...f5 twice in
a row, for that matter).
> 15 Bf2 exf3
> 16 Bxf3 Bxf3
> 17 Nxf3 fxe3
> 18 Bxe3 e5
>
> [and black escapes the opening having resolved all his problems, right?
> no...]
Black pretty much created his own
problems here.
> 19 Qb3+!
There's another one! They're all over
the darned place, those exclams; like
them, you do!
> ... Kh8
> 20 Qe6!
Oh, I see how it is: if Black plays the
perfect move (...Kh8), you say nothing;
but if White plays any old howler, the
crowd goes wild!!
> Qc8 [chosing that over Re8 since the resulting pressure on his King
> and weak pawns would 'crump' him]
Huh? The "elephant in the room" move
was ...Qe8, defending. You called him a
"strong grandmaster", remember? So,
where's the double question mark, eh?
(Let's just blame Mr. Soltis-- the duffer!)
> 21 Rae1
Fritz prefers Bxg5 after a half-second of
thought, while simultaneously watching TV.
(Shrugs.)
> ... Re8
Here was another chance to defend with
...Qe8. (You sure this game wasn't simply
thrown?)
> 22 Qg6!
Okay, well... he did see that his Queen
was attacked by a Rook, but... .
> ... e4
Um, let me see... is it five moves to mate,
or six, or four?
> 23 Nxg5!
Hello! The Knight was attacked by a
pawn... so of course he looked at Nxg5.
Duh.
> ... hxg5
Zzzzz. That's no better than Sanny's
program on Easy level, that move. : >(
> 24 Rf7 and /tilt!/ black resigned
Mr. Browne had a bad tournament, okay?
You try playing all those guys, one after
another, while wearing bell bottoms and
having a long beard and all that. (Oops,
wrong decade!)
> I think Soltis suggested the means to improve on as drastic a defeat as
> walter ever suffered in a US Championship - the question remains, how to do
> that, and to what extent is black's plan flawed?
What "plan"? There was no evidence of
any plan in Black's play, unless you mean
just hoping to eventually trap White's QB
with pawns. This was not a very good
game. Remember that fellow who ranks
moves according to Fritz? How do you
think Mr. Brown's ...Qc8 incredi-blunder
would do, relative to, say, GetClub? Or
even Sanny himself? I say he threw the
game, and this move (among others) is
"the smoking dumb"; Parr-logic proves it.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jun 2008 16:28:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d7de9e5c-7c47-4171-a846-4ad262ed4a31@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Meanwhile, just for kicks, here is a little delay play, and chess,
>> glorious
>> chess!
>>
>> Kavalek - Browne
>> US Champ 1986
>>
>> 1 d4 Nf6
>> 2 c3 g6 [I don't understand why black wants his bishop to 'bite on
>> granite',
>> but I guess Walter does, vis; where else to put it?]
>
> How about on e7?
smiting h4!, but that means moving the e-pawn to e6, and if so, where does
the d-pawn go other than d5, and the B is better in d6 - and where to put
the other Bishop when there are pawns on e6, d5, maybe a6?
for white, there is no necessity to play the gN to f3, since it can arrive
on f4. but even from f3 it supports h4 and does black want to castle in the
face of a B on d3, h4, Nf3? 0-0-0 sac the g pawn, aRg1 etc. Blacks position
is defended by a single N.
>> 3 Bg5 Bg7
>> 4 Nd2 d5 [otherwise on d6, e4 sooner or later]
>> 5 Ngf3 0-0
>> 6 e3 b6
>> 7 b4 [the first non-standard move in the set-up, but indicated says
>> Soltis
>> to restrain the c pawn: eg 7 ...c5 8 bc! bc 9 Qa4 "after which White
>> controls key Q-side diagonals"]
>
> The "restraint" is largely imaginary, for
> Black can on a whim advance ...a5, or
> prepare for ..e5, or both.
true, e5 is what he would like to play, but such a double-edged advance@!
After a5 black simply has committed his pawn structure at the expense of a
tempo - the point in all K side fianchettos is that the KB does not patrol
the diagonal a3 - f8, and black's other bishop is commited to defence of the
white squares but by sitting on d7 with no immediate prospects
>
>> 7... Bb7 [another, for now, 'bad bishop']
>> 8 Be2 Nbd7
>> 9 0-0 Ne4?
>>
>> again, and to support other points made about this opening by Taylor
>> against
>> Dutch set-ups, a strong GM goes wrong before move 12. Black cannot quite
>> figure out how to get free by either c5 or e5 pawn advances.
>
> Really?
yes - his major pieces are sad, never play a part in the game, and his own
provocations take the place of his own development of them
>
>> 10 Nxe4!
>
> Kazaam! What's with the funky exclams?
> This was a move any patzer might play. (See
> my games at GetClub for proof.)
Browne is no patzer - and their are more prudent moves! But he senses he
needs to do something, even a bad thing, to get into the game. see - all the
time black must strive against future passivity in such positions, otherwise
white simply takes all the time their is to optimise his own piece placement
before striking
>> ... dxe4
>> 11 Nd2 h6
>> 12 Bh4
>>
>> [player's assessment??: the usual result of playing through an opening is
>> to
>> ask yourself at somewhere between move 10 to 15, which side would you
>> rather
>> have? I think the challenge in this game is, if you think its equal, what
>> plan to use as black?]
>
> Maybe Mr. Browne needed to win, and
> didn't want an "equal" position? Not that
> it would have done him any good, since
> not only was Mr. Seirawan a stronger
> player, but he also got on the cover of
> GQ magazine, so there.
Mr. Browne, as you say, played weekly, because he adopted a poor plan -
caught out by a quiet opening before he could express his remarkable
middle-game finnesse. GQ is a magazine about men, but read by men or New
Yorkers?
GQ is the sort of magazine you steal from your Dentist's office, because
s/he didn't have WIRED! And no-way would you steal a Martha Stewart since
you have no intention of steciling your driveway.
>> 12. ... f5? [black goes wrong again but wait for the Marshall anecdote]
>>
>> 13 Bg3 f5
>
> Oh no-- not AGAIN! It's bad enough to
> play this kind of move once, but to repeat
> the error is unforgivable. (Just kidding.)
I am not going to say too much bad about Walter since he is the only known
American to possess a copy of BBC's Master Game, and I wouldn't want him to
read what we frankly think, since I still want to get a copy of it, and
release via Sloan-Enterprises.
>> ["a bad plan," said Frank, "is better than no plan at all." Soltis
>> comments that black needs to activate his heavy pieces, Queen and rooks.
>> Here the apparent pressure is achieving is a double-edged situation, and
>> Whites 'hidden resources' says Soltis, come into view]
>
> Try annotating the game in English!
Too subtle for you Yanks? Well, neither will I comment on the current
president who you all elected, and his English. I do this to spare Americans
what they bloody deserve, but are unwilling to face. Fortunately President
Obama is demonstrably able to not flip out, send the bombers in, not even
after being provoked by Hillery and the American Broadcasting Company.
Anyway, white's hidden resources are not unlike America's. You can be as
dumb as you want, but its a choice! And if other people, including
politicians, in the rest of the world think stuff, you don't have to be dumb
to be different. You have to look to hidden resources - hidden from public
view, but known actually better by the public than by
I'm ranting again, no? But actually not. I'm being as plain as day about the
people, what they are fed by media, and psycho-mismanaged by their elected
monarchs, in contradistinction to what is plain as your face evident to
street people.
You think this sort of annotation acceptible these days? I doubt it, since
you never read the Gerz's book so you don't know what even Greek coves said
about it, couple thousand years ago, and everybody since.
>> 14 f3! f4? [question mark by Soltis - though I suppose it follows-on to
>> with
>> the previous plan with 12 ... f5? I suppose there may still be wiggle
>> room
>> for black here, if he at least delays the push]
>
> Mr. Soltis knows nothing; it is as obvious as
> the nose on Boris Men's face (sorry) that ...e5
> was superior to ...g5 (or playing ...f5 twice in
> a row, for that matter).
And here you hide your light under a Boris. No one else will get it ;)
And for sure, no one reading here will know the strengths and weaknesses of
that move. Including you. But it does bear investigation!
>> 15 Bf2 exf3
>> 16 Bxf3 Bxf3
>> 17 Nxf3 fxe3
>> 18 Bxe3 e5
>>
>> [and black escapes the opening having resolved all his problems, right?
>> no...]
>
> Black pretty much created his own
> problems here.
>
>
>> 19 Qb3+!
>
> There's another one! They're all over
> the darned place, those exclams; like
> them, you do!
Sometimes people write me on the quiet asking where to put them. Naturally I
charge for this service. One means of doing so economically is to just say
the odd moves - and for an extra fee, which even moves to "!"
>
>> ... Kh8
>> 20 Qe6!
>
> Oh, I see how it is: if Black plays the
> perfect move (...Kh8), you say nothing;
> but if White plays any old howler, the
> crowd goes wild!!
Unlike me, and possible the result of your weak rating, you have no predator
in your soul, [that you admit] and so, as a raptor you would hover, never
pounce after hours of careful observation - never swoop in when the time was
right and take what you, and also presumably severl baby Kennedy's need for
nourishment? Instead you would starve, fall from the sky, [in rational way,
of course] and you and your tribe would perish forever.
Man does not live by rationality alone. You must be silly. You must take
flights, and even, and even if in public, your flight is as a drunken
chicken cross the cornfield, the crash... still... you must strive for upper
atmosphere.
...singing lulling
Cadences and playing, in religious intoxication,
Comforting sounds of love and mystery and nostalgia
For a century!
But living for ever, for forever things.
>> Qc8 [chosing that over Re8 since the resulting pressure on his King
>> and weak pawns would 'crump' him]
>
> Huh? The "elephant in the room" move
> was ...Qe8, defending. You called him a
> "strong grandmaster", remember? So,
> where's the double question mark, eh?
> (Let's just blame Mr. Soltis-- the duffer!)
One move doth not a game-plan make.
>> 21 Rae1
>
> Fritz prefers Bxg5 after a half-second of
> thought, while simultaneously watching TV.
> (Shrugs.)
I am unfamiliar with (Shrugs), is it about people whose lives are filled
with ennui, sometimes only because they split their attention between
several things? On being asked things, that say, 'whatever', or 'what the
fuck?', if it seems to challenge their comfort.
>
>> ... Re8
>
> Here was another chance to defend with
> ...Qe8. (You sure this game wasn't simply
> thrown?)
Defend what? White is about to play Nxg5, bringing the whole house down.
Black has no time to mess with single clapbaords.
>> 22 Qg6!
>
> Okay, well... he did see that his Queen
> was attacked by a Rook, but... .
>
>
>> ... e4
>
> Um, let me see... is it five moves to mate,
> or six, or four?
>
>
>> 23 Nxg5!
>
> Hello! The Knight was attacked by a
> pawn... so of course he looked at Nxg5.
> Duh.
>
>
>> ... hxg5
>
> Zzzzz. That's no better than Sanny's
> program on Easy level, that move. :>(
I wouldn't know about forced moves.Though I am surprised Sammy's engine
didn't cheat.
>> 24 Rf7 and /tilt!/ black resigned
>
> Mr. Browne had a bad tournament, okay?
> You try playing all those guys, one after
> another, while wearing bell bottoms and
> having a long beard and all that. (Oops,
> wrong decade!)
Right, by 1986 even Californians had figured out that bell-bottoms were
always dirty, and wet. Then, if you didn't wash and dry them regularly they
simply rotted around your 'pumps'.
>> I think Soltis suggested the means to improve on as drastic a defeat as
>> walter ever suffered in a US Championship - the question remains, how to
>> do
>> that, and to what extent is black's plan flawed?
>
> What "plan"? There was no evidence of
> any plan in Black's play, unless you mean
> just hoping to eventually trap White's QB
> with pawns.
But that is merely the tactical trap. Black was sucked into a strategic one,
where he played as if tactical moves on the K side would resolve his overall
problems. That was the lack of plan for all his pieces. White has another
idea entirely.
> This was not a very good
> game. Remember that fellow who ranks
> moves according to Fritz? How do you
> think Mr. Brown's ...Qc8 incredi-blunder
> would do, relative to, say, GetClub?
You want to write directly to him? He is currently writing vol 2 - you could
be his Don Shultz.
> Or
> even Sanny himself? I say he threw the
> game, and this move (among others) is
> "the smoking dumb"; Parr-logic proves it.
Well...
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 17:08:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 24, 5:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Those databases of "master games" are not
> > a good indication of what goes on locally. For
> > instance, you won't find any of my games in
> > there, not even in the rare cases where I play
> > someone with one of those fancy titles that
> > end with an "M".
>
> Madam?
Uh, I think that would end with a little "m".
> > Also, there is the small
> > matter of prearranged results, where even if
> > the game score is obtained by the organizer
> > the moves are fabricated, or deliberately
> > ridiculous. Even famous grandmasters may
> > not be fairly represented in such databases;
> > take Larry Evans, for instance-- where are
> > his many games at, say, chessgames.com?
> You are engaging what in shrink-think is internal referencing.
No, I have not yet memorized all the games
at that site. In fact, I can't even recall my
own games after two or three beers!
> The subject matter is... ?
Um, cheese?
> I wanted to find out about it - so wrote Bob Long who published my favorite
> chess book of all time - and that was on corres chess - written by Gerz...
> and he sent me Gerz's address, the physical one, because I had asked him
> directly specifically about prison chess - how would Chessville run a column
> on what those guys are doing?
(Er, a bunch of rank amateurs... nobody
really good in there... except for that time
I lost in six moves in the Pasadena jail-
house; he was just lucky, I think.)
> Now... Bob replied as he did since Gerz writes with lots of them. It was not
> what I wanted, since it all seems too slow, but it was honest.
I read great things about certain books,
just one of which was by an Australian
(not Austrian, but the one with kangaroos)
player. I'm *always* disappointed when
expecting great things like this. I bought
the book, and just glanced through it,
seeing nothing all that special.
> If I personally knew how to play inmates at chess I would gladly engage
> them. You?
No. They might get mad at me for
crushing them easily, and escape to
take revenge! Let the weak players
entertain them. Besides, the play is
dead slow by U.S. mail, and I hate
that now that time is speeding up on
me; just wait 'till you get to be my
age-- you'll see. Oh my God-- it's
2008 already? What the heck
happened to 2007 and 2006?!!
> But there is a general restriction on their using the web - even ftp sites
> or doing e-mail. Dunno why, but it exists - so nuthin'! No way forward with
> that one.
Hint: they could arrange an attempted
escape and then set fire to their computer
to destroy the evidence.
> But if I was in some cell, could play a couple dozen games of chess at once,
> man! I should like to play Jean-Paul from Canada [just lost to him] and
> blokes from Serbia, from Iran, from wherever in the WORLD.
Just go to ICC.
> It might do more for me than anything else to think the other player didn't
> care who I was, what I did bad, but hey!@ Let's all be human beings about
> this stuff, like we are all here, and if you are a Christian, then you
> wonb't judge. Neither will you if you are a Muslim, hamdill'allah! But if
> you are a republican... ? :)
You can always tell who the Republicans
are by watching them in front of the TV; it's
Fox News this and Fox spin-zone that, all
the while mindlessly nodding their heads
as they are told with a straight face that
there is no spin on Fox. "Next up: Bashing
B. Obama, part two hundred and seven, the
sequel to Bashing Hillary Clinton, parts one
through two hundred fourteen. Stay tuned."
> I ranted didn't I?
Like this is new? LOL
This newsgroup is text only, which does
not lend itself all that well to discussing
chess (except for politics). Nearly every
difference of opinion (why do you always
cringe when I write "nearly"?) leads to ad
hominem, insults, and violent outbursts
from folks who aren't up to /rational/
discussion of issues-- and these make
up the vast majority of posters here.
Hence, the frequent ranting and raving.
There is also the fact that a lot of folks
here are just jealous... of Sam Sloan's
good looks; of Susan Polgar being the
greatest chess player who ever lived
(see her Web site for um, proof); even
of your nearly-title and my incredible
results at GetClubbed (okay, they're
not all that incredible). I'm waiting for
the next generation computers-- ones
where it's not just text and time-out
errors and the like. One day, it will no
longer be an issue of whether this guy
or that one is "spamming" us by
posting here-- computers will decide
automatically and in an unbiased
manner, just as they will control our
lives and rule over us and maintain an
iron grip on the entire world! (end of
rant)
-- hell bot
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jun 2008 10:21:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:cbf17775-9821-4f99-ba10-1200cd0957c2@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 24, 5:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Now... Bob replied as he did since Gerz writes with lots of them. It was
>> not
>> what I wanted, since it all seems too slow, but it was honest.
>
> I read great things about certain books,
> just one of which was by an Australian
> (not Austrian, but the one with kangaroos)
> player. I'm *always* disappointed when
> expecting great things like this. I bought
> the book, and just glanced through it,
> seeing nothing all that special.
Well, there you go, as McCloud used to say. What was pleasing to me was the
guy's honesty about what he thought his chances were throughout the game -
and how come, he would ask himself, could I have thought that? At least, I
can relate to that approach.
>> If I personally knew how to play inmates at chess I would gladly engage
>> them. You?
>
> No. They might get mad at me for
I have an idea! Don't sign your name, John, and use an alias, change it
every two years.
> crushing them easily, and escape to
> take revenge! Let the weak players
> entertain them. Besides, the play is
> dead slow by U.S. mail, and I hate
> that now that time is speeding up on
> me; just wait 'till you get to be my
> age-- you'll see. Oh my God-- it's
> 2008 already? What the heck
> happened to 2007 and 2006?!!
That would be the main benefit to playing inmates, no? To help the time
fly-by. But I agree, postcards ain't goina work as a medium. What we need is
a sympathetic Warden who can make the moves for the inmates.
And that isn't going to happen unless we find a Warden who is running for
Governor as the Compassionate One.
But I think its a well-known fact [laugh] that there are 40 million
chessplayers in the USA, and it is also a fact [sad, but true] that 1 in 100
citiziens are incarcerated - therefore the number of incarcerated chess
players is, to use a mathematical term, 'a lot'.
>> But there is a general restriction on their using the web - even ftp
>> sites
>> or doing e-mail. Dunno why, but it exists - so nuthin'! No way forward
>> with
>> that one.
>
> Hint: they could arrange an attempted
> escape and then set fire to their computer
> to destroy the evidence.
Of their chess?
>> But if I was in some cell, could play a couple dozen games of chess at
>> once,
>> man! I should like to play Jean-Paul from Canada [just lost to him] and
>> blokes from Serbia, from Iran, from wherever in the WORLD.
>
> Just go to ICC.
If it was so easy to do that, lots of people would have done it. :(
Just to think that USCF could have partnered with them a while back.
As you know, I use the slow English outfit for cc - still, it seems to get
about 1700 hits per hour. USCF cudda done that too.
For fast stuff I recently tried Chessville's engine as produced by Convekta.
Sleezed a draw against an 1800 player at 5 minutes.
>> It might do more for me than anything else to think the other player
>> didn't
>> care who I was, what I did bad, but hey!@ Let's all be human beings
>> about
>> this stuff, like we are all here, and if you are a Christian, then you
>> wonb't judge. Neither will you if you are a Muslim, hamdill'allah! But if
>> you are a republican... ? :)
>
> You can always tell who the Republicans
> are
They drive Detroit's gas-guzzlers?
> by watching them in front of the TV; it's
> Fox News this and Fox spin-zone that, all
> the while mindlessly nodding their heads
> as they are told with a straight face that
> there is no spin on Fox. "Next up: Bashing
> B. Obama, part two hundred and seven, the
> sequel to Bashing Hillary Clinton, parts one
> through two hundred fourteen. Stay tuned."
>
>
>> I ranted didn't I?
>
> Like this is new? LOL
No no. What's new is that anyone admits they did, or has ever made a
self-deprecating joke.
> This newsgroup is text only, which does
> not lend itself all that well to discussing
> chess (except for politics). Nearly every
> difference of opinion (why do you always
> cringe when I write "nearly"?)
<double cringe >
> leads to ad
> hominem, insults, and violent outbursts
> from folks who aren't up to /rational/
> discussion of issues-- and these make
> up the vast majority of posters here.
what are you getting at, stupid?
> Hence, the frequent ranting and raving.
> There is also the fact that a lot of folks
> here are just jealous... of Sam Sloan's
> good looks; of Susan Polgar being the
> greatest chess player who ever lived
> (see her Web site for um, proof); even
> of your nearly-title and my incredible
> results at GetClubbed (okay, they're
> not all that incredible).
They are not even <cringe > nearly credible? Not any of the above?
> I'm waiting for
> the next generation computers-- ones
> where it's not just text and time-out
> errors and the like. One day, it will no
> longer be an issue of whether this guy
> or that one is "spamming" us by
> posting here-- computers will decide
> automatically and in an unbiased
> manner, just as they will control our
> lives and rule over us and maintain an
> iron grip on the entire world! (end of
> rant)
>
>
> -- hell bot
Mephistotle-bot.
Sorry, someone has to use pretentious words around here, spruce the place up
a bit. Of course we are all like this because we are men [all 3 types,
hetero - dunno - homo], and while you think computers will fix it, or fix
us, I have another idea. Women! If only we could get women to write here
then people would obviously try to impress them, and not write incredibly
long complicated and obscure comments that go on and on. In short, we would
behave.
TORA TORA TORRE GALS
Therefore, your task should you decide to accept it, is to contact a Wimmin
Warden, talk her into running for Governor in the unique role of
Compassionate Republican, get the gals signed up, and also suggest they
receive all our offerings in any week in this newsgroup, and make comments
on the most interesting ones - and post 'em back here.
Or course, those who don't like women can go off to chess.computer which is
at least partially compatible, since its designed for those who don't like
people. Sanny can be forced [bribed] to go with them.
Genius level ideas, no? This message will get longer in 5 seconds...
Cordially, Johnny Z. Underhill aka ChessAgent64
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 16:01:36
From:
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 24, 5:16=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 My, how things have changed. =A0Back in the
> days when that BF kid was rabbit-bashing in
> the U.S. Championships, nobody complained.
> Thirteen-zip, I believe it was;
No, 11-0, in 1963-64.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 14:16:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 24, 10:30 am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> I've seen your game record. Much of it was played against the same
> weak opponent. You really think rabbit-bashing is worth bragging
> about?
Well, yes. It is when I've managed to defeat
Rob "da robber" Mitchell so brilliantly, over and
over and over again. Oh, wait-- were you
talking to CGM-norm Innes? Sorry!
My, how things have changed. Back in the
days when that BF kid was rabbit-bashing in
the U.S. Championships, nobody complained.
Thirteen-zip, I believe it was; not exactly akin
to a MacDonnell vs. LaBourdonnais marathon
match. More like Rybka vs. Sanny, come to
think of it... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 14:10:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 24, 9:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You've seen my game record - what is it, 500 games, 5 draws. And not quick
> either!
This is a record which can be explained in two
very different ways:
1) When faced with an inevitable draw, you simply
resign;
2) When in this predicament, you fire up Rybka
and set her contempt factor to infinity. ; >D
[ 3) You somehow never get into such predica-
ments in the first place!??! ]
> > But suppose you are playing in a tourney
> > where the *main prise*
It's spelled "prize", you idiot; oh, wait! (I was
drunk? Tired? Aha! These two keys are very
close on the keyboard... so it was obviously a
typo for 1927-- the same year in which I was
miniaturized in a simul by Dr. Alekhine's pet
hamster; I gave the simul, BTW; and it was a
*much* tougher game than it sounds... .)
Those databases of "master games" are not
a good indication of what goes on locally. For
instance, you won't find any of my games in
there, not even in the rare cases where I play
someone with one of those fancy titles that
end with an "M". Also, there is the small
matter of prearranged results, where even if
the game score is obtained by the organizer
the moves are fabricated, or deliberately
ridiculous. Even famous grandmasters may
not be fairly represented in such databases;
take Larry Evans, for instance-- where are
his many games at, say, chessgames.com?
Anyway, the acid test is how things stand
up in top-level correspondence play-- which
we see but a glimpse of in the media; the
quality of such play is much, much higher.
I wish I were more familiar with what goes
on in top-level correspondence play, and
somewhat less familiar with mainstream,
punk-rocker OTB chess.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 17:49:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1e5346b6-846a-4d1d-b8dc-223149f80851@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 24, 9:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You've seen my game record - what is it, 500 games, 5 draws. And not
>> quick
>> either!
>
> This is a record which can be explained in two
> very different ways:
>
> 1) When faced with an inevitable draw, you simply
> resign;
Like here - on not fighting out the issue? There is character evidence which
is demonstrated
> 2) When in this predicament, you fire up Rybka
> and set her contempt factor to infinity. ;>D
Haven't even consulted the thing since before last Christmas, but as
hypothetical ... that is, yours...
> [ 3) You somehow never get into such predica-
> ments in the first place!??! ]
I get into the predicaments earlier than the endgame, which is usually my
choice. Against strong player who crush me, I notice it is theirs!
>
>> > But suppose you are playing in a tourney
>> > where the *main prise*
>
> It's spelled "prize", you idiot; oh, wait! (I was
> drunk? Tired? Aha!
I did notice, was too polite, too non-anal to mention ...
<... >
>
> Those databases of "master games" are not
> a good indication of what goes on locally. For
> instance, you won't find any of my games in
> there, not even in the rare cases where I play
> someone with one of those fancy titles that
> end with an "M".
Madam?
> Also, there is the small
> matter of prearranged results, where even if
> the game score is obtained by the organizer
> the moves are fabricated, or deliberately
> ridiculous. Even famous grandmasters may
> not be fairly represented in such databases;
> take Larry Evans, for instance-- where are
> his many games at, say, chessgames.com?
You are engaging what in shrink-think is internal referencing. You clearly
understand what you say - but like a woman [laugh] - forgot to announce you
changed topics and even epistemiology.
You ken?
The subject matter is... ?
>
> Anyway, the acid test is how things stand
> up in top-level correspondence play-- which
> we see but a glimpse of in the media; the
> quality of such play is much, much higher.
> I wish I were more familiar with what goes
> on in top-level correspondence play, and
> somewhat less familiar with mainstream,
> punk-rocker OTB chess.
I wanted to find out about it - so wrote Bob Long who published my favorite
chess book of all time - and that was on corres chess - written by Gerz...
and he sent me Gerz's address, the physical one, because I had asked him
directly specifically about prison chess - how would Chessville run a column
on what those guys are doing?
Now... Bob replied as he did since Gerz writes with lots of them. It was not
what I wanted, since it all seems too slow, but it was honest.
If I personally knew how to play inmates at chess I would gladly engage
them. You?
But there is a general restriction on their using the web - even ftp sites
or doing e-mail. Dunno why, but it exists - so nuthin'! No way forward with
that one.
But if I was in some cell, could play a couple dozen games of chess at once,
man! I should like to play Jean-Paul from Canada [just lost to him] and
blokes from Serbia, from Iran, from wherever in the WORLD.
It might do more for me than anything else to think the other player didn't
care who I was, what I did bad, but hey!@ Let's all be human beings about
this stuff, like we are all here, and if you are a Christian, then you
wonb't judge. Neither will you if you are a Muslim, hamdill'allah! But if
you are a republican... ? :)
I ranted didn't I?
Phil
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 07:30:49
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 24, 8:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > A popular alternative these days seems
> > to be the prearranged quick draw, which
> > however has the decided drawback of
> > allowing the nearly-IMs to catch up from
> > behind or even surge to the forefront.
>
> You've seen my game record - what is it, 500 games, 5 draws. And not quick
> either!
I've seen your game record. Much of it was played against the same
weak opponent. You really think rabbit-bashing is worth bragging
about?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 12:44:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 24, 8:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > A popular alternative these days seems
>> > to be the prearranged quick draw, which
>> > however has the decided drawback of
>> > allowing the nearly-IMs to catch up from
>> > behind or even surge to the forefront.
>>
>> You've seen my game record - what is it, 500 games, 5 draws. And not
>> quick
>> either!
>
> I've seen your game record. Much of it was played against the same
> weak opponent. You really think rabbit-bashing is worth bragging
> about?
I see our resident 'researcher' or stalker, the person so fascinated by me
and who always has to read and respond to what I write, just to say it is
not interesting to him [ROFL!] thinks I am bragging! For all he knows I may
have lost 495 games, drawn the rest. For all I said...
But if he actually looked at the record, he could see that in fact I have
some quite strong players in that group. I think the highest rated draw was
against a 2330 player - and actually I chickened out in a better position.
Couple of wins inside18 moves and outside any book against 2150 players.
But let me not be a spoilsport and interupt his misery. What's the fun in
that? Let's be miserable, drag our arse's in a circle, annoint selves with
ash, and howl at the moon. :)
Meanwhile, just for kicks, here is a little delay play, and chess, glorious
chess!
Kavalek - Browne
US Champ 1986
1 d4 Nf6
2 c3 g6 [I don't understand why black wants his bishop to 'bite on granite',
but I guess Walter does, vis; where else to put it?]
3 Bg5 Bg7
4 Nd2 d5 [otherwise on d6, e4 sooner or later]
5 Ngf3 0-0
6 e3 b6
7 b4 [the first non-standard move in the set-up, but indicated says Soltis
to restrain the c pawn: eg 7 ...c5 8 bc! bc 9 Qa4 "after which White
controls key Q-side diagonals"]
7... Bb7 [another, for now, 'bad bishop']
8 Be2 Nbd7
9 0-0 Ne4?
again, and to support other points made about this opening by Taylor against
Dutch set-ups, a strong GM goes wrong before move 12. Black cannot quite
figure out how to get free by either c5 or e5 pawn advances.
10 Nxe4! dxe4
11 Nd2 h6
12 Bh4
[player's assessment??: the usual result of playing through an opening is to
ask yourself at somewhere between move 10 to 15, which side would you rather
have? I think the challenge in this game is, if you think its equal, what
plan to use as black?]
12. ... f5? [black goes wrong again but wait for the Marshall anecdote]
13 Bg3 f5 ["a bad plan," said Frank, "is better than no plan at all." Soltis
comments that black needs to activate his heavy pieces, Queen and rooks.
Here the apparent pressure is achieving is a double-edged situation, and
Whites 'hidden resources' says Soltis, come into view]
14 f3! f4? [question mark by Soltis - though I suppose it follows-on to with
the previous plan with 12 ... f5? I suppose there may still be wiggle room
for black here, if he at least delays the push]
15 Bf2 exf3
16 Bxf3 Bxf3
17 Nxf3 fxe3
18 Bxe3 e5
[and black escapes the opening having resolved all his problems, right?
no...]
19 Qb3+! Kh8
20 Qe6! Qc8 [chosing that over Re8 since the resulting pressure on his King
and weak pawns would 'crump' him]
21 Rae1 Re8
22 Qg6! e4
23 Nxg5! hxg5
24 Rf7 and /tilt!/ black resigned
I think Soltis suggested the means to improve on as drastic a defeat as
walter ever suffered in a US Championship - the question remains, how to do
that, and to what extent is black's plan flawed?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 23 Jun 2008 15:28:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 22, 8:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> After all, being all at sea at move 2 is interesting, no?
> > Many players who adopt the Dutch will not be "all
> > at sea" after 2. Bg5; on the contrary, even an Andy
> > Soltis type book will cover this line.
> But will players in a game remember what to do from either side? That is the
> question I asked, as well as if anyone personally encountered it?
It is self-evident that when White voluntary
chooses to play 2. Bg5, he "remembers"
enough to prefer this over more obvious
moves, in that particular game.
As for Black, it all depends on how much
he might know about this opening in
general. Because the Dutch entails a
severe weakening of the King-side, odds
are good that a player will have seen the
early traps before-- possibly even in the
(in)famous magazine Chess Lies.
> Those are real considerations, not theoretical ones. And if you can't
> without a book, know what to do at move 2 with black, then... then it is
> interesting, no?
I would say that in that case, a prettier
finish might be had by opening with 1. e4;
as we saw in so many of Paul Morphy's
games, this often leads to beautiful
combinational play; granted, his best
ones had PM as Black, not White. The
Dutch is likely to land such a weak player
as that in a sort of Fool's mate, for who
doesn't know the openings they play
themselves two moves deep, but a
complete patzer (or a computer, with
book manually disabled)?
If you were to take a typical repertoire
book for Black, or a tome on the theory
of, say, the Lenningrad Dutch, I expect
the coverage of this B-g5 line would be
/relatively/ light. Thus, White has a
decent opportunity to get his opponent
out of book earlier than usual, and this
is a desirable thing if White is the much
stronger player, and does not wish to
prove this fact at move one-hundred in
a theoretically drawn ending.
Here in the USA, a lot of tourneys entail
the playing of four rounds in a day, or five
in two days; this discourages battles the
sort of thing we (or at least, a few of us,
like Mr. Parr and myself) saw in Operation
Barbarossa, the sinking of the Titanic, and
the Hindenburg Line. Aggressive
attackers have a built-in edge in that they
need not wear themselves down by such
marathon struggles, game after game.
A popular alternative these days seems
to be the prearranged quick draw, which
however has the decided drawback of
allowing the nearly-IMs to catch up from
behind or even surge to the forefront.
But suppose you are playing in a tourney
where the *main prise* is not money, as
much as, say, the state champion title?
Then the cowardly drawers are likely --
though not guaranteed -- to take them-
selves out of the running if they follow
their usual habit. Not me; you will find
that I always go down fighting, as in my
16-move loss to Emory Tate, or as in
my multiple losses in other years. You
see, the play's the thing... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jun 2008 09:27:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 22, 8:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you were to take a typical repertoire
> book for Black, or a tome on the theory
> of, say, the Lenningrad Dutch, I expect
> the coverage of this B-g5 line would be
> /relatively/ light. Thus, White has a
> decent opportunity to get his opponent
> out of book earlier than usual, and this
> is a desirable thing if White is the much
> stronger player, and does not wish to
> prove this fact at move one-hundred in
> a theoretically drawn ending.
>
> Here in the USA, a lot of tourneys entail
> the playing of four rounds in a day, or five
> in two days; this discourages battles the
> sort of thing we (or at least, a few of us,
> like Mr. Parr and myself) saw in Operation
> Barbarossa, the sinking of the Titanic, and
> the Hindenburg Line. Aggressive
> attackers have a built-in edge in that they
> need not wear themselves down by such
> marathon struggles, game after game.
Actually, in looking at databases yesterday of prominent players of these
systems I saw the name Chepukaitis [don't think anyone here currently knows
him, but John in NY who used to post here knew Genrikh] who was a
speed-demon out of St. Petersburg - probably no more than a strong master,
neverthless he probably scalped more GMs at blitz than anyone else ever.
So... he once said about his style, "to play extrememly awkward moves",
which certainly are theoretically indecent! but who has the time at blitz to
work this stuff out? [laugh]
Anyway, I think this supports the point being made by the above named Mr.
Parr, yourself, and the author of Operation Barbarossa.
> A popular alternative these days seems
> to be the prearranged quick draw, which
> however has the decided drawback of
> allowing the nearly-IMs to catch up from
> behind or even surge to the forefront.
You've seen my game record - what is it, 500 games, 5 draws. And not quick
either!
> But suppose you are playing in a tourney
> where the *main prise* is not money, as
> much as, say, the state champion title?
> Then the cowardly drawers are likely --
> though not guaranteed -- to take them-
> selves out of the running if they follow
> their usual habit. Not me; you will find
> that I always go down fighting, as in my
> 16-move loss to Emory Tate, or as in
> my multiple losses in other years. You
> see, the play's the thing... .
Well, actually, yes it is. You may avoid wearing laurels this way, but OTOH
look what happens to so many Caesars!
Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 22 Jun 2008 18:19:08
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 22, 7:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:22c4a1c5-3883-4639-9c0c-9837ac3b9264@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 3:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Now here is a curious opening.
>
> > 1. d4 f5
>
> > the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> > 2. Bg5
>
> > quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, a=
nd
> > Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress an=
d
> > then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and may=
be
> > even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> > Therefore...
>
> > Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> > a) g6 or
> > b) h6
>
> > I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's secon=
d
> > move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Yes, and I chose (c), which was recommended in one of my reference
> books. I no longer follow opening theory, so I don't know if 2 ...Nc6
> is considered viable for Black nowadays.
>
> **Ah well, my usual questions to students at all phases of the opening is
> what you do know. For example, would you prefer to be White of black? Peo=
ple
> who don't know are not paying much attention - and after all, you can't p=
aly
> their game for them.
>
> I though Black came out of
> the opening OK; his errors were in the middle game. White's endgame
> play was imprecise enough to let me slither away with a draw. The time
> control helped as well.
>
> I hope this struggle proves helpful in your attempt to get other folks
> to play your correspondence games for you. BTW, White is now a USCF
> Expert.
>
> Mucerino,J (1875) - Brennen,N (1462) [A80]
> West Chester Open West Chester, PA (1), 22.05.1999
>
> 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 Nc6 3.e3
>
> ah! meanwhile I am a correspondance GM!
ICCF appears not to know about it. And if they don't, why would anyone
care?
eat your heart out Brennan., plus
> almost used to be an IM - cudda!
>
> 3. e3??
>
> PI
>
> > d6 4.Nf3 h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7 7.c3 e5 8.dxe5
>
> dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.h3 Be6 11.Bb5 f4 12.Bh2 Nge7 13.Na3 Ke8 14.Ke2
> Kf7 15.Bc4 a6 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.g3 Nd5 18.g4 b5 19.Bb3 Nf6 20.Nc2 Ne4
> 21.Bxe6+ Kxe6 22.exf4 exf4 23.Nfd4+ Nxd4+ 24.Nxd4+ Kf7 25.Kf3 Rhe8
> 26.Kg2 Nc5 27.Kf3 Rd6 28.Nf5 Rde6 29.b4 Na4 30.Rd7+ R6e7 31.Nxe7 Rxe7
> 32.Rxe7+ Kxe7 33.Re1+ Kd6 34.Rd1+ Ke7 35.Rd3 Nxc3 36.a3 c6 37.h4 Bf6
> 38.hxg5 hxg5 39.Bxf4 gxf4 40.Kxf4 Nd5+ 41.Kf5 Kf7 42.g5 Bg7 43.f4 Ke7
> 44.Kg4 Ke6 45.f5+ Kf7 46.f6 Nxf6+ 47.gxf6 Bxf6 48.Rd7+ Ke6 49.Ra7 Bb2
> 50.Rxa6 Kd5 51.Kf5 c5 52.bxc5 Kxc5 53.Ke4 Kc4 54.Rc6+ Kb3 55.Rb6 Ka4 =BD-
> =BD
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 18:57:19
From:
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 21, 9:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:10=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now here is a curious opening.
>
> > 1. d4 f5
>
> > the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> > 2. Bg5
>
> > quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, a=
nd
> > Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress an=
d
> > then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and may=
be
> > even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> > Therefore...
>
> > Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> > a) g6 or
> > b) h6
>
> > I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's secon=
d
> > move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> =A0 This is a standard line against the Dutch, though less often played
> than 2.c4, 2.Nf3, 2. g3 or 2.e4. It usually gets at least some mention
> in most openings encyclopedias and monographs on the Dutch. One of its
> main points is that an attempt to trap the bishop backfires, e.g 1.d4
> f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 f4 5.e3! h5 6.exf4 h4 7.Bd3 with attack.
> =A0 Last I checked (admittedly not recently), theory gives Black's best
> replies as 2...g6 and 2...Nf6.
> =A0 I first encountered this line in a tournament game in 1982, against
> a Sonoma State professor named Clement Falbo. Taken completely by
> surprise, I essayed 2...d5, intending 3...Nd7 and 4...Ngf6, but after
> 3.e3 Nd7 4.Bd3 that would have lost a pawn, so I played 4...Ndf6 and
> was already worse. I did manage to draw the game. =A0I don't recall that
> I have ever had the opportunity to play it as White, nor have I faced
> it as Black since then (I gave up on the Dutch except for postal
> chess).
> =A0 A fairly recent Vermont game with this line was Alan Shaw (2200) vs.
> Jeremy Whitney (1918), 1999 Green Mountain Open: 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 d6?!
> 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bf4 g5?! 5.Bd2 e5? 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.e4! Nf6 8.exf5 Bxf5 9.Qf3!
> and Black was practically lost, though he eventually won due to
> several White mistakes.I annotated this game in full in the March/
> April 2000 issue of Chess Horizons.
A few further points.
If the subject header is intended to attribute this line to Carlos
Torre, that would be inaccurate. While this line has a resemblance to
the Torre Attack, and Torre did play it once (against Stolcenberg at
Detroit 1924), he was far from the first, and never played it again,
to my knowledge.
The earliest instance on my database is G=F6ring-Berger, Graz 1870
(0-1, 55), followed by Schiffers-Chigorin, St Petersburg match 1878 (=BD-
=BD, 52), and two instances in the 1881 Mackenzie-Judd match in St.
Louis, both won by Judd playing Black. Some big names have used it,
including Chigorin, Bogolyubov, Trifunovic, Vaganian, Hort, Alburt,
Yusupov, Miles, and Kamsky, to name but a few.
Here we see it used by a former world champion:
[Event "Herceg Novi blitz"]
[Site "Herceg Novi"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, Tigran V"]
[Black "Bronstein, David I"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A80"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1970.04.08"]
[EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
[EventRounds "22"]
[EventCountry "YUG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 c6 3. Nd2 d5 4. e3 Qb6 5. Rb1 Nf6 6. Ngf3 Nbd7 7. c4
e6 8. a3
Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O a5 11. Qc2 a4 12. cxd5 cxd5 13. Rbc1 Bd6 14.
Nb1 Ne4 15.
Bf4 Bxf4 16. exf4 Nb8 17. Nc3 Bd7 18. Rfd1 Rc8 19. Ne5 Qd6 20. Qd3 Nc6
21. f3
Nf6 22. Rc2 Na5 23. Qe3 Nb3 24. g4 Be8 25. g5 Nh5 26. Bd3 Rab8 27. Ne2
b5 28.
Rxc8 Rxc8 29. Bb1 b4 30. axb4 Qxb4 31. Nd3 Qd6 32. Ne5 g6 33. Ba2 Qb6
34. Nc3
1-0
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2008 07:58:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:06bf0694-4abf-46b5-b3ef-de6ffcb775cc@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 9:37 pm, [email protected] wrote:
---------
A few further points.
If the subject header is intended to attribute this line to Carlos
Torre, that would be inaccurate. While this line has a resemblance to
the Torre Attack, and Torre did play it once (against Stolcenberg at
Detroit 1924), he was far from the first, and never played it again,
to my knowledge.
The earliest instance on my database is G�ring-Berger, Graz 1870
(0-1, 55), followed by Schiffers-Chigorin, St Petersburg match 1878
-----------
**Stimulated to hunt around a bit for the earliest 'Torre', I found Doherty
A. v Ashby M 1855 England, correspondence game [this attack is often called
the Trompowsky] but black did spectacularly well in this miniature:-
[Event "corr."]
[Site "England"]
[Date "1855"]
[Round ""]
[White "Doherty A J"]
[Black "Ashby M"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A45"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.Bxf6 gxf6 4.d5 Qb6 5.Qc1 d6 6.e3 Nd7 7.Na3
a6 8.Ne2 Qa5+ 9.c3 b5 10.e4 Ne5 11.Qd1 f5 12.exf5 b4 13.Nb1 Bxf5
14.Ng3 Bxb1 0-1
Phil Innes
-----------
(�-
�, 52), and two instances in the 1881 Mackenzie-Judd match in St.
Louis, both won by Judd playing Black. Some big names have used it,
including Chigorin, Bogolyubov, Trifunovic, Vaganian, Hort, Alburt,
Yusupov, Miles, and Kamsky, to name but a few.
Here we see it used by a former world champion:
[Event "Herceg Novi blitz"]
[Site "Herceg Novi"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, Tigran V"]
[Black "Bronstein, David I"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A80"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1970.04.08"]
[EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
[EventRounds "22"]
[EventCountry "YUG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 c6 3. Nd2 d5 4. e3 Qb6 5. Rb1 Nf6 6. Ngf3 Nbd7 7. c4
e6 8. a3
Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O a5 11. Qc2 a4 12. cxd5 cxd5 13. Rbc1 Bd6 14.
Nb1 Ne4 15.
Bf4 Bxf4 16. exf4 Nb8 17. Nc3 Bd7 18. Rfd1 Rc8 19. Ne5 Qd6 20. Qd3 Nc6
21. f3
Nf6 22. Rc2 Na5 23. Qe3 Nb3 24. g4 Be8 25. g5 Nh5 26. Bd3 Rab8 27. Ne2
b5 28.
Rxc8 Rxc8 29. Bb1 b4 30. axb4 Qxb4 31. Nd3 Qd6 32. Ne5 g6 33. Ba2 Qb6
34. Nc3
1-0
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2008 07:11:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:06bf0694-4abf-46b5-b3ef-de6ffcb775cc@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 9:37 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now here is a curious opening.
>
> > 1. d4 f5
>
> > the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> > 2. Bg5
>
> > quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable,
> > and
> > Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
> > then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and
> > maybe
> > even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> > Therefore...
>
> > Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> > a) g6 or
> > b) h6
>
> > I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> > move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> This is a standard line against the Dutch, though less often played
> than 2.c4, 2.Nf3, 2. g3 or 2.e4. It usually gets at least some mention
> in most openings encyclopedias and monographs on the Dutch. One of its
> main points is that an attempt to trap the bishop backfires, e.g 1.d4
> f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 f4 5.e3! h5 6.exf4 h4 7.Bd3 with attack.
> Last I checked (admittedly not recently), theory gives Black's best
> replies as 2...g6 and 2...Nf6.
> I first encountered this line in a tournament game in 1982, against
> a Sonoma State professor named Clement Falbo. Taken completely by
> surprise, I essayed 2...d5, intending 3...Nd7 and 4...Ngf6, but after
> 3.e3 Nd7 4.Bd3 that would have lost a pawn, so I played 4...Ndf6 and
> was already worse. I did manage to draw the game. I don't recall that
> I have ever had the opportunity to play it as White, nor have I faced
> it as Black since then (I gave up on the Dutch except for postal
> chess).
> A fairly recent Vermont game with this line was Alan Shaw (2200) vs.
> Jeremy Whitney (1918), 1999 Green Mountain Open: 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 d6?!
> 3.Nc3 h6 4.Bf4 g5?! 5.Bd2 e5? 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.e4! Nf6 8.exf5 Bxf5 9.Qf3!
> and Black was practically lost, though he eventually won due to
> several White mistakes.I annotated this game in full in the March/
> April 2000 issue of Chess Horizons.
A few further points.
If the subject header is intended to attribute this line to Carlos
Torre, that would be inaccurate. While this line has a resemblance to
the Torre Attack, and Torre did play it once (against Stolcenberg at
Detroit 1924), he was far from the first, and never played it again,
to my knowledge.
The earliest instance on my database is G�ring-Berger, Graz 1870
(0-1, 55), followed by Schiffers-Chigorin, St Petersburg match 1878 (�-
�, 52), and two instances in the 1881 Mackenzie-Judd match in St.
Louis, both won by Judd playing Black. Some big names have used it,
including Chigorin, Bogolyubov, Trifunovic, Vaganian, Hort, Alburt,
Yusupov, Miles, and Kamsky, to name but a few.
**It seems popular in the 1980s and 1990s. Soltis illustrates games by
Cebalo [84], V. Kovacevic [83], Lputuan [85]. In terms of the literature
Andrew Martin has written "Contmporary Anti-Dutch. Just to add a note to
Taylor's above, Kolty tried a Main-Line Colle against O-Hanlon, Dublin 1937,
he must have like his game v Catela in Spain 1934. In terms of names, it saw
an outing in Berlin by Charousek Berlin 1897. Probably the highest level
encounter of a Colle system proper was Keres-Taimanov, USSR Champ 1973, when
Taimanov chose a King's Indian set-up. White goes wrong at move 25 [too
passive] , and settled for a draw in 35. Below Taylor's foiund game
illustrates how difficult it is for black to get a foothold in the game. Its
hard to point to any black blunders, except perhaps the strategic one of not
developing sufficient initiative. Phil Innes
Here we see it used by a former world champion:
[Event "Herceg Novi blitz"]
[Site "Herceg Novi"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, Tigran V"]
[Black "Bronstein, David I"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A80"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1970.04.08"]
[EventType "tourn (blitz)"]
[EventRounds "22"]
[EventCountry "YUG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. d4 f5 2. Bg5 c6 3. Nd2 d5 4. e3 Qb6 5. Rb1 Nf6 6. Ngf3 Nbd7 7. c4
e6 8. a3
Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O a5 11. Qc2 a4 12. cxd5 cxd5 13. Rbc1 Bd6 14.
Nb1 Ne4 15.
Bf4 Bxf4 16. exf4 Nb8 17. Nc3 Bd7 18. Rfd1 Rc8 19. Ne5 Qd6 20. Qd3 Nc6
21. f3
Nf6 22. Rc2 Na5 23. Qe3 Nb3 24. g4 Be8 25. g5 Nh5 26. Bd3 Rab8 27. Ne2
b5 28.
Rxc8 Rxc8 29. Bb1 b4 30. axb4 Qxb4 31. Nd3 Qd6 32. Ne5 g6 33. Ba2 Qb6
34. Nc3
1-0
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 18:37:43
From:
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 21, 4:10=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now here is a curious opening.
>
> 1. d4 f5
>
> the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> 2. Bg5
>
> quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, and
> Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
> then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and maybe
> even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> Therefore...
>
> Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> a) g6 or
> b) h6
>
> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> Phil Innes
This is a standard line against the Dutch, though less often played
than 2.c4, 2.Nf3, 2. g3 or 2.e4. It usually gets at least some mention
in most openings encyclopedias and monographs on the Dutch. One of its
main points is that an attempt to trap the bishop backfires, e.g 1.d4
f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 f4 5.e3! h5 6.exf4 h4 7.Bd3 with attack.
Last I checked (admittedly not recently), theory gives Black's best
replies as 2...g6 and 2...Nf6.
I first encountered this line in a tournament game in 1982, against
a Sonoma State professor named Clement Falbo. Taken completely by
surprise, I essayed 2...d5, intending 3...Nd7 and 4...Ngf6, but after
3.e3 Nd7 4.Bd3 that would have lost a pawn, so I played 4...Ndf6 and
was already worse. I did manage to draw the game. I don't recall that
I have ever had the opportunity to play it as White, nor have I faced
it as Black since then (I gave up on the Dutch except for postal
chess).
A fairly recent Vermont game with this line was Alan Shaw (2200) vs.
Jeremy Whitney (1918), 1999 Green Mountain Open: 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 d6?!
3.Nc3 h6 4.Bf4 g5?! 5.Bd2 e5? 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.e4! Nf6 8.exf5 Bxf5 9.Qf3!
and Black was practically lost, though he eventually won due to
several White mistakes.I annotated this game in full in the March/
April 2000 issue of Chess Horizons.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jun 2008 06:50:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f096fb56-4417-4648-8c59-9e14ddd4a9b0@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 4:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now here is a curious opening.
>
> 1. d4 f5
>
> the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> 2. Bg5
>
> quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, and
> Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
> then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and maybe
> even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> Therefore...
>
> Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> a) g6 or
> b) h6
>
> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> Phil Innes
This is a standard line against the Dutch, though less often played
than 2.c4, 2.Nf3, 2. g3 or 2.e4. It usually gets at least some mention
in most openings encyclopedias and monographs on the Dutch. One of its
main points is that an attempt to trap the bishop backfires, e.g 1.d4
f5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 f4 5.e3! h5 6.exf4 h4 7.Bd3 with attack.
Last I checked (admittedly not recently), theory gives Black's best
replies as 2...g6 and 2...Nf6.
**This is all good - except perhaps 2... Nf6 which never seems to generate
any momentum for black, or other compensation after White's rapid
mobilization followed by his attack which maintains the initiative a long
time - Thanks for pointing out the trap above, which you have to know from
the white side in order to play the second move. Other players who need to
assess the line are Stonewall or Colle players, or Colle-Zukertort players,
since one cannot proceed 'to plan' if black doesn't go along. Alekhine
demonstrated that to Colle at Carlsbad in 1928! I notice there is a new book
on the market about the Colle-Zuk, which is a welcome addition to sparce
literature. Our Greg noticed the Soltis title, but that was 1992. Susan
Polgar has an opening system dvd featuring the Colle-Zuk, but obviously that
is not tournament level material.
**Therefore, after white's second move, the question is how to develop the
black pieces without becoming too passive, or without counter chances. The
position is IMO, deceptively simply looking.
I first encountered this line in a tournament game in 1982, against
a Sonoma State professor named Clement Falbo. Taken completely by
surprise, I essayed 2...d5, intending 3...Nd7 and 4...Ngf6, but after
3.e3 Nd7 4.Bd3 that would have lost a pawn, so I played 4...Ndf6 and
was already worse. I did manage to draw the game. I don't recall that
I have ever had the opportunity to play it as White, nor have I faced
it as Black since then (I gave up on the Dutch except for postal
chess).
**Ah - thank you for writing about these actual anecdotes. An odd thing is
that I have just received a letter from a long-time Torre player - he's been
at it for some 35 years! [[ Personal aside. And if NICK C is reading here -
he send us both the compliment of saying that you and me were always good
for 1.5 points at C-R and were the backbone of the team! - thats from Roger
G. ]]
A fairly recent Vermont game with this line was Alan Shaw (2200) vs.
Jeremy Whitney (1918), 1999 Green Mountain Open: 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 d6?!
3.Nc3 h6 4.Bf4 g5?! 5.Bd2 e5? 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.e4! Nf6 8.exf5 Bxf5 9.Qf3!
and Black was practically lost, though he eventually won due to
several White mistakes.I annotated this game in full in the March/
April 2000 issue of Chess Horizons.
**Quite fascinating! Thanks again Taylor. You know, I've been talking with
Dan Heisman a bit, and he doesn't think people much know what to do in the
first 12 moves either - just a step off the beaten track, its a jungle out
there!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 15:24:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
> > Some reasonably early examples by decent players ...
>
> > g6:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1004461
Uhgh-- a terrible game. For an idea of the proper
way to play this opening (in general), see "the
greatest game of all time" according to Irving
Chernev, in which Mr. Bogolyubov was crushed
like a chicken in the road by someone who
could actually play chess.
> Anyway. In terms of its playability, my questions remain has anyone
> encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> After all, being all at sea at move 2 is interesting, no?
Most players who adopt this opening as Black will
hardly be "lost at sea" after 2. Bg5, and obviously,
only the truly bold will play such a move as White
without some idea of what's going on.
MANY years ago, I observed a game between two
of Indiana's top players in which this same line was
played. (Apparently, it was not unpopular even
then.)
White was USCF-rated somewhere around 2400
and Black spend a lot of clock time figuring out the
various possibilities-- this was back before the era
of a thousand and one complete repertoire books.
White won by delivering a nasty tactical blow just
as Black was approaching the time control-- "with
equality", or a difficult yet tenable endgame. The
advantage seems to be that even if Black has
committed to memory a bazillion moves or ideas
in the main lines, this knowledge will all be wasted
except for the tiny portion thereof which pertains
to the less-common 2. Bg5 line.
If memory serves, I had a game against Rob
Mitchell in which he played this against me; I felt
very uncomfortable with my position after 2. ...g6
and a later ...d5, though he did not exactly show
how my moves were "misguided" by hanging a
piece later on. I get the feeling that the boring
old QGD orthodox stuff is a far safer way to go,
despite the problem "how does Black play for a
win?" in, say, a 5-round Swiss. Anyway, some
of my best wins (and draws) came out of
defending well, not attacking "brilliantly".
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 15:20:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 21, 4:56 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Anyway. In terms of its playability, my questions remain has anyone
> > encountered White's second
> > move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> > After all, being all at sea at move 2 is interesting, no?
>
> Many players who adopt the Dutch will not be "all
> at sea" after 2. Bg5; on the contrary, even an Andy
> Soltis type book will cover this line.
Those would be real chessplayers, not poseurs with vaporware "nearly
an IM" titles.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 15:13:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 21, 3:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now here is a curious opening.
>
> 1. d4 f5
>
> the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> 2. Bg5
>
> quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, and
> Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
> then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and maybe
> even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> Therefore...
>
> Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> a) g6 or
> b) h6
>
> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> Phil Innes
Yes, and I chose (c), which was recommended in one of my reference
books. I no longer follow opening theory, so I don't know if 2 ...Nc6
is considered viable for Black nowadays. I though Black came out of
the opening OK; his errors were in the middle game. White's endgame
play was imprecise enough to let me slither away with a draw. The time
control helped as well.
I hope this struggle proves helpful in your attempt to get other folks
to play your correspondence games for you. BTW, White is now a USCF
Expert.
Mucerino,J (1875) - Brennen,N (1462) [A80]
West Chester Open West Chester, PA (1), 22.05.1999
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 Nc6 3.e3 d6 4.Nf3 h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7 7.c3 e5 8.dxe5
dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.h3 Be6 11.Bb5 f4 12.Bh2 Nge7 13.Na3 Ke8 14.Ke2
Kf7 15.Bc4 a6 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.g3 Nd5 18.g4 b5 19.Bb3 Nf6 20.Nc2 Ne4
21.Bxe6+ Kxe6 22.exf4 exf4 23.Nfd4+ Nxd4+ 24.Nxd4+ Kf7 25.Kf3 Rhe8
26.Kg2 Nc5 27.Kf3 Rd6 28.Nf5 Rde6 29.b4 Na4 30.Rd7+ R6e7 31.Nxe7 Rxe7
32.Rxe7+ Kxe7 33.Re1+ Kd6 34.Rd1+ Ke7 35.Rd3 Nxc3 36.a3 c6 37.h4 Bf6
38.hxg5 hxg5 39.Bxf4 gxf4 40.Kxf4 Nd5+ 41.Kf5 Kf7 42.g5 Bg7 43.f4 Ke7
44.Kg4 Ke6 45.f5+ Kf7 46.f6 Nxf6+ 47.gxf6 Bxf6 48.Rd7+ Ke6 49.Ra7 Bb2
50.Rxa6 Kd5 51.Kf5 c5 52.bxc5 Kxc5 53.Ke4 Kc4 54.Rc6+ Kb3 55.Rb6 Ka4 =BD-
=BD
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2008 20:43:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:22c4a1c5-3883-4639-9c0c-9837ac3b9264@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 3:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Now here is a curious opening.
>
> 1. d4 f5
>
> the Dutch, but what happens after
>
> 2. Bg5
>
> quite evidently no 'normal' play is possible, since e6 is unplayable, and
> Nf6 is simply captured by White who continues to develop with stress and
> then exploits black's dysfunctional pawns - eg Bd3, Ne2-f4, Qf3 and maybe
> even h2-h4 or c2-c4 depending on castled side.
>
> Therefore...
>
> Black typically choses other move 2's. either
>
> a) g6 or
> b) h6
>
> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> Phil Innes
Yes, and I chose (c), which was recommended in one of my reference
books. I no longer follow opening theory, so I don't know if 2 ...Nc6
is considered viable for Black nowadays.
**Ah well, my usual questions to students at all phases of the opening is
what you do know. For example, would you prefer to be White of black? People
who don't know are not paying much attention - and after all, you can't paly
their game for them.
I though Black came out of
the opening OK; his errors were in the middle game. White's endgame
play was imprecise enough to let me slither away with a draw. The time
control helped as well.
I hope this struggle proves helpful in your attempt to get other folks
to play your correspondence games for you. BTW, White is now a USCF
Expert.
Mucerino,J (1875) - Brennen,N (1462) [A80]
West Chester Open West Chester, PA (1), 22.05.1999
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 Nc6 3.e3
ah! meanwhile I am a correspondance GM! eat your heart out Brennan., plus
almost used to be an IM - cudda!
3. e3??
PI
> d6 4.Nf3 h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7 7.c3 e5 8.dxe5
dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.h3 Be6 11.Bb5 f4 12.Bh2 Nge7 13.Na3 Ke8 14.Ke2
Kf7 15.Bc4 a6 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.g3 Nd5 18.g4 b5 19.Bb3 Nf6 20.Nc2 Ne4
21.Bxe6+ Kxe6 22.exf4 exf4 23.Nfd4+ Nxd4+ 24.Nxd4+ Kf7 25.Kf3 Rhe8
26.Kg2 Nc5 27.Kf3 Rd6 28.Nf5 Rde6 29.b4 Na4 30.Rd7+ R6e7 31.Nxe7 Rxe7
32.Rxe7+ Kxe7 33.Re1+ Kd6 34.Rd1+ Ke7 35.Rd3 Nxc3 36.a3 c6 37.h4 Bf6
38.hxg5 hxg5 39.Bxf4 gxf4 40.Kxf4 Nd5+ 41.Kf5 Kf7 42.g5 Bg7 43.f4 Ke7
44.Kg4 Ke6 45.f5+ Kf7 46.f6 Nxf6+ 47.gxf6 Bxf6 48.Rd7+ Ke6 49.Ra7 Bb2
50.Rxa6 Kd5 51.Kf5 c5 52.bxc5 Kxc5 53.Ke4 Kc4 54.Rc6+ Kb3 55.Rb6 Ka4 �-
�
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 14:56:03
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
On Jun 21, 5:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anyway. In terms of its playability, my questions remain has anyone
> encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> After all, being all at sea at move 2 is interesting, no?
Many players who adopt the Dutch will not be "all
at sea" after 2. Bg5; on the contrary, even an Andy
Soltis type book will cover this line.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jun 2008 20:27:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:48a18724-54d4-4e09-9431-1dacb3bfae2f@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 5:17 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Anyway. In terms of its playability, my questions remain has anyone
>> encountered White's second
>> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>>
>> After all, being all at sea at move 2 is interesting, no?
>
> Many players who adopt the Dutch will not be "all
> at sea" after 2. Bg5; on the contrary, even an Andy
> Soltis type book will cover this line.
But will players in a game remember what to do from either side? That is the
question I asked, as well as if anyone personally encountered it?
Those are real considerations, not theoretical ones. And if you can't
without a book, know what to do at move 2 with black, then... then it is
interesting, no?
PI
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 14:11:40
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
I would move pawn D-5..
|
| |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 21:02:06
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
Chess One wrote:
> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
Not entirely unheard of.
Some reasonably early examples by decent players ...
g6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1004461
h6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001994
Some later examples with at least equally strong players:
g6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1020996
h6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1059799
--
Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2008 17:17:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Torre, Torre, Torre!
|
"Anders Thulin" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:i%[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> I have two questions for readers - has anyone encountered White's second
>> move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
>
> Not entirely unheard of.
>
> Some reasonably early examples by decent players ...
>
> g6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1004461
> h6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001994
>
> Some later examples with at least equally strong players:
>
> g6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1020996
Interesting 'no castling' decision by Andersen against Yusupov! And by move
20 black volunteers an exchange sac. At 31 the queens are off, and white is
still the exchange up, but by 57 it has to be given back!
> h6: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1059799
and the second game was an unknown to me Kasparov v Cordoba - interesting
that Garry couldn't win it even with an extra pawn in the endgame.
Both draws! Thanks Anders for your research.
Anyway. In terms of its playability, my questions remain has anyone
encountered White's second
move in a game? and secondly, which to chose, (a) or (b) above.
After all, being all at sea at move 2 is interesting, no?
Phil Innes
>
> --
> Anders Thulin anders*thulin.name http://www.anders.thulin.name/
|
|
