06 Feb 12
As most of you are still plodding about in the openings I have the
first few wins and a couple of my games. (including me playing a Rook
ending which is always good for a laugh.)
Opening and closing each section and looking for games is right pain
so if anyone spots something then PM me.
I'm still on the lookout for any of you playing chess in strange places
or your own carving/sculpture of a chess piece.
Blog 4
06 Feb 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34And I thought I was the only one that still had Harding's old Philidor book!
As most of you are still plodding about in the openings I have the
first few wins and a couple of my games. (including me playing a Rook
ending which is always good for a laugh.)
Opening and closing each section and looking for games is right pain
so if anyone spots something then PM me.
I'm still on the lookout for any of you playing chess in strange places
or your own carving/sculpture of a chess piece.
Blog 4
- Joined
- 21 Feb 07
- Moves
- 59053
06 Feb 12
"in the main variation after 1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. Qd1-h5 Nb8-c6 3. Bf1-c4
g7-g6 4. Qh5-f3 Ng8-f6 5. Ng1-e2 (instead of Jake's 5. Qb3?)
White is not worse, according to Kramnik" http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans48.txt
Parham plays 2. Qh5 against everything http://www.thechessdrum.net/talkingdrum/TheMatrix/
06 Feb 12
Originally posted by StampVery enlightening! GP's joking aside, openings that are out of favor are often not as bad as the club kibitzers like to claim.
"in the main variation after 1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. Qd1-h5 Nb8-c6 3. Bf1-c4
g7-g6 4. Qh5-f3 Ng8-f6 5. Ng1-e2 (instead of Jake's 5. Qb3?)
White is not worse, according to Kramnik" http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans48.txt
Parham plays 2. Qh5 against everything http://www.thechessdrum.net/talkingdrum/TheMatrix/
Items like this make me rethink my opinions about things- staleness hampers growth.
06 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34At move 6 you stated "Though the threat is easily spotted White has to defend against it."
I still think 2.Nf6 is a good try in this postion.
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/5n2/4p2Q/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 3[/fen]
The gambit needs a name.
Here is the game I posted last time this opening was discussed.
[b]faffie (1701) - Ziguratti (1369) RHP 2009
[pgn]
1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxe5+ Be7 4. Bc4 {White knows he is lagging in ...[text shortened]... 2 Nxe4+ {Gotcha! The White Queen leaves the board in tears. Good game. A perfect example.}[/pgn][/b]
This is a very powerful point, akin to the Tartakower quote about a threat being stronger than it's execution" (side note- excellent article about this quote from Edward Winter at this link: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/nimzowitsch.html )
Very often the obvious goal of the threat is prevented, but the attacker gets compensation based on the way the defender has to compromise something else.
When one leak is plugged, another one appears elsewhere.
I know there are times where I have dismissed a move because the threat seemed too superficial and easily defended, but later learned that it was only my analysis that was superficial, and that there would have been more to the move if I had looked a little deeper.
07 Feb 12
Originally posted by chessicleHa! A Classic. What an asshead. I really am a class act.
24 Kd2?? - appalling move! Even blitzing, one shouldn't play like that.
I know it was an awful move and I'm meant to be a good player.
I cannot believe that I would play such a move. Even double blitzing.
I know I don't give endings the study they deserve (because I rarely see them).
But am I really that bad at endings?
So I go back to the game and look at it again to let the awfulness of my move sink in.
I go into my game archive file to play out the game.
Guess What?
I never played it!!
I write my moves down in a note book, of course blitzing over a couple games
I never bothered. After the game I wrote down the moves from memory
(memory that's a laugh.) and I used my note book to score up the game in the blog.
So after the mini-blitz had finished.
We started round about here about here.
And I know we finished here.
I had looked at other game and worked out the win.
I then set up this game on the board and I filled in the moves.
Infact if you look at the game in the blog from moves 23-29 you can see
I am heading for that 2nd diagram. I sat here looking at it long enough
waiting for him to move that's when I realised I should never have let him
get an active Rook.
Here is what really happened in the game.
Now what do I do?
Do I correct the blog or let it stand as a testiment to me being an idiot?
And what about the Cricket lad. He must have seen the blog as well and realised
(or not) some of the moves were 'funny'.
What a clown. What you get is me warts and all.
Check everything. Chandlerism's (a word banded about with great frequency
amongst my friends.) are everywhere.
08 Feb 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34...and they just keep on doing it, though this time with an added twist lol
Catnap has undone 200 years of opening theory and it's principles.
He has made the The Scotch, The Lopez, The Vienna, The King's Gmabit,
The Bishop's Opening...etc all defunct.
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq e6 0 2[/fen]
White best move in this position is 2.Qh5.
Players are panicing when they see 2.Qh5.
It is the catnap flap trap.
Game 9058056