- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by z00tYou clearly dont play OTB chess. If you did you'd know such sacs are common practice. Im sure you put the position into your engine and thought ho hum hes down material that sac was bad, you dont understand the pressure of defending or how attacking chances develop OTB. Isnt it odd that the current world champion is known for sacing rooks all the time?
Stop arguing like a sissy and show me the continuation for black after move 39. Perhaps in your mind you have seen something that is "extraordinary" and you can share it with us. Once you have finished showing us the continuation that supports such a loss of material, write your own book of chess.
I would like to play you if you are going to make such sissy ...[text shortened]... c's. You are even contradicting the Wikipedia article & well established principles of chess.
I wonder what your problem is, maybe you think your chess isnt sexy enough? you arent willing to take a risk? Awww diddums.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by z00tOn this note, Wikipedia tends to be crap. You should buy some proper chess books. I will play against you but lets face it theres only going to be one outcome, squish goes z00t.
I would like to play you if you are going to make such sissy sac's. You are even contradicting the Wikipedia article & well established principles of chess.
So what is your OTB rating? 1400? 1500?
I play OTB chess and speed chess on internet/clubs here. That is why I said if that was blitz ..... You are so ignorant you cannot even read the Wikipedia Article. Show me the justification for the sacrifice, if you think you know more than established chess principles.
You have no idea as to why such a sacrifice cannot be played in a 2 hours to make 40 moves. Not only would I love to thrash you iin slow chess, I would demonstrate to you why speed chess is called "blitz krieg".
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by z00tAnd what is your OTB rating.......
I play OTB chess and speed chess on internet/clubs here. That is why I said if that was blitz ..... You are so ignorant you cannot even read the Wikipedia Article. [b]Show me the justification for the sacrifice, if you think you know more than established chess principles.
You have no idea as to why such a sacrifice cannot be played in a 2 hours to make ...[text shortened]... hrash you iin slow chess, I would demeonstarte to you why speed chess is called "blitz krieg".[/b]
You dont get it, maybe Anands move was wrong but lots of Kasparovs moves are wrong too. You just have a bug about people sacing.
I dont have to read Wikipedia since its not going to compare to say "Art of Attack in Chess" is it?
You are arguing like a 100 BCF rated dude. The point of the argument is that you cannot sac willy nilly. However at your rating I don't expect you to understand what can/cannot be played in blitz/tournament chess. What is your BCF rating? It should be investigated immediately as it casts doubt on the rating sysytem.
Kapish
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by z00t100 bcf.......*laughing* Given than you wont state your BCF I will assume its crap. Looking at your games id say you were around maybe 115 ecf. Am I really that far off?
You are arguing like a 100 BCF rated dude. The point of the argument is that you cannot sac willy nilly. However at your rating I don't expect you to understand what can/cannot be played in blitz/tournament chess. What is your BCF rating? It should be investigated immediately as it casts doubt on the rating sysytem.
Kapish
Take a leaf from the book of your friend "biggdogg" who ran away after being unable to prove the "piece donation" by Anand was worth it. In fact I heard Anand was not going to risk his rating in the Olympiad, dunno why he did.
As for you, when you find a line that supports the "piece donation" by Anand give me a whistle. Then give me a bell so that you can make a similar "piece donation" when we play.
Peace out!
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by z00t115 was just about spot on wasnt it. Why would anyone listen to a patzer like you? I never said Anands sac was sound, I said you dont understand chess, 115.
Take a leaf from the book of your friend "biggdogg" who ran away after being unable to prove the "piece donation" by Anand was worth it. In fact I heard Anand was not going to risk his rating in the Olympiad, dunno why he did.
As for you, when you find a line that supports the "piece donation" by Anand give me a whistle. Then give me a bell so that you can make a similar "piece donation" when we play.
Peace out!
If anyone would like to discuss this interesting game in a bit more details, I am wondering a few things . . .
In this position,
bq4rk/2b2p1p/pp1ppnr1/4n1p1/1PP1P3/2N1BP2/P2NB1PP/2RRQ2K b - - 0 27
Anand played 27. ... Rh6, targetting h2. Presumably he hoped to play ...d5 and crash through on that square, or alternatively fully open the g-file and then get in a combination with Qf8, Rxh2+ and Qh6 mate, or similar. This doesn't seem to have been realistic; would 27. ... h5 (or something else?) been a better plan of attack than 27. ... Rh6 - ?
Now, this is the position of the Anand's first piece sacrifice with 35. ... g3:
6qk/2b2p1p/p1b1pnrr/2B1n3/P3PPp1/2N5/3QB1PP/1R1R1N1K b - - 0 35
There are quite a lot of questions to ask here, here are two of mine:
1. z00t seems to indicate black's attack only over-reached after move 39, implying Anand missed something better between here and that point: What?
2. Who is better after the alternative 35. ... Ned7? If white is winning - he has play in the centre and on the queenside, and his kingside might be defensible - then this justifies black's sacrifice as a gamble, an attempt to swindle a way out of difficulty. If this is the case and white is already winning on move 35, then a third question comes up; where can Anand's play be improved earlier . . .
EDIT. I seem unable to post diagrams (do you have to be a full member?) so am posting raw FEN strings instead.
Originally posted by TommyCWhat happens after 36...gh2?
If anyone would like to discuss this interesting game in a bit more details, I am wondering a few things . . .
In this position,
bq4rk/2b2p1p/pp1ppnr1/4n1p1/1PP1P3/2N1BP2/P2NB1PP/2RRQ2K b - - 0 27
Anand played 27. ... Rh6, targetting h2. Presumably he hoped to play ...d5 and crash through on that square, or alternatively fully open the g-file and the ...[text shortened]... to post diagrams (do you have to be a full member?) so am posting raw FEN strings instead.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by TommyC
If anyone would like to discuss this interesting game in a bit more details, I am wondering a few things . . .
In this position,
bq4rk/2b2p1p/pp1ppnr1/4n1p1/1PP1P3/2N1BP2/P2NB1PP/2RRQ2K b - - 0 27
Anand played 27. ... Rh6, targetting h2. Presumably he hoped to play ...d5 and crash through on that square, or alternatively fully open the g-file and the ...[text shortened]... to post diagrams (do you have to be a full member?) so am posting raw FEN strings instead.
Just put this at the start and end of the position without the *'s
[fen*]bq4rk/2b2p1p/pp1ppnr1/4n1p1/1PP1P3/2N1BP2/P2NB1PP/2RRQ2K b - - 0 27 [/fen*]
Originally posted by z00tA chance at mate/material gain? That's not a sacrifice that's a trap. And it's stupid to try them as if they don't work you are left down material. If you in fact mean that it will give you mate/material then that's not a sacrifice that's a tactic.
If you sacrifice pieces just to get "tasty" positions your rating will hit 800 soon and no one will like to play you! Only sacrifice if you have a chance of mate/material gain.
Neither of those is a sacrifice no matter what you say. Reread what the wikipedia quote says.
Sacrifices can be both good and bad. I've experienced the second playing against Nigel Short. I sacrificed a knight for two pawns and then got totally destroyed. Was worth it for the experience though.
