Originally posted by z00tWhy the hell would I bother proving the Anand sacrifice was good? (Looks bad to me, in fact, and I never claimed otherwise.)
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!
You're the fool who takes one game and falsely typecasts a player based on a game. ALL the world champs have blundered games away. I get that you're not a fan of Anand, but you're doing a lousy job of smearing him. As the Kaspy game I linked showed, even the best players make mistakes, miscalculate, and lose games.
Funny thing is, I'm not much of an Anand fan either. I just recognize a small person making BS claims about a player he couldn't hold a candle to.
1 edit
Originally posted by TommyCBlack did not make the sac in good timing as the open centre. weakness along A1-H8 and the threat of a Rd8 to win his Queen. However if Black had managed to exchange the white Bishop and could sac inorder to bear pressure on g2 it could pay off. See the games of Petrosian for more info.
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 to post diagrams (do you have to be a full member?) so am posting raw FEN strings instead.
EDIT: Bedlam is that you who was checkmated by a 1400 player? does that suggest the rest of your games were "wind-assisted"? (Hint, Hint)!
On the subject of Anand, he scored 1 win out of 9 games at the Olympiad, I have nothing against Anand (in fact my super-stregth at 1 or 2 munute chess but struggling at slow chess is like a certain top player I will not name.)
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWho is accusing who of cheating? Being checkmated by a player 400 points below you is not cheating. Wind-assisted chess is chess without regard for well established principles. Er what's the word ......like someone who is supporting the Anand sac but cannot explain the justification.
Public cheating accusations aren't allowed here.
He claims that he is at least 100 BCF OTB and supports the Anand sac? Any sense? Whats the conversion between BCF and RHP ratings?
Originally posted by XanthosNZDo you happen to have the game you played with Short? Are you aware that until you made that dubious sac you were equal (ceteris paribus). Have you read Alekhine's thoeries on Chess?
A 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 [b]will give you mate/material then that's not a sacrifice that's a tactic.
Neither of those is a sacrifice no matter what you say. Reread what the wikipedia quote says.
...[text shortened]... ght for two pawns and then got totally destroyed. Was worth it for the experience though.[/b]
Originally posted by z00tIt would be more interesting (well, interesting at least) if you gave variations, and also answered the question as to whether you think there is a missed (time-trouble?) win by Anand in move 35-39 - as you imply elsewhere in the thread.
Black did not make the sac in good timing as the open centre. weakness along A1-H8 and the threat of a Rd8 to win his Queen. However if Black had managed to exchange the white Bishop and could sac inorder to bear pressure on g2 it could pay off. See the games of Petrosian for more info.
Nowhere did I imply that Anand missed the win its downhill all the way for the reasons I gave. Perhaps you may need to take that game into perspective - Anand a 2800 player recorded only 1 win out of 9 games in an Olympiad. Hardly the Anand we know who wins tournaments with 2700-plus opposition.
This could also suggest that the rating system has had inflation. Players are ranked 2700+ and they've never won a strong tournament/championship. 2200 used to be called a candidate Master.
Did you see the way Adams then ranked 7th in the world was annihilated by Hydra? Even Fritz on a laptop scared the living daylights out of a couple of GM's the other day.
Originally posted by z00tUh! If a 1600 player lost to a 1300 player, would you be awestruck then also? GIve me a break! 2500 is no push over!
Anand's (playing black) sacrifice was too speculative. That can be acceptable in a 5 minute game (when you are playing for time) but not in an Olympiad where for a 2800 player you can expect to meet 2300's desperate "for a kill"
[fen]6qk/2b2p1p/p1b1p1rr/2B1P3/P3n3/2N3p1/3QB1PP/1R1R1N1K w - - 0 37[/fen]
Here is the game
[Event "37th Olympiad"]
[Site "T ...[text shortened]... xg2+ 39. Qxg2 gxh2 40. Bxg6 Rxg6 41. Ng3 Rxg3 42. Qe4 Rg4 43. Be7
1-0
Originally posted by z00tI don't get where you're coming from. Sure Anand was off-form, and was off-form in Sofia beforehand too. But the game is interesting, esp as an example of the new ideas in the Hedgehog (going wrong), and I was wondering if anyone has any concrete analysis, which you are conspicuously avoiding giving. Concrete analysis can be done by humans as well as machines, so I am not sure what Hydra and Fritz have to do with anything. Also you challenged people here to find a win after Anand's 39th move - whereas the first piece sacrifice was on the 35th. Was 39 a typo, then?!
Nowhere did I imply that Anand missed the win its downhill all the way for the reasons I gave. Perhaps you may need to take that game into perspective - Anand a 2800 player recorded only 1 win out of 9 games in an Olympiad. Hardly the Anand we know who wins tournaments with 2700-plus opposition.
This could also suggest that the rating system has had inflatio ...[text shortened]... dra? Even Fritz on a laptop scared the living daylights out of a couple of GM's the other day.
My feeling, as I mentioned before, is that ...Rh6 is the wrong plan of attack; ...h5 is better - pawns first, pieces after. The more I looked at this game the more I felt Anand's problems could be traced back to that move.
Originally posted by z00tI'll see if I can dig out the game. Until the sac I was equal on material but being slowly squeezed off the board.
Do you happen to have the game you played with Short? Are you aware that until you made that dubious sac you were equal (ceteris paribus). Have you read Alekhine's thoeries on Chess?
Originally posted by powershakerDid you used to see the way Kasparov or Karpov would "discipline" other grandmasters? While 2500 is no pushover, these are the days of inflated chess rankings.
Uh! If a 1600 player lost to a 1300 player, would you be awestruck then also? GIve me a break! 2500 is no push over!
If a 1600 player on RHP lost to a 1300 player it would raise eyebrows because the 1300 players often give pieces/make errors of principle. Like making too many Queen moves in the opening or playing for simple traps.
Originally posted by powershakerWho are you referring to here?
Sometimes, I find myself looking at the comments of a RHP member. I am suddenly amazed by his articulate approach to a chess subject or game, and therefore, I am encouraged to click on his name and check out his rating. 1200? Nice going! I love the insights though. Terrific B.S.
Originally posted by powershakerYou are surely referring to yourself. Learn some chess theory and then you can contribute in a sensible discussion.
Sometimes, I find myself looking at the comments of a RHP member. I am suddenly amazed by his articulate approach to a chess subject or game, and therefore, I am encouraged to click on his name and check out his rating. 1200? Nice going! I love the insights though. Terrific B.S.
Originally posted by z00tAhh, but if you believed he played without regard from principles, then he wouldn't be winning games, would he?
Who is accusing who of cheating? Being checkmated by a player 400 points below you is not cheating. Wind-assisted chess is chess without regard for well established principles. Er what's the word ......like someone who is supporting the Anand sac but cannot explain the justification.
He claims that he is at least 100 BCF OTB and supports the Anand sac? Any sense? Whats the conversion between BCF and RHP ratings?
You remain too stupid to understand that nobody in this thread has claimed that Anand's sacrifice was sound. Get it through your head! You went wrong when you implied that sacking against a 2300 in general was wrong for Anand.