Originally posted by fifthdivisionTrue, Bc4 is the key move for Sozin.
I hold the title of IM, and the sozin variation is classified by Bc4, not Nc6.
The Sicilian "Sozin" opening is with Nc6 (ECO B57).
The Sicilan "Scheveningen Sozin" is with e6, and a6 is played after Bc4 (ECO B87) .
The variation played could be (but isn't to my knowledge) classified as The Sicilian "Najdorf Sozin", but it is called "Najdorf Lipnitzky" variation (ECO B90). However, with the moves following, it transposes into a B87 with two moves reversed.
Originally posted by gambit3Fair enough. & I'm sure you understand the game just fine. Black's chances came from his material advantages throughout the game - first a pawn, then a minor piece, then a rook, then an exchange. It's true that white had all the fun play. I guess it's just a question of taste. It was certainly interesting for me to hear your opinion.
I did not like this game so much because Fritz went down seemingly without fighting. I like a great game where both sides have a chance to win. Something like the Lasker Schlechter title match game ten. The Marshall "Gold Coin Game" was played well from the Black side but it seems to me that White did not play so well. This game is like the Marshall game ...[text shortened]... rate that I cannot understand Black's play here and White's play in the "Gold Coin Game".
By the way, I completely agree with pineapple42; innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by Freddie2006Your actions are a bit uncalled for.
User 91691
User 74544
User 181663
No one asked these people to prove it and look who they turned out to be. And if they were asked to prove it, they left in a rush and didn't come back/got banned.
Originally posted by gambit3What do you mean? All I was suggesting was that there should be some method of proving who people are before everyone begins making assumptions and giving these high rated players claiming to be IMs royalty status on the site, just because of who they say they are. I have no problem with fifthdivision, and it is great if we have an IM on the site. I'm just suggesting that more care is taken after recent events with Jean Hebert et al.
Your actions are a bit uncalled for.
Originally posted by fifthdivisionCan you clarify this some more? I'm not sure I understand your point re the gain of tempo with Ra3.
23. a4!
The key idea, white's rook is activated via a3 to save a tempo. Black has a choice to either exchange the b-pawn now and let the rook activate immediately or lose the b-pawn later for nothing after white's queen regroups to attack the queenside from e2.
D
Originally posted by Freddie2006I think most sites verify the titled status of their players - IF the player wishes to have official status as a Master, eg by (IM) after their username, or if they want to use their real name. I don't think there needs to be a public enquiry if it comes up casually, incidentally, and quietly in a thread.
What do you mean? All I was suggesting was that there should be some method of proving who people are before everyone begins making assumptions and giving these high rated players claiming to be IMs royalty status on the site, just because of who they say they are. I have no problem with fifthdivision, and it is great if we have an IM on the site. I'm just suggesting that more care is taken after recent events with Jean Hebert et al.
Originally posted by The Slow PawnOnly 2 of Fifthdivisions losses are legit since 2 came against Mary Fritz, and as he has demonstrated twice now, he is fully capable of defeating her Engine.
so its a lie ... How can an IM lose (4x already) agains mediocre 1800-2000 players at RHP ??
Are you trying to be funny ...
When I took lessons from an IM he kicked my butt blindfolded with 2 minutes on the clock when I had all the time in the world and could look at the board ... EVERY TIME
No way anyone is believing that you're an IM !!
I imagine Ceels and Grenzwolf might take exception to being termed "mediocre".
Look at all Fifth's games and he beat Ceels 2ce and drew him 2 other times, so he has the edge in the overall atm 2-1-2.
he drew against Grenzwolf in their other game, and Grenzwolf is yet to be defeated.
and as somebody already said, he was asked and he answered. he wasnt mugging around saying "I'm an IM!"
1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2006"Hebert" came in here and stated that he is IM Hebert. The player in question has not been stating that he is IM. The player stated that he holds the title of IM when questioned about his over the board playing strength. I do not know if there can be any legal problems involving such a claim as "Hebert" did or even if RHP will have a problem with it, but for a player to demand proof is a bit too much.
What do you mean? All I was suggesting was that there should be some method of proving who people are before everyone begins making assumptions and giving these high rated players claiming to be IMs royalty status on the site, just because of who they say they are. I have no problem with fifthdivision, and it is great if we have an IM on the site. I'm just suggesting that more care is taken after recent events with Jean Hebert et al.
Originally posted by gambit3I originally asked the question, and I asked out of interest, since the level of play in both sides was so high.
"Hebert" came in here and stated that he is IM Hebert. The player in question has not been stating that he is IM. The player stated that he holds the title of IM when questioned about his over the board playing strength. I do not know if there can be any legel problems involving such a claim as "Hebert" did or even if RHP will have a problem with it, but for a player to demand proof is a bit too much.
Originally posted by gambit3To be an International Master you have to be awarded the title. When you reach the rating required (2300?) you get offered it and accept it or turn it down as far as I'm aware. Therefore you can't be an IM without holding the title. And fifthdivision quite clearly stated he was an IM.
"Hebert" came in here and stated that he is IM Hebert. The player in question has not been stating that he is IM. The player stated that he holds the title of IM when questioned about his over the board playing strength. I do not know if there can be any legel problems involving such a claim as "Hebert" did or even if RHP will have a problem with it, but for a player to demand proof is a bit too much.
I'm going to leave the matter now, I just think that there should be some confirmation made about the players status before people go bandying it around the forums.
Originally posted by Freddie2006That's FM. IM is harder.
To be an International Master you have to be awarded the title. When you reach the rating required (2300?) you get offered it and accept it or turn it down as far as I'm aware. Therefore you can't be an IM without holding the title. And fifthdivision quite clearly stated he was an IM.
Originally posted by dottewellAnd I seconded that out of curiosity, triggered by the authoritarian tone of the analysis shown. For instance:
I originally asked the question, and I asked out of interest, since the level of play in both sides was so high.
"6. Bc4!
I believe the sozin to be the best way to deal with the najdorf. I think the only way for white to obtain a meaningful advantage in the opening is to immediately take advantage of the loss of time of a6 with rapid development and a central/kingside attack."
The super GM's (with a few exceptions like Moro) invariably play 6.Be3 or 6.f3. Do they lack the positional insight to play 6.Bc4?
Originally posted by gambit36. MEMBER CONDUCT
"Hebert" came in here and stated that he is IM Hebert. The player in question has not been stating that he is IM. The player stated that he holds the title of IM when questioned about his over the board playing strength. I do not know if there can be any legel problems involving such a claim as "Hebert" did or even if RHP will have a problem with it, but for a player to demand proof is a bit too much.
You agree to not use the Service to:
Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, RHP staff, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;