Another clash with Mary

Originally posted by cmsMaster
Yes I appreciate it, and did read your notes. After 9...Nxe4 I'll agree that white is still holding his advantage, but there are some players that could argue that black has chances yet. I also saw that 12.Ne6 is a book move and was surprised by this for 2 reasons. First, piece sacrifices are hard to come by in opening book lines (excluding many King's ...[text shortened]... is and apologise, on behalf of others, for the huge number of off topic posts in this thread.

Originally posted by cmsMaster
One question, how does 14.Qf7+ work out in this line?

Originally posted by fifthdivision
14. Qf7+? is a mistake because of simply 14. ... Qe7 15. fxe6+ Kc7 and black can hold his own. For example: 16. Qxe7+ Bxe7 17. Rf7 Re8 18. Rxg7 d5! 19. Rxh7 Nc6! 20. Bxd5? Nf6! forking the rook and bishop.

Originally posted by fifthdivision
...I was thinking of just stopping posting my analysis because it has obviously offended some people, but I think I will continue it if at least some people appreciate it.

Originally posted by fifthdivision
but I think I will continue it if at least some people appreciate it.

Me too. I really appreciate the time and effort that went into this. This is the kind of stuff that will surely benefit people like me.
Thanks.

I would like to state my thanks as well for your time and effort.

With the aid of computer program analysis, I tried some lines and it definitely seems that the 10...Bb7 lines and 10...g6 lines are refuted (as you stated).

For example, 10...g7-g6 11.f4-f5 g6xf5 12.Nd4xf5 d6-d5 13.Nf5-h6 Qd8-c7 14.Kg1–h1 Bf8xh6 15.Bc1xh6 Rh8-g8 16.Qd1–f3 f7-f5 17.Bh6-e3 d5-d4 18.Be3xd4 Bc8-b7 19.Ra1–e1 Rg8-g4 and white's clearly winning.

I think Black's best plan starts w/10...Nf6. What is White's plan if 10...Ne4-f6? Sample continuation: 11.Bc1–e3 d6-d5 12.f4-f5 Bf8-e7 with black planning to castle. (If 13. fxe, fxe, the sacs aren't there, and black can castle safely for the short run, no matter what white does)

In the above line (12...Qc7 loses; (12...Qd8-c7 13.f5xe6 f7xe6 14.Rf1xf6 g7xf6 15.Qd1–h5+ Qc7-f7 16.Qh5-h3 a6-a5 17.Na4-b6 Ra8-a6 18.Nb6xc8)

Originally posted by Yuga
I would like to state my thanks as well for your time and effort.

With the aid of computer program analysis, I tried some lines and it definitely seems that the 10...Bb7 lines and 10...g6 lines are refuted (as you stated).

For example, 10...g7-g6 11.f4-f5 g6xf5 12.Nd4xf5 d6-d5 13.Nf5-h6 Qd8-c7 14.Kg1–h1 Bf8xh6 15.Bc1xh6 Rh8-g8 16.Qd1–f3 f7-f5 17.Bh6-e3 d5 ...[text shortened]... 13.f5xe6 f7xe6 14.Rf1xf6 g7xf6 15.Qd1–h5+ Qc7-f7 16.Qh5-h3 a6-a5 17.Na4-b6 Ra8-a6 18.Nb6xc8)

Originally posted by fifthdivision
10. ... Nf6 looks like a huge loss of time to me. I think this just adds to the effect of black being behind in development. 11. Be3? looks wrong to me, and instead white should play 11. Qf3! immediately harassing black. 11. ... d5 12. f5! e5 13. Re1! seems to cause alot more problems for black than in the Be3 line.

Originally posted by fifthdivision
10. ... Nf6 looks like a huge loss of time to me. I think this just adds to the effect of black being behind in development. 11. Be3? looks wrong to me, and instead white should play 11. Qf3! immediately harassing black. 11. ... d5 12. f5! e5 13. Re1! seems to cause alot more problems for black than in the Be3 line.

I was initially impressed with fifthdivision’s annotation efforts. Given the quantity of detailed comments, I thought it was unfair that some people were being negative and skeptical about his posts. However, I then went back over the two annotated games in more detail (several hours) and I have to admit that I also now have my doubts.

Look at the high quality of the play in terms of raw moves… very interesting chess… there’s no debating this. But does his written explanations really convince you of his play? Some examples….

Game 2072053

>> "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."

This is later clarified in the thread with an additional: “All of whites pieces need to be active for him to win the game and so the rook must get infront of the pawns. So which is faster, Ra3-c3 or Rd1-d3-c3?”

How many players here read this and were convinced with such reasoning?

I asked myself questions such as “what if Black just replies with a5?” or “why 23.a4 and not 23.a3”? I soon came to the conclusion that 23.a4 is a good move, but fifthdivision’s explanation doesn’t match up. I’ll offer my own explanation: a4 is a key move since it controls the b5 square and prevents Black playing Rb5 in many lines. This is the critical part of why a4 is a good move. Why wasn’t this mentioned?

Another example…

>> "44. h3! Best! Black is in zugzwang, and this quiet little move gives black the unwanted obligation of moving, while at the same time supporting the advance g4 to smash the game home with Qf5+ or Qh5+.”

This comment is flawed. Can someone explain why Black is in zugswang? If Black was allowed to skip a move, White plays g4 with mate in 11. I’m not raising this point to suggest the IMs don’t make mistakes in their annotations, but I’m gobsmacked that an IM can look at this position and think Black is in zugswang.

Another example…

After 10… Bb7, a variation is given, including “13. Qg4! A move that took me quite a long time to find, but I eventually saw how active the queen could be along the a4 rank.”

Again, I read this reasoning and thought “ok, so why not Qd4 with the same aim?”. Digging deeper, when I analysed why Qg4 is better than Qd4, I couldn’t help but think that the a4 rank was a small part of it. It’s a strange choice of comment… it doesn’t reflect the main reasons behind Qg4.

For Game 2069909:

>> “15. h4 So far, all book. This sort of position is why I think 7. a4 is the strongest variation. In this position, white has exhanged his light-squared bishop for a knight and has thus lost the bishop pair and instituted a probable opposite collor bishop ending which would inevitably turn into a draw.”

I wasn’t convinced. So I consulted my DB and looked at IM/GM games from this position. So far I’ve found 1 out of 29 games that ended in a drawn opposite colour bishop ending.

>> “25. Qg2 Building up, ever so slowly, before f5.”

Vague. Can anyone explain why Qg2 is necessary rather than an immediate f5? I note that the annotator decided not to explain why. Isn’t such reasoning critical and foremost in a player’s mind?

>> “32. Qh2! The move that puts black down. White regains what he originally sac'd the knight for: complete domination of the h-file.”

This comment misses a main point. 32.Qh2 has a key idea of keeping the queen on the h2/b8 diagonal, to deter Black from playing gxf6 and allowing exf6, which opens this diagonal. Compare Qh3 or Qh1. Why would an IM give this move a ‘!’ but not mention such a critical detail?

>> “38.Rg7 A little finesse is required to milk the win out of the ending. The idea is to force the rook to f7 to block the kings activation via f7.”

Can anyone who read this and believed it, post a line that show’s the king’s activation if White doesn’t play Rg7 ?


In general, for someone claiming to be an IM, and able to play chess to the standard illustrated in these two games, the written explanations aren’t matching up. There’s just not the evidence that says “here’s why I played these moves”. Flawed and vague reasoning is what I see. For those who disagree, put aside any annotation content that could have been obtained from a DB or engine, and highlight the written comments that show we have an IM explaining his understanding of chess.

Originally posted by Freddie2006
Would you care to prove this?

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Seems this was a good question after all.

Another one bites the dust - haha. 3b

Originally posted by wormwood
wow. can't really say I'm shocked anymore after all the other bannings, but he did have me going. maybe I'll someday learn enough chess to not get fooled by seemingly sound pseudo-analysis, but it's a long way...