10 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"I have never seen a master game where white plays Bf4 in a Sicilian set up from the opening, never!"
Actually i watched a video somewhere and it made a deep impression on me, i cannot find it for
the life of me, anyway, it was simply about Caro Kaan exchange variation and the author (an
amateur) described so well where to put ones pieces based on the pawn structure that you had
to know about it GP.
I have never seen a master game where wh wn chess truths to hammer out, i am simply interested in thinking for myself, is it so
bad?
Ignorance isn`t argument.
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by Pacifiqueif it is flawed then so be it, but at least its my flawed reasoning and not someone else's, and you
You statement "all you have done is taken another's recommendation without thought" is blatant lie. For example - in my previous post I stated that 5.d4 "gives White extra pawn in kingside while Black is unable to exploit extra pawn in queenside, due to weakened pawn structure."
And your argument about 5.Nc3 is "its played by Capa". So who is "taking ...[text shortened]... n also evaluation method preached by you in the beginning of this thread is flawed.
have produced the names of Lasker and Fischer etc with which to substantiate your claims, heck
you even produced a wikipedia article, lame lame lame! so it gives white an extra pawn, good, at
least you are beginning to evaluate the position for yourself, although you had to be dragged
kicking and screaming to do so! Lasker plays this and Fischer plays that! pah! thetic! Forge your
own truths, all we have is an evaluation with our own minds.
Originally posted by Pacifiqueand the game resulted in a draw, neeext! Karpov should be ashamed of his move, how are we to
[b]"I have never seen a master game where white plays Bf4 in a Sicilian set up from the opening, never!"
Ignorance is not argument.
[pgn][Event "03, Moscow ch-SU"]
[Site "03, Moscow ch-SU"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Anatoli Karpov"]
[Black "Sveshnikov"]
[ECO "B33"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[Black 6 f3 41. Rxf3 Rh5+ 42. Kf6 Rxb5 43. Rd6 Rb2 44. Ke7 Ba5
1/2-1/2[/pgn][/b]
explain it, such poor play? Oh but wait, it was Karpov, that makes all the difference, it must be
good, who are you going to roll out next, El Greco, Philador, Ruy Lopez? himself says this!
Originally posted by Pacifiquemy claim was not idiotic, it was true, i had never seen a master game where the bishop was played
LOL. Look at the game before making idiotic claims.
to f4, what was idiotic about that. It is clear that he targeted the the backward d pawn, again play
based upon the pawn structure, in fact, rather ironically you are simply proving the points that i was
making, feel dumb, don't worry, hang around, you will.
10 Feb 12
"i am simply interested in thinking for myself, is it so bad?"
Not at all. Just keep it to yourself. 😉
No keep posting, I think the place gloomier would be without you.
Perhaps every now and then put your hand up and say I may be wrong.
I do if I'm off the mark or have lemoned. And we all do.
Chess players lose games trying to justify a bad move no sense in chasing a bad argument.
So it was a video on the Caro Kann. Crap videos are worse than crap books.
A bad book you throw away and never pick up again.
A video you watch all the way though even though you know it's crap.
You cannot flick through it like a book. So you sit and watch wating for
someone good to happen. It never does.
" i don't really like to argue..."
But you do seem to enjoy it. 🙂
Originally posted by Pacifiqueplease see the post above i really should thankyou for demonstrating the points that i have been
Idiotic was your claim about "poor play" by Karpov. I bet you even did not look at the game.
making, in fact, i couldn't have done it without you, so tell us again why Karpov played Bf4? or will
I, it was to provoke what move?
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34Na GP, i like the outcomes, ones thoughts get refined, if we are talking bollocks, well, it gets shown
"i am simply interested in thinking for myself, is it so bad?"
Not at all. Just keep it to yourself. 😉
No keep posting, I think the place gloomier would be without you.
Perhaps every now and then put your hand up and say I may be wrong.
I do if I'm off the mark or have lemoned. And we all do.
Chess players lose games trying to justify a bad m ...[text shortened]... . It never does.
" i don't really like to argue..."
But you do seem to enjoy it. 🙂
up, like a dodgy combination. I don't know if i will keep playing chess never mind posting, its too
painful an experience to be honest.
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt`s obvious that Karpov wanted to provoke 7...e5. And opening transposed into Sveshnikov Sicilian, considered inferior for Black in 70ties.
please see the post above i really should thankyou for demonstrating the points that i have been
masking, in fact, i couldn't have done it without you, so tell us again why Karpov played Bf4? or will
I, it was to provoke what move?
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell that seems to have made Pacific rather quite, will he be made to cough up that Karpovs play
please see the post above i really should thankyou for demonstrating the points that i have been
making, in fact, i couldn't have done it without you, so tell us again why Karpov played Bf4? or will
I, it was to provoke what move?
was based upon the pawn structure or will he slither around claiming that it was on some other
basis, hang around for next weeks exciting episode of the Investigator, chess truth revealed!
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by Pacifiquewell well, a confession, he played the game based upon what criteria, da pawn structure, ahhh the
It`s obvious that Karpov wanted to provoke 7...e5. And opening transposed into Sveshnikov Sicilian, considered inferior for Black in 70ties.
horror, the shock, the humiliation, your now providing games which are lending themselves to my
very arguments! and I am the idiot? mmmm, something not quite right about that.
10 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are right - Sveshnikov Sicilian was considered inferior due to pawn structure, but modern GM`s are taking into account also other factors and this system is played even in the highest levels today. 🙂
well that seems to have made Pacific rather quite, will he be made to cough up that Karpovs play
was based upon the pawn structure or will he slither around claiming that it was on some other
basis, hang around for next weeks exciting episode of the Investigator, chess truth revealed!
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Confession" LOL. I`ve never denied that pawn structure is one of the factors, taken into account in evaluation, but I`ll never agree with idiotic theories about evaluation based solely on pawn structure, without taking into account other pieces.
well well, a confession, he played the game based upon what criteria, da pawn structure, ahhh the
horror, the shock, the humiliation, your now providing games which are lending themselves to my
very arguments! and I am the idiot? mmmm, something not quite right about that.
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by Pacifiquebut we are referring to Karpov play, not the choice of opening, it was based upon the pawn
You are right - Sveshnikov Sicilian was considered inferior due to pawn structure, but modern GM`s are taking into account also other factors and this system is played even in the highest levels today. 🙂
structure, twas it not? he played Bf4 to provoke e5, this is a common theme in the Sicilian, to
provoke e5 in some way.