the reply to 7 q x e4 is 7- qe7/8-d4-nc6/9-q x q-bishop x q-10 c3 and d6 which maintains material equality by also gives positional equality to black,It is assumed that G. Kamsky was not content to draw with his first white pieces game and was therefore attempting to win,even at the cost of a pawn?😀
Originally posted by RECUVIC7. d4 Qe7 8. Qxe4 Nc6 9. Bxc6 puts Kamsky two pieces in the clear after 9. Qxe4, and one after 9. dxc6. Is that the line you were referring to?
the reply to 7 q x e4 is 7- qe7/8-d4-nc6/9-q x q-bishop x q-10 c3 and d6 which maintains material equality by also gives positional equality to black,It is assumed that G. Kamsky was not content to draw with his first white pieces game and was therefore attempting to win,even at the cost of a pawn?😀
P.S. Returning to the thread and coming back to your earlier post, RECUVIC, mentally I think the move ...d6 is impossible anyway due to the pinning Bb5. If this is wrong, a GM helping me through this chessic swamp would be great. I just don't see the problem with 8. Qxe4. If I'm being slow sorry.
😕
Originally posted by mjolnirYou are wrong. The material is even after 8 Qxe4 and there is no way for White to gain material after 8 ....... Nc6. 9 Bxc6 dxc6 leads to no material gain as the White Queen is hanging and if 10. Qxe7+ Black can simply play Bxe7.
7. d4 Qe7 8. Qxe4 Nc6 9. Bxc6 puts Kamsky two pieces in the clear after 9. Qxe4, and one after 9. dxc6. Is that the line you were referring to?
Originally posted by RECUVICFor a grand master you would expect your notation is with the pieces in capital letters.
the reply to 7 q x e4 is 7- qe7/8-d4-nc6/9-q x q-bishop x q-10 c3 and d6 which maintains material equality by also gives positional equality to black,It is assumed that G. Kamsky was not content to draw with his first white pieces game and was therefore attempting to win,even at the cost of a pawn?😀
I think that the psichological blunder was 15 f4 instead of 15 Bxg6...
I am not saying that 15 Bxg6 is a stronger move, but in my opinion it is much more drawish and leading to a simpler opposite bishops position, where white should be able to survive easier even in the time trouble which was already present...
Originally posted by thadeusmanCut the dude some slack, we are privileged to have a Grandmaster comment on the forums, please don't hassle him, for some have refrained from posting because of the abuse they get.
For a grand master you would expect your notation is with the pieces in capital letters.
Originally posted by RECUVICyou're not too familiar with the algebraic notation, are you?
the reply to 7 q x e4 is 7- qe7/8-d4-nc6/9-q x q-bishop x q-10 c3 and d6 which maintains material equality by also gives positional equality to black,It is assumed that G. Kamsky was not content to draw with his first white pieces game and was therefore attempting to win,even at the cost of a pawn?😀
I am fortunate that I am totally immune to nonsensible comments/messages etc! As stated earlier,f2- f4 was a little speculative but G. Kamsky's only realistic hope of winning in that position.Alternatives are clearly leading to no better than a draw for white. Recovering the pawn is also leading to the same drawn game,therefore intending to win,it is most likely that f2-f4 was G.Kamsky's best shot? c2-c4[the losing move] was made under terrific time troubles,however being already a pawn down it is not likely that G.Kamsky would have seen the drawing move-knight x bishop c8,a tough draw but managable?😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot only a Grandmaster, but a professor of 'English' as well.
Cut the dude some slack, we are privileged to have a Grandmaster comment on the forums, please don't hassle him, for some have refrained from posting because of the abuse they get.
The last Grandmaster who graced this site was, I believe, Jean Hebert. Of course he turned out to be an imposter, but surely it's better to have a pretend Grandmaster casting these pearls of wisdom before than none at all?
Originally posted by Fat LadySurely not.
Not only a Grandmaster, but a professor of 'English' as well.
The last Grandmaster who graced this site was, I believe, Jean Hebert. Of course he turned out to be an imposter, but surely it's better to have a pretend Grandmaster casting these pearls of wisdom before than none at all?
When it comes to analysis at RHP a very small group of players have my ear. Not sure if anyone else feels this way at my level as well? Just to many imposters who clearly don't know what they're talking about, and unknowingly poison real players. Of the players I trust on this site;
None of them claim to be GM's at all.
-GIN