HAHAHAHAAH

Bloody Antonioni rushed out *his* version of "la Notte" while mine was still at the chemist's.

That was some rather stellar commentary on the "Gelfand"- Topalov game last night.

You're really outdoing yourself these days.

I burst out laughing at one point after <The Albertan> and you began posting different versions of the same information at the same time, in tandem it seemed.

I thought the combination of he and you was exceedingly instructive, and helped the "silent viewer" (me in this case) understand quite deeply what was going on in the position at any given moment.

It was as if you guys were the "hired experts" for this game.

Thanks <KRABAB> but I'm still on vacation so I wanted to archive and organize as much historical chess content as possible while I have the chance.

All three Preemys are paid up for three years so these Profiles are built to last.

If you ever have time to contribute anything like the TONS of stuff you contributed on Bobby please don't hesitate.

QUESTION: What do you think of Giri as commentator?

QUESTION: Overall impressions of Linares so far? Compared to Corus?

FACT: I have no useful opinion on either of these questions.

And so far Linares quite pales in comparison with Corus – with 14 players Corus always has more variety, and this year with the Linares cutback from 8 to 6 players it's even more pronounced; but, in addition, the level of play and competition in Corus was much more exciting, at least compared to what Linares has shown in the first 4 rounds. Still, the two decisive games played so far are quite nice – especially Grischuk-Gelfand (a classic attacking game with a d4 isolani).

Yes this "false modesty" with regard to computers seems DE RIGOR MORTIS with a lot of GMs in this era, except Nigel of course. I was very very sad that he didn't do better at Corus.

<it's really getting tiresome to keep repeating it again and again; but anyway ->

heh

You know you remind me there of something related that I'm sure you've noticed- I've been thinking about it a fair bit recently.

Ok in Kibbutzer Kafe and private forums with any level of traffic, there is a remarkable tendency of people to just drop posts without reading the previous post- let alone posts- which makes the poster look foolish in some cases, rude in others.

This may make sense- given the nature of those two places.

But I was looking at the <Kenneth Political Harangue Page> recently and I can tell you it is considerably more disjointed than Kibbutzer Kafe.

There are long stretches where there is no acknowledgment of having read any posts at all.

This makes the page an even poorer place than it would be otherwise to "learn" about current affairs and history. I think that the <I have a Beef Strogonoff> page is a good place for "learning about how badly mannered and poorly informed the majority of chess fans are."

But on the Linares page there, people are in fact reading the last posts and even previous pages of the thread.

So it must be maddening to you to have to repeat very topical topics- such as the "Classical/not classical NOT ACCURATE" search at our website.

That's been discussed exhaustively by people who own actual chess books and are actual chess historians (you, Benzol, others of course).

Ok it's one thing for a kibbutzer to have missed all of this previous discussion.

But when you recognize a guy who you know has seen this- and in fact had it explained to him before- and see him continue to post as if he's never heard of it-

This must be maddening.

I know you well enough to know that when you "appear a little testy" you are actually in what may more accurately be described as a "pre-psychotic rage"- Eyal style.

I love it when you get angry at the site- but the fact that a guy like you does get angry is testament to how truly obnoxious such a large number of posts are.

I mean I get livid at the drop of a hat, so you can't make any reliable statistics on my behavior indicating anything other than I'm a shrieking harridan.

You aren't, however.

All that said, I think you've every right to be even stronger in tone when you face such idiocy on the live tournament and games pages.

That's because those pages form part of an actual historical archive-

And that's something that you just can't abandon to idiocy or inaccuracy.

Same as in Academics.

After all, this place is a CHESS DATABASE.

I'm not THAT calm as you seem to think – certain things get me more ticked off than others, among them some of the types of behavior that you mention, maybe because of the academic training… At any rate, the case of this person is quite funny – a while ago, there was a big argument of the "who's the greater player" kind on the Anand page regarding Anand vs. Kramnik, and of course the question of head-to-head results came up. That was before Anand's win at Corus, so in classical games the score was still equal. But when you do the search here – even the "special" search, that's supposed to separate classical games from the rest – it shows Anand as having more wins, because he won many more rapid games (as is the case with his score vs. Topalov). And this guy became completely hysterical when people tried to explain to him this fact – apparently Anand not having a big plus classical score against some other players shakes the very foundation of his existence. Might be instructive material for a psychological case study, I suppose.

hahahahah

Wonderful-

"You have white- you have to play"

AHAHAHAHAHAAH

Also, you know what I was thinking.

1. This database problem isn't really an issue for the vast majority of cases because SERIOUS PEOPLE used to play SERIOUS CHESS and Blitz/Rapid/Blindfold/Simuls is NOT SERIOUS CHESS.

Period.

2. Twelve Game World Championship matches, with "playoffs," are a joke. They are much, much more the DEATH OF CHESS than are computers. Computers can't kill chess because they don't play at LInares.

Period.

About the database problem – you know, it actually becomes an issue exactly <because> many people indeed still consider classical games to be in a league of their own in terms of importance/seriousness, and so there often arises the need to separate them from the others within the database (unless you just don't include in it any non-classical games), and that still cannot be done reliably for the reason I've mentioned.

As for the 12-game World Championship matches, I think we already argued about it once… I would prefer something like 16-game length (as in Kasparov-Kramnik), but I don't really miss so much the 24-game matches, and I don't think that shorter matches are such a disaster. There seems to be a sort of consensus among top players about the 12-16 range as a reasonable number of games for a WC match. I remember that Karpov - who had an ample experience with the 24 game format - mentioned 16 as his ideal number in the Foidos interview with Seirawan during the Bonn match. In the final press conference there, both Anand and Kramnik were asked about it and said 12 is ok (though Kramnik said he slightly prefers 14); I believe Anand suggested shortening it even back in 1995, when it was still best of 20. And let's not forget that no tournament nowadays runs for more than 14 rounds, unlike the 20+ rounds marathons of old.

Perhaps 12-16 is the number of games where a player can give himself fully to produce the best performance he can. The more you add games, the more exhausting it becomes and the players will look for short draws - which constitute about a quarter of the KK matches, even though people tend to forget it now, when they can focus only on the great games.

And considering the two actual matches already played under this system, I'd say that in terms of interest both Elista and Bonn were quite a success - very intensive with almost no dull moments, packed with drama (though the one in Elista, of course, not completely of the right sort...) and fighting games; I think the shorter format helped to achieve this.

Yes very good points. I hadn't considered what the top players would actually prefer the most.

I suppose mainly what I object to in the 12 game w/playoff format is the psychological dynamic of thinking you can't come back even if you go down one game.

And draw odds would be ludicrous in such a short match.

As for <Esmerelda the Wonder Weasel> no sympathy there. If you get a chance to play Kasparov you don't take a short draw like that you accept his theoretical challenge.

If only to avoid going down in history as a WEASEL. If he says "I drew the World Champion" and anyone sees him in this video they will laugh-rightly- in his face.

He should have been thrown off a rock.

Contrast that with <Patrick Wolf>- I played through his game there in <Big Crawdaddy's> game collection and he really stuck it to <Kasparov>-

That's something historical, a truly remarkable achievement regardless of the "super-simul" format and the obstacles that presents for the World Champion.

What a mensch Kasparov is too- the way he was chatting and analyzing with them the next day.

Of course, only with the opponents who had a pair.

If you are willing and able to watch Topalov play Gelfand for four hours plus, what's the difference if it's eight hours plus? I mean people with short attention spans aren't going to enjoy live chess anyways. And Blitz/Rapid is NOT chess.

This is how to play chess. Look at this game here-

The overmatched <Vera Menchik> at <Krakow 1929> against <Milan Vidmar>:

Vidmar vs Menchik, 1929

This game took over NINE HOURS to play- and it was singled out by Alekhine in one of his articles for the New York Times. In his estimation, <Menchik> had a better position early in the game, and she showed astonishing fortitude in making <Vidmar> work as hard as humanly possible to beat her.

NINE HOURS.
EIGHTY-EIGHT MOVES.

One of the players much, much higher rated than the other.

Here's what I mean- this is one of my favorite games -

<Vidmar> refuses an earlier offer of a Queen trade, and it's the moment when he thinks- accurately- that Queens off will favor him that he provokes the trade-

After 42.Qxd6

click for larger view

Now it's advantage <Vidmar> due to the Bishop and a better pawn structure after the Queens come off.

But then from here- White to move, and <Vidmar> is better for sure-

click for larger view

There's plenty of chess to discuss still.

Actually I have to go back to work on Tuesday.

I'd rather just make chess videos and read <Edward Winter Chess History> blog.

Do you know how many old chess photos I have in folders on my hard drive now?

Thousands! Yep thousands.

I will look at those endgames on your orders.

And yes I watched the guy's other video on the <Short - Kasparov> already. I'm a youtube member with my own channel so I subscribed to him.

I also left him a message on his "board" thanking him for uploading the six vids, and HE DELETED IT.

AHhahahaha

I like crabby people.

I hope he converts more of these things. He's a member here at <CG.com> btw- if you go to the <Kasparov-Wolf> game from the film you'll see him on the Kibbutzing there.

He probably can't stand me from <this> website.

At least it was until the <Polgars>, which is all anyone remembers.

That's one of the reasons I'm making my last Chess Video about <Virile Chipmunk>.

She beat <Max Euwe> twice - straight up- in 1930 and again in 1931.

She was a "legitimate" Chess Master based on these two results alone.

Not to mention, she was "top stick" at her Home Chess Club- which was one of the most famous and glorious clubs in history:

The Hastings Chess Club, meeting in the fabulous "Queens' Hotel" on Queen Street in the beautiful, and historic seaside hamlet of Hastings, England.

<Sir George Thomas> was a favorite target. Here is an earlier game against him that illustrates the simplicity or clarity of <Menchik's> playing style- and she very much had a style- Gain some kind of positional advantage, no matter how slight, and then trade off every single piece on the board as fast as possible. The endgame was her forte.

Menchik vs G A Thomas, 1929

In this game, she wins a pawn with a nice combination and then trades down like mad into a winning endgame, quickly securing two "Hogs" on the second rank and crushing Thomas like a bug.

Position after 33.Rdd7

click for larger view

This game was played at <Ramsgate 1929>, her best effort- she was undefeated and shared second just 1 point behind <Capablanca>.

The game you cite is from a major tournament <London 1932>, which her good friend <AA Alekhine> won.

<"Little" Salo Flohr> took second- his tournament results during the 30s were so strong that in Stockholm, 1937, FIDE selected him as first in line to challenge for the Championship, though he never got the chance.

<Mir Sultan Khan>, who she beat at the <Hastings Christmas Congress 1931>, was third-

<Geza Maroczy>, her teacher, fourth-

<Isaac Kashdan>, "The Little Capablanca," fifth-

She finished in eighth spot, ahead of perennial English targets <Thomas, Milner-Barry, and William Winter>.

Menchik vs G A Thomas, 1932

This is an excellent miniature in which <Menchik> castles long in a Queen's Pawn opening and really sticks it to <Thomas>- establishing a lethal FAWN PAWN on the <f6 square> and finishing with a forced mating sequence with a "false" Queen sacrifice.

In the mean time, as you said, <Thomas'> Queenside assault is repelled easily, with <Menchik> cheekily using his own pawn as protection for her King and controlling the <a2 square> with her Knight.

Another exciting game- she didn't play such adventurous or aggressive chess against top-flight opposition. But when given the opportunity, she certainly employed this method against weaker players.

Final position:

click for larger view

Obviously I don't mean to compare her to <Karpov> in relative strength- but you can see from <Karpov's> early games, against weak (compared to him) opposition, he plays <1.e4> frequently and employs dazzling tactical vision to cut them to pieces.