|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 598 OF 598 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-10-14 | | Pedro Fernandez: I forgot two guys which I never named, <hms123>, and <StunningMove> who worked out a lot for the cause of our victory. Kudos my friends! |
|
| Feb-10-14 | | Pedro Fernandez: What can I say my dear <OCF>. |
|
Feb-12-14
 | | LIFE Master AJ: Nice win, guys!!! My congrats to the whole team.
One day, when I can find the time, (And I don't feel well, I was very sick yesterday.); I will go through and pick out all the outstanding contributors. (Noting the guys who posted the most work in analysis.) Of course, <RV> gets special mention, that goes almost without saying. (I found his help to be invaluable, esp. when I did not want to spend a lot of time on what move to vote for.) Of course, some of you turned your whole forum into an area to analyze specifics of this game, let me know if you did this and I will check that out as well. |
|
| Feb-12-14 | | john barleycorn: why repeating yourself, AJ? old age?
<Jan-20-14
LIFE Master AJ: Good job, guys.
I have no explanation for the number of poor moves by our opponent ...However, you guys (as usual) did a fantastic job!!!!!!!!! Later I will name some of the "analytical stars" (my name won't be there) of this game. A few - on this page alone - are RV, BlueWave, DcGentle, kb2ct, etc. There are the guys - who consistently post jillions of lines ... their work makes the team's win look effortless.> |
|
Feb-12-14
| | LIFE Master AJ: Is there any interest on a YOU-TUBE video for this game? (I would do it, but would want lots of input from all the regulars who were "big-time" analysts for this contest.) <YOU RANG> has had some good comments. My e-mail address is in my header, (NOSPAMlifemasteraj@yahoo.com, remove the "nospam"); send me your comments ... and I will try to work them into the video. |
|
| Feb-13-14 | | RandomVisitor: For those of you that are interested in how exactly it is that a 'group' can 'play' a game, I offer a few words from Hannigan's Environmental Sociology (2006): "p.140 What is characteristically unique about a collective behaviour episode is that <the situation is ambiguous or undefined>, and therefore existing norms fail to provide significant guidance. <As a result, the crowd or other collectivity is forced to innovate>, together forging its own guidelines for behaviour. <Frequently, one or more innovators ('keynoters') suggest a course of action and a consensus develops that this be considered as appropriate. In ambiguous situations... reliable information is difficult to obtain> and collective actors therefore often rely on rumours to supply the appropriate cues. Shibutani (1966), in a memorable turn of the phrase, labelled rumours as <'improvised news'>." |
|
| Feb-13-14 | | Zhbugnoimt: when is next BOB? |
|
Feb-14-14
| | LIFE Master AJ: Again - I was serious about doing a good video on this game. However, I would like some contributions from all the key analysts. (My e-mail is NOSPAMlifemasteraj@yahoo.com, remove the "nospam.") |
|
| Feb-14-14 | | john barleycorn: KC's videos relate to the featured game more than 95% of the time. in "other" videos it is just 5% of the time. |
|
Feb-15-14
| | LIFE Master AJ: <Random Visitor> I want to do a video on this game. If you wanted to write a nice summary of the key moves of this match, I could just read that and add any other comments that I might have. I did not participate enough in this game, so I was looking for one of the BIG-TIME analysts to help me craft some key summaries of some of the crucial points in the game. Of course I will free to add my own comments. One of the things that I have to include was my strong opposition to 10...d4. Although we won the game, I still feel, that - with correct/perfect play - the advance (although very forcing) was (a bit) premature. (Although I could be just dead wrong here.) I am VERY CURIOUS to know if GM Williams has released any comments on this game and how he views that move. <RV> If you read this - and are interested - I would like you to send me an e-mail ... or drop by my forum. ALL OTHER ANALYSTS ... you are also welcome to participate!!! |
|
Feb-15-14
| | LIFE Master AJ: 32.f4??
This looked like suicide.
I am curious to know, did he just overlook something, or did he blunder? |
|
| Feb-15-14 | | Tigranny: <LIFE Master AJ> I have to disagree with your statement on kingscrusher's videos. But to answer your question, 32.f4 does look like a blunder overlooking that last stroke with 33...Be3. |
|
| Feb-15-14 | | RandomVisitor: <LMAJ>32.f4 - he was tired of the game and looked for a reasonable way to resign. |
|
| Feb-19-14 | | hoodrobin: <RandomVisitor: For those of you that are interested in how exactly it is that a 'group' can 'play' a game, I offer a few words from Hannigan's Environmental Sociology (2006)...>
This applays to the first time or times. Then there is a more and more developing awareness of whom the best news come from. And a routine develops about which are the most useful routines to manage the new pieces of news. |
|
| Feb-20-14 | | cormier: Jobava vs D Dubov, 2014 |
|
| Apr-20-14 | | 1971: Bravo, dominant, commanding play. Looks like God playing. You patzers are pretty good. I want to play next time. |
|
| Jul-11-14 | | vsrp: who played with simon |
|
| Oct-19-15 | | Imran Iskandar: We should have a Chessgames Challenge against a computer. Maybe not Stockfish or Komodo to give us more of a chance. |
|
| Oct-22-15 | | Marmot PFL: Simon Williams continued to play 5 g4. Perhaps it's the kind of move that works better in OTB play than correspondence chess. S Williams vs S Spivack, 2014 |
|
Feb-11-16
 | | OhioChessFan: <vsrp> Williams was on his own in this game. Him vs The World. |
|
| Mar-17-16 | | Exploding: 33...♗e3! must come as a suprise to White. |
|
| Jul-21-17 | | The Kings Domain: Impressive win by the site's regulars, 33)... Be3! was a thunderbolt out of the blue. I'm glad chessgames got Williams to participate in this fun game, he's one of the best commentators of the game and an always watchable blitz player online. Hopefully the site can host these fun events at least twice or thrice a year with various masters. |
|
| May-22-18 | | bobbyperezchess: 5.g4????? (question, not mark)
Better is the book move 5.Na3. |
|
May-22-18
 | | AylerKupp: <The Kings Doman> I think that <the> move of the game was 15...Nb4. It's no easy to defend against the obvious threat of 16...Nxc2+. Williams decides to give up a pawn by 15.0-0-0 since after 15...Nxa2+ 16.Kb1 Black's knight is out of play and White will have a space advantage and the initiative on the k-side, and the pressure against the Pg7 was not easy to meet, with various sacrifices against e5 and f6 possible. The Ne4 is a monster and not easy to dislodge, and the consequences of those sacs had to be considered on every move. But I (and, I suppose, the team) felt that 22.Bc3 was an inaccuracy since it gave Black an extra tempo to get our knight back into play and after 23...b5, 26...b4, 26...Na5, 27...Nb7, and 28...Nd6 we could remove he Ne4 from its outpost and, without the Ne4, White has no effective attack, and the Pc6 is ripe for plucking. And, yes, 32.f4 seems like another inaccuracy, but 33...Be3 was not that hard to find, particularly in a correspondence game. So I personally think that Williams was tired of the game and allowed it to find a position where he could resign with grace. But the problem with these Challenge Games is their predictability. The byline to each game said something like "Can a team of amateurs beat a grandmaster?" The answer was not obvious prior to the first game but, particularly as chess engines got stronger, the answer was definitely clear. The team has not lost a game and I don't think that it ever came close to losing. So the question has been answered and I suspect that interest in these types of games was waned. There is no way that a grandmaster with his/her busy schedule can match up against a bunch of "amateurs" with lots of time and motivation on their side and supported by far more computing power that the grandmaster can have. I don't think that even Carlsen with his staff and his array of computers would have any winning chances. I have suggested that perhaps <chessgames.com> can arrange one of these games <without> computer assistance (on the honor system, of course) but this hasn't happened and may never happen. |
|
| Aug-07-22 | | MississQueen: The honor system -- no cheating, scouts honor, wedding vows, and all that pledge stuff. When pigs fly. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 598 OF 598 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
