|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-06-11 | | Mozart72: <MatrixManNe0> The problem is that you think that when a player "wins" the game is over. You should look for better options for the "looser". It's more interesting that way. Remember that chess has 10^49 possible combinations. |
|
| May-06-11 | | lost in space: There
are
so
many
acronyms
that
you
simply
lost
the
aoverview |
|
| May-06-11 | | Mozart72: <lost in space> I don't understand nor have the time to learn internet slang, etc. |
|
May-06-11
 | | Domdaniel: <Mozart72> In that case, don't concern yourself with 'internet slang' but focus on basic English. A decisive game has a winner (who wins) and a loser (who loses). 'Loose' means unconnected, slack, or lax, and is always wrong in this context. Common error, though. Also, the idiom is 'due respect' - as in the respect that is due to somebody - not 'do'. Finally, the database is littered with incorrect ECO codes. And nobody in CG admin reads corrections posted in the game kibitzing (ie, here). If you really want somebody to change it, submit a correction slip - Chessgames has just employed a database administrator to deal with the backlog. |
|
| May-06-11 | | Jim Bartle: Mozart: "Remember that chess has 10^49 possible combinations." Then how do you believe you can determine that white is lost after four or five moves in the QID Petrosian? |
|
| May-06-11 | | Mozart72: <Domdaniel> Mozart didn't speak english either. Let's focus on chess, shall we? |
|
May-06-11
| | Domdaniel: <Mozart72> Yes, let's. I was being gentle by choosing to ignore your rather eccentric comments on this game. After Karpov's blunder 11...Bd6 the game is utterly lost, and no dubious piece of analytic fantasy could prove otherwise. Of course you are correct to say that it is beneficial to try to improve on the loser's play - just that, here, that starts with alternatives to ...Bd6. There are many positions where the loss of a piece can be survived due to compensatory factors. This isn't one of them. |
|
| May-06-11 | | Helloween: Domdaniel hits the nail right on the head. Why analyse a position almost any one of us could probably win against Karpov, when you can look for improvements before the blunder? I don't think you<Mozart72>understand the whole point of analysis. |
|
| May-07-11 | | Mozart72: <Helloween> Making the winner lose or at least draw. That's how I handle chess analysis. Keep in mind <Helloween> that a nail always drives through another nails head. |
|
| May-07-11 | | MatrixManNe0: <Mozart72> Ok, (1) that saying makes no sense. Nails do not always drive through other nails' heads. In fact, most nails happen to drive through wood or whatever it is they're holding together. (2) If you're trying to find the quickest way for black to win, try 1. d4 c6 2. Kd2 Qa5+ 3. Kd3 Qc3+ 4. Ke4 Qe3+ 5. Kf5 Nh6# In any case, your "chess analysis" does not make any sense, because it involves making terrible moves for the other player in order to win. Most real chess analysis works by improving the moves of the game, not by unfairly causing one side to lose. The difference is that improving both sides' moves helps someone see why the game ended up as it did, whereas your analysis doesn't show anything about the game at all. It's just this sort of weird simulacrum. |
|
| May-07-11 | | Jim Bartle: Thank you! Matrix and Domdaniel. Here's a comment from the Alekhine vs Nenarokov, 1907 page. Mozart72: "Black wins in 77 moves with the Queen's Indian Defense: Petrosian Variation (E12):
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 b6
4. a3"
Mozart's analysis is unbelievably shallow, which isn't so bad rally, but he's convinced it's deep and revolutionary. Once when I pointed out how ludicrous one of his claims was, he replied, "Stop thinking standard." Standard, meaning the way the greatest chess players have thought since Steinitz. |
|
| May-07-11 | | Mozart72: <MatrixManNe0> (1) I bet my life that your using a chess engine. "Your" refutations seem so softwareish. (I don't mean that it's a wrong thing to do, but at least be honest about it and give credit to the Matrix that's in-puting and out-puting for you.) (2) About the nail thing, it might be a poor translation by my part of a spanish saying: Un clavo saca otro clavo. A nail pushes through another nails head.
(3) Karpov must of left the table after Christiansen's 12. Qd1 (the real game) that's were I start my analysis, not with 5. Kf5. I make the loser win or at least draw.
(3) And don't worry so much about my english. You make me think that your some kind of a chess-redneck or wood pushing vigilante. |
|
| May-07-11 | | Jim Bartle: "Un clavo saca otro clavo" means "One nail removes another nail." It typically refers to personal relationships, when the original nail is a lost love or losing something that really hurts. It means a new love or event can make you forget about the old one. |
|
| May-07-11 | | MatrixManNe0: I've heard it translated as <Jim Bartle> translated it and didn't know that you <Mozart72> were using that saying. <Mozart72> I don't understand how my refutations are softwareish? I mean, it's nice that you liken my intellect to that of a computer, but, really, I'm not that smart. :) Also, nowhere did you stipulate in your original post that we were starting after 12. Qd1. In which case, I would argue 12... Qh4 13. Bc1 Bc5 14. Nb1 Qxf2# |
|
| May-08-11 | | Jim Bartle: A devastating counterattack by black! And I see no way for white to stop it. |
|
| May-08-11 | | Mozart72: <Jim Bartle> >MatrixManNe0> You got the idea. Make the winner lose, the loser win, etc. |
|
| May-09-11 | | MatrixManNe0: <Mozart72> No, I don't get the idea. Because it's pointless. cf. the Christiansen game. |
|
| May-09-11 | | MatrixManNe0: That is, cf. the Morphy game. |
|
| Jan-03-12 | | Bengambit: White's Queen gets to double attack from the start,if,13.....Bf4??,trying to salvage the loss of a piece,14.Qxh4,naturally leaves black short handed and out of position equals,loss of time and material from the opening with no clue of how to win from here,unless white is a pure novice,game over for black........... |
|
| Feb-19-12 | | ArtsewS: I made a Youtubevideo on this game a while ago called Karpov is human. It's under 2 minutes. If you like you can view it by clicking the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frpl... |
|
| May-08-12 | | vinidivici: why this was the game of the day...? |
|
| May-08-12 | | JohnDahl: Pour encourager les autres. |
|
| May-08-12 | | sneaky pete: What Karpov said when afterwards Christiansen suggested they'd analyse the game together: Go to l'enfer. |
|
| Jul-30-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Christiansen vs Karpov, 1993.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF CHRISTIANSEN.
Your score: 19 (par = 10)
LTJ |
|
| Feb-11-13 | | alachabre: Just a casual response to the Mozart72 kerfuffle. I managed to screw up the White position playing against Houdini. I did alright for about seven moves, but Black threw a nifty bishop capture on g2 that evened the position. The Mozart72 analysis is deeply flawed (yeah I know, Captain Obvious here) by its almost immediate giving up of the dark square bishop on c3. Patzer that I am, I realized the dark squares are the key, and my play against Houdini was centered on the attempt to remove it. Houdini would not bite. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
