Jan-16-06
 | | WannaBe: Geeze, took white long enough to resign. =) |
|
Jan-16-06 | | PaulLovric: second |
|
Jan-16-06 | | PaulLovric: would 45.Qh8 have made a difference?? |
|
Jan-16-06 | | PaulLovric: ok i see.....NO |
|
Jan-16-06 | | blingice: <WannaBe> I think he wanted to see if he could get a perpetual or a three-move out of it. <PaulLovric> That's the lowest point of post count calling I've ever seen. Please delete it. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | backyard pawn: Yes, in the words of Andy Kaufman, "Csank you very much." Jacques was neither nimble nor quick. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | Gowe: 23...b4 just amazing. I will never play a move like that in a match.. .. at least no with this great result.
Perhaps 21.exd6? |
|
Jan-16-06 | | itz2000: gg ;) 22-24 gave the win to black IMO. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | cuendillar: <ironmaiden> A candidate for your Game Collection: Power to the Pawns!? |
|
Jan-16-06 | | PaulLovric: what? huh? |
|
Jan-16-06 | | aragorn69: 23.-b4 is in fact almost the only move (because of the Bxh7+ threat). I am also not at all sure that, at this point, Black's position is already winning. The 25.Ra6 "expedition" - though entertaining - is probably a mistake, and 25.Be3 seems more solid. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | EmperorAtahualpa: Beautiful game! funny pun. :) |
|
Jan-16-06 | | ramprasad2: could white have played 36. dxc5 (if 36... Qd2 37 QxQ cxd2 38 Rd7) h5 seems pointless. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | dakgootje: first of all: beautiful game, however maybe white should resign earlier as there was no rea chance for a draw with e.g. perpetual... Secondly: <PaulLovric> could you please remove at least like 2 posts here: the first post is just worthless, in the second you actually have something to share with us, however as you answer your own question immediately after that you could kill the first post, and repost with a ps that you already found it out, and your 4th post is both annoying and worthless...so maybe its better to kill some of them.... |
|
Jan-16-06 | | MarkN: I think its just better to kill <PaulLovric> |
|
Jan-16-06 | | dakgootje: Yup but that option didnt work =( |
|
Jan-16-06 | | esticles: What's wrong with white playing <22.exd6 Rxf4 23. dxc7 Qxc7 24. Qc1>? I haven't analyzed the position but it seems that white can force a rook trade with lines like ...Rc8 25. Ra7 or similar deflection-type tactics, and then even after d4 or h4 falls he's up a pawn. Anyone wanna have a go at this line? |
|
Jan-16-06 | | sciacca khan: Funny game. Never has so much been offered as regarding opportunities to turn the game around, opportunities refused and accepted, and when refused, tacked on was the reply: Csank you very much. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | Boomie: <esticles> In your line after 24...Qf7, white's edge has almost vanished. |
|
Jan-16-06 | | Boomie: 36. h5 is a terrible gaffe. The simple Ra5, pinning the c-pawn, ensures the pretty win white was trying for with h5. 36. Ra5 Rc8 37. h5 Kf8 38. hxg6 hxg6 39. Ra6 Rcb8 40. Rf6+ Ke7 41. Qxg6  |
|
Jan-16-06 | | kevin86: Black sacrificed a piece to get two connected passed pawns-which later became three connectors. He then is able to queen a pawn and sustain a queen attack from white. Exciting finish! |
|
Jan-16-06 | | vinohradska: <aragorn69> thanks, I missed noticing that the knight was pinned to the queen because of the possible bishop check. That means that 23... b4 wasn't quite the ballsy move I thought it was. |
|