|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-07-16 | | morfishine: <roentgenium> Another side alternative that fails for Black is 27...Bf2 trying to cut communication between Queen and <g2> (28.Qxf2??? Losing to 28...Rd1+), but now 28.Nd6+ works for White |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | King Harvest: Well, I've got the Monday morning Blas. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | zb2cr: 27. ... Qxg2+; 28. Qxg2, Rd1+ and after a useless interposition, White will be mate on his back rank. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | luftforlife: <An Englishman>: Good morning. I appreciate your lively and incisive description of some of the pros and cons of the Archangelsk Variation. Your points are well-taken. Here's a game played some two years after this one (identical through 10. . . . Nc4) in which IM Lugo, again with Black, failed to prevail with the Archangelsk Variation: J Friedel vs B Lugo, 2008
Kind regards. |
|
Mar-07-16
 | | gawain: I didn't notice the white rook skulking around over at a2, so I thought Black could decoy the queen and then deliver mate at g2. 27...Rd1+ 28 Qxg2 28 Rd1#. Bad start to the week. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | notyetagm: 11 pawn moves for White while his queenside sat undeveloped in this game. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | patzer2: <roentgenium> The continuation 27...Qxg2+ 28. Qxg2 Rd1+ 29. Qg1 Rd(g)xg1# solves today's Monday puzzle fastest with mate-in-three. However, your 27...Rxg2 also wins quickly with mate-in-four after 27...Rxg2 28. Nd6+ Rxd6! 29. bxc5 (29. Qxg2 Rd1#) 29... Rxe2+ 30. Kg1 Qg2# (Deep Fritz 15 x 64 @ 19 depth). |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | kevin86: Black mates in three as the queen is diverted from the back row. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | YetAnotherAmateur: I love Mondays as well: 27. ... Qxg2+ 28. Qxg2 Rd1+ 29. Qg1 R(either)xg1# does the job. White's troubles probably have something to do with the fact that not a single piece on the queenside was moved prior to black launching his attack. White made a lot of really questionable moves in the opening that allow black's knights to run roughshod over any semblance of an organized position. |
|
Mar-07-16
 | | Once: 21. f5 is the move I don't really understand. I presume that white thought that as he was the first to castle he has the right (possibly even an obligation) to open lines against the uncastled black king. But white really ought to be mobilising his queenside pieces instead of ordering his prawns to charge. He hasn't truly got enough bits in play to make a central attack work. |
|
Mar-07-16
 | | eternaloptimist: I got this 1 correct quickly. 27...♕xg2+ is a nice deflection sac.
Not trying to say this in a bad way, but <chrisowen> really amazes me. He spends so much time typing these long kibitzes that not many people are going to understand anyway. Some people are going to understand some parts of them but, most parts of them they're not going to understand. In fact most people that frequent chessgames.com probably aren't going to read his kibitzes at all. It's like he's trying to recreate Finnegan's Wake w/ his verbiage. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | TheFocus: <chrisowen> lives in a world all to himself, in which he never has to interact with other posters here. It is a selfish act. No one understands his gibberish.
I am sure he may have something more meaningful to say. As it is, he is on my Ig list only for being boring. |
|
Mar-07-16
| | eternaloptimist: He is probably on a lot of people's Ig lists. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | ruzon: An examination of his history on this site indicates that he probably suffers from a worsening mental condition. Ignore him if you wish, but do not judge him. He harms no one. |
|
Mar-07-16
| | eternaloptimist: <ruzon> I agree w/ u. In the words of Jesus: https://www.biblegateway.com/passag... |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Chris Owen's posts could be just a profoundly consistent effort at creating stream of consciousness "vignettes" doubling as commentary on the games and puzzles. His stuff is bizarre, but it is far from a bunch of random words. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | morfishine: <patzer2> Already noted sir |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | luftforlife: <chrisowen>: I went back to the beginning of your kibitzes and read them carefully, in chronological order, for several hours. It was the most meaningful and moving experience I have had here on <chessgames.com>, and I hope to be able to digest your posts and to learn from them for a long time to come. I want you to know how deeply I appreciate your profoundly insightful and fiercely intelligent contributions through the years. If ever you want to reach me, please reach out to me on my chessforum. In the meantime, I want you to know that I am with you in spirit, and that you enjoy not only my genuine respect, but also my abiding well-wishes for your health and happiness, now and always. Best to you. Sincerely and respectfully, ~ luftforlife |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | morfishine: <luftforlife> ROFL...as for me, I have to use the acronym: COIOI (Chris Owen is on Ignore) LOL But its not a belligerent ignore, instead, its a practical ignore ****** |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | Patriot: <morf> I'm with you on that one! LOL COIOI For me it's practical in the sense it helps me keep my sanity. |
|
Mar-07-16
 | | Bubo bubo: The white queen is overloaded, as she has to protect g2 and d1. Deflecting the queen to d1 does not work because of the Ra2 then guarding g2, therefore 27...Qxg2+ 28.Qxg2 Rd1+ 29.Qg1 R(either)xg1#. |
|
| Mar-07-16 | | BishopofBlunder: OTB, I would have played Rd1+ and felt so clever doing it. d'oh!
Thank god it was a <chessgames> Monday puzzle and I knew to sac the queen. |
|
Mar-08-16
| | Once: I guess most of us find our own way of dealing with <chrisowen>, whether it's an ignore or an avid read or something in between. Either way it's easily resolved. No need to kick the guy, whatever your choice. |
|
| Mar-08-16 | | YetAnotherAmateur: <Once: But white really ought to be mobilising his queenside pieces instead of ordering his prawns to charge.> I agree, I found that plan to be very fishy. |
|
| Mar-08-16 | | luftforlife: <morfishine> <Patriot>: I quite understand. But <ruzon's> point not only piqued my curiosity, but posited an alternative explanation to willful crypticism I had not previously considered. When I went back to 2006, and I read forwards, I was astonished, and I felt great empathy. To clarify, the posts I plan to digest are those from 2006 through 2010 or so -- not the more recent submissions. Sorry for this divagation, but I am really glad I followed <ruzon's> line of enquiry. Best to everyone. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
