|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-25-07 | | chessmoron: That's right...who's your daddy? I remember slomarko and notyetagm (traitor) called Bu a 'patzer.' Take that suckers! |
|
Jul-25-07
 | | keypusher: Thanks, Eyal. |
|
Jul-25-07
 | | tpstar: <chessgames.com> Thanks for the live broadcasts. =) |
|
Jul-25-07
 | | chancho: Bu took out Polgar? Impressive. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | daniellovesbeer: I was wrong. I thought black could take with his knight on b2 on move 29, because Rb5 could be answered by Qa4, but then follows Q*a4 K*a4 Rb4 and the knight is trapped.
I have also doubts about Qd7. Why not Qb6. It is al about the d4 square en Qb6 helps putting pressure on d4. |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | Eyal: <daniellovesbeer: I was wrong. I thought black could take with his knight on b2 on move 29, because Rb5 could be answered by Qa4, but then follows Q*a4 K*a4 Rb4 and the knight is trapped.> However, after 30.Rb5 Black has 30...Qd2 (which is still better for White, but much less bad for Black than the actual game). |
|
| Jul-25-07 | | Ezzy: BU XIANGZHI V JUDIT POLGAR
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.g3 e6 5.Bg2 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.d4 Be7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bg5 Qd7 12.Ne1 Re8 <This could be a 'Fritz' inspired novelty. 12...d4 or 12...h6 are usually played.> 13.Nd3 Bb6 14.Bd2 <Because Polgar threatens 14...Qg4 hitting the the bishop and e2 pawn.> 14...Qd6 <The bishop has to be developed> 15.Nf4 Bg4 16.a4 Rad8 <17...g5 threat is in the air, removing whites knight from the protection of e2> 17.a5 Bc5 18.Re1 a6 19.Rc1 <[19.Nxd5 Nd4 is strong] >19...Ne5 20.h3 Bf5 21.Qb3 Nc4 22.Red1< 23 Bxd5 or 23 Be1 are now very strong threats> 22...Be6?! < The start of Judit’s problems. Whites initiative now starts to tell.This still allows too much pressure on the d5 pawn. Fritz deals with position this way. [22...Nxd2 23.Rxd2 d4 24.Bxb7 Bb4 25.Rdd1 Rb8 26.Rc4 Bxa5 which seems better than the game continuation]> 23.Be1 <Now this just threatens 24 Bxd5 winning.> 23...b5 24.axb6 Nxb6 25.Qa2< Threatening 26 Qa5 with a winning position> 25...Bb4 26.Bxb4 Qxb4 27.Qxa6 Nc4?< 27... Ra8 28 Qd3 Ra2 is more active> 28.Nxd5 <Or [28.Rxd5 Bxd5 29.Nxd5 Rxd5 30.Bxd5]> 28...Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Rxd5 30.Bxd5 Nb6 31.Ba2 h6 32.Rc7 Rd8 33.Rxf7< and another pawns goes >33...Kh8 34.Qa3 <and the Queens will have to be exchanged and white will easily win the ending, for example> 34...Qb5 35.Rf8+ Kh7< [35...Rxf8 36.Qxf8+ Kh7 37.Bg8+ Kh8 38.Bf7+ Kh7 39.Qg8#]> 36.Bb1+ 1–0 Well played Bu Xiangzhi. Yesterday Judit exploited her opponents pawn weaknesses to win 2 pawns. Today her opponent exploited her pawn weaknesses to win 2 pawns. |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | notyetagm: <chessmoron: That's right...who's your daddy? I remember slomarko and notyetagm (traitor) called Bu a 'patzer.' Take that suckers!> What? I =never= said that Bu was a patzer. I bet 200 chessbucks on him to win Biel! I am one of the biggest proponents of the Chinese chess players on this site. I am an honorary Chinese and Azeri. :-) |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | chessmoron: <<notyetagm>: <<acirce>: For some reason <notyetagm> likes to elevate simple but nice-looking tactics to the level of masterpieces.> Yes, it's so simple and obvious that Bu Xianghzi and his effective 2696 rating just completely overlooked it when he played 83 ... Rh6. ♔ ♔ <What a patzer Bu is.>> ♔♔ Tsk. tsk. tsk. |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | ganstaman: <chessmoron> I can't say with 100% certainty, but it appears that <notyetagm> was being sarcastic when he say Bu was a patzer. If you followed the conversation at all where that quote comes from, I think that should be fairly obvious. |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | tgoller: Everyone is always serious and everything that is said is factual. Clearly people believe Bu is really a patzer, and therefore he must be one. What does that make the rest of us? =D |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | notyetagm: <ganstaman: <chessmoron> I can't say with 100% certainty, but it appears that <notyetagm> was being sarcastic when he say Bu was a patzer. If you followed the conversation at all where that quote comes from, I think that should be fairly obvious.> Exactly. I was talking about what a brilliant move Magnus' 84 f6-f7!(!!) was since Bu missed it and he is super strong. |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | Karpova: <chessmoron>
<ganstaman> is correct. <notyetagm> had just written a huge post on 84.f7 by Carlsen after which Bu resigned. He was getting criticized (as obvious from the quote in your own post) for brimming over with enthusiasm for Carlsen's move. He was defending himself against the accusation of hyping a rather trivial move with this sarcastic remark regarding Bu's strength. |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | tgoller: Let's not forget that Kramnik missed a mate-in-one. No one was hyping Fritz's mate threat as an amazing tactic! Ok, it's been beaten to death, but even the very best GMs miss trivial tactics sometimes... I don't think Carlsen's tactic was obvious (at least not to me), but I also don't think a player as strong as Bu would normally miss something like that. |
|
Jul-26-07
 | | ketchuplover: null-null-null????????????????????? |
|
| Jul-26-07 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Yet another excellent victory by the horrifying Majin Bu... |
|
| Jul-27-07 | | ajile: Judit's Bu Bu was playing the Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Tarrasch. I never liked this ugly opening which leaves Black with a weak isolated d pawn. Yuck. |
|
| Aug-02-07 | | Gameoverziggy: Isolated pawns are not always bad only when they are blockaded, nimzovitch said that the person that fears an isolated pawn should give up chess |
|
| Aug-02-07 | | Akuni: Isolated pawns are only weak when their ownser is not compensated with active piece play and usable files. |
|
Aug-02-07
| | keypusher: <Isolated pawns are not always bad only when they are blockaded, nimzovitch said that the person that fears an isolated pawn should give up chess> That was Tarrasch. Nimzowitsch was terrified of isolated pawns (having them, that is. He was quite happy to play against them). Larsen didn't like them. Lasker seemed to be equally good with them or against them. It's a matter of temperment. I haven't studied this game, but Bu doesn't seem to blockade the d-pawn. He just attacks it where it stands. |
|
| Aug-03-07 | | Akavall: As far as I remember, Botvinnik did very well with the isolated pawn. |
|
| Aug-04-07 | | nescio: <keypusher: I haven't studied this game, but Bu doesn't seem to blockade the d-pawn. He just attacks it where it stands.> Yes, the idea of Nf3-e1-d3-f4 is to attack pawn d5, tempt it to d4 and blocakde it there. A good example by two experts on isolated queen pawn positions is Flohr vs E R Lundin, 1946.
A more recent game: Topalov vs Curt Hansen, 2000 |
|
| Aug-05-07 | | dhotts: Help me out, what is wrong with 18..d4 for Black. It seems to me whether at move 18 or sometime thereafter, e4 provides an excellent intiative for black. |
|
| Aug-05-07 | | dhotts: Help me out, what is wrong with 18..d4 for Black. It seems to me whether at move 18 or sometime thereafter, d4 provides an excellent intiative for black. |
|
Aug-10-07
 | | Mateo: <dhotts: Help me out, what is wrong with 18..d4 for Black.> There is nothing wrong with this solid and natural move, providing an equal game. It could be just a question of style. Polgar picked up a sharper variation with some tactical tricks. Not surprising for lady Tal. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
