The bragging thread

Mats Winther · Post by **Mats Winther** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:19 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:What is the point in moving White's rook up and down the h-file instead of developing the queenside pieces?

The point is that black can in some lines move the knight to f2 and threaten the rook whilst continuing the attack. So he puts the rook out of harms way and can do Rc5 in some lines.
/Mats

Giulio Simeone · Post by **Giulio Simeone** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:57 pm

Mats, look at this game. I picked it up randomly among a list of 190 games played by Morphy, and I immediately found a game where he sacrificed three pawns and destroyed the opponent. There is a big difference with the variations we discussed up to now: after move 10th there is only one central pawn left on the board. This implies that the white pieces have much more freedom of movement and can exploit their better development as well as the exposed king. Besides, Morphy didn't lose so many tempi in order to capture a pawn in h2. This only to show you that Morphy's style was different than the one you employed in this thread to push forward black's attack.

Chris Rice · Post by **Chris Rice** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:08 pm

Just a quick word to say thanks to Carl for editing some of the more insulting drivel off Mr Winther's last post about me. This is much appreciated. As for the rest of it, its kind of cool to be called narcissistic by someone who declares he's a genius!

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:28 pm

Chris Rice wrote:Just a quick word to say thanks to Carl for editing some of the more insulting drivel off Mr Winther's last post about me. This is much appreciated. As for the rest of it, its kind of cool to be called narcissistic by someone who declares he's a genius!

The post was a tad excessive but to class it as drivel is perhaps harsh, so time to draw a line under this

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:30 am

The whole thing was plodding in a nice light hearted manner.
I can see humour in it all, maybe the lads just got a wee bitty too serious but reading
between the lines no harm done.

Don't lock it up else the air never gets cleared and the two come out squabbling again
in another thread (a more serious one.)

I'm with Mats and and his anti computer evaluation stance. I always have been.
I look at the position and if my computer (the one I was born with, the Chandler brain)
Says "Yes you can create problems with this position" then that's the position for me.

If it has a high computer evaluation then great.
These things look at the exact replies and if I can spot a wee sneaky pete in there
that chummy has not seen or more to the point been shown by his computer and has
to dig it out OTB without his crutch of a computer then I'm happy.
I have games where I have been +9 or +10 against me and won. I'm sure we all have.

These thing now look 15-20 exact ahead. Are you really good enough to play 15-20 exact
moves to keep the original evaluation intact. Seriously, are you?
You have to be honest with yourself.

Try it.
Take +1.63 position (that was quoted somewhere) from a computer then spin the board around
and keep the +1.63 against the same computer.(without cheating by looking at it analysis.) It's pretty hard.

Chris Rice · Post by **Chris Rice** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:46 am

That's a well argued post Geoff and perhaps i was a bit harsh with the word "drivel" and apologies to Mats for that. The Morphy game at the centre of the debate was a gambit. One of the chief merits of a gambit usually is that the time lost in taking pawns gives the other side a development advantage or an increased "initiative" as Mats has claimed. OK as the side with the extra pawns you may be +1.63 but one wrong step and you're done. if that is what is being argued then I'm in complete agreement with one proviso. If you play that line as Black against IM Jack Rudd odds are you are going to get mated by move 20! These IMs are quite good you know.

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:19 pm

Hi Chris.

"If you play that line as Black against IM Jack Rudd odds are you are going to get mated by move 20! "

And If I don't play my natural game against Jack Rudd then I'd never have a chance.

Anway I'm sure Jack would find a nice wrap up.
I never mind losing if your opponent turns it into an entertaining instructive game.
He/She has has a think and created something.
They too have enjoyed the game. (And never resign if a cute finish is on. Let them have it.)

It's the won games I screw up that cause me pain but having turned around so many losses
in my time I know have to give some back. "Swing and Roundabouts."

"These IMs are quite good you know."

No. Never let that thought enter your head. You are doomed if you do.
The moment the game is on all grades are equal and titles are out the window.

Think: "If this IM was really any good they would be a GM'."
They are flawed, there is something they have not yet nailed.
Then even if they are the most famous IM in the world ask them their name.
(that always bring a look of surprise and any before game psyche has gone.)

Ask then their rating and then write 'JOKE' in the space on the scoresheet for the grade.

Don't worry about upsetting them. You will be doing that when you have won the game.
If you worry about upsetting them before the game how are you going to win?
(And anyway, I have hundreds of chess friends and am running out of grey cells to store all their names.)

Now you are in the right frame of mind to play for a win and you won't be agreeing any draws
in won positions to give yourself a false pat on the back.
50% of the game is played before a pawn is pushed.

Chris Rice · Post by **Chris Rice** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:45 pm

That's a sensational suggestion Geoff but have you ever really done that? I mean asked for their rating and then put JOKE besides an IMs name and if so did it work?

Do you reckon if i asked, "do you have a title" to which the reply is proudly "I am an IM" and then putting "not good enough to be a GM" on the score sheet would work as well? I feel that not only would they be upset but that they may start reminiscing and getting depressed about all the times when they may have achieved the GM norms in the past instead of concentrating on the game.

Geoff Chandler · Post by **Geoff Chandler** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:47 am

Hi Chris. No of course not. I'm a perfect gent at the board.
Never been involved in any aruments or rows. (off the board 100's..... at the board none.)

But I do wind myself before a game - get into the zone so I fear no one but myself.
Properly done the first reaction when you realise you are lost is one of complete surprise.

I do recall playing a Dutch lad and him being surpirsed when I asked his name.
When I asked him to spell it he got all red in the face and left the board. I drew that game.
A Benoni I played ...a6 , he played a4 so next move I played a6 to a5 and brought my b8 Knight out to a6 and b4
that was OTB inspiration and it has been part of rep ever since.
It's different. The challenge is to use that b4 Knight to do something so you come up
with un Benoni like ideas.

I still don't know his name!

Simon Smith · Post by **Simon Smith** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:54 am

Geoff Chandler wrote: Ask any strong player how they usually beat weaker players.
They do nothing...Good players are good at doing nothing.
Weaker player panic when there is nothing to do and feel they must be doing something.
So off they go on some cock-eyed plan or tactic and BANG! game over.

You have to remember your Tarrasch.
Sometimes it's better not to have a plan but wait till your opponent has one.
Then you can put into action a counter plan. (or words to that effect.)

That's the best chess advice I've seen in a long time. I've copied and pasted it to my ever growing "quotes" word doc on my desktop.

This was one I liked that I got from somewhere:
"My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing."

This was a reasonably tight game with both of us making the last couple of moves for arguably one of the best "worst" games of all time.

Clive Blackburn · Post by **Clive Blackburn** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:12 am

Ouch, that must really have hurt Simon!

The mutual blunders on move 49 are remarkable in a slow game, were either of you in time trouble?

Perhaps we need a "blundering thread" as well as a "bragging thread"

John Foley · Post by **John Foley** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:20 am

I can't believe people can brag about the best worst (worstest?) game of all time. Where does the dumbing down stop?

Simon Smith · Post by **Simon Smith** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:29 am

Clive Blackburn wrote:Ouch, that must really have hurt Simon!

The mutual blunders on move 49 are remarkable in a slow game, were either of you in time trouble?

Perhaps we need a "blundering thread" as well as a "bragging thread"

We both had a few minutes left of the rapid play finish. My king was just getting used of having to shuffle around and I had what I have suffered from a few times before. I call it "diagonal blindness" - a recurring blundering theme of mine

I just like giving my queen away. Here is a better game with a queen sac:

Chris Rice · Post by **Chris Rice** » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:43 pm

Love that quote "My computer beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing" Its from the American comedian Emo Phillips. The line has even got its own Facebook page with 228 'likes'. Agree with John Foley though. The whole point of this thread Simon is it should have been you taking Keaveney's queen and then bragging that somehow you had lured him into it!

Barry Sandercock · Post by **Barry Sandercock** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:56 am

Has the Chessbase news website changed, as I am now unable to get it in the usual form.

English Chess Forum

The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: The bragging thread

Re: Chessbase news website.