|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I am not a good writer in English, but... I cannot be silent.
Since that the computers had made its entrance in scene, two epidemics had devastated the postal chess: the first, the dodgers who use engines; second, the players who never lose for a human - all his defeats always are explained because his opponents always used a computer... Sincerely, I don't know which is worse.
Yesterday, when resigned, in a game against me, my oponent "bobbyfour" send me a message: "Good game - amazing, you have a perfect record 0 like a computer, lol".
I considered this a revile, but I would not mention it, if he did not repeat it here, it is truth, without citing names, only worsening the things.
Let us see the game (www.queenalice.com./game.php?id=46863):
csparrow - bobbyfour
AUTO-ELITE-24
1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4
The Taimanov Variation.
Nh5 10.Re1 f5 11.Ng5
Gufeld: "A continuation on principle. The knight goes to the weak square e6, with the clear intention to sacrifice a pawn, since whom White get to increase the dynamic potential of its pieces".
Hélder Câmara: "Kramnik-Gelfand, Novgorod, 1996, 1/2-1/2, showed c5 it is not better".
Nf6 12.f3
I think better 12.Bf3! (Kramnik-Polgar, Vienna, 1996, 1-0). But I had played this move in my game against spike (www.queenalice.com./game.php?id=34842), reaching a draw, and I wanted to explore other variation.
12...Nh5 13.c5 Nf4 14.Bc4 Kh8 15.Rb1
Until here, exactly as Bareev-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee, 2003, 1-0.
15...dxc5
Novelty introduced by Stellwagen in Van Wely-Stellwagen, Maastricht, 2005, 0-1.
16.bxc5 Nexd5?
It´s a mistake, or, at least, a dubious move, analyzed enough since that the game above was published in The Week in Chess 549. In the game, after Stellwagen's error, Van Wely played the move 17.Nxd5?, leading to a disaster. I knew the correct reply: see, for instance, www.chessevents.nl/wst_vr1.htm.
17.Bxf4
In my opinion, practically only move, because:
a) 17.Nxd5 Qxg5 18.Nxf4 exf4 19.e5 Qe7 20.Qb3 (Van Wely-Stellwagen) and Black is evidently better.
b) 17.Bxd5? Qxg5 18.Qc2 c6, etc., and Black simply wins.
17...exf4 18.Nb5
Here: a) 18.Bxd5? Qxg5 19.Qb3 c6 and Black wins.
b) 18.Qxd5? Qxg5 19.e5 Re8 and Black wins.
c) 18.Nxd5 Qxg5 19.Nxc7 Rd8 - unclear.
18...Qxg5 19.exd5 Qd8 20.d6 cxd6 21.Nxd6 Qd7?
Better was 21...Qf6. Now, the game is over.
22.Be6 Qc7 23.Bxc8 Qxc5+ 24.Kh1 Rfxc8 25.Nxc8 Qxc8 26.Re7
1-0
Except this, by the way, soon I will lose my first (and, perhaps, the second) game at Queen Alice. I hope that my loyal opponent, "floridaflag", is not accused to use a computer. Or, that I am accused to lose intentionally...:)
Thank you,
Carlos.
|
|
|
Calos, you and all other strong players on QA should keep posting your game analysis for our delightfullness only. No need to justify yourself, it's a waste of time. There's no medicine for both plagues you've mentioned in your note.
Best regards. Rogerio.
|
|
|
I am a gentlemen... thanks gambitshark!
but when I go through a game afterwards and my opponent makes second best moves in opening, then gets into trouble... and chooses the BEST move for the last 20 moves...
makes me wonder....
|
|
|
You are stupid or what?
My opening POOR. And I always was unstable player cna win everyone can lose every one
THUS I LOST 31 games.
go through my games you'll see.
Now you just made me extremely annoyed.
|
|
|
stupid?....
very far from it.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next |
|
|
|
