Pointless:
Might as well agree a draw on move 1:
@RamblinDave
I said that there are some who have kept the originality alive!
I mentioned a few names but did not mention all those. And Rapport is one of them, his games aren't boring like the ones of Carlsen.
And h6 was terrible blunder by Espienko and he got punished tactically. It was quite logical. But understanding games of players of previous era like Tarrasch, Marshall, Tal, etc were way unsound and not understandable by human even by today's players.
Andreikin made very simple move with respect to attacking players but Black gave it up with terrible exd5. Nothing else!
You doesn't seem to prove any of your points. Keep believing the wrong and live your whole life under this stupidity.
I said that there are some who have kept the originality alive!
I mentioned a few names but did not mention all those. And Rapport is one of them, his games aren't boring like the ones of Carlsen.
And h6 was terrible blunder by Espienko and he got punished tactically. It was quite logical. But understanding games of players of previous era like Tarrasch, Marshall, Tal, etc were way unsound and not understandable by human even by today's players.
Andreikin made very simple move with respect to attacking players but Black gave it up with terrible exd5. Nothing else!
You doesn't seem to prove any of your points. Keep believing the wrong and live your whole life under this stupidity.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #33:
> @RamblinDave
> I said that there are some who have kept the originality alive!
> I mentioned a few names but did not mention all those. And Rapport is one of them, his games aren't boring like the ones of Carlsen.
> And h6 was terrible blunder by Espienko and he got punished tactically. It was quite logical. But understanding games of players of previous era like Tarrasch, Marshall, Tal, etc were way unsound and not understandable by human even by today's players.
> Andreikin made very simple move with respect to attacking players but Black gave it up with terrible exd5. Nothing else!
> You doesn't seem to prove any of your points. Keep believing the wrong and live your whole life under this stupidity.
It seems like you are better than Magnus, always saying people blunder and make terrible moves when you will get annihilated by any GM. Let's see you try to find their mistake without stockfish. And yes the moves by Tarrasch, Marshall, Tal were understand by today's players easily, their play was inaccurate and the opponents didn't punish them. If you want a "lively" game look at games where there are lots of inaccuracies, not a game where both players play perfectly? Don't call under people stupid when you lack understanding.
> @RamblinDave
> I said that there are some who have kept the originality alive!
> I mentioned a few names but did not mention all those. And Rapport is one of them, his games aren't boring like the ones of Carlsen.
> And h6 was terrible blunder by Espienko and he got punished tactically. It was quite logical. But understanding games of players of previous era like Tarrasch, Marshall, Tal, etc were way unsound and not understandable by human even by today's players.
> Andreikin made very simple move with respect to attacking players but Black gave it up with terrible exd5. Nothing else!
> You doesn't seem to prove any of your points. Keep believing the wrong and live your whole life under this stupidity.
It seems like you are better than Magnus, always saying people blunder and make terrible moves when you will get annihilated by any GM. Let's see you try to find their mistake without stockfish. And yes the moves by Tarrasch, Marshall, Tal were understand by today's players easily, their play was inaccurate and the opponents didn't punish them. If you want a "lively" game look at games where there are lots of inaccuracies, not a game where both players play perfectly? Don't call under people stupid when you lack understanding.
Scorpion ur right i mean akbar, its almost like you say every single bad thing about peoples posts. like when i posted about beating legiondestroyer in crazyhouse, everybody said congratulations, except for u. i already said it was bad, and didnt need u to comment. just like that here, your talking like ur some god of chess and calling people stupid in chat who are probably much better than u. I mean cmon, which idiot talks about andrey esipenko and calls him stupid. U probably would have lost that game in 5 min as would i. Dont be overconfident. its a poison. Also dont (as said above) look at stockfish and then call him trash. not like u would have found it. So from now on keep ur mouth closed when talking about super gms. Also be nicer. if this continues, i will report it to moderators
@Akbar2thegreat ... Are you high ? ... Capablanca vs Lasker Match 1921 ... 4-0 with 10 Draws Carlsen vs Nepo 2021 4-0 with 7 Draws ... Am I missing something ? Kasparov Drew Karpov Otherwise he would never have been Champion in the First Match they had when he was down 4-0 over 20 games in a row !! It was GENIUS !! Kasparov Capablanca Lasker Karpov all were Champions & you don't become a Champion unless you know how to Draw plenty of Chess Games Period Case Closed
@Akbar2thegreat You did not even get invited by FIDE, do you even how tiring it is to play in these events and hard? Also Andrey thought he was playing Hikaru so he wasnt prepared against Aronian and also its logical, look at your games, its hard to calculate sucha line aronian calculated. Esipenko obviously saw that move but he miscalculated it. Its easy for you to say because you do not even play in these events and its easy to say because for you it takes 2 clicks to turn on stockfish.
Wow, this deviated promptly from I guess post's initial target :)
Anyway, yeap, draws shouldn't be equal to half of a win, 3 - 1 - 0 is already nice, but 4 - 1 - 0 would be ideal for a try. Reasons are many.
The WC Classical match. Challenger, in order to become the Champ should beat the Champ, simple words, has to be, must be better than the Champ in order to replace him... in classical chess. We already have World Blitz championship, and Rapid Championship, so tie breaks in those format to reveal World Classical Chess Champion are... You know, lame at least. Conclusion - for the Champion to retain title is enough to draw 14 games, for Challenger to grab the title he has to win games. Now for those who will tell, that it is easy to draw... try to draw at will opponent who is better than You in chess, yes, lots of sweating from Your side will happen, and in 14 games You will crack eventually, unless You are of equal strength.
Just watching Karjakin vs Carlsen and Nepomniatchi vs Carlsen, in those both matches the only one who wanted to really win was Magnus, that how it seemed really.
How did You become World Chess Classical Champion? Oh, well You know, first I drew Champion 14 games in a row, then drew some more rapid games, then blitz games, all draw, and in armagedon I pulled out black color and managed to flag Champion... - well deserved mate, nicely done, call Yourself Champion now :]
World Blitz Championship and rapid, could share same format as Classical, yeap, I would definitely watch and follow that, it would be really cool, to have candidates in rapid, and separately in blitz.
Anyway, yeap, draws shouldn't be equal to half of a win, 3 - 1 - 0 is already nice, but 4 - 1 - 0 would be ideal for a try. Reasons are many.
The WC Classical match. Challenger, in order to become the Champ should beat the Champ, simple words, has to be, must be better than the Champ in order to replace him... in classical chess. We already have World Blitz championship, and Rapid Championship, so tie breaks in those format to reveal World Classical Chess Champion are... You know, lame at least. Conclusion - for the Champion to retain title is enough to draw 14 games, for Challenger to grab the title he has to win games. Now for those who will tell, that it is easy to draw... try to draw at will opponent who is better than You in chess, yes, lots of sweating from Your side will happen, and in 14 games You will crack eventually, unless You are of equal strength.
Just watching Karjakin vs Carlsen and Nepomniatchi vs Carlsen, in those both matches the only one who wanted to really win was Magnus, that how it seemed really.
How did You become World Chess Classical Champion? Oh, well You know, first I drew Champion 14 games in a row, then drew some more rapid games, then blitz games, all draw, and in armagedon I pulled out black color and managed to flag Champion... - well deserved mate, nicely done, call Yourself Champion now :]
World Blitz Championship and rapid, could share same format as Classical, yeap, I would definitely watch and follow that, it would be really cool, to have candidates in rapid, and separately in blitz.
#30
can someone explain the moves 31-33?
can someone explain the moves 31-33?
I hadn't looked at that sequence in detail, but it's nice. White is threatening 32 Rg8+ Kh7 (forced) 33 Nf6# - if black just tries to run away with 31... Kh7 then the bishop is hanging (although the engine reckons that this was actually a better option), so instead he plays 31... Bxe4 so that after Rg8+ the king can escape to f5. Now white could just play 32 fxe4, after which black picks up the pawn with Rxe4+. Instead, white plays 32 g4, which means that 33 Rg8+ Kh7 34 Nf6 is mate again. Now black has to play 32... Kh7 to avoid mate, and then after 33 fxe4 the pawn is safe, because after 33... Rxe5 34 Nf6+ picks up the rook.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.