14 Jan 09
Anand played 6 Bg5 7 f4 against Van Wely at Corus in 2007.
Shirov plays the line regularly including against Anand at Linares in 2008.
Shabalov, Short and many other GMs have games where they have played the 6 Bg5 7 f4 within the last two years.
Do you ever get sick of making sweeping assertions that can be proven laughably incorrect by a one minute search of an on-line database?
14 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOk. Actually I wasn`t so precious - I did mean 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 line but even there are few games in latest years. Anyway - at the moment there are popular plan with 6.Be3 and f3 so called English attack which was developed in the beginning of 90ties and has large amount of theory now. Fischer of 70ties had no clue about it.
Anand played 6 Bg5 7 f4 against Van Wely at Corus in 2007.
Shirov plays the line regularly including against Anand at Linares in 2008.
Shabalov, Short and many other GMs have games where they have played the 6 Bg5 7 f4 within the last two years.
Do you ever get sick of making sweeping assertions that can be proven laughably incorrect by a one minute search of an on-line database?
I have no time to list most important "minor" changes made by these years, but as I`ve pointed out - I`m planning to do it this week.
Hope you will read some more books about chess and good manners 😉
And if Short today is top player then it makes me laugh (to say nothing about Shabalov with all my respect to him). 😀
14 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchConsidering that 12 ....... 0-0-0 had never been played in a GM game before that match (there might be one Gulko game before), it is not surprising that Spassky was unprepared and didn't find the proper continuation. That kinda shows the difference between a skilled match player like Fischer and the booked up drones of the modern era.
Some other example of "minor" changes in evaluation.
15th game of Fischer-Spassky match:
After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. Bd3 b5 11. Rhe1 Bb7 12. Qg3 O-O-O
[fen]2kr3r/1bqnbppp/p2ppn2/1p4B1/3NPP2/2NB2Q1/PPP3PP/2KRR3 w - - 0 13[/fen]
Spassky played 13.Bxf6 and after 13...Nxf6 14.Qxg ...[text shortened]... ....axb5 14.Ndxb5 Qb6 15.e5! Nc5 16.exf6 gxf6 17.Bh6 Rhg8 18.Qh3 Black are in serious trouble.
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderActually Spassky always was far from perfect in opening. Except his match with 1969 in which he improved. But in match vs. Fischer he even managed to forgot opening preparations made by his team before the game, at least in one game.
Considering that 12 ....... 0-0-0 had never been played in a GM game before that match (there might be one Gulko game before), it is not surprising that Spassky was unprepared and didn't find the proper continuation. That kinda shows the difference between a skilled match player like Fischer and the booked up drones of the modern era.
That kinda shows the difference between a skilled match player like Fischer and the booked up drones of the modern era.
Feel free to explain your idea😉
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchYes, the English Attack was developed in the 80s because White got sick of facing the Poisoned Pawn.
Ok. Actually I wasn`t so precious - I did mean 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 line but even there are few games in latest years. Anyway - at the moment there are popular plan with 6.Be3 and f3 so called English attack which was developed in the beginning of 90ties and has large amount of theory now. Fischer of 70ties had no clue about it.
I have no time to list most imp player then it makes me laugh (to say nothing about Shabalov with all my respect to him). 😀
However, the English Attack doesn't have any better results than 6 Bg5 7 f4. If you think Fischer would have frozen in panic if someone played Be3 against him, you're sadly mistaken.
A guy who drops pieces in the first 8 moves really shouldn't denigrate GMs like Short and Shabalov. Short is 61st in the world with a 2663 rating. Hopefully, you would concede that Anand and Shirov are "top GMs" though.
EDIT: Here's a blitz game in 1971 where Fischer faced the English Attack. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044707
14 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchFigure it out on your own why playing an innovation in the opening in a match might be a good strategy.
Actually Spassky always was far from perfect in opening. Except his match with 1969 in which he improved. But in match vs. Fischer he even managed to forgot opening preparations made by his team before the game, at least in one game.
[b]That kinda shows the difference between a skilled match player like Fischer and the booked up drones of the modern era.
Feel free to explain your idea😉[/b]
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, the English Attack was developed in the 80s because White got sick of facing the Poisoned Pawn.
Yes, the English Attack was developed in the 80s because White got sick of facing the Poisoned Pawn.
However, the English Attack doesn't have any better results than 6 Bg5 7 f4. If you think Fischer would have frozen in panic if someone played Be3 against him, you're sadly mistaken.
A guy who drops pieces in the first 8 moves really shouldn't denigrate GMs like Short and Shabalov.
However, the English Attack doesn't have any better results than 6 Bg5 7 f4. If you think Fischer would have frozen in panic if someone played Be3 against him, you're sadly mistaken.
With his knowledge in 70ties Fischer did not know about English attack at all and he would have problems against well-prepared opponent.
A guy who drops pieces in the first 8 moves really shouldn't denigrate GMs like Short and Shabalov.
Patzer making idiotic mistakes in 3rd move and playing so many weak games should think twice before denigrating Kasparov and other strong GMs and to attack more qualified players.
If you think that 61st place in World rank and player who never was pretendent to World Champion title topGMs then you have very original opinion. But I understand that you have problems accept opinions which differs from yours 🙂
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KorchDidn't Short actually play for the World Championship? I'd say that would make him a "pretender" for the title.
[b]Yes, the English Attack was developed in the 80s because White got sick of facing the Poisoned Pawn.
However, the English Attack doesn't have any better results than 6 Bg5 7 f4. If you think Fischer would have frozen in panic if someone played Be3 against him, you're sadly mistaken.
With his knowledge in 70ties Fischer did not know about English a opinion. But I understand that you have problems accept opinions which differs from yours 🙂[/b]
Check my edit above for a game where Fischer played against the English Attack. It's always amusing to puncture your misinformed, ignorant claims.
Here's a 1967 game where Fischer faced the English Attack: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044679
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderDidn't Short actually play for the World Championship? I'd say that would make him a "pretender" for the title.
Didn't Short actually play for the World Championship? I'd say that would make him a "pretender" for the title.
Check my edit above for a game where Fischer played against the English Attack. It's always amusing to puncture you misinformed, ignorant claims.
You should be absolute retard if you did not understand that words "player who never was pretendent to World Champion" were adressed to Shabalov.
And if you consider that player who have played for title more than 15 years ago must be top GM today then I feel sorry for you.
Check my edit above for a game where Fischer played against the English Attack.
It was blitz game you fool 😀 And in this game after 16th mover Fisher has simply bad position.
14 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's a 1967 game where Fischer faced the English Attack: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044679
Didn't Short actually play for the World Championship? I'd say that would make him a "pretender" for the title.
Check my edit above for a game where Fischer played against the English Attack. It's always amusing to puncture your misinformed, ignorant claims.
Here's a 1967 game where Fischer faced the English Attack: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044679
Against such opposition he could have played even 1...g5 and win 😛
And it was not English attack - there were castling king side. I would suggest for you also to look at the game 😀
14 Jan 09
Originally posted by KorchYour claim was that Fischer didn't know about the English Attack at all. You are wrong as he played against it at least twice. Let's here you say it. I'll write it out for ya "I was wrong; Fischer was familiar with the English Attack." Copy and sign.
[b]Didn't Short actually play for the World Championship? I'd say that would make him a "pretender" for the title.
You should be absolute retard if you did not understand that words "player who never was pretendent to World Champion" were adressed to Shabalov.
And if you consider that player who have played for title more than 15 years ago must be to ...[text shortened]... s blitz game you fool 😀 And in this game after 16th mover Fisher has simply bad position.[/b]
And you were equally wrong when you claimed "no top GM" would play the 6 Bg5 and 7 f4 line. So, my assclown friend, though you continue with a lot of abusive bluster that hardly hides the fact that you don't know what you are talking about as you keep making factual mistakes.
Will you at least concede that Anand and Shirov are top GMs?
14 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchJesus, do you actually know anything about Najdorf theory? There's no requirement that White castle queen side in the English attack; here's a few games of Morozevich's where White castled king side:
[b]Here's a 1967 game where Fischer faced the English Attack: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044679
Against such opposition he could have played even 1...g5 and win 😛
And it was not English attack - there were castling king side. I would suggest for you also to look at the game 😀[/b]
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1508851
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1421749
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1213950
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1099929
14 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"Since the early 1990s, the English Attack (6.Be3 followed by f2-f3, g2-g4, Qd2 and 0-0-0 in some order) has become extremely popular and has been intensively analysed,"
Jesus, do you actually know anything about Najdorf theory? There's no requirement that White castle queen side in the English attack; Morozevich is one GM who often doesn't.
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence,_Najdorf_Variation
Also Kasparov in his book I`ve recommended to you have clearly stated that English attack can`t be separated from castling queen side.
So you failed again 🙂