World Chess Championship (Game 8)

[Terry McCracken]

Here's a post-mortem.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4975

[Mark]

He should have played 19. Nb5! when he had the chance - a golden opportunity to win was missed.

Yes, you know better than Anand the WCC or Kramnik the Classical WCC.

Why do state that you know better than the best? You just give a move with no analysis and say it wins!?

This type of kibtzing is frowned upon everywhere but you insist on doing it and the moderators and members let it pass!

I won't let it pass! Either you back your claims or don't say anything at all!

I didn't see you back up any of your claims. You're particularly known for speaking ex cathedra pretty much all the time. But now you bark orders as if you're in charge and everyone should obey you. Your interference is much more annoying than just letting people speak their opinions on the chess position peaceably.

It's one thing to say Nb5 looks good or interesting but it's an entirely different matter to claim it wins! Even worse when no analysis is given and the person who makes such bodacious claims isn't at all qualified to make them!

If you or the moderators or members can't see this as problem the there's even a bigger problem with this site than I thought!

It's time this type of uninformed kibitzing stopped!

e.g. 19. Nb5 Qe3 20. Qxe3 Rxe3 21. Nd6+ Ke7 22. Nxb7 Nd4 23. Nc5 Rd8 =

There's no win for White! I'm sure if all lines are combed through you'll find 19. Nb5 doesn't win and Kramnik couldn't afford to swap Queens so early if he wanted to find a win at a latter point, hence 19. Nb5!? is only good if you're going after the draw!

I backed my claim in this post Matt! I've also gave brief points in other threads and posts.

I'm not barking orders, I'm asking for proper netiquette during these games!

If you knew how strong players feel when the lower ranks kibitz out of turn then you might have a clue! Until then mind your tongue!

I'm not centering JL out, this applies to all!

As far as ex cathedra don't be glib with me until you've beaten a Grandmaster Matt! I can honestly make that claim and no one else in this thread can.

There are some here who can, but they refrained from giving their opinions and assessments of the match thus far.


IOW

ENOUGH!

Even though you've beaten a grandmaster once, we are all on the same level as far as kibitzing goes. All it takes is a current program and a good computer...

[Terry McCracken]

He should have played 19. Nb5! when he had the chance - a golden opportunity to win was missed.

Yes, you know better than Anand the WCC or Kramnik the Classical WCC.

Why do state that you know better than the best? You just give a move with no analysis and say it wins!?

This type of kibtzing is frowned upon everywhere but you insist on doing it and the moderators and members let it pass!

I won't let it pass! Either you back your claims or don't say anything at all!

I didn't see you back up any of your claims. You're particularly known for speaking ex cathedra pretty much all the time. But now you bark orders as if you're in charge and everyone should obey you. Your interference is much more annoying than just letting people speak their opinions on the chess position peaceably.

It's one thing to say Nb5 looks good or interesting but it's an entirely different matter to claim it wins! Even worse when no analysis is given and the person who makes such bodacious claims isn't at all qualified to make them!

If you or the moderators or members can't see this as problem the there's even a bigger problem with this site than I thought!

It's time this type of uninformed kibitzing stopped!

e.g. 19. Nb5 Qe3 20. Qxe3 Rxe3 21. Nd6+ Ke7 22. Nxb7 Nd4 23. Nc5 Rd8 =

There's no win for White! I'm sure if all lines are combed through you'll find 19. Nb5 doesn't win and Kramnik couldn't afford to swap Queens so early if he wanted to find a win at a latter point, hence 19. Nb5!? is only good if you're going after the draw!

I backed my claim in this post Matt! I've also gave brief points in other threads and posts.

I'm not barking orders, I'm asking for proper netiquette during these games!

If you knew how strong players feel when the lower ranks kibitz out of turn then you might have a clue! Until then mind your tongue!

I'm not centering JL out, this applies to all!

As far as ex cathedra don't be glib with me until you've beaten a Grandmaster Matt! I can honestly make that claim and no one else in this thread can.

There are some here who can, but they refrained from giving their opinions and assessments of the match thus far.


IOW

ENOUGH!

Even though you've beaten a grandmaster once, we are all on the same level as far as kibitzing goes. All it takes is a current program and a good computer...

And a few IMs!

As I told you before a computer and program doesn't put you on equel footing as the hobby player hasn't the understanding of chess like a tournament player, expert or master let alone a grandmaster.

You can't buy that ability! You have to earn it with hard work!

Would you consider yourself as qualified as a MD to diagnose and treat a patient with merely a computer and a program known as an expert system? Would you allow a a non medical person to use the expert system to treat you?

You see, that is what you're saying by telling me, an expert, you're on the same level with your expert system in chess.

Now tell me again as a non expert, you're now as qualified as I am and see how ridiculous that is!

[james uselton]

Terry, are you MostlyAverageJoe at http://www.chessgames.com/~MostlyAverag ... 6#reply466 The guy says his name is Terry McCracken. I copied the following from that site--- MostlyAverageJoe: "I've joined this site mostly for the benefit of my son (now 8), who likes replaying Morphy's and Casablanca's games, enjoys puzzles even more than I do, and usually solves Mondays right away, and Tuesdays and easier Wednesdays without much help (he's rated at about 1000 ELO -- just 300 more and he'll be higher rated than I .
I've never played tournament chess until my son dragged me into a tournament a while ago. As expected, I rather stink in OTB games. However, without the pressure of having a live opponent and a clock, I am reasonably good at solving puzzles if I have enough time to figure them out."

"As a long time fan of Apple, I am resigned to not having too much variety in available chess software. When I need some help from silicon, I run HIARCS 12.1 MP on an 8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro with 16GB of memory, and Deep Shedder 11 on an 2GHz Intel Duo."

Terry,If you are this guy, your elo is 1300 approx, so it raises some doubt about your ability to beat GMs and other 2200 players as you so state.

[Graham Banks]

Terry, are you MostlyAverageJoe at http://www.chessgames.com/~MostlyAverag ... 6#reply466 The guy says his name is Terry McCracken. I copied the following from that site--- MostlyAverageJoe: "I've joined this site mostly for the benefit of my son (now 8), who likes replaying Morphy's and Casablanca's games, enjoys puzzles even more than I do, and usually solves Mondays right away, and Tuesdays and easier Wednesdays without much help (he's rated at about 1000 ELO -- just 300 more and he'll be higher rated than I .
I've never played tournament chess until my son dragged me into a tournament a while ago. As expected, I rather stink in OTB games. However, without the pressure of having a live opponent and a clock, I am reasonably good at solving puzzles if I have enough time to figure them out."

"As a long time fan of Apple, I am resigned to not having too much variety in available chess software. When I need some help from silicon, I run HIARCS 12.1 MP on an 8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro with 16GB of memory, and Deep Shedder 11 on an 2GHz Intel Duo."

Terry,If you are this guy, your elo is 1300 approx, so it raises some doubt about your ability to beat GMs and other 2200 players as you so state.

Doesn't sound like Terry from what I know.

[Terry McCracken]

Terry, are you MostlyAverageJoe at http://www.chessgames.com/~MostlyAverag ... 6#reply466 The guy says his name is Terry McCracken. I copied the following from that site--- MostlyAverageJoe: "I've joined this site mostly for the benefit of my son (now 8), who likes replaying Morphy's and Casablanca's games, enjoys puzzles even more than I do, and usually solves Mondays right away, and Tuesdays and easier Wednesdays without much help (he's rated at about 1000 ELO -- just 300 more and he'll be higher rated than I .
I've never played tournament chess until my son dragged me into a tournament a while ago. As expected, I rather stink in OTB games. However, without the pressure of having a live opponent and a clock, I am reasonably good at solving puzzles if I have enough time to figure them out."

"As a long time fan of Apple, I am resigned to not having too much variety in available chess software. When I need some help from silicon, I run HIARCS 12.1 MP on an 8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro with 16GB of memory, and Deep Shedder 11 on an 2GHz Intel Duo."

Terry,If you are this guy, your elo is 1300 approx, so it raises some doubt about your ability to beat GMs and other 2200 players as you so state.

I'm not him! He's a duffer!

You guys are clueless!

[swami]

He should have played 19. Nb5! when he had the chance - a golden opportunity to win was missed.

Yes, you know better than Anand the WCC or Kramnik the Classical WCC.

Why do state that you know better than the best? You just give a move with no analysis and say it wins!?

This type of kibtzing is frowned upon everywhere but you insist on doing it and the moderators and members let it pass!

I won't let it pass! Either you back your claims or don't say anything at all!

I didn't see you back up any of your claims. You're particularly known for speaking ex cathedra pretty much all the time. But now you bark orders as if you're in charge and everyone should obey you. Your interference is much more annoying than just letting people speak their opinions on the chess position peaceably.

It's one thing to say Nb5 looks good or interesting but it's an entirely different matter to claim it wins! Even worse when no analysis is given and the person who makes such bodacious claims isn't at all qualified to make them!

If you or the moderators or members can't see this as problem the there's even a bigger problem with this site than I thought!

It's time this type of uninformed kibitzing stopped!

e.g. 19. Nb5 Qe3 20. Qxe3 Rxe3 21. Nd6+ Ke7 22. Nxb7 Nd4 23. Nc5 Rd8 =

There's no win for White! I'm sure if all lines are combed through you'll find 19. Nb5 doesn't win and Kramnik couldn't afford to swap Queens so early if he wanted to find a win at a latter point, hence 19. Nb5!? is only good if you're going after the draw!

I backed my claim in this post Matt! I've also gave brief points in other threads and posts.

I'm not barking orders, I'm asking for proper netiquette during these games!

If you knew how strong players feel when the lower ranks kibitz out of turn then you might have a clue! Until then mind your tongue!

I'm not centering JL out, this applies to all!

As far as ex cathedra don't be glib with me until you've beaten a Grandmaster Matt! I can honestly make that claim and no one else in this thread can.

There are some here who can, but they refrained from giving their opinions and assessments of the match thus far.


IOW

ENOUGH!

Even though you've beaten a grandmaster once, we are all on the same level as far as kibitzing goes. All it takes is a current program and a good computer...

And a few IMs!

As I told you before a computer and program doesn't put you on equel footing as the hobby player hasn't the understanding of chess like a tournament player, expert or master let alone a grandmaster.

You can't buy that ability! You have to earn it with hard work!

Would you consider yourself as qualified as a MD to diagnose and treat a patient with merely a computer and a program known as an expert system? Would you allow a a non medical person to use the expert system to treat you?

You see, that is what you're saying by telling me, an expert, you're on the same level with your expert system in chess.

Now tell me again as a non expert, you're now as qualified as I am and see how ridiculous that is!

I agree that one needs to have an understanding of basic positional patterns, only masters possess such understanding. So they may fully well understand why the particular move was made, but I do think some 1700-1900's with the use of computer can understand some of the moves where the deep tactics is involved, I doubt they would have any understanding in positional play and strategical concepts arising in the game and yes I do think that in most GM games, positional play is important. As for McMad, I don't think he is a 1500 rated, he is certainly well over 2000's. I think he is entitled to say whatever he wants as long as he's talking about subject being discussed.

Btw, I do play at 2400's at playchess, and I've certainly beaten many IM's in real life but then again I haven't played any rated tournaments for long, rated tourneys rarely happen at the time, I don't see why beating the IM or GM is anything very special.

[Jack Lad]

Thanks for your analysis - here is mine.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 Bb4 6. Bg5 c5 7. Bxc4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Qa5 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Bxf6 Bxb5 11. Nxb5 gxf6 12. O-O Nc6 13. a3 Bxc3 14. Nxc3 Rg8 15. f4 Rd8 16. Qe1 Qb6+ 17. Rf2 Rd3 18. Qe2 Qd4 19. Nb5 Qe3 20. Qxe3 Rxe3 21. Nd6+ Ke7 22. Nxb7 Rxe4 23. Rc1 Rb8 24. Nc5 Rd4 25. Nxe6 fxe6 26. Rxc6 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Rxb2 29. Rc7+ Kd6
[d] 8/p1R4p/3kpp2/8/5P2/P7/1r4PP/5K2 w - - 8 30
This ending is very difficult for white to win if it is a win and/or very difficult for black to hold if it is a draw.

30. Rxa7 h5 31. Rh7 Kd5 32. Rh6 f5 33. Rxh5 Ra2
[d] 8/8/4p3/3k1p1R/5P2/P7/r5PP/5K2 w - - 2 34
34. Rh3 Ra1+ 35. Kf2 Ra2+ 36. Kg3 Ke4 37. Rh6 e5 38. fxe5 f4+ 39. Kh4 Kxe5 40. Rg6 Rxa3 41. Kh5 Kf5 42. Rg5+ Kf6 43. Rg8 Kf5 44. Rf8+ Ke5 45. Kg5 Ra7 46. Re8+ 1-0
[d] 4R3/r7/8/4k1K1/5p2/8/6PP/8 b - - 15 46

Here black's f-pawn is lost and so is the game.

[gerold]

Thanks for your analysis - here is mine.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 Bb4 6. Bg5 c5 7. Bxc4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Qa5 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Bxf6 Bxb5 11. Nxb5 gxf6 12. O-O Nc6 13. a3 Bxc3 14. Nxc3 Rg8 15. f4 Rd8 16. Qe1 Qb6+ 17. Rf2 Rd3 18. Qe2 Qd4 19. Nb5 Qe3 20. Qxe3 Rxe3 21. Nd6+ Ke7 22. Nxb7 Rxe4 23. Rc1 Rb8 24. Nc5 Rd4 25. Nxe6 fxe6 26. Rxc6 27. Rf1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Rxb2 29. Rc7+ Kd6
[d] 8/p1R4p/3kpp2/8/5P2/P7/1r4PP/5K2 w - - 8 30
This ending is very difficult for white to win if it is a win and/or very difficult for black to hold if it is a draw.

30. Rxa7 h5 31. Rh7 Kd5 32. Rh6 f5 33. Rxh5 Ra2
[d] 8/8/4p3/3k1p1R/5P2/P7/r5PP/5K2 w - - 2 34
34. Rh3 Ra1+ 35. Kf2 Ra2+ 36. Kg3 Ke4 37. Rh6 e5 38. fxe5 f4+ 39. Kh4 Kxe5 40. Rg6 Rxa3 41. Kh5 Kf5 42. Rg5+ Kf6 43. Rg8 Kf5 44. Rf8+ Ke5 45. Kg5 Ra7 46. Re8+ 1-0
[d] 4R3/r7/8/4k1K1/5p2/8/6PP/8 b - - 15 46

Here black's f-pawn is lost and so is the game.

Thanks Jack. I know there are many diff. ways to win that game.
Thanks for pointing out one.

Best to you,

Gerold.

[Jack Lad]

Thanks Jack. I know there are many diff. ways to win that game.
Thanks for pointing out one.

Best to you,

Gerold.

You are welcome Gerold and there are also many ways to draw if white does not play accurately - infact perfect play by black may still be able to hold the draw. As I said either way it is very difficult for both sides but at least it would have given Kramnik a chance if he would have had the balls to take it.