World Chess Championship (Game 8)

[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!

[Golem]

Terry, I don't know you but you seems very aggressive with everyone this time... What is the real problem ?

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.

Do you think only Grand Master (or person who have beaten a grand master) can speak on this forum ?

As for the move Nb5, I think that it eventualy adds some tactical complication for Anand (although it also leads to a draw). Don't forget that blunder can happen at grand master level too, so if Kramnik has to choose between different lines, he has to choose the move that has the best probability of a possible Anand blunder. Maybe you can try to hold the draw (versus Rybka as white) after this move and tell us if it is an easy path to a draw ?

[james uselton]

Terry, congrats on the GM you beat! Could you give the paticulars? Who was it and was it cc, otb, tournament, simul, skittles?

Best, Jim

[VP]

Hey Ted, who is that in the photograph of your avatar?

That's my son.

A handsome lad.
I am sure he is interested in chess. That is a very good hobby
My son just turned six, and he is already keen to play against me

Cheers,

[VP]

Thanks Ted!
Thanks everyone!
Good night!

Now you can sleep

Best and dream of chess

Gerold.

No such luck!
Was woken by my son at 7: 20.
Returned after the weekly shopping for groceries.
Now have to take the kids for swimming <sigh>
Yawn!

[VP]

Thanks Ted!
Thanks everyone!
Good night!

Now you can sleep

Best and dream of chess

Gerold.

Now with your wishes he will try to find some win for Anand in today's match ... in his dreams!

Nah, I am not that good!!
After all, I am human, not a machine!!
Cheers,

[VP]

.. 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.

Terry, we all know that you had once won a competition of guessing the rebel move. But beating a GM Now that is impressive
(Just don't tell us that it was in a simultaneous exhibition against a GM)

BUT, it does not make you superior to any of the other guys in the forum.

And trust me, the forum would be very lonely if only the GM were allowed to give their opinions. (And before you start complaining again- it is NOT what YOU said but what I am saying.)

BTW, what is your OTB rating and are you registered with a chess association?

[Terry McCracken]

Terry, I don't know you but you seems very aggressive with everyone this time... What is the real problem ?

I'm a chessplayer.

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.

Do you think only Grand Master (or person who have beaten a grand master) can speak on this forum ?

No. However I'd like to see claims of wins losses and draws backed with concrete analysis or at least based in reality.

As for the move Nb5, I think that it eventualy adds some tactical complication for Anand (although it also leads to a draw). Don't forget that blunder can happen at grand master level too, so if Kramnik has to choose between different lines, he has to choose the move that has the best probability of a possible Anand blunder. Maybe you can try to hold the draw (versus Rybka as white) after this move and tell us if it is an easy path to a draw ?

I'm aware of all of this and it's my opinion that Kramnik didn't want to risk an early draw in variations after 19. Nb5, I could be wrong. There's no question in my mind that both players looked at Nb5. I agree it makes for complications, but it doesn't seem to be enough agaisnt a player like Anand. I think, even now, Kramnik would agree. Maybe I'm wrong?

Maybe it was worth a shot but Kramnik felt it was a move too soon (at the time) and of course a6 was played when it would have been critical.

So I would agree the move needed to be considered and discussion is fine but a blanket statement that it wins or had to be played without any proof isn't acceptable to me.

JL likes to make these statements knowing full well that I'll take exception with it.

What he could do instead is ask, "Why not Nb5?", rather than "Nb5! is the only winning chance!"

I hope I've made my position clearer. I set these standards for myself as well.

Sometimes when I comment I should add more as well, but I try not to make the mistake JL made. Even a GM should make a brief note.

[Terry McCracken]

Terry, congrats on the GM you beat! Could you give the paticulars? Who was it and was it cc, otb, tournament, simul, skittles?

Best, Jim

Without going into details I'll just say it wasn't computer chess or a simul, it was head to head. I also consider myself a bit lucky and I was playing sharp at the time. Unfortunately there's not a lot of GMs for me to play.

Pity...

Terry

[Terry McCracken]

.. 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.

Terry, we all know that you had once won a competition of guessing the rebel move. But beating a GM Now that is impressive
(Just don't tell us that it was in a simultaneous exhibition against a GM)

BUT, it does not make you superior to any of the other guys in the forum.

And trust me, the forum would be very lonely if only the GM were allowed to give their opinions. (And before you start complaining again- it is NOT what YOU said but what I am saying.)

BTW, what is your OTB rating and are you registered with a chess association?

This isn't a joke and my life is private. I would never say I'm superior, but my chess skills are, over most.


I use to play over 2200 players often years ago.