Whilst the rest of you are fawning and gushing over the those
inflated rated clowns in the Classic. I thought I’d show just a few positions
from the FIDE OPEN where the real chess is being played.

Our Chess, where we don’t need to plug in Fritz in the forlorn hope
it will tell us what is going on.

But I must you warn you T.Farrand - V.Hamitevici is not
for the faint of heart. Your toes will curl, your jaw will hit the deck
and you will thank your god that it was not you playing White that day.

But first a clever piece of calculation from GM Simon Williams.
Possibly seen a long time before I saw it.
(without a doubt seen a long time before I saw it.)

M Ferguson (2402) - S. Williams (2515) London Chess Classic FIDE Open 2012

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Whilst the rest of you are fawning and gushing over the those
inflated rated clowns in the Classic. I thought I’d show just a few positions
from the FIDE OPEN where the real chess is being played.

Our Chess, where we don’t need to plug in Fritz in the forlorn hope
it will tell us what is going on.

But I must you warn you [b] T.Farrand - V.Ha ...[text shortened]... language that can console a player after losing such a game. None.}[/pgn]

This post makes me sooooooo much better right now. I was just murdering someone on another site, before making a careless, careless blunder, and resigned imediately. Glad to know I'm not the only one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You said, "This sac had to be seen when Black played Rb1 and Qb1. Without it Black has nothing." Obviously you must mean Qa1 there.

I disagree because I saw those moves without first seeing the sac.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You said, "This sac had to be seen when Black played Rb1 and Qb1. Without it Black has nothing." Obviously you must mean Qa1 there.

I disagree because I saw those moves without first seeing the sac.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Because your engine showed them to you.

"I disagree because I saw those moves without first seeing the sac."


There is the difference between us and the GM's.
They tend to think first and then move.

Williams would not have burnt his bridges with Rb1 and Qa1 without
seeing the Rook sac. After White plays Qxa5 White has at the very least
a perpetual starting with Qc7+ so there was no time for the cosy Rh1.
He had to have seen the coming Rook sac 4-5 moves before it was played.

I suppose the only way to be sure is to ask him.

All Simon has said about it so far is: "It was a fun way to finish."
So someone out there with a Twitter account needs to ask him.
I bet I'm right. (I don't have or need one....I twitter enough on here.)

Originally posted by greenpawn34

There is the difference between us and the GM's.
They tend to think first and then move.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You said, "This sac had to be seen when Black played Rb1 and Qb1. Without it Black has nothing." Obviously you must mean Qa1 there.

I disagree because I saw those moves without first seeing the sac.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't need an engine to see them, because they are not that hard to see. You may need an engine to see the win with the sac, however.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
You're missing the point JC. Why would you play them if ( by your own admission you had not seen the rook sac ) you have no idea what is coming next ? Presumably you are relying on some other entity to finish the game for you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not always analyze games to the end. I just stated that I saw the idea of lining up the rook and queen on the back rank in order to attack the white king. What is so hard to understand about that?

Originally posted by thaughbaer
So you don't deny you're JC. At least we're making some progress. Understanding what you're saying isn't difficult at all. Accepting it as an intelligent statement is a different matter altogether. Count the thumbs. You're even less popular than me. And that's no easy feat. Congratulations.

Originally posted by thaughbaer
Count the thumbs.