Originally posted by WanderingKingso lets get this, the move 27 ...Rb8 which occurred in the actual game, when Q moved
I believe this is the discussed position:
[fen]r3k2r/p2p4/2p1pp2/1n5n/3PP3/3NBP2/6RP/R3K3 b kq - 0 27[/fen]
his rook to the open b file is not under question, its a hypothetical move which may
have occurred in the position that you posted.
Originally posted by luke mysterI'll leave Mr. Pacifique to do his thing. His intentions are well mannered. He's just a bit too excited about trying to find the cheats.
Jeremy Silman, being an International Master wouldn't recommend 27...Rb8 in that position I dont think. All it does is waste a tempo because he doesnt even own the file after 28.Rb2. General rules dont always apply to every position.
As far as this Rb8 discussion (which has somehow spun out of control). I remember being the one on the side of the argument who said from the beginning that white could gain control of the b file (else at least dispute it). Not black. I was asked how white could gain the b file. I showed two diagrams illustrating different ways this could happen - and I used his moves to get there. After displaying these diagrams I was then asked why Rb8 was played... It would seem obvious if we're discussing the b file... it would be a mandatory endeavor.
I'm not sure what more I can do for him. All I see are cyclical arguments.
P.S. I appreciate your support Robbie, and (I think?) Morgski, Nimzo, and any others reading these articles with their eyebrows raised.
Q
Originally posted by PacifiqueHmm, it's easy to tear apart someone else's annotations Pacifique. Why don't we play a pair of games and post mortem analyze them on the forums?
Exactly. Advocates of Q seems to not understand what they are talking about.
I have no opinion on the quality of Q's annotations, but I do have an opinion about people who add nothing but cheap shots at the few people who take the time to at least add something to the forums.
/glove down.
oh and it goes without saying I will submit matchup rates for both of us along with my annotations 🙂
sidenote- the same challenge applies to RJHinds- except I want 20 games so we can remove any doubt.
04 Mar 12
Originally posted by nimzo5Well said.
Hmm, it's easy to tear apart someone else's annotations Pacifique. Why don't we play a pair of games and post mortem analyze them on the forums?
I have no opinion on the quality of Q's annotations, but I do have an opinion about people who add nothing but cheap shots at the few people who take the time to at least add something to the forums.
/glove down ...[text shortened]... e- the same challenge applies to RJHinds- except I want 20 games so we can remove any doubt.
Originally posted by nimzo5It`s really easy to take apart annotations which mostly consist of meaningless blablabla like "opens diagonal", "h3.... weakens g3" etc and evaluations matching with evaluation of engine, without good explanation why should it be evaluated so.
Hmm, it's easy to tear apart someone else's annotations Pacifique. Why don't we play a pair of games and post mortem analyze them on the forums?
I have no opinion on the quality of Q's annotations, but I do have an opinion about people who add nothing but cheap shots at the few people who take the time to at least add something to the forums.
/glove down ...[text shortened]... e- the same challenge applies to RJHinds- except I want 20 games so we can remove any doubt.
If you don`t have your own opinion about Q`s annotations its better to read them and have some. Instead of taking cheap shots at stronger players who have done it already.
I have 2 free slots for new games so no problem with your offer. Time control 3/7. Challenge me if it suits you.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueGood annotation takes some time. And some people have a life outside chess forums. But I`hope to find time for it during this week. Not sure if it's worth of it, though.
They are at least a great deal better than any (read: none) you have written, Skeety-boy.
Richard
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePoor kid... :'(
there you go my man, it took me all of about 20 minutes to annotate our game,
about the same amount of time it took to play it, have fun, i did!
Robbie the Awesome v Pacifique the Patzer King
[pgn][Event "Challenge"] [Site "http://www.timeforchess.com"] [Date "2012.02.10"] [Round "?"] [White "robbie carrobie"] [Black ""] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteEl e move against tactical geniuses and i am walking the plank.} 0-1[/pgn]
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThis guy does not write like Skeeter at all. He sounds much more like Korch to me.
They are at least a great deal better than any (read: none) you have written, Skeety-boy.
Richard
Also, he sounds much more knowledgeable about chess than Skeeter did. I remember Skeeter trying to explain how to win this Rook/Pawn/Bishop versus Rook ending and making a complete hash of it. I was able to show from an endgame tablebase that her proposed 'winning method' was not even close to the correct plan.
06 Mar 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI already went there but I don't see why Korch would return under a different name and seemingly doesn't use the Latvian anymore either! I think it could be Korch and isn't Korch at the same time.
This guy does not write like Skeeter at all. He sounds much more like Korch to me.
Also, he sounds much more knowledgeable about chess than Skeeter did. I remember Skeeter trying to explain how to win this Rook/Pawn/Bishop versus Rook ending and making a complete hash of it. I was able to show from an endgame tablebase that her proposed 'winning method' was not even close to the correct plan.