Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

analysis please, and fairness


  • 20 months ago · Quote · #1

    schlechter55

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #2

    LongIslandMark

    These should be the basic rules for any game in the Chess Openings Forum (your #1 for sure). Why special? You got junk postings?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #3

    schlechter55

    exactly. I was slandered in the forum '1.b4'. No matter what i posted , no matter how reasonable my inputs were, they were distorted, people let themselves so easily manipulated. 'Nobody knows you, when you are down...'.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #4

    schlechter55

    There is a sharp variant , I would like to know the outcome:

    1.e4 Nc6, 2.d4 d5, 3.exd5 Qxd5, 4.Nf3 Bg4, 5.Nc3

    (Most people play the secure way here: 5.Be2) 5....Bxf3, 6.Nxd5 Bxd1, 7.Nxc7+ Kd7 (or Kd8), 8.Nxa8 Bxc2, 9.d5.

    Perhaps White is winning ?

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #5

    aggressivesociopath

    Really a middle game question, but I can link it to opening theory and doubt it should have its own thread.

     1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Nd7 12. Nbd2 cxd5 13. cxd5 Nc6 14. Nb3 a5 15. Bd3 a4 16. Bxb5 Qd6 17. Bxc6 Qxc6 18. Nbd2 Bf6.

    Romanishin has played this position repetedly, but I really am not sure about Black's compensation for the pawn. My instinct is to play 19. d5 with a closed center that does not favor the two bishops and play on the queenside, now only white can win. That does not work out that well in practice, Black can hit back with f5 and d5 gives him the strong c5 square for a knight. So I guess I am soliciting concreat evaluations of this position without personal attacks. I might as well start by saying white is slightly passive in the diagramed position, not so much that this position should be compaired to the Benko Gambit, but I found some of Romanishin's endgame saves borderline miraculous and they are all based on activity. see Niccolo-Romanishin Frascati 2006 from the 29 move to the 34 and Szabo-Romanishin Gedean Barcza Memorial 2008 from the 31 move on. So in a way I suppose the opening should be compared to the Benko, a temporary inititive that lasts into the endgame, the compensation is not mearly the bishop pair.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #6

    LongIslandMark

    To your Original Post: I doubt declaring rules will change what gets posted. But I have noticed that as long as you post lines, not opinions, then you tend to get more serious responses.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #7

    aggressivesociopath

    I have to agree with LongislandMark. Concrete in chess means lines. However, the lines also have to make sense, this is not really a failing that I associate with you. However, the BS on this forum gets very thick very quickly and most of us are not very nice to morons who persist in their stupidity. That being said I am serious here, I am not mocking you like I mocked someone else fairly recently for making comments that far exceeded his scope of knowledge.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #8

    schlechter55

    LongIslandMark wrote:

    To your Original Post: I doubt declaring rules will change what gets posted. But I have noticed that as long as you post lines, not opinions, then you tend to get more serious responses.

    Exactly the opposite was the case in the forum 1.b4.

    I posted lines, games, only after that followed by reasonable evaluations. I was if not the only one who did it in that forum. You can check it.

    But that backfired on me. Jealousy, vanity, the wish to be accepted by the only IM (Pfren, who is a very vain and dishonest person, he insulted me, after I asked him to stop it, he insulted again and again) did the rest.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #9

    varelse1

    schlechter55 wrote:
    LongIslandMark wrote:

    To your Original Post: I doubt declaring rules will change what gets posted. But I have noticed that as long as you post lines, not opinions, then you tend to get more serious responses.

    Exactly the opposite was the case in the forum 1.b4.

    I posted lines, games, only after that followed by reasonable evaluations. I was if not the only one who did it in that forum. You can check it.

    But that backfired on me. Jealousy, vanity, the wish to be accepted by the only IM (Pfren, who is a very vain and dishonest person, he insulted me, after I asked him to stop it, he insulted again and again) did the rest.

    I wouldn't lose any sleep over Pfren. He's not important enough.

    Save your anxieties for the adults.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #10

    schlechter55

    aggressivesociopath wrote:

    Really a middle game question, but I can link it to opening theory and doubt it should have its own thread.

     1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Nd7 12. Nbd2 cxd5 13. cxd5 Nc6 14. Nb3 a5 15. Bd3 a4 16. Bxb5 Qd6 17. Bxc6 Qxc6 18. Nbd2 Bf6.

    Romanishin has played this position repetedly, but I really am not sure about Black's compensation for the pawn. My instinct is to play 19. d5 with a closed center that does not favor the two bishops and play on the queenside, now only white can win. That does not work out that well in practice, Black can hit back with f5 and d5 gives him the strong c5 square for a knight. So I guess I am soliciting concreat evaluations of this position without personal attacks. I might as well start by saying white is slightly passive in the diagramed position, not so much that this position should be compaired to the Benko Gambit, but I found some of Romanishin's endgame saves borderline miraculous and they are all based on activity. see Niccolo-Romanishin Frascati 2006 from the 29 move to the 34 and Szabo-Romanishin Gedean Barcza Memorial 2008 from the 31 move on. So in a way I suppose the opening should be compared to the Benko, a temporary inititive that lasts into the endgame, the compensation is not mearly the bishop pair.

     

     Have you checked that variant with an engine ?

    This anyway should be a long analysis, because even Houdini is materialistic. But if one continues several branches up to a horizon of 20 half moves, evaluations can change.

    I would also play 19.d5. Black has still activity (pressure against b2, bishop pair and diagonal a6-f1, open lines on queenside, square c5 for his knight, and perhaps a timely f7-f5). I will try to run this with an engine.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #11

    aggressivesociopath

    My computer tells me nothing except my endgame knowledge is insufficient. I have been blunder checking Romanishin's games, not just letting the computer run on infinite analysis. My computer tells me that some moves are played, sometimes players make mistakes and the evaluation of the position jumps from about .20 pawns in White's favor to well over 1 pawn in White's favor. I suppose it is time to pack up my obsession with this line, I never actually planed on playing it in the first place.

    I will post some of the endgames reached and my attempts to analysis them sometime over the weekend; this is my attempt to actually learn something from this line. If you object, I will start a different thread. I argue that they belong here because they are necessary to properly evaluate the position I posted.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #12

    schlechter55

    It is a very interesting line, imo. Because it could be an example how a HEALTHY pawn is counter-balanced by activity.

    It will be nice if you share with us your analysis and thoughts.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #13

    schlechter55

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 20 months ago · Quote · #14

    aggressivesociopath

    More or less just because I said I would:

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #15

    aggressivesociopath

    Feedback is appreciated. But if I don't get any I don't care, that is part of being an adult.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #16

    schlechter55

    Wow, 1000 looks but no new inputs since monthes. I need to close this thread.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #17

    aggressivesociopath

    Why? Did it come as a surprise that a thread would grow old and people would cease to post in it? Why necro a thread to comment on its lack of activity?  

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #18

    netzach

    Crap. Unfair. (but true).


Back to Top

Post your reply: