20364 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
No, I just did a quick analysis with Houdini 1.5.
The early b pawn push cost black a pawn.
I don't see how you have to be a GM to notice a hanging pawn.
It's not GM knowledge.
You know this could go on forever. Yereslov never yields: not to evidence & not to logic.
It's amusing that you think they didn't notice that they were hanging a pawn.
I hope your arrogance isn't genuine or you will never improve, nor will you by getting your engine to tell you the answers.
Hanging pieces is an art....
Once in an interview, Mikhail Tal was asked why he left so many pieces hanging at once... his reply " my opponent can only take them one at a time"...
Vasily Invachuk was second to Kasparov in the 90's and was the one to end his record-breaking winning streak at Linares 1991.
You keep forgetting that players do make mistakes. Even GM's are prone to major blunders.
It's not planned everytime. Ivanchuk had a won position here, yet he succumbed to his nerves and lost due to this.
It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament.
They were never very effective against Fischer.
Remember I said that hanging pieces is an art...imagine if Tal had the time to perfect his art ? It is sad that he left us so soon.
Though some of Tal's moves were unsound from a theory stand point, it is irrelevant. He was never required to live up to the standard of the theory, only to beat his opponents. If your opponent can't play what he has memorized and can't calculate as well as you, it is too your advantage to play this style. That is why Tal did. Besides, draws are boring.
This is the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. To sacrifice effectively, your opponent has to let himself be open to it. Fischer was probably onto the tactical shots that were coming his way and had a tendency to drive the games more than drift through positions awaiting his opponent's plans. Against the not-too-careful, Tal worked his magic in a way that you never will.
I considered debating that with Yereslov, but I honestly can't say how adept modern GM's would be against Tal's type of moves. I guess maybe Yereslov is either forgetting or has never known the type of onslaught Tal unleashed in setting records that have never been broken and maybe never will be.
I still can't figure out why some people insist that the theory dictates chess play, when it is the players that actually determine the outcome. I guess some people are oblivious.
100% agreement nameno1had. It took Yereslov to bring that about!
Believe it or not, I am able to find ways to appreciate people, even if they don't agree with me.
I have had a very controversial idea in my mind I have been sitting on lately. I might throw it out there for everyone to chew on...
It isn't that the basis of it hasn't been mauled over pretty well already, but I am prepared to go a bit further than perhaps some people would, even if they have.
Modern analysis has shown that most of Tal's sacrifices either led to a loss or a draw.
It's not my opinion. It's a fact.
Of course I can play random sacrifices also, but against super GM's these are just nonsensical moves.
Against average players your moves are nonsense.
The moves Tal played lead to a loss or a draw against a computer's choice of moves.That means nothing...
If you look at the key data that gives our concept merit is simple. The wins/loses/draws from Tal's games against the best GM's of his day including Petrosian, Karpov, Fischer and Kasparov. Those are recognized by many as the best to ever play this game. Tal made some of them look absolutely silly and helpless at times. What was always outweighs what could have been, or "might be" today.
No one says, awww...Tal's records for consecutive victories shouldn't be counted because, in actuality, his move choices lose to a computer...
Please, spare us anymore feeble attempts to argue.
Scottrf, I would wipe the floor with you in about twenty moves easy.
Patzers should stay quiet when around their superiors.
At the of the day Yereslov is just one of these people who watches Carlsen play with Houdini analysis and calls him an idiot for throwing away a 0.2 advantage. Not worth listening to.
Yeah, you wouldn't.
Maybe if you use Houdini....otherwise my money is on Scott....
is this the only way you can get a game against a quality opponent Yereslov...?
You'll find you attract busy bees with something savory, not something that only qualifies as poo doo...
Yeah, you wouldn't.
Yes, I would. Your play is average at best.
5/27/2016 - Straight Checks
by BlargDragon a few minutes ago
Can women be as good at chess?
by Darth_Algar a few minutes ago
Should i learn the bishop and knight vs king checkmate?
by Pulpofeira 3 minutes ago
Can you play chess without board and pieces, in head?)
by chadkagen 11 minutes ago
How many people think that; Chess is just a Total Waste of Time in Life!
by badenwurtca 19 minutes ago
Finally above 1200
by Pratters 19 minutes ago
by kaynight 23 minutes ago
Artificial Intelegence over real player
by Play2Lose 23 minutes ago
by SilentKnighte5 30 minutes ago
I want to know the truth about Colorado gambit(aka Fred)
by The_4th_Stonewall 39 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!