ICC Follies #11


They say that sometimes (during an attack mainly) having opponent-colored bishops is the equivalent of being a piece up, and here is a particularly stark example of that.  Black does his best to equalize throughout, but in the end he doesn't quite make it, due to an odd bit of tactics.



Sorry, you are mistaken.  That game had almost nothing to do with "opposite color Bishop play."  Black made two dumb rook moves, in order to grab a pawn.  This allowed white to double rooks on the 7th rank and the end was near.

Instead, 24)...Rf7 and black is only slightly worse, because of his three isolated pawns. Lots of play remained in that version of the game.  White might get control of the 8th rank after 25) Rfb1..., but Black's king should be safe on h7.  Black's three isolated pawns seem weak, but if he is allowed to exchange a pair of rooks, the endgame is much less dangerous, and a lot more work for white to win.

Why should I be analysing this game?  Isn't that the OP's responsibility?

The OP is silent, and his post is altogether devoid of annotations. 

Are you really a chess player?  Only 7 CC games in a year, and nothing else? 

Your online chess-life appears largely exhausted by your posts to forum threads, and your (many) picture posts for the storied "Pushwood Saga."  Perhaps you play OTB all the time?  Is that why your record is so thin?

And you played blitz (11 years ago) somewhere else online, but never on Chess.com?  What gives?



kborg, are you telling me you don't know the worst kept secret of chess.com?


LOL. Oh poor kborg, somebody better tell him.


What is this "best" kept secret?  Should I have taken a "chill pill" or two?  Hardly.

A former NM, without a USCF 2200 floor, drops an unannotated (5 minute game) into a thread.  Someone points out an inconsistency between the topic title and what unfolded during the game score.  Then some folks recoil at the thought that the emperor might not be wearing clothes (in this particular instance), so they pile on the one-line dismissals and coy teases.

Hey folks, former NMs (and current USCF Experts) are not celebrities, no need for you to play sycophants.  If the OP can't provide minimal annotations, no need to treat him with such awe.  If he can't deign to provide explanations to teach you, start studying and thinking for yourself.  Try it, you might like it.

USCF Expert rated players number in the (few) thousands.  They are not Gods.  Please make a note of it. 


Let's just say his IRL rating was nearly 2300.


That game is still a dud.  The central theme that won for white was doubled rooks on the 7th.  The game had very little to do with "opposite colored bishops," however construed.

The OP was mistaken, and a bit lazy too.  But some folks remain in awe?  Get over it, and think for yourselves.


"you have no idea who you are talking to " - tonydal/OmarCayenne

IRL- http://www.chess.com/members/view/OmarCayenne




Nope.  Checked his profile 3 months ago.  Looked up IRL earlier.  Should I take his profile literally?  It's mostly blather.

His game is still a dud.  Nothing at all about "opposite colored bishops," except that both bishops were threatened simultaneously.


haha, I think Andy gonna have a ball on this one.


How many people do you think have careers in lettuce growing? Surprised Some, I guess, but most wouldn't quite state it like that.


This site is chockablock with fantasy avatars, and folks who "come back" as multiple or newly recycled avatars.  Did the guy have a stroke?   Does he grow ganja?  Don't have the foggiest. Don't much care.

The guy's profile is just blather.  And he's a NM?  Why is he hiding behind that profile and picture?

The OP made unsupported assertions regarding an unannotated 5 minute game.  In response, I challenged his main assertion, and attracted a flurry of one-liners.  Hardly a surprise.  It's just the internet?  Poor excuse.  I'll wait for the OP.  See what he says.


I do not wish to upset anyone and let me apologize in advance if this question is out of line, however isn't it a bit odd to use a photo of General Heinz Guderian as a Avatar ? Are we perhaps in the presence of a relative of the late General ? Sorry if my question seems rather forward, no need to repond if that seems more desirable.  


You mean Rugen? I think he fancies himself to be a rabble rouser. He usually has a picture of a dictator and a location describing some sort of mayhem.


Thanks for the updates. Yes he was quite the pioneer in the field of Tank Warfare, I guess I was just a bit surprised to see his photo here in a Chess site. Mind you I do have his Autobiography ( Panzer Leader ) around here somewhere.


And PS: Sorry AndyClifton, I didn't mean to hi-jack your thread --- back to Chess everyone please.


Wow, to think I was actually glad to see that a bunch of people had responded...and then I come on here to find out that most of it is from some nitwit who evidently mistook this for the GM analysis room.

These games aren't meant to be taken that seriously (after all, it is a 5-minute game)...and I assumed that calling the series "follies" would strongly imply that.

Sure, Black had better.  That was kind of the point...he did "his best," but it didn't quite work out for him, due to an odd situation at the end (and one which I find rather intriguing, and still do).

I perhaps would do fuller notes, but one time (after having done so) I lost them all, apparently because you can't take too long in the game mode.  So now I tend to rush through them to make sure they take.  If anybody can tell me how to "save & preview" while posting games, I would greatly appreciate it.

Oh yeah, and one more thing:  I thought the one thing I would never be accused of with all this stuff was being imperious.  My goal was to be informal and fun and admit when I didn't see something and tell about all the goofy oversights and nerves and sheer luck involved, when (as not infrequently occurs) that enters into the picture.

So if anyone around here is being imperious, kborg, it's you.  Ya jerk.


Chess is ultimately a game of moves, not opinions.  So in positions where I disagree, I provide specific moves so that the readers may compare and draw their own conclusions.

That what I did in the posts above.  The OP has completely ducked the issue I raised, and finished up with another condescending comment.


In the OP's game, starting at move #24, at first blush, and without any help from Rybka, I suggest something like...

24)...Rf7   25) Rfb1  RxRb7  26) Rxb7  Ra4  27) Rc7  e3  28) fe  Rxa3, and Black looks OK to me.  Seems like lots of play for both sides here.  Black has two isolated passed pawn on the the A and C files.  White has two doubled passers on the E file.  What to play next (for both sides) is an open question.

But my (quick) conjecture is that white will want to keep both rooks on the board, and might play something like...

28) Rb8+  Kh7  29) Rc1  Rc7, and this ending looks fairly complicated.  Not sure what to play next.  Again, both sides appear to have chances.

Either way, the OP claims too much, "the equivalent of being a piece up," (direct quote). The "quick and dirty" examples I provide calls that assertation into question. Sure, there are (probably) stronger moves to be found for both sides in these positions. So what.  My contention focuses on the opposite color bishop assertion that the OP made in his thread.

I believe the OP has it wrong.  White is NOT "the equivalent of being a piece up," and his game is NOT a "particularly stark example of that" (direct quote).


Andy/Tony...Clifton,or whatever your name is.  Your 11 year old game is a dud.  It had nothing to do with thematic play in "opposite color bishop endings."

Instead, Black simply dropped his Bishop (on g7) to a tactical mistake, and black resigned soon after.


I found a TRUE EXAMPLE of an opposite color bishop + weak pawn theme in Johan Hellsten, Mastering Chess Strategy (2010), pages 42-44.  It's an annotated game between Kamsky and Kasparov, Manila Olympiad, 1992, KID (E88).  

In a nutshell, Kasparov gives up a pawn to open the long diagonal to b2, with white having castled queenside.  At move #19, Black exchanges one of his knight for white's dark squared bishop, (same color as the b2 square) and proceeds to mount an attack on white's king.  The pressure on b2 and the absence of a dark squared bishop (for white) to help with the defense of b2, makes Kamsky's position very difficult.

At move #31 Hellsten states: "The principle that the presence of opposite-colored bishops favors the attacker applies well to this position."


You were embarassed by my response, so you started out (and finished) your post above with lazy-ass, one-line, personal insults.  

And the spectacle of an National Master hiding behind his Avatar, and dumping one-line put downs onto Chess.com members in these forums is shameful.  It begs to be "Outed."

You might try behaving like IM @pfrens.  People respect him.  And it's well deserved.

Maybe it's time for you to concoct another new online life.  Your current avatar will now be "Outed." Ya Jerk.


kborg, it's not because you're on Internet than you can be that discourteous.

If you don't like chess chit-chat, please go back to reading Chess Evolution, and leave amateurs enjoy the shiny side of the game.

I'm sure your chess knowledge is way above ours, but to be honest, I really don't care about it if you can't even speak politely.