Lasker Variation of the Froms Gambit

  
Free Internet Chess Games Server

Install FICGS apps
play chess online


Game result  (poker)


L. Flores, 2045
D. Sinsuat, 1792

1-0

See game 103716




 Hot news
 Discussions
 Files search
 Social network



SmartGo

                                          
Forum



Back to forum


Jason Repa    (2008-05-02)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit

My game against Marc-Eric Plante is finally over after more than a year. I've been dabbling with the idea that this line of the From's gambit may be losing by force. If someone can find an improvement for Black with some supporting analysis, I'd love to see it. http://chessmusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/from-night.html


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-03 09:28:38)
From??

Completely lost for black imo its madness to throw away a pawn like this at cc - I suppose there might be some way to grovel for a draw after 4..Nf6 black will probably get his pawn back unless white plays e3 and d4 when he has the hole on e4 has a kind of compensation. After 4..g5 can put up more of a fight with 5...Nc6 at least white doesnt get quite such a massive a massive centre All black has are some tactical tricks and a temporary lead in development once white avoids these and gets his pieces out of the box its dire for black. The last GM to play this as black (Kotronias) got a completely lost position although he won the game! On the other hand 1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white .... if everyone would reply with the From I would play nothing else but f4!!!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??

I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.

I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.

Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 08:17:16)
From??

FYI,

5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game.

and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-04 11:54:53)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit

One correction. My comment about 5...Nc6?? 6.Bxg5 was from the line:

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4

But I still don't believe that 5...Nc6 holds any more promise than 5...g4, even from: 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3. The reason 4...g5 is played is to play to "g4" and dislodge the knight on f3. I don't believe delaying "g4" is going to benefit Black, as was evidenced in:

Malaniuk,Vladimir P (2600) - Tseshkovsky,Vitaly (2510) [A02] RUS-Cup Krasnodar (3), 1998 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 Nc6 6.c3 g4 7.Nh4 f5 8.d4 f4 9.Qd3 Nf6 10.Bxf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 0-0 12.Nd2 Be6 13.0-0-0 Bxa2 14.h3 Nd5 15.Ng2 Qe7 16.hxg4 Rad8 17.e3 Rd6 18.Rh5 Ncb4 19.Qe4 Qd7 20.Bb5 c6 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Nxc4 Nf6 23.Rg5+ Kh8 24.Qf5 Nbd5 25.Nxd6 Qxd6 26.Rh1 c5 27.Nh4 1-0


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-05 12:50:53)
From here to eternity

Yes there might be some variations that are survivable especially OTB but at cc its tough to give up a pawn so early on. I think f4 is a perfectly ok first move (like b4) I just think it does not give any prospect of an opening advantage at cc because there is no surprise value and the black player has the time to research and find a response that equalises fairly quickly. That is why very few GM's have F4 as a main white weapon - it does not give enough prospects for an advantage - at the highest levels. Please note that qualification. I quite agree real chess is between people in real time and cc is a form of research competition. Getting experience for real world chess is a great reason to play a line at cc. There are exceptions OTB I often play the exchange french and have had good success (played by Kasparov Tal Morphy and others) I would not play it at cc though! In fact OTB I always play e4 but at cc gave it up because I see no way to get any adavantage against the caro kahn. Just relaying the moves the computer suggests does not, I think, give much chance of success against good players at cc. As for the From I do not believe in g5 white has to avoid the tricks and develop and is a pawn up. Not so easy otb!! - but at cc not so much of a problem. As for Nc6 yes I was talking about this move after 5 g3 and you are probably right I will try to look at the game you gave and do some analysis. As for the Mestel variation I thought black would get the pawn back unless e3 and d4 are played but again that was based on a quick look. Anyway perhaps the thematic tournament wil provide some answers.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 03:59:45)
Bird's Opening

Comparing 1.b4 to the Bird's Opening is just revealing your lack of chess knowledge. There have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today, as I've already mentioned to you. I wasn't making an argument that it should be someone's "main weapon", and I don't use it as a "main weapon" myself. Your original statement that I was contesting was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white".

I'm significantly higher rated than you are on this site, and I beat you quite easily when we played last year (only took me 33 moves if I recall), so I don't think you're any authority in cc either.

And you shouldn't equate a lack of an "opening advantage" with winning potential. Chess is a complex game, and its not about simply trying to make the best theoretical move all the time. It's about defeating your opponent. Theory suggests that 3.Nc3 is the strongest objective continuation for White against the French Defense, yet you still see 3.Nd2 quite regularly and even 3.e5 sometimes. There is more to think about than trying to get an opening advantage when it comes to winning a chess game. There is positional maneuvering and jockeying, as well as psychological factors to consider.

Additionally, trying to win the most games on an online correspondence chess server isn't everyone's goal. Some of us play real chess and use the information garnered here to assist us in our over the board play.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 04:24:31)
Bird's Opening

Here's a few more wins played on this site I obtained with 1.f4 http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/birdsopening.htm I've actually never lost a single game with this opening. Hardly seems like a "waste" to me.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 12:10:33)
Strictly for the birds

Thanks for the link for the games they are nice. Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response! Better to play like Of course 1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily. The "waste" is that white has the first move and a lead in development and chances for an advantage. 1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side. I would like to show with analysis exactly what I mean. Black has many good systems here is one. 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 (e3 is the other way to play more on that) Bg7 4 Bg2 Nf6 already black is equal IMO. GM Jakubiec (2524) played this position 3 times last year as white against Rozentalis (2581), Bartel(2608) and Kadziolka (2295) and won all 3 games! He would 0-0 play Q-h4 and g4 f5 and roll them over! In every game black got an advantage in the opening and lost but at cc thats not going to happen. In each game it was easy to see blacks mistakes and to see the right move to maintain an advantage for black. The other set up for white is to play 3 e3 (instead of g3)Bg7 4 Be2 (4 c4 is interesting)Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 and now after c5 its level but I would rather play black. Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta. These Dutch reversed attacks can be scary to face otb but they are harmless at cc. Conclusion: 1 f4 is a dangerous move otb especially where the opponent is not expecting it but against an accurate cc player it does not offer any hope of an opening advantage - its a waste if the goal is to get some opening advantage - its productive if the goal is to gain experience and insight into f4 for use in real chess.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 14:33:19)
Jason,

I would like to know how you refute the line which begin with 10..Bf5 instead of your opponent's move 10..Qe7. It usually continues with 10..Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 and now what? And when you say that after 4..Nf6 you don't see how Black can get the pawn back, I want to say that chess is not all about material but activity. So it might be possible that with best play, even if Black can't get the pawn back, they could reach a dynamical equality.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 15:01:06)
A bird in the hand

I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable - they are both off beat openings. On the question of chess knowledge I do not know how much he knows about b4? It can also be a dangerous practical weapon and can pose the black player more problems than f4. It is played by serious professional chess players in tournaments eg GM Christian Bauer (2626) has played it several times successfully this year and quite a few IM's regularly play it with success. Now to comparing rating sizes something I confess to not having done since I was in short trousers. My current rating is 2225 with a future rating of 2247 but with 2 rapid games in the pipe line this should be a future rating of 2300 + shortly lets see. Mr Repas rating is 2281 with a future rating at the moment of 2316. How significant is that? Well I had the opportunity to look at his games to see what his rating is made up of. 10 of his wins have come against the same opponent Sandor Porkolab and in 7 of these Mr Porkolab abandoned the games in level, drawn or in some cases better position for him. Given that in these "wins" he was often rated over 2100 or in one case over 2200 this has boosted Mr Repa's rating significantly. He has not so far had much success in WCC not having got past stage 2. As reference to my loss was made I can say that this was in a variation (the Prins of the sicilian) that I believe is unsound. Actually I overstepped the time limit while on vacation although I think the game could not be saved I learnt my lesson and do not play dodgy openings any more. I have never on the other hand been busted after 17 moves in a main line opening at cc as sadly Mr Repa found himslef against Bucsa Loan (Game 1249),then rated 1700. Then again I have stopped trusting the books and analyse for myself. Still less could I imagine being lost in a cc game after 16 moves in an exchange French (by tranposition) An instructive loss to Torsten Opas ( game 4388)- won with simple developing moves - worth playing over. Incidentally proves what I was saying about the exchange french it can be dangerous - although not of course, at cc. Finally there is Mr Repa's pet Bird shot down by Mr Kotlyansky in the approved way as follows 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 e3 g7 4 Be2 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 c5 7 dxc5 Qc7 and Black was fine winning in 72 moves. Never having lost with f4 did not include this because I suppose it was a bullet bronze game. I am afraid I am naive enough to think that people play chess on the server to win and increase their rating - clearly there are people who play to learn and strengthen their game and for whom results and rating are secondary. No doubt such people would not be interested in anything so vulgar as comparing ratings. Neverthe less its all just opinion and we are all free to express it within the rules of the server. So: f4 is a waste of time at cc little more than an invitation to draw and the From is unsound and almost like resigning.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-06 18:04:40)
From RIP

"would like to know how you refute the line which begin with 10..Bf5 instead of your opponent's move 10..Qe7. It usually continues with 10..Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 and now what?" The answer is 13 Be3 and after Be6 14 Bf2 f5 15 Nd2 GM Kotronius tried 15..Qf7 16 0-0-0 Bxa2 when 17 e5 looks winning. Instead 16..fxe4! 17 Bxe4 Bxa2 and maybe black can hold with Na5 to come. Obviously 14 e5 is critical after 14 ..Bxe5 15 Bxc6 Rxh2 16 Rxh2 Bxg3+ 17 Rf2 black gets 2 pawns for a piece and an exposed king but white still has some winning chances. That leaves 13 ..Bd7 but the bishop is more passive and will probably end up going to e6 after f5 etc White has 14 Bf2 or 14 Kd1! intending Kc2 and Nd2 both look good. The problem for black is that his long term comp is the h file pressure which doesnt balance whites extra centre pawn. IMO


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 20:13:21)
To Andrew

I would play 13..Bd7 to leave the e-file open. If 14.Bf2 then I play 14..f5 and I see nothing wrong for Black for the moment. 14.Kd1, I didn't look at that move, it seems interesting but really, Iam not that afraid. RIP? Easy to say...


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!

"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"

That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!

"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"

I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.

"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."

After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.

1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.

As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating:

"Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta."

Is it Black that lost here or White?

I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.

There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 22:01:25)
10...Bf5

A good question Pablo. This is one of the points where I felt that Frenchie made an improvement. The main line used to be 10...Bf5, which I believe is worse than 10...Qe7, because White is a move up after the Bishop on f5 must move again soon.

For example; 10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3!+/-


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 22:07:42)
From's Gambit

"And when you say that after 4..Nf6 you don't see how Black can get the pawn back, I want to say that chess is not all about material but activity"

I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do. I didn't state, nor imply that White was up an entire pawn or that Black didn't have some compensation (albeit probably not enough) for the pawn. If you re-read both my thread and the one I was responding to, you will see that we weren't discussing the amount of dynamic compensation that Black gets for sacrificing the pawn. We were discussing whether or not Black gets his pawn back. End of story.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!

"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"

You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)

An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.

You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.

Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!

As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-06 23:13:38)
Jason,

"I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do" What? How do you know? You know nothing about me and you say that... "We were discussing whether or not Black gets his pawn back" Is that question more important than "Does Black have a sufficient compensation for the pawn"? "For example; 10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3!+/-" Easy response when I already said that I would play 13..Bd7 here and now what?


Jason Repa    (2008-05-06 23:41:40)
Pablo

"I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do. 'What? How do you know? You know nothing about me and you say that...'" Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site. And I also know that you have difficulty understanding the difference between a discussion of dynamic compensation for material, and one of simply whether or not material can be recovered. Only in your mind is there the implication that "chess is all about material". Material is one parameter, and that is the parameter that was being discussed. You need to learn to understand that. Nobody was saying that was the only parameter to consider, or that it was the most important parameter to consider.


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-07 00:34:11)
...

"Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here) and I lost many games on time or because I was very busy and in a hurry to play a move without checking seriously to not lose on time. And corr rating does not mean everything. I play OTB too. Do you? I would be happy to play with you, even if you seems a bit arrogant when I see the way you speak in general. And still, when I read that: "FYI, 5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game. and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back. " There is not discussion about material, you seems to judge the position on the fact that Black could not regain the pawn, so they are worse...


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!

"I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here)"

Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.

But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.

And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???

I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.


Andrew Stephenson    (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4

1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html 2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4 3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz." 4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost 5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site. 6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India 8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly. 9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!

"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"

Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.

My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.

In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.

Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!

Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.

Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:

I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.

""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "

You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?

" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"

This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.

Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 06:52:38)
Don't be a poor loser Stephenson!

The conversation was civil, until you flipped your lid when I reminded you about the beating I gave you over the chess board. You also couldn't handle being proven wrong about what you said about the Bird's Opening.

Can anyone guess why this coward won't post HIS national rating???

Go ahead, repost my loss to Torsten Opus a few more times. Until everyone reading this thread knows what kind of a waste of skin you are. See if posting that game over and over again gets them to forget about the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess and am much higher rated than you are.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!

"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"

Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.

My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.

In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.

Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!

Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.

Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:

I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.

""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "

You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?

" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"

This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.

Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!


Pablo Schmid    (2008-05-07 08:29:01)
My last message to you

Too much insults. My OTB rating is stronger than yours, but I don't wanna tell you my life. But even the level is not the problem. Every GM that played against me always respected me, so they can be better and sympathic. Before a chessplayer, I am an human and I hope in real life you don't speak like that to the people. No need to insult, I never did to you and I won't even if you did. Now I won't speak with you anymore and if I play with you one day by the server, I will try my best to beat your machines. Thibaut De Vassal, j'espère que tu vas réagir face à un tel comportement, car je pense que tu es d'accord avec moi que c'est intolérable, un tel manque de respect.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!

Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.

Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 12:50:12)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!

And you're the one who started with the insults Pablo. You don't run around calling people "arrogant" because you're frustrated at your own inability to comprehend what

"and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back."

means. And challenging someone to a chess match then backing down as you have done is BEYOND PATHETIC!


Michael Aigner    (2008-05-07 12:52:46)
I am not amoused!!

Please stop this degrading kind of discussion, it is a shame.


Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2008-05-07 13:01:32)
From's Gambit ...

Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit? Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself.


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 13:05:40)
I am not amoused!!

Nobody is amused with YOU, Aigner! You're contributing nothing of value here. Go find someone else to be a troll!


Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 13:10:18)
Declining the From

"From's Gambit ... Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit?"

That's the usual way. Although I can't see why anyone would want to decline the gambit. All variations indeed seem to be quite good for White.

"Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself."

In that case you might want to switch to 1.Nf3 or 1.b3 with the idea of transposing into the Bird's Opening later. This is what I often do in OTB play. Of course Black doesn't necessarily have to allow you to transpose, though.



-------------

Moderator : This topic is closed. As a reminder :

11. 1. Netiquette

(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.

-------------









 

Message




Chat



 

December 10, 2018

FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...


Feel free to link to FICGS chess server, register & win Epoints :






FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
Correspondence chess

World championship

Play chess games

Go (weiqi, baduk)

Advanced chess

Play big chess

Chess trainer apk

Rated tournaments

Poker texas hold'em

Fischer random chess

      FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook