Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 100 results for Sengupta Arnab in the games.
Game_131910 Game_131909 Game_131907 Game_131904 Game_131890 Game_131889 Game_131887 Game_131884 Game_131604 Game_130908 Game_130907 Game_130864 Game_130862 Game_130860 Game_130857 Game_130853 Game_130848 Game_77172 Game_77171 Game_77170 Game_77166 Game_77162 Game_77157 Game_77052 Game_77051 Game_77050 Game_77049 Game_77044 Game_77039 Game_71285 Game_71284 Game_71283 Game_71282 Game_71277 Game_71272 Game_70459 Game_70458 Game_70455 Game_70452 Game_70448 Game_70443 Game_70245 Game_70243 Game_70241 Game_70238 Game_70234 Game_70229 Game_70114 Game_70113 Game_70112 Game_70108 Game_70104 Game_70099 Game_36573 Game_36572 Game_36570 Game_36567 Game_36563 Game_36558 Game_35823 Game_35822 Game_35820 Game_35817 Game_35813 Game_35808 Game_33412 Game_33411 Game_33409 Game_33406 Game_33402 Game_33397 Game_30373 Game_30372 Game_30071 Game_30070 Game_30068 Game_30065 Game_30061 Game_30056 Game_29072 Game_29071 Game_29070 Game_29069 Game_29064 Game_29059 Game_28586 Game_28585 Game_28583 Game_28580 Game_28576 Game_28571 Game_28565 Game_28558 Game_28177 Game_28176 Game_28173 Game_28170 Game_28166 Game_28161 Game_26342
Here are 0 results for Sengupta Siddhartha in the games.
Here are 7 results for Sengupta Indrajit in the games.
Game_51717 Game_51716 Game_51670 Game_51499 Game_51445 Game_51336 Game_51090
Here are 18 results for Sengupta Debashish in the games.
Game_133580 Game_133579 Game_133576 Game_133573 Game_133569 Game_133564 Game_133432 Game_133431 Game_133428 Game_133425 Game_133421 Game_133416 Game_131756 Game_131755 Game_131754 Game_131753 Game_131748 Game_131743
There are at least 27 results for Sengupta in the forum.
Daniel Parmet (2013-01-10 18:11:49)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I volunteer to be team captain. But we now have 31 players wanting to play. Also I would point out that we will probably get slaughtered on the lower boards as things stand right now. I saw at least one person wanting an ICCF team average of 2300. I would point out that I think a 2000 player here is 2300 over there but as things stand our FICGS rating average is 1964 based on the top 30 players ratings. For the 9 players that do have ICCF ratings our rating average is 2235.
Here is what information I could collect on our team so far:
Name FICGS Rating ICCF ID ICCF Rating TITLE Comment
1 Ostap Hladky 2527 941012 FIM
2 Valery Nemchenko 2521 940836 2465
3 Frits Bleker 2313 220159 2395
4 Garvin Gray 2281 30503 1993
5 Alvin Alcala 2237 896046
6 Wayne Lowrance 2194 FIM
7 Maxim Genchev 2187 940752 2309 Wants ICCF average of 2300
8 Arkadiusz Wosch 2169 89923 2307
9 Neel Basant 2138 280279
10 Daniel Parmet 2098 514938 2300
11 Om Prakash 2091 280243
12 Bogoljub Teverovski 2083 862003
13 Niklas Hallqvist 2082 451419
14 Kieran Moore 2042 260252
15 William Fuller 2033 514688 2350
16 Dmitry Tsimbalenko 1959 142268
17 Sergey Demchenko 1955 142224 2077
18 Nick Burrows 1944 212164
19 Rich Pinkall Pollei 1900 515095
20 Daniel Blike 1874 515250
21 Jose Moreira 1831 Are you the IM Jose Moreira id#399007, Rating 2390?
22 Thomas Hasyn 1808 865001 1922
23 Mathaios Vardoulakis 1800
24 Dinesh Bhandarkar 1707
25 Shih-Chu Liao 1660
26 Josef Zmolil 1632
27 Ray Downs 1536
28 John Worthington 1510 515287
29 Claudio Cabrera 1462
30 Arnab Sengupta 1340 280192
31 Jiri Mach 1010
Neel Basant (2013-01-10 14:40:30)
Chess Server Team Tournament
Confirmed( Interested) Players according to replies.
1.Daniel Parmet
2.Alvin Alcala
3.Bogoljub Teverovski
4.Nick Burrows
5.Wayne Lowrance
6.Neel Basant
7.Ostap Hladky
8.Niklas Hallqvist
9.Arkadiusz Wosch
10.Daniel Blike
11.Josef Zmolil
12.Jiri Mach
13.Jose Moreira
14.Om Prakash
15.John Worthington
16.Garvin Gray
17.Arnab Sengupta
18.Ray Downs
19.Valery Nemchenko
20.Dinesh Bhandarkar
21.Shih-Chu Liao
22.Frits Bleker
23.Thomas Hasyn
24.Sergey Demchenko
25.Maxim Genchev
26.Mathaios Vardoulakis
27.Claudio Cabrera
28.Kieran Moore
29.
30.
Wow..
What a response!!!!!
sure Within 2/3 days will be more than 100 players.
Thib will have a headache while selecting 30 players..
Arnab Sengupta (2013-01-10 04:37:11)
Chess Server Team Tournament
I am Interested
Arnab Sengupta (2009-03-15 14:54:44)
Great player
Hello Guys Do you think that Anand is as great a player like Tal, Fisher, Kasparov...and i would really like to see Anand taking on deep bule or something like that...has he ever player any chess computer?
Arnab Sengupta (2009-03-06 18:00:44)
Walking Tall
Hey guys remember me??? well i was busy lately but am back now....sorry that my rating has gone sooooo down.....which makes me laugh by the way....but i'm back....hope to see some good games..
Arnab Sengupta (2008-06-03 19:44:12)
team chess
Hey Thibault why dont we try a team chess tournament?
Arnab Sengupta (2008-06-03 19:43:09)
good
cool....i like the idea.....we can try it.....E-points can be awarded...
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-27 17:08:39)
Help
Well two moves comes in mind for BLACK 29....Re6 or 29....Rc7 I think both moves holds fort for Black. What say?
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-27 16:53:56)
help
ok! so we came up with this variation- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd6 a6 14.a4 e5 15.Bg4 exd4 16.e5 c5 17.Re1 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 O-O 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Ne2 f5 21.Bh5 f4 22.b4 cxb3 23.Qxb3 Qd5 24.Qh3 Bc8 25.Nc3 dxc3 26.Qxc3+ Qd4 27.Qf3 Ra7 28.axb5 Rf6 29.h3 but now what? what should BLACK play here? Please i need your opinion to finish this variation. Do you think Black has any chance of Drawing the game here?
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-22 18:23:25)
ruling
Thanks Thibault!
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-22 17:50:45)
ruling?
Chill guys!!!!!!!!!!! i'm not playing this game in FICGS or any server.....i'm playing it with my brother and we wanted to find some good defense for Balck, thats why i asked for your help!!!! Now if you people have so much problem with it, then i'll take that blame from you.....Whats the use in discussing chess position then???
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 22:39:50)
dxc5
but what after 16.dxc5 Rxc5 17.b4 Rc8 18.Bb3 Bc3 actually i'm playing this game, and i'm white here, well i put up a fight here, but is it a draw or there are some chances
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 21:45:45)
new
how about 28...Bf5?
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 20:04:20)
hmm
well because i'm playing this position in a game.......
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 18:55:19)
Quotes
1. "There are only two kinds of tragedy in this world, one is not getting what you want and the other is getting."- Lord of War 2. "We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it."- Ernesto Che Guevara 3. "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Winston Churchill 4. "You must have a dream in order to have it come true" - A.P.J Kalam 5. "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." Winston Churchill 6. "If you are going through hell, keep going." Winston Churchill NOW THE BEST 7. "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations." Winston Churchill
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 18:34:22)
game
o thanks.....but someone should help me......where is Thibault?
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 18:21:19)
game
well Cirulis, i know that game...... i dont need the moves played in it....i want to ask if anybody has any better variation in that position.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 14:01:58)
Help!
Does anybody has some better moves for black in the game between Kramnik-Aronian, Wijk aan Zee 2008, after Kramnik's 25. Nc3 dxc3 26.Qxc3+? somebody help me plz
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-19 09:53:53)
Find the best move
Find the best move for white here and the possible continuation- 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2 dxe4 5.a3 Be7 6.Nxe4 Nf6 7.N2g3 O-O 8.Bc4 Nbd7 9.O-O Nxe4 10.Nxe4 Nf6 11.Qd3 Bd7 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.Bf4 Re8 14.Rad1 Rc8 15.Rfe1 c5
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!
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!
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 (2008-05-06 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.
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.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-16 18:58:26)
FIDE
guys, wont it would be great if FIDE starts a correspondence game system or server play, which it will recognize....well someone should raise this issue to FIDE
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-15 18:07:00)
RATING
Thanks guys..... well it would be nice if FIDE itself starts a correspondence game system....
Arnab Sengupta (2008-04-15 08:23:25)
RATING
please tell me is the ICCF or FICGS rating recognised by FIDE?
There are 100 results for Sengupta in wikichess.
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Marciz, Alexander (RUS) [member # 11810] Correspondence chess : 2501 FIM Ranked # 25 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Advanced chess : 2332 Bestlogik - 2360. LSS - 2445.chess-land.com/ -1805.  This member has no profile in the social network. |
| | 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 |  |