PDA

View Full Version : Rogers V Lane



antichrist
16-01-2004, 05:59 PM
I have confined my observance of the Aust Championships solely to Ian's commentary on the home page, i.e., that Gary Lane plays P-E5 in response to P-E4.

This of course was a crucial game and what how did Lane respond to P-E4? The Sicilian(?) Defense.

Ian's claim may be correct but Gary has written lengthy articles on the Sicilian and I would therefore think that one should well expect him to play it and be prepared for it. Was Ian prepared but just outplayed?

It reminds me of Fisher using the Queen's Gambit against Spassky for the crucial game, when he usually opened with King pawn.

arosar
16-01-2004, 06:02 PM
Never mind that. How about GM Rogers' remark on the 7.30 Report about Kaspy looking like he's on drugs (can't recall his exact words)? Wazzat beautiful or what? Any1 else noticed that?

AR

chesslover
16-01-2004, 09:52 PM
IM Lane was in fine form during the championship, and I for one was glad that the long unbeaten run of GM Rogers had come to an end, as fierce OTB competition and equality amongst our top players is good for the australian chess scene

antichrist
19-01-2004, 11:40 AM
Having now been through this game, sorry to say it, but I think it was one of the most disappointing game I have seen from a GM. Does Ian play Scicilan?

arosar
19-01-2004, 11:48 AM
Coach Peter, can you perhaps give us your analysis then? That would help.

AR

antichrist
19-01-2004, 12:08 PM
Coach Peter, can you perhaps give us your analysis then? That would help.

AR

Listen mate, I am paying for this internet so no way. But in my humble/arrogant opinion Ian fiddled while Rome burnt.

Towards endgame when Gary was preparing a deadly attack with major pieces against a weakened king (no pieces defending) Ian takes a bishop on the opponents queen side near his opponents back rank. That is having no significance on the looming attack.

You go through it and see if you would not also feel disappointed if you played Ian's game. It lacked uuumph!

Bill Gletsos
19-01-2004, 12:11 PM
When your rating hits 2500 then I'll be prepared to listen to your considerered analysis.
Until then it is just analysis without the yis.

Oepty
19-01-2004, 03:06 PM
Ian simply miscalcalculated. I believe he said in a public lecture which he gave straight after the game, that he thought Lane had blundered. Instead it was Ian who blundered. He missed Qe1 was mate in his calcuation. No one is perfect, and he made a costly error.
Scott

antichrist
20-01-2004, 03:55 PM
When your rating hits 2500 then I'll be prepared to listen to your considerered analysis.
Until then it is just analysis without the yis.

Last night I consulted a previously-high-player who had studied the game and generally agreed with my observations. I take Scott Oliver's point, at least it is an explanation.