Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 84 of 84
  1. #76
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470

    draw offered

    PGN Viewer
     

    and from the towering position of strength that is 0.00 I offer you a draw.

  2. #77
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Draw agreed.

  3. #78
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Any comments from the kibitzers?

  4. #79
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Thanks for the game. At least I managed not to lose that one unlike previous disasters in this opening. Thought I was doing well there for a while but failed to detect the strength of 21...Rh5! until it was too late and was really only aiming to bail out after that. Not sure if that means I was rushing too much (which I certainly was around that point) or if you had sufficient compensation for the pawn before that anyway.

    A number of sources reckon that whole Lasker variation with 4...g5 is pretty much discredited (NCO +/- in every line) but I'm not so sure about that after this game; also the game stats for black in databases are by no means bad.

  5. #80
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Any comments from the kibitzers?
    My thought throughout the game was, "Black has enough compensation! Wait, no he doesn't. Arrrrr, it is too hard to figure out."

  6. #81
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Yeah, what he said. I couldn't see the comp, and thought 14. Bf2 was unnecessary, but it's not so easy for White to unravel.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  7. #82
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Yeah, what he said. I couldn't see the comp, and thought 14. Bf2 was unnecessary, but it's not so easy for White to unravel.
    Move 14 is one of many critical points.

    The only serious alternative (which has also been played) is 14.e5. I give below some lines I had saved with 14.e5 although some of these will be rubbish lines that I had looked at just to see what might happen or watch Fritz immediately turn up its nose at them. The critical point is that the line 14...Bxe5 15.Bxc6 Bd6 16.Bg2 Rxh2 17.Rxh2 Bxg3+ is one from which white has no convincing deviations I could find and this gives a wildly unbalanced position where black has two pawns for the piece but black's position is active with a mass of passed pawns on the kingside, while white can't castle.

    A very likely outcome (of which a few examples appear in the lines that I looked at) is an endgame with KRN4P vs KR6P and the three kingside black pawns dangerously advancing. The computer may still indicate some of these endgames as +0.3 for white or whatever but I did not believe I could actually win any of those positions.

    I also considered that allowing the unbalanced position with the block of passed pawns to emerge was taking an unnecessary risk of losing in a position I still considered to be favourable for white. However in light of what happened in the game, where I thought he was struggling for compensation and then it came back again, who knows.

    PGN Viewer
     

  8. #83
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Thanks for the game. At least I managed not to lose that one unlike previous disasters in this opening.
    I was hoping

    Thought I was doing well there for a while but failed to detect the strength of 21...Rh5! until it was too late and was really only aiming to bail out after that.
    Rh5 was very much home cooked, rather than being a silicon move. The engine wants Bg7 with .2 or so advantage to you. It is only after I nudge the engine around with Rh5, does it start to change the evals.

    Not sure if that means I was rushing too much (which I certainly was around that point) or if you had sufficient compensation for the pawn before that anyway.
    I spent a lot of time on this game and my benoni against Garrett. Partly this is due to your comments previously about the From Gambit, so of course I have to show that you are wrong if for no other reason that you made a bold statement, so I have to try and disprove it

    A number of sources reckon that whole Lasker variation with 4...g5 is pretty much discredited (NCO +/- in every line) but I'm not so sure about that after this game; also the game stats for black in databases are by no means bad.
    Looks like I might have advanced the theory a bit for freestyle Lasker at least. I can see though why it has a bit of a cloud over it for otb play. I had to spend a lot of time just to get equality of sorts and the moves were nowhere near straight forward to find.

  9. #84
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Rh5 was very much home cooked, rather than being a silicon move. The engine wants Bg7 with .2 or so advantage to you. It is only after I nudge the engine around with Rh5, does it start to change the evals.
    I looked at ...Rh5 a bit myself but I didn't leave my engine running for long enough to smell the coffee. About two hours after I made my move it suddenly had ...Rh5 as the leading suspect. Probably this means that any chance I had for an advantage had gone a few moves earlier.

    Partly this is due to your comments previously about the From Gambit, so of course I have to show that you are wrong if for no other reason that you made a bold statement, so I have to try and disprove it


    Actually I was hoping to win this game so I could find your "So how are you going to lose this time " post and respond with "you tell me!"

    At least I managed not to lose this one but the game is still hardly a positive result for my previous comments re the From.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 21. ggrayggray v Kevin Bonham [1-0]
    By Garvinator in forum Chess Chat Freestyle Tournament #4
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: 20-02-2009, 12:29 AM
  2. Game 1: ggrayggray v Kevin Bonham [1-0]
    By Garvinator in forum Chess Chat Freestyle Tournament #3
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 20-04-2008, 02:18 AM
  3. Game 12: Kevin Bonham v ggrayggray (0-1)
    By Garvinator in forum Chess Chat Freestyle Tournament #2
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 19-05-2007, 12:58 PM
  4. Game 9 Kevin Bonham v ggrayggray
    By Garvinator in forum Chess Chat Freestyle Tournament #1
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 17-11-2006, 03:17 PM
  5. Game 10 ggrayggray v Kevin Bonham
    By Garvinator in forum Chess Chat Freestyle Tournament #1
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 14-11-2006, 12:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •