PDA

View Full Version : Grandmaster Theatre - Bolt from the Blue!



Arrogant-One
11-07-2006, 03:53 PM
Welcome,

This is an exceptionally thrilling game where my opponent outplayed me from move one, but had the misfortune of becoming victim to an incredibly strong move (the type I used to come up with on a regular basis).

Anyway, I call this gem - Bolt from the Blue!!!

Before I begin, however, I will give you all the chance to be a GM for a moment by finding the Bolt from the Blue for ur'selves! White to move and win.

3r4/p4b2/1p3k2/4p1Rp/5p1P/2PrB3/PP2K1P1/4R3 w - - 0 42

Event: Gold Coast Open
Site: Cararra, Gold Coast
Date: June 2006
Round: X
White: [Alex]
Black: Bender, Peter
Result: White 1 - 0 *
NIC: Caro-Kann
ECO: X

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng3 e6 7. Nf3 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Ng5 Nb6 10. Bd3 h6 11. Nf3 Qc7 12. Ne4 Nxe4 13. Bxe4 Nd7 14. c3 Nf6 15. Bc2 b6 16. Re1 Bb7 17. h3 c5 18. dxc5 Bxc5 19. Qe2 Rad8 20. Ne5 Nd7 21. Ng4 h5 22. Qd3 f5 23. Nh2 Bxf2 24. Kxf2 Qxh2 25. Qg3 Qxg3 26. Kxg3 Nc5 27. Be3 Ne4 28. Kh2 Kf7 29. Bd4 g5 30. Rf1 g4 31. Rae1 g3 32. Kg1 Kg6 33. h4 Rfe8 34. Rf3 e5 35. Bxe4 Bxe4 36. Rxg3 Kf6 37. Bf2 Bd5 38. Rg5 Bf7 39. Be3 Rd3 40. Kf2 Red8 41. Ke2 f4 42. Bd4 R3xd4 43. cxd4 Rxd4 44. Rc1 e4 45. Rc6 Ke7 46. Rg7 e3 47. Rc7 *

A fine game by two fine players. Thats what Grandmaster Theatre is all about. We hope you've enjoyed today's episode.

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2006, 04:44 PM
I saw it instantly, but then again it's a very common trick in my games. What is interesting is that even after that White should not have won. 44...f3+ should hold easilt for Black, ditto 46...Kf8. It's only 46...e3?? that costs Black the game. Another win for you because the opponent stopped paying attention to extremely basic threats.

Garvinator
11-07-2006, 04:47 PM
I saw it instantly, but then again it's a very common trick in my games. What is interesting is that even after that White should not have won. 44...f3+ should hold easilt for Black, ditto 46...Kf8. It's only 46...e3?? that costs Black the game. Another win for you because the opponent stopped paying attention to extremely basic threats.
If memory and innuendo serve me correctly, this is exactly how AO won Under 1750 Tin Cup (Gold Coast tournament) a couple of years back. Apparently he was dead lost in about 4 of his six games and his opponents blundered each time for him to win.

For that he managed to get a rating of 1700 ACF.

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2006, 04:54 PM
If memory and innuendo serve me correctly, this is exactly how AO won Under 1750 Tin Cup (Gold Coast tournament) a couple of years back. Apparently he was dead lost in about 4 of his six games and his opponents blundered each time for him to win.

For that he managed to get a rating of 1700 ACF.

Nice work if you can get it. I've won tournaments where I was lost or losing in most games. Tas Champs 2001 my winning score of 6.5/8 included three and a half points worth of swindles.

Brian_Jones
11-07-2006, 04:55 PM
Not sure what is going on in the above position without using an engine.
Unclear is 42...Bc4 43.Bxe5+ Kf7 44.Rg7+ Kf8

Are we sure white is winning this?

Arrogant-One
12-07-2006, 04:12 PM
I saw it instantly, but then again it's a very common trick in my games. What is interesting is that even after that White should not have won. 44...f3+ should hold easilt for Black, ditto 46...Kf8. It's only 46...e3?? that costs Black the game. Another win for you because the opponent stopped paying attention to extremely basic threats.
Doesn't 44.) ... f3+ lose to pawn takes pawn?

Arrogant-One
12-07-2006, 04:16 PM
If memory and innuendo serve me correctly, this is exactly how AO won Under 1750 Tin Cup (Gold Coast tournament) a couple of years back. Apparently he was dead lost in about 4 of his six games and his opponents blundered each time for him to win.
Causing your opponents to blunder in won positions is an old Siberian Chess Tiger Master trick.

But do not raise your hopes Axiom. My story is not as colourful as your own. I was merely coached by a Siberian Chess Tiger Master, for several years, until his painful and horrific death at the hands of his another student - and my nemisis to this day.

Comrade Krushnikov was my instructor's name. Perhaps you knew him???

Arrogant-One
12-07-2006, 04:19 PM
If memory and innuendo serve me correctly, this is exactly how AO won Under 1750 Tin Cup (Gold Coast tournament) a couple of years back. Apparently he was dead lost in about 4 of his six games and his opponents blundered each time for him to win.

For that he managed to get a rating of 1700 ACF.
Your Conclusion is WRONG !!!!!

After pointing out my mistake in NOT CHECKING FACTS when I incorrectly said Powell had three byes instead of two, you should have been more careful to check your facts this time Garvin!

I think you should be banned for a negligent and incorrect post!

The Tin Cup brought my rating from the 1400's to 1684!!!

It was the Gold Coast Open 2004 that brought me to 1762.

Check your facts next time, I am reporting you to the admins/mods.

Desmond
12-07-2006, 04:23 PM
Your Conclusion is WRONG !!!!!

After pointing out my mistake in NOT CHECKING FACTS when I incorrectly said Powell had three byes instead of two, you should have been more careful to check your facts this time Garvin!

I think you should be banned for a negligent and incorrect post!

The Tin Cup brought my rating from the 1400's to 1684!!!

It was the Gold Coast Open 2004 that brought me to 1762.

Check your facts next time, I am reporting you to the admins/mods.
GH, don't be to hard on Garvin. Anyone could easily make the mistake of thinking your rating was much higher once they have witnessed your grasshopper theatre.

Arrogant-One
12-07-2006, 04:32 PM
Not sure what is going on in the above position without using an engine.
Unclear is 42...Bc4 43.Bxe5+ Kf7 44.Rg7+ Kf8

Are we sure white is winning this?
That's the line I thought he would play Brian. But instinctively I think White is winning in that line.

Brian_Jones
12-07-2006, 05:56 PM
That's the line I thought he would play Brian. But instinctively I think White is winning in that line.

Not sure I agree!? I prefer to use a new concept - its called "analysis".

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2006, 08:43 PM
Check your facts next time, I am reporting you to the admins/mods.

And filling the shoutbox with dribble.

AO, if you are going to accuse people of defaming you then get a clue about what defamation actually is.

Arrogant-One
13-07-2006, 04:10 PM
And putting enough dribble in the shoutbox to drown starter and all his suspected hydras.

AO, if you are going to accuse people of defaming you then get a clue about what defamation actually is.
On this BB defamation is whatever tickles the fancy of an admin/mod.

Let me distill a simple example for you Kevin:

1.) I incorrectly stated that Bill Powell took 3 byes in the Qld Open.
2.) Gletsos harshly told me that it was 2 byes.
3.) I concurred, and apologised.
4.) You and Gletsos threatened me with a ban and admonished me harshly for not checking my facts beforehand.

Now, please contrast:

1.) Garvin stated that I only became a 1700 as a result of one lucky tournament (the Tin Cup 2004)
2.) I informed him of his error (the Gold Coast Open 2004 brought me above 1700)
3.) Garvin did not apologise or retract his claim
4.) You and Gletsos chose to do nothing (not even admonish)

What does this add up to???


=================
DOUBLE STANDARD

Arrogant-One
13-07-2006, 04:13 PM
Not sure I agree!? I prefer to use a new concept - its called "analysis".
When you have Grandmaster instincts analysis means nothing Brian.

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2006, 05:03 PM
On this BB defamation is whatever tickles the fancy of an admin/mod.

Your analysis is, as usual, wrong.

You were not threatened with banning by me at any stage in "Who should get the BYE". Rather, I wrote:


You agreed to be more careful in checking your facts when criticising others.
You're not living up to that agreement.

and


If you don't it is only a matter of time before you seriously defame someone and wind up banned for a very long time.

I did not say you had defamed Garvin.
I did not threaten you with banning.
I simply observed that you were not learning and suggested that if you kept not learning it would be a matter of time before you got yourself banned.
And now you're still not learning.

As it happened you made some unreasonable personal attacks on Garvin's competence as an arbiter (including personal insults that have been censored off the board because they were crude) which were based on clearly false statements and might have harmed his personal reputation had anyone been fool enough to take them seriously. If those comments weren't defamatory they were not all that far short.

Someone making an inaccurate claim about how you got your rating so high doesn't affect your personal reputation and isn't defamatory - unless they accuse you of cheating to get there, for instance. In any case the difference between 1700 and 1684 would be considered trivial (there is a defence of substantive correctness) but the difference between one and three byes is not.

Garvinator
13-07-2006, 05:08 PM
In any case the difference between 1700 and 1684 would be considered trivial
I rounded up a few;)

Basil
13-07-2006, 10:49 PM
:eek:

And that, Jack, is a wrap! :clap:

Arrogant-One
14-07-2006, 01:17 PM
Just a point of clarification here Kevin.

I suppose in your mind Garvin's continual insults towards me aren't considered:

a.) Provocative enough to justify a return of fire; or
b.) Worthy of cencorship by the admins or mods.

Now I know. Thanks for clearing that up. :clap:

Arrogant-One
14-07-2006, 01:22 PM
Also, while I am on the subject, I will point out an inaccuracy in your last post - just for good measure.


In any case the difference between 1700 and 1684 would be considered trivial (there is a defence of substantive correctness) but the difference between one and three byes is not.
I accused BP of having three byes (when in fact he had two - although not by your definition). In the same post I also commended him for being head and shoulders above the rest of the CAQ for attending and playing the event.

The record shows that he did miss two rounds of play and not three. The fact that you're only calling one of those missed rounds of play a bye and the other an authorised withdrawl (instead of a bye) shows just how much of a BB politician you've become.

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2006, 03:11 PM
Just a point of clarification here Kevin.

I suppose in your mind Garvin's continual insults towards me aren't considered:

a.) Provocative enough to justify a return of fire; or
b.) Worthy of cencorship by the admins or mods.

They aren't considered (b). (a) doesn't concern me.


I accused BP of having three byes (when in fact he had two - although not by your definition).

If you accepted zero points as being a bye then you would agree that you had been given a first-round zero-point bye when allowed to start on 0/1.

Either you were given 1 bye and Powell was given 2 or you were given 0 and Powell was given 1. You cannot maintain that you got none and he got 2 - it is not consistent.

I do notice looking on the web that the term "zero-point bye" is sometimes used in the USA and Canada, eg in certain American scholastic chess events where players are allowed to request as many zero-point byes as they like. It is certainly not commonly used in this country.


The fact that you're only calling one of those missed rounds of play a bye and the other an authorised withdrawl (instead of a bye) shows just how much of a BB politician you've become.

That is not a fact - show me where I called the missed round an "authorised withdrawl" (or withdrawal for that matter). An absence is different from an AWD because in the latter the player is out for the rest of the event.