Back in action after a very busy past few days on the Russian and Brooklyn fronts. But it's across the Maginot line we go for a moment, where I was happy to find some really great chess in the French Team Championship group stage. The heavyweight Evry Grand Roque squad (I mean they are highly rated; I'm certainly in no position to make waistline jokes) was led by dominating performances from their stars Svidler and Nakamura. Both scored 3.5/4 to lead their team to the top of Group A. Vachier-Lagrave on board three was also a hero, scoring 5.5/6 with wins over Naiditsch and Bacrot. French teen GM Sebastian Feller equaled that score and Fedorchuk made 4.5/5. Basically everybody on Evry Grand Roque was in le groove.
Nakamura continues to have success with his "Canadian" repertoire of flank openings with both colors. Despite his 1.e4 2.Qh5 dalliances, I doubt many suspected the young American would be the one to plant the dusty flag of Duncan Suttles on a high peak in the 21st century, but plant it he has. He won some wild games in Mulhouse. I would love to have seen Delchev's face as he realized that despite his doubled rooks on the 7th, protected pawn on b7, and bishop on a7 he was busted. (Games after the jump.) Svidler's wins included two against countrymen Dreev and Jakovenko and the five-time Russian champion continues his return up the rating list. And don't miss the tactical flurry of Bacrot-Vachier Lagrave.
[Event "Top16 Mulhouse2"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2009.04.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Black "Alberto, David"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2699"]
[BlackElo "2603"]
[PlyCount "151"]
[EventDate "2009.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Bc5 6. Nb3 Be7 7. f4 d6 8. Be3
Nf6 9. N1d2 Nc6 10. Qe2 Nb4 11. O-O O-O 12. Bd4 Nxd3 13. cxd3 b5 14. Rfc1 a5
15. Bf2 e5 16. fxe5 dxe5 17. Nf3 Bg4 18. d4 Bxf3 19. Qxf3 a4 20. dxe5 Nd7 21.
Nd4 Nxe5 22. Qg3 Bf6 23. Nxb5 Rb8 24. Rd1 Rxb5 25. Rxd8 Rxd8 26. Rf1 h5 27. Be1
Rd3 28. Qf2 Nf3+ 29. Kh1 Rxb2 30. Qc5 Nd2 31. Bxd2 Rdxd2 32. Qc8+ Kh7 33. Qh3
Kg8 34. Qf3 Rb5 35. a3 h4 36. h3 Rb3 37. Qf5 Rg3 38. Rc1 Rgd3 39. Rc7 Rd8 40.
Rc1 Rd1+ 41. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 42. Kh2 Bd4 43. Qc8+ Kh7 44. g4 Rd2+ 45. Kh1 Rd3 46.
Qd7 Rxh3+ 47. Kg2 Rg3+ 48. Kh2 Bg1+ 49. Kh1 f6 50. Qxa4 Rxg4 51. Qd1 Rg3 52.
Qxg1 Rxa3 53. Qb1 Rh3+ 54. Kg2 Rg3+ 55. Kf2 Kh8 56. e5 fxe5 57. Qf5 Kg8 58.
Qxe5 Kh8 59. Qf5 Kg8 60. Qe4 Rg5 61. Kf3 h3 62. Kf4 Rg1 63. Qe6+ Kf8 64. Qc8+
Kf7 65. Qc4+ Kg6 66. Qd3+ Kf7 67. Qd5+ Kg6 68. Qf5+ Kh6 69. Qxh3+ Kg6 70. Qf5+
Kh6 71. Qh3+ Kg6 72. Qd3+ Kh6 73. Kf5 Kh7 74. Ke6+ Kg8 75. Qc4 Rg2 76. Ke7+ 1-0
[Event "Top 16 Mulhouse2"]
[Site "Mulhouse"]
[Date "2009.05.03"]
[Round "7.3"]
[White "Delchev, Aleksander"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2648"]
[BlackElo "2701"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "3.??.??"]
[WhiteTeam "Marseille Echecs"]
[BlackTeam "Evry Grand Roque"]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Be3 Bg7 4. Nc3 a6 5. f4 b5 6. Bd3 Bb7 7. Nf3 Nd7 8. e5 c5
9. Be4 Qc8 10. Bxb7 Qxb7 11. dxc5 dxe5 12. Qd5 Qxd5 13. Nxd5 Rc8 14. Nb6 Nxb6
15. cxb6 Nf6 16. O-O-O Ng4 17. b7 Rb8 18. Bb6 f6 19. Rd8+ Kf7 20. Rd7 Bh6 21.
g3 exf4 22. Kb1 Ne5 23. Nxe5+ fxe5 24. Ba7 Ke6 25. Rhd1 f3 26. Rc7 e4 27. Rdd7
Rhe8 28. a3 Bg5 29. h4 e3 30. Bxb8 f2 31. Ba7 f1=Q+ 32. Ka2 e2 0-1
[Event "Top 16 Mulhouse2"]
[Site "Mulhouse"]
[Date "2009.05.03"]
[Round "7.1"]
[White "Bacrot, Etienne"]
[Black "Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2728"]
[BlackElo "2684"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "3.??.??"]
[WhiteTeam "Marseille Echecs"]
[BlackTeam "Evry Grand Roque"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4 e5 8. Nf5
Nc6 9. Bg2 g6 10. g5 gxf5 11. exf5 Rg8 12. Bd5 Nxd5 13. Nxd5 Bg7 14. f6 Be6 15.
Bb6 Bxd5 16. Bxd8 Bxh1 17. Bb6 Bxf6 18. Ke2 Bd8 19. Bxd8 Nd4+ 20. Ke3 Rxd8 21.
Qxh1 Nxc2+ 22. Kd2 Nxa1 23. h4 d5 24. Qxa1 Rg6 25. b3 Re6 26. f4 d4 27. fxe5 d3
28. Qf1 Rxe5 29. Qf6 Re2+ 30. Kd1 Re6 31. Qh8+ Ke7 0-1
@Mig: Kudos if you add a javascriptviewer!
Chessvibes got them with diagrams and full games.
Can someone please re-post the magical URL that plays out games when you paste the PGN script?
Thanks, Mig would say, in advance.
you can try http://chessflash.com/chessflash.html , it's works on my blog, but need some editing to it's script to make it looks nicely.
Here it is clubfoot:
http://www.horsensskakforening.dk/meme/makegameurl.html
Suttles and The Rat. Good times.
interview with the great Silvio here:
http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-mtel-masters
My favourite quote:
¨We have no problems with Chessbase in general, we have problems with one person there, who is trying to damage our reputation for years. What this person is doing is unforgiven. ¨
muahaha.
The sour grapes about the Chess Oscar not going to Topalov are much more amusing :) Someone needs to point out that Anand did win Linares in 2008, which is ever-so-slightly more important than Nanjing. Similarly Bilbao is like the Masters Cup in tennis - some end of season fun but actually less prestigious than events qualifying for it (not that the winner actually qualified!).
So if Anand shouldn't get the award for playing a stunning match against the no. 6 (no. 5?) player in the world, it's a little hard to see why Topalov should get it for playing a bad match against the no. 23.
Maybe Silvio can boycott all the 100+ journalists who voted :)
Agreed , i also think that Anand deserved the chess Oscar more than Topa.
He rescued the title from the hands of corruption , IMO Anand also deserves a statue.
I know I shouldn't bite, but "corruption"? :)
Just saying ,it is nice to have a champion who earned his title , game by game the whole qualification process .
Actually I agree to this.
For the same reason lets hope he busts Topa badly in their match.
I wonder what reasons do you have for that , and i hope it is not the match with Kamsky.
"...we have problems with one person there, who is trying to damage our reputation for years."
Only two problems with a possible Silvio defamation suit against Frederic:
1) Truth is a defense.
2) It's virtually impossible to damage Silvio's reputation.
Frederic is a great responsable for my symphaty for Topalov , the way chessbase took part in the conflict was really disgusting.
Would you care to cite these "really disgusting" chessbase entries, manu, or are you just twit-flitting?
Frederic duly reported Topalov and Danailov's conduct and duly reported the reaction of GMs around the world.
You should ask things in a nicer way ,greg.
Hmm, the Delchev-Hikamura game parses properly at http://www.horsensskakforening.dk/meme/makegameurl.html only if you change black's 31st move to f1Q instead of f1=Q.
Manu, would you kindly supply the evidence for your assertion? Thanks.
I already posted here about chessbase and the Elista aftermath , i wont do it again .
But i guess the report from the video taken on Danailov is a nice example of low level defamation ,there are many more examples , do your own work greg.
I will ask you this cat:
Do you have any doubts that the Short-Cheparinov handshake scandal was orchestrated?
Do you remember that before that Morozevich refused to shake Topalovs hand?
Do you remember the chessbase article on Short stating that something sinister happened in San Luis? I remember chessbase re writting the title because they went even further than Shorts assertions...
Pls Cat , i consider you a clever person , i understand if you agree with chessbase but dont tell me that they arent biased against Topa...
Are you insinuating that Friedel was behind Short's actions? Sounds rather far-fetched.
Or those of Morozevich? Ditto. These guys made up their own minds.
Just like for those who accuse Topalov of cheating, what is required is solid proof. What you need to provide is at least one example of Chessbase reporting in which it can be proven that Friedel deviated from the objective truth in order to blacken Topalov's name. If the situation is as you say it is then this should be easy to do.
Otherwise it's just slander, pretty much.
Im sorry but if you dont consider the article on Danailov´s video a little biased i will have to remove you to the clever list.
I can survive off your clever list, I think, although my ego will be severely bruised. Just think of me as a little slow and post the precise lines for which you allege bias, and/or a link. Maybe then we can nail this eternal topic into its coffin. All I'm asking for is precise proof, I neither accept nor deny what you say.
I never really understood what distinguishes the Rat from the Modern Defense. Can someone enlighten me, please? Is Nakamura playing stuff that is Suttles specific, stuff that is somehow clearly different from the usual Modern melange?
I always had the idea, somehow, that the "Rat" was just a fun, counter-cultural, hippie kind of name applied to the Modern when played by Suttles.
"Just saying ,it is nice to have a champion who earned his title , game by game the whole qualification process".
So "corruption" for you means Kramnik accepting Kasparov's offer of a match, and then defending his match title in 3 title matches. Seems a bit harsh, but glad you cleared it up.
¨So "corruption" for you means Kramnik accepting Kasparov's offer of a match, and then defending his match title in 3 title matches. Seems a bit harsh, but glad you cleared it up. ¨
You mean in 2 title matches , dont you?
And yes it can be considered that there was different types of corruption in the way Kramnik obteined and defended his title .
@my clever list :)
If you want me to quote Friedel writing that Topa is a cheater i wont be able to do it, but in spite your effors i still consider you clever enough to understand that press petiness is more about the way you present the facts.
Airing defamative statements like Short´s opinions, or the the Danailov signaling video, is a way of slander too.
I wont make a research monograph on press interpretation , i had my share of working in journalism and it is my opinion that chessbase had it coming since long ago.
In many ways they served as platform for Topa bashers and they worked as Kramnik propaganda having business with him over the years , why is so dificult for you to accept this?
Their bias is so strong that sometimes it manifest in the more childish ways.
For example ,look through the thumbnails of the Topalov-Kamsky match .Only pictures of Kamsky appears (the round he won).Isnt that weird ? The guy won a shot to the title and you dont post a picture? Pathetic.
Kmon cat , i dont want you to agree with me but please dont insult me saying that im making this up, it is very clear that chessbase was never neutral in the Topa-Kramnik conflict.
Topalov came off looking bad in every single report I read (other than those written in Bulagaria) on his match with Kramnik. No bias was required.
Even Danailov realizes that the actions of the Topalov team were disastrous. Didn't he say somewhere recently that they had learned from their mistakes? Fans should do the same and stop making baseless accusations.
I didn't ask for any "cheater" quotes, I asked for clear evidence of bias, and nothing about thumbnails. Out with the evidence, man, if they are so biased there should be no shortage of material for you. Your defence that "it is obvious" without giving the hard stuff doesn't match your heated defence of Topalov against cheating allegations-there you demand evidence, and rightly so.
You've shifted from an extensive Friedel campaign to "press pettiness".
Excuse the language, not meant to offend, but a good expression in English is:
put up or shut up.
Before this topic has us all frothing at the mouth.
Manu,
I am an instinctive Topalovite and even I was appalled by his team's antics during the match with Kramnik. Topalov rightly earned the derision of many fans by making petulant and baseless allegations of cheating. It matters not that he himself had previously been similarly treated by various people, including people close to Kramnik.You don't go robbing other people because you have been a burglary victim yourself. I hope Topalov's reputation can be repaired because he's such a great player and, by most accounts, a nice guy.
The silence has clearly been broken ... while I have only scanned what's been written in the last 7 hours, it makes me wonder if Topalov played in the French team championship ... .
If yes, why did neither Dailydirt nor Cheevibes publish any of his games?
If no, what is the relationship of the recent posts (excluding r's at 9:12AM)with the current thread "French Team Spirit"? ,:)
Thomas, I assume that your questions was rhetorical. But in the off-chance that it wasn't, you've been around long enough to know that the three most polarizing words on this blog are: Kasparov, Topalov, and Kramnik. As soon as one is mentioned by a poster (and especially if two are mentioned in the same post) all hell breaks loose here.
Otherwise articulate, (seemingly) erudite posters shed their objectivity and for the umpteenth time share their biases. Facts become scarce and those that appear are used as weapons.
Responders interpret every syllable and punctuation mark in light of their own biases. And the beat goes on ... and on ... and on ...
¨didn't ask for any "cheater" quotes, I asked for clear evidence of bias, ¨
Publishing ridiculous acusations against a player while he is playing a tournament is a clearly biased act . Especially if the video evidence you are echoing is from a different event.
¨You've shifted from an extensive Friedel campaign to "press pettiness".¨
I did not , the examples i mentioned provide a wide range from pettiness (thumbnails example) to clear press manouvers (Short´s ridiculos statements , handshakes , videos of Danailov cheating etc).
¨Excuse the language, not meant to offend, but a good expression in English is:
put up or shut up.¨
I have another good expression for you , go ¨¨yourself.
Curmudgeon,
Sorry, but I'll take offence at your "sensible" opinion. The truth isn't somewhere in the middle here and both sides don't have a reasonable case. It's fine to keep an open mind, but not so open that the brains fall out, as someone once said.
Objectively Danailov and Topalov behaved appallingly in Elista (and since in repeating false accusations). Perhaps 95% of the chess community realises that. It's not really reflected here because there are a few vociferous Danailov supporters who constantly try to muddy the waters and deflect blame from their guy.
Similarly with the Chessbase thing, if you actually look through the articles you'll find nothing unusual. Chessbase republish stories they find about chess, as any chess news service would. The Danailov signalling one was in a serious German newspaper - Short's comments were carried by various papers, but the main one quoted was Indian, I think (yep, those Indians and their vendetta against the Bulgarians).
The statements that have most harmed Topalov's reputation are the interviews and press releases of himself and Danailov.
For what it's worth:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3633
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3649
"You mean in 2 title matches , dont you?"
It's hard to lose a match title in a tournament, so you could say he was defending in 3 matches. He certainly played in 3 title matches after beating Kasparov, in any case.
"And yes it can be considered that there was different types of corruption in the way Kramnik obteined and defended his title."
It's absurd to use a word like "corruption" either for how Kramnik won the title or how he went about defending it. You can argue about systems, matches, tournaments, regulations and so on, but your use of that word is contemptible.
Well, it's nice at least that rationality and restraint have had the last word.
"Publishing ridiculous acusations against a player while he is playing a tournament is a clearly biased act ". I guess the irony here does not even strike you. As the rest, it speaks for itself, no more attempts from me to calmly debate with you, a wholly thankless task.
¨I guess the irony here does not even strike you¨
¨no more attempts from me to calmly debate with you, a wholly thankless task.¨
Ironic would be that you attack me on one sentence and cry like a baby in the next pharagraph.
Politeness of speach doesnt worth nothing while you acuse a person of slander .
Please someone answer r's question above, and lets leave these other topics alone. I also want to know if The Rat = The Modern Defense, or is it a special Duncan Suttles flavor, or what.
Manu (and others here, but lately, especially you) have you ever considered that you don't have to answer and defend every remark you don't like? Sometimes, just let things go. Gosh we know your opinion, having read it over 100 times now.
Be aware - You play a role in the popularity or lack thereof of Mig's blog. If you like seeing important people like Shirov comment here occasionally, and if you enjoy the high level discussions about chess, please realize that you drive these people away, by constantly, constantly, constantly, constantly, rehashing the same old arguments about who is likable or not and why. Jeez. Just because someone replies to a point you make, doesn't mean you are obliged to reply, over and over, with the same old, same old opinions. We know your opinions. Let it go.
¨Be aware - You play a role in the popularity or lack thereof of Mig's blog. If you like seeing important people like Shirov comment here occasionally, and if you enjoy the high level discussions about chess, please realize that you drive these people away, by constantly, constantly, rehashing the same old arguments about who is likable or not and why¨
I dont play any role in the popularity or lack there of Mig´s blog , and as much as i admire and like Shirov´s writting (and play)i dont consider him an ¨important person¨ , at least not more important than you or me or greg or etc.
I understand how you feel about this, but you have to consider that the interview that started the argument is a valid up to date topic.
Having said that , i couldnt care less what is that you consider boring or not ,or why is that you consider your self a less important person than Alexei.Dont read me.
Saguni and red-white, thanks very much.
I think your appeal will fall on deaf ears. Some people have a compulsion to post and probably confuse quantity with quality.
Dear r,
1.Good Evening: , the biggest difference between the Modern and the Robatsch is the name. Keene and Botterill suggested the name "Modern Defense" in their seminal and still useful early Seventies book The Modern Defense. Previously it had been known as Irregular, Robatsch, and even Mongredian Defense. The authors felt that the recent treatment of the defense was so unlike anything that had been played before that it deserved a new name.
2. your handle is too short
Sorry, I just can't help myself. The monkey's are flinging poo again...
And you are looking to the sky with your mouth wide open thinking how will this afect your diet.
Thank-you Hardy Berger, for an interesting and informative answer about the Modern Defense and its name.
>Publishing ridiculous acusations against a player while he is playing a tournament is a clearly biased act .
Does this apply to matches as well?!
Of course.
Hey, Hardy, thanks. I remember that Modern book. Those were the days, huh, when people read opening books!
But that still doesn't explain the "Rat."
Looking around a little online, I see various things called the Rat, including:
1. d4 d6
2. c4 e5
which I don't think is the Rat and has been used by Tal and Kasparov as black.
Also:
1. d4 d6
2. e4 f5
which I don't think was a Duncan Suttles thing.
So I don't know. I'm thinking that "Rat" is just synonymous with "Modern," sort of an affectionate nickname for the whole Modern/Robatsch/Pirc complex.
If my handle were any longer I'd be instantly identifiable and lionized by chess fans worldwide. :-)
From what I recall of an article on Suttles by Hans Ree in NIC and also of a book on Skopje Olympiad, Suttle's "Rat" specifically involves lines of Modern Defence where black goes Nh6.
So Naka's (long-delayed) development of Nf6 doesn't qualify as the Rat proper. But Mig is saying that Naka's unusual treatment of the Modern is in Suttles' tradition and belongs to the same genus if not the same species.
Frederic is a businessman who sells chess products and publishes chess news. Its certainly not in his interest to go out of his way to antagonize any potential customers.
There can be no more absurd and ridiculous allegations than those made by Topalov and Danailov at Elista. But it never occurred to even the most partisan Kramnik fans to criticize Chessbase for publishing them, which Frederic did, not because he hates Kramnik but because they were news.
Cheating allegations against Topalov are also news, and every chess publication in the world, including those in Bulgaria, publishes them.
The problem is not that Chessbase is unfair. The problem is that an accurate report on a couple of clowns will necessarily represent them as a couple of clowns.
How would you suggest that Chessbase report Topalov's suspicion (that Kramnik was assisted by chess-retarded FSB agents) WITHOUT making Topalov look like a clown?
I wonder if there's room for standardization of chess opening names. There seems to be confusion when various authors invent all sorts of names and we end up with unintended synonyms. Perhaps FIDE could take a lead on this?
Greg:
Everybody is tired of this , and i probably already answered that one another time , and you probably didnt find my answer satisfactory .
Clowns seems to represent something terrible for you , probably something happened in that circus.
Deaddevil is right. The article in question is in NIC 2008/3. Aparently "The Rat" is just 1..., g6 according to Canadians. No special variants or anything else. There's, however, a set of rules by Suttles on how to play the opening. Almost as Nimzovitch: 1 d4, g6. 2 c4? (weakens d4) Bg7. 3 Nc3, d6. 4 e4? (and now d4 is terminally weak), Nc6. Black's Nf6 disrupts the bishop and possibly the Queen sortie to h4, as well as the pawn push f5. As they say, don't try this at home! The article is very good, and is referred to "Chess on the Edge" by Harper and Seirawan, a 3 volume monument to the chess of Duncan Suttles. His play is certainly Nakamurian, no wonder it inspired him.
PS On a lighter note, I would also say, DNFTT
I know it's silly to take them seriously, but in this case "The Great Silvio" and manu are right; Frederic does publish chess news...the scoundrel!
But what of the dreaded Chessbase thumbnails?
"For example, look through the thumbnails of the Topalov-Kamsky match. Only pictures of Kamsky appears (the round he won). Isnt that weird? The guy won a shot to the title and you dont post a picture? Pathetic."
--In fact, Chessbase published one photo of Topalov and one of Kamsky.
http://www.chessbase.com/eventlist.asp?eventname=FIDE%20Candidates%20Sofia
--And on top of each round's report, Chessbase posted a photo of...Kamsky and Topalov.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5215
Pathetic indeed.
Note that the picture is from a previous interview , i was talking about the match and you know it , grow up .
Remember when i said that chessbase will not be forgiven by the Bulgarian camp? , well it is happening and i agree with them , thats all i will say about this 4now.
But stop it, Greg , if i start answering u people complains and costumers leave without a single tip for poor tj .
Yes, now that you mention it, Chessbase published a pre-match interview with Topalov...but not Kamsky.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5207
So much for the thumbnail conspiracy theory, but Frederic's still guilty of publishing chess news.
Manu, maybe you should stop dragging things off-topic and we wouldn't have to read the same things every day.
I also dragged Kramnik´s interview and didnt post anything about it, it takes 2 to tango MD, you cant blame one person for an argument in which a bunch of people participated.
Unless... but sure it is not your case.
I think that about that time they werent aware that the Bulgarian camp was calling the shots with the copyright story.
When that happened i instantly remebered the movie ¨The Untouchables ¨, the scene when they paint ¨touchables¨ with blood in the wall.
But it doesnt matter anymore , enough of this,
peace.
MD,
manu has neither the patience nor the intellectual honesty to pursue any argument to conclusion. When the going gets tough, (as it always does for a follower of "the Great Silvio") this lightweight breaks off and flits away to start the whole thing over on another thread.
But then he doesn't really expect to persuade you of such manifest absurdities as Kramnik being assisted by chess-retarded FSB agents, or of such weak drivel as Chessbase being biased because it publishes chess news. Rather, by posting snarky, juvenile nonsense and drawing responses, manu (much like "the Great Silvio") does the best he can with a bad hand; he tries to create the impression that such subjects are "arguable."
"The monkey's are flinging poo again"
AAAAAAARRRGGGGHHHHHHH.
"Looking around a little online, I see various things called the Rat, including:
1. d4 d6
2. c4 e5
which I don't think is the Rat and has been used by Tal and Kasparov as black."
"R" you sure, R? I saw Kasparov use the d6/e5 setup, e.g. against Hübner, but against the English, i.e. c4/ Nc3 or g3, not the sequence you mentioned. If you don't mind mentioning the games, I'd be interested.
Greg, you are kind of missing the point. It doesn't matter if Manu has the "intellectual honesty to pursue any argument to the conclusion". If you guys *must* discuss topics that have been discussed 100's of times already, do it in the suitable posts.
Manu, you posted about an interview that has nothing to do with the French Team Championship. I came here to read about the French Team Championship, and I find the same drivel that gets posted in every other post. It's ridiculous that people have to read 60+ posts to get to anything remotely relating to the topic they clicked on.
Folks, Manu is an idiot/moron and a troll to boot. While he is guilty and his aruguments are stupid and unsubstantiated but also those who fall for his trolling (and particularly discuss topics not relevant to the post) are even more guilty. The best way to get rid of trolls is to ignore their insane/rabid rants and accusations.
Amen,
Kapalik
Thanks, everyone, for your erudite discussions of the "Rat." Very helpful. Daily Dirters are the best.
Chesshire--I'm sorry, I can't name the Kasparov game exactly. If my memory serves me, he played d4 d6, c4 e5 as black against a not-so-famous player and went on to win a very intricate K+P ending. I could be wrong. Maybe Mig will know? Maybe the Great Man himself can confirm my conjecture?
boz actually posted something new (at least new to me) with respect to the ongoing never-ending debate ... :
"Even Danailov realizes that the actions of the Topalov team were disastrous. Didn't he say somewhere recently that they had learned from their mistakes?"
Did he, really? If so, I would really, seriously appreciate if you can find the source - when, where and why [on his own initiative, or forced/encouraged to do so] ... .
I wasn't sure, Thomas, that's why I asked. Having found nothing on google, I conclude that my principle source was my own head. Not reliable.
Danailov did say in a chessdom interview that they had "learned a lot from Elista" but that's a far cry from admitting they made mistakes (especially off the board.
I clicked on the link to The Other Russia and got the following message from my McAfee internet software: "When we tested this site we found links to novayagazeta.ru, which we found to be a distributor of downloads some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs."
im too lazy to try to find the drugs debate forum
http://health.yahoo.com/experts/eatthis/31477/best-and-worst-brain-foods/
boz-
Danailov in an interview with Russian newspaper Sport Express: "Coming back to that match, I can say that there were no sides which were absolutely right or wrong there. A world championship match is a war. A lot of adrenalin. And we all fell victims of our emotions. I think we should forget the old mistakes and work for the good of chess." (translated at ChessToday and copied on SP's blog http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-super-manager-danailov.html
It sounds a lot like he is admitting they made mistakes off the board, but it is a far cry from an apology.
Uff da,
Yes, maybe that's what I quasi-remembered. Thanks.
I lived briefly in the Pacific Northwest in the early 70s, and the Rat was hugely in vogue. It was as described in one of the comments above: Black starts with ...g6, ...Bg7, .... d6, ....Nc6 and ...e5, while leaving his KN at home. If White answers ...e5 with d4-d5 - the usual response, I think - then after ...Nce7 Black can play ...f5 followed by ...Nf6 (or ...Nh6).
I associate this defense with the Canadians I bumped into back then (Harper and Biyasas, especially). Must have seen it in numerous blitz games, though having never been a 1.d4 player I never had to face it myself. After watching many games I had the impression it was a sound and well-founded defense.
One thing that should be clear from the above is that Delchev-Nakamura isn't a Rat or anything like it - rather it's a normal line in the Modern.
The kinds of pawn structures and piece play that emerge from e4-d4-f4 setups like Delchev adopted are entirely different from the King's Indian-like structures (sans ...Nf6 of course) one gets from the Rat. See the chapter on the Modern in Alburt & Chernin's Pirc Alert, or any book on the Modern Defense.