r1bqkb1r/ppp5/3p1nn1/2PPp2p/4Pp2/1NN2Pp1/PP2BBPP/2RQK2R w Kkq - 0 16

In this position Cottrel played Bg1. What's wrong with hxg3? I don't see any
immediate attacks by Black.

Comments welcome.

Unless there is some controvery involved...


"John J." wrote in message
. ..
r1bqkb1r/ppp5/3p1nn1/2PPp2p/4Pp2/1NN2Pp1/PP2BBPP/2RQK2R w Kkq - 0 16

In this position Cottrel played Bg1. What's wrong with hxg3? I don't see
any immediate attacks by Black.

Comments welcome.

John J. wrote:
r1bqkb1r/ppp5/3p1nn1/2PPp2p/4Pp2/1NN2Pp1/PP2BBPP/2RQK2R w Kkq - 0 16

In this position Cottrel played Bg1. What's wrong with hxg3? I don't see any
immediate attacks by Black.

The basic difference is that f4 becomes available to the black knights
after hxg3 fxg3 or Lh6. I can't say if that's enough for the pawn. Do
you have a game score? Looking for masters games in this variation may
help in the evaluation.

Cottrel also doesn't appear on FIDE's Elo list. It may be that he (or
she?) doesn't have an Elo which might also be an explanation.

Claus-Juergen

It doesn't matter who the player is. Heck, he could have looked it up on the
USCF site.

Folks got all worked up because I posted a crticism of a badly played
opening. You know what? If it were me playing I would expect the same. I
don't believe in having a condecending attitude towards a player just
because that player is a woman. If that player plyed like a 1000 ELO player,
I will say so.

The above question was a sincere quest for opinions yet yo want to twist it
around. I could be as rude as you are but i won't. it seems you're reading
more into the post than anyone else. Stop being so judgemental.

If you have nothing positive to contribute to the post why even bother? Did
you even try to analise the position?

I'm done.
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Claus-Jürgen Heigl wrote:
John J. wrote:
r1bqkb1r/ppp5/3p1nn1/2PPp2p/4Pp2/1NN2Pp1/PP2BBPP/2RQK2R w Kkq - 0 16

In this position Cottrel played Bg1. What's wrong with hxg3?
I don't see any immediate attacks by Black.

The basic difference is that f4 becomes available to the black knights
after hxg3 fxg3 or Lh6. I can't say if that's enough for the pawn.
Do you have a game score? Looking for masters games in this
variation may help in the evaluation.

Cottrel also doesn't appear on FIDE's Elo list. It may be that he
(or she?) doesn't have an Elo which might also be an explanation.

1) Her name is Kelly Cottrell-Finegold. (John J. misspelled it.)

2) Kelly Cottrell has a FIDE rating of 1887.

3) Kelly Cottrell has a USCF rating of 1717
(her last published USCF rating is 1663).

4) By the way, she is married to IM Ben Finegold.

John J. already has shown that he's a careless writer who tends to
post without being clear enough in his writing or careful enough with
his facts.

In rec.games.chess.misc, John J. created a thread, "What's
with the Class B rated player", apparently in order to criticise
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold for playing in the 2006 US Championship.
Please read my posts in that RGCM thread if you are interested in
factually accurate comments about Kelly Cottrell-Finegold's rating.

In rec.games.chess.misc, John J. created a thread, "How
not to play the Benko Gambit", apparently in order to ridicule
how Kelly Cottrell-Finegold lost a game to IM Dmitry Schneider.
Some other writers in that thread took exception to John J's
comments about Kelly Cottrell-Finegold.

--Nick

You can find all of the games he http://www.uschesschampionship.com/

Besides the game in question I think the Rd 9 Nakamura game is very
exciting.

"Claus-Jürgen Heigl" wrote in message
...
John J. wrote:
r1bqkb1r/ppp5/3p1nn1/2PPp2p/4Pp2/1NN2Pp1/PP2BBPP/2RQK2R w Kkq - 0 16

In this position Cottrel played Bg1. What's wrong with hxg3? I don't see
any immediate attacks by Black.

The basic difference is that f4 becomes available to the black knights
after hxg3 fxg3 or Lh6. I can't say if that's enough for the pawn. Do you
have a game score? Looking for masters games in this variation may help in
the evaluation.

Cottrel also doesn't appear on FIDE's Elo list. It may be that he (or
she?) doesn't have an Elo which might also be an explanation.

Claus-Juergen

John J. wrote:
You can find all of the games he http://www.uschesschampionship.com/

[Event "United States Championship 2006"]
[Site "San Diego USA"]
[Date "2006.03.05"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Cottrell, K."]
[Black "Epstein, E."]
[WhiteElo "1887"]
[BlackElo "2178"]
[ECO "A42"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 Nc6 5. Be3 e5 6. d5 Nce7
7. Bd3 f5 8. f3 Nf6 9. Nge2 f4 10. Bf2 g5 11. Nc1 Ng6 12. c5 g4
13. Be2 h5 14. Nb3 Bf8 15. Rc1 g3 16. Bg1 Nh4 17. Bf1 gxh2 18. Rxh2 Nd7
19. Bf2 Ng6 20. cxd6 Bxd6 21. Nb5 Nb6 22. Nxd6+ cxd6
23. Nd2 h4 24. Qb3 O-O 25. Nc4 Nxc4 26. Bxc4 Rf7 27. Qd1
Bd7 28. Kf1 b5 29. Bb3 a5 30. Qe1 Rh7 31. Bd1 b4 32. Be2
Qg5 33. Bd1 h3 34. gxh3 Bxh3+ 35. Ke2 Bf1+ 36. Qxf1 Rxh2
37. Kd3 Qg2 38. Qxg2 Rxg2 39. Rc2 Kf7 40. Rc7+ Kf6 41. Rc2
Rh8 42. Re2 Rh1 43. Ba4 Rhh2 44. Rc2 Rxf2 45. Rc6 Rxf3+
46. Kc4 Rxb2 47. Rxd6+ Kg5 48. Re6 Rc3+ 49. Kb5 f3 50. Kb6
f2 51. Bb5 Rc1 52. d6 f1=Q 53. Bxf1 Rxf1 54. Kxa5 Rd1
55. Kb5 Rd4 56. Kc5 Rc2+ 57. Kb5 Rxa2 58. Kc6 Ra6+ 59. Kc5
Rdxd6 60. Re8 b3 61. Rb8 Rac6+ 62. Kb5 b2 63. Ka5 Ra6+
64. Kb4 b1=Q+ 65. Kc4 Rac6# 0-1

11. Nc1 is a very interesting plan. The idea is to help defend f3 with
the bishop and use the knight on an attack on the queenside. This is in
fact a new plan that hasn't been tried in this variation before. The
other plans involve either g4 to block the black pawns on the kingside
or to prepare for 0-0-0. 11. g4 is too late here as Black has a good
game after 11...h5 12. gxh5 g4.

14. Qa4+ Bd7 15. Qb4 Qb8 16. Nb3 was a good alternative of the white
plan. The knight is aiming for a5. Black is under severe pressure on the
queenside and center (d6) while his advance on the kingside has been
stalled. Although Nb3 is also very good.

14...Bf8 is a clear sign that the black opening has failed. Maybe Black
was better off to so seek counterchances quickly with Rg8. Bf8 doesn't
do much to relieve Black of his problems.

15. Rc1 White wants more pieces to participate in his attack but this is
not the sharpest. After 15. Na5! with the idea Qb3 Black crumples on the
queenside. 15...dxc5 16. Qb3 and now 16...Rb8 17. Nc6 or 16...b6 17. Nc6
Qd6 18. 0-0-0 Bg7 19. Nb5 Qd7 20. d6 show the problems Black is in.

15...g3 is a desperate attempt at complications as Black is totally
outplayed.

16. Bg1 White could take the pawn but wants to minimize tactical
complications as she has an opponent who is likely stronger in her
tactical abilities. Objectively 16. hxg3 should be the better move, but
Bg1 keeps the positional advantage as Black doesn't have much on the
kingside while White is still very strong on the queenside.

18. Rxh2 is a good decision. Castling is out of the question anyway.
This move protects g2 and prepares for a later doubling of the rooks on
the h-file. The black h-pawn doesn't look strong now.

18...Nb6 Black sure isn't happy with his knights. Still, Nf6 looks
better because the effect of this knight on the queenside is exactly
zero. Later the knight could help defend d6 and c7 on e8. Perhaps Black
didn't like to block options for his queen on the diagonal d8-h4.

23. Nd2 White has played well so far but now begins to slip. Na5
paralyzes Black on the queenside. After that Black can only watch if
White rather attacks on the c or h file with the weakness d6 to boot.

25. Nc4 is another step from the right way. All the Nb6 does is stand in
the way of Black. White could tighten the screws with 25. a4 plan a5,
Nc4, Qa3, Bd3, Ke2, Rch1. The pressure intensifies with every move.

26...Rf7 is a good move which combines attack and defense. The rook
defends the queenside and is ready to be deployed on the h or g file.

27. Qd1 is a bad move which lets up the pressure and gives Black the
time to finally develop his queenside. A good plan was Ke2, Rch1, Qb4,
then to push for b6 preparing to invade on c7. Black might try the pawn
sacrifice 27. Ke2 Bd7 28. Qxb7 Rb8 which would be her best chance.

28. Kf1 White doesn't see what's coming. b4 would have countered any
black advance on the queenside and kept a small advantage because of the
weakness of h4.

29. Bb3 White should keep the diagonal a6-f1 under her control. After
Bd3 and Ke2 nothing can happen to White. White should still have a small
advantage because c6 and d6 are weak and White controls the c-file. If
Black tries to get rid of his h pawn with h3, White seeks to trade a
rook and the queen and the bishops pair becomes a factor.

30. Qe1 now White begins to hammer nails in her own coffin. The threat
is easily disposed as Black wants his rook on the h file anyway and e1
is blocked as a flight square for the king.

32...Qg5. Black wins with h3. White gets a last chance to remove the
queen from e1 which she doesn't use.

33. Bd1. White fails to see the tactic that follows. Qd2 and Black has
nothing, as impressive as her kingside deployment looks. After Bd1 White
is finally lost.

Overall I think White played a pretty good game if only she could have
kept up with later. Black played a horrible opening and was lucky to
escape but then White's mistakes added up and Black could score the point.

Claus-Juergen

John J. wrote:
It doesn't matter who the player is.

That comment by John J. seems characteristic
of his lack of concern with factual accuracy.

Heck, he could have looked it up on the USCF site.

Evidently, Claus-Juergen Heigl attempted to look up 'Cottrel'
(sic, the name given by John J.) at the FIDE website,
and he failed to find any such player. So some of
Claus-Juergen Heigl's time was wasted.

John J. fails to appreciate that, as a writer, he should attempt
to make things easier for readers by taking more care to be
factually accurate (including spelling names correctly).

Folks got all worked up because I posted
a crticism of a badly played opening.

That's John J's disingenuous 'spin' on the responses to
his comments against Kelly Cottrell-Finegold in RGCM.

As far as I can tell, some writers evidently construed
John J's comments as a kind of personal attack against
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold and regarded his behaviour as
rude and offensive.

Here's what Taylor Kingston wrote in RGCM to criticise
John J. for his comments about Kelly Cottrell-Finegold.

"Quit picking on the girl."
--Taylor Kingston (writing to John J.)

"But I think it's in poor taste (for John J.) to ridicule
her play here publicly."
--Taylor Kingston (writing to John J.)

David Richerby also apparently took some exception
to John J's comments against Kelly Cottrell-Finegold.

You know what? If it were me playing I would expect the same.
I don't believe in having a condecending attitude towards a player
just because that player is a woman.

Here's what John J. wrote against Kelly Cottrell-Finegold
in rec.games.chess.misc:

"Affirmative Action at work. lol"
--John J. (2 March 2006)

Would John J. have written such a sneering put-down if
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold had been a white male American?

If that player plyed like a 1000 ELO player, I will say so.
The above question was a sincere quest for opinions yet
yo want to twist it around. I could be as rude as you are
but i won't.

For the benefit of readers in RGCA, I have pointed out
some evidence of John J's rude and offensive behaviour
against Kelly Cottrell-Finegold in RGCM, which may
reveal something of his motives in writing about her.

it seems you're reading more into the post than
anyone else. Stop being so judgemental.

John J. already has quite a record of writing nonsense
in rec.games.chess.misc, and I (and I have not been the
only writer who's been doing that) have the right to point
out that it's nonsense.

If you have nothing positive to contribute to the post why
even bother? Did you even try to analise the position?

No, I did not 'even try to *analise* (sic) the position'.
I have no reason whatsoever to help John J. in particular
improve his comprehension of chess.

I'm done.

John J. usually warrants no response beyond disdain.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Claus-Jürgen Heigl wrote:
John J. wrote:
r1bqkb1r/ppp5/3p1nn1/2PPp2p/4Pp2/1NN2Pp1/PP2BBPP/2RQK2R w Kkq - 0 16

In this position Cottrel played Bg1. What's wrong with hxg3?
I don't see any immediate attacks by Black.

The basic difference is that f4 becomes available to the black knights
after hxg3 fxg3 or Lh6. I can't say if that's enough for the pawn.
Do you have a game score? Looking for masters games in this
variation may help in the evaluation.

Cottrel also doesn't appear on FIDE's Elo list. It may be that he
(or she?) doesn't have an Elo which might also be an explanation.

1) Her name is Kelly Cottrell-Finegold. (John J. misspelled it.)

2) Kelly Cottrell has a FIDE rating of 1887.

3) Kelly Cottrell has a USCF rating of 1717
(her last published USCF rating is 1663).

4) By the way, she is married to IM Ben Finegold.

John J. already has shown that he's a careless writer who tends to
post without being clear enough in his writing or careful enough with
his facts.

In rec.games.chess.misc, John J. created a thread, "What's
with the Class B rated player", apparently in order to criticise
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold for playing in the 2006 US Championship.
Please read my posts in that RGCM thread if you are interested in
factually accurate comments about Kelly Cottrell-Finegold's rating.

In rec.games.chess.misc, John J. created a thread, "How
not to play the Benko Gambit", apparently in order to ridicule
how Kelly Cottrell-Finegold lost a game to IM Dmitry Schneider.
Some other writers in that thread took exception to John J's
comments about Kelly Cottrell-Finegold.

--Nick

Unless there is some controvery involved...

Why would I comment on the games of a B-player who played for the US Title?

That's a travesty.

Nick wrote:
(snipped)
I have no reason whatsoever to help John J. in
particular improve his comprehension of chess.

A friend (who's rated 2100+ in correspondence chess)
of mine often has asked me (he regards me as a much
stronger player) for my advice and analysis about chess.
And I have given freely of it. If he were a stranger, however,
then I would expect some compensation for my time.

--Nick

Why would anyone want your opinion in light of :

http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6050667.html?tag=tb