On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:30:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:

Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
Liberzon, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 ½-½, 34
P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
Fischer, Mar del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, ½-½, 27
Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,½-½, 21
Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, ½-½, 41
Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, ½-½, 45
Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
Bronstein, Moscow 1971, ½-½, 18
Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, ½-½, 74
Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, ½-½, 13
Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
J. Martinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
A. David, France, 1993, ½-½, 60
Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, ½-½, 25
Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, ½-½, 34
Fressinet, France, 2001, ½-½, 23
Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, ½-½, 14

This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.


Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:30:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:

Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
Liberzon, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 ½-½, 34
P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
Fischer, Mar del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, ½-½, 27
Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,½-½, 21
Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, ½-½, 41
Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, ½-½, 45
Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
Bronstein, Moscow 1971, ½-½, 18
Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, ½-½, 74
Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, ½-½, 13
Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
J. Martinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
A. David, France, 1993, ½-½, 60
Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, ½-½, 25
Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, ½-½, 34
Fressinet, France, 2001, ½-½, 23
Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, ½-½, 14

This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.


Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings? and will Mike
Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at all.

The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein après
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all draws
with him as White?

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

Phil Innes

On Mar 26, 6:04*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:30:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

*To inject some statistics into this discussion, here is a list of
all games on the CB Megadatabase 2005 in which Spassky played the
King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) as White. I give the name of his
opponent, the event and date, the result, and the number of moves:

Averbakh, 22nd USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 1-0, 29
Bronstein, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 23
Y. Sakharov, 27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 1-0, 30
Liberzon, *27th USSR Ch, Leningrad 1960 ½-½, 34
P. Gibbs, event? 1960 1-0, 25
P. Tumurbator, event? 1960, 1-0 37
Fischer, Mar del Plata 1960, 1-0, 29
Najdorf, Varna Olympiad 1962, ½-½, 27
Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962, 1-0, 37
Novopashin, 30th USSR Ch, Yerevan 1962,½-½, 21
Matanovic, Belgrade 1964, ½-½, 41
Krogius, Chigorin Memorial 1964, ½-½, 45
Kholmov, 31st USSR Ch playoff, 1964, 1-0, 25
Portisch, Budapest 1967, 1-0, 56
Bronstein, Moscow 1971, ½-½, 18
Ornstein, Nice Olympiad 1974, ½-½, 74
Pytel, Nice Olympiad 1974, 1-0, 39
Karpov, exhibition, Hamburg, 1982, 1-0, 84
Hermann, Bundesliga, 1985, 1-0, 31
Rivas Pastor, Linares 1985, ½-½, 13
Seirawan, Candidates Tournament 1985, 1-0, 32
Susan Polgar, Wellington 1988, 1-0, 42
J. Martinez, Oviedo rapid 1991, 1-0, 25
A. David, France, 1993, ½-½, 60
Xie Jun, Veterans-vs-Women 1994, ½-½, 25
Korchnoi, St. Petersburg rapid 1999, ½-½, 34
Fressinet, France, 2001, ½-½, 23
Adamapoulos, simul, Kalamata, 2002, ½-½, 14

*This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.

Hmmm. *Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? *If I were a
bettin' man, *I know where I'd put my money.

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me

I just want to say that I am taking no side or part in the Innes-
Murray-Helpbot argument over the importance of the KG as part of
Spassky's opening repertoire. I just wanted to supply some stats about
his record with it; others may interpret as they see fit.
One caveat: the ChessBase data may not be complete or entirely
accurate.

- that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings? and will Mike
Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at all.

The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein après
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all draws
with him as White?

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 26, 8:30 am, wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:41 pm, help bot wrote:

The key term "here" clearly specified that
what was being discussed was the exact
paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
this thread -- not the book. LOL!

So then you condemn a whole book because of one paragraph!


Actually, my "condemnation" was based on
the knowledge that this book is hopelessly
out-of-date (i.e. see my comment regarding
descriptive notation), along with the fact that
"Albert" could not understand why Dr. Fine's
comments made no apparent sense. You
see, a /good writer/ would not just gloss over
such things as *why* Black must end up with
a pawn at d6, for instance. In a sense, GM
Fine was writing as though his readers were
on a much higher level than in reality; he
simply assumed automatic understanding of
such things as this, along with his rather
dogmatic use of terms like "normal" and
"natural" with regard to classical piece
development; one gets the feeling that
hypermodern piece development must
therefore be "abnormal", "unnatural"-- like
zombies, necrophilia, or killer space aliens.


My view is that modern writers, like Yasser
Seirawan for instance, discuss the same ideas
in a superior way; that is, in algebraic notation
and without any hopelessly outdated notions
regarding "normality", nor overestimating the
readers by a wide margin. I also like the fact
that thus far, not one author has deemed it
necessary or profitable to compile an entire
book based on corrections to GM Seirawan's
multitudinous errors; not so with GM Fine!
(That was of course Basic Chess Endings,
not Ideas Behind the Chess Openings,
which gets rave reviews by nostalgic old
fogies.)


I would suggest that if there are other parts
of the book that TK wishes to discuss, he
should quote a few lines here, like "Albert"
did.

As for entire books, I can say this: I
didn't particularly like Jose Capablanca's,
Emanuel Lasker's, or Dr. Fine's, even though
I have no trouble reading descriptive notation;
to me, these guys are simply too arrogant or
too far above everyone else to really be good
instructors for beginners/intermediates-- their
target audience. I hate to admit it, but Bruce
Pandolfini's The ABCs of Chess was *far*
superior in that respect. My theory is that
something happens to people when they get
/really good/ at chess; they morph into
arrogant, self-worshiping nutters. Thank
goodness that could never happen to me; I
can't even recall my own pet lines at the
chess board, with the clock ticking... .


-- help bot

On Mar 26, 8:50 am, "Chess One" wrote:

**people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
opinions.
It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably
no
inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.

A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
*not* limited in his success with the King's
Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
most famous wins include one against
Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
seems to have had no particular limit
whatever here.

I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
statement.

Who said it was a singular instance?

To take your question literarally, you did.


It is really hard for me to try and explain
simple logic to a simpleton, but here goes:

My providing one example in no way
indicates that *only* one such example
exists! In fact, I leave it to those lucky
fellows who own super-duper-chess-base
to determine what's what here, as I am
at a huge disadvantage, having only the
internet, where people upload games at
random.


For those who are not lost in a fog of
ignorance, several such wins can quite
easily be located in a matter on minutes.
For instance, in addition to beating BF,
GM Spassky also nailed GM Bronstein
and GM Karpov with his King's Gambit.

Once!


Well, how many times have *you* beaten
those guys on the White side of the KG?
Zero-- that's how many. Look, in half the
games GM Spassky didn't even get White,
and there were a lot of draws.


The game with GM Bronstein reminded
me of the one with GM Fischer,

Which was in 1960! [Mar del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?


Okay, my computer was unconcerned by
this purported error, seeing Black as on top
all the way through until a single blunder at
the end. That's not to say it preferred ...c5,
but it simply considered White to be a pawn
down nonetheless.


in that
GM Spassky seemed to not be bothered
a bit by his "material shortage"; he just
played to win, which to his mind involved
direct attacks on the enemy King.

Yes - his other trademark was B x N on f6, and he made a living out of that
too.


Hmm. So, I could maybe become a great
player by simply switching to B-g5 and Bxf6! ?
(With my luck they would all reply to B-g5 with
....Ng8!! and go on to trap my Bishop....)


Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at the top level.

This /could/ explain why the wins I
found were not from his peak years, but
from those both before and afterward.

But then, that was in a database of
"uploaded" games which is undoubtedly
far from comprehensive.

And it
doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.

GM Karpov *was* at that level when he
lost to GM Spassky.

I think it is rejected because, after all,
Black has good winning chances too, and
nobody can understand what the heck is
really going on -- except Rybka and Fritz.


The closest *win* I found was against
GM Karpov, in 1982.

Spassky -Xie Jun, Monaco 1994 [Kieseritzky]
Spassky-Seirawan, Monpellier 1985, 1-0


I was referring to wins by Spassky as
White, in the King's Gambit, which exceeded
your set limit of 2500-2600. In other words, I
wanted to find B. Spassky-- G. Kasparov, 1-0,
in 16 moves from GM Kasparov's 2800 era; all I
found were two really big names, sans ratings,
and they were GM Karpov and GM Bronstein--
both world champion types. Offhand, I just
happen to know that in 1982, GM Karpov was
the world champ and he had a rating well
*above* your stated limit. True, BS probably
did not mind if AK knew a way to draw-- that's
a draw against the reigning world champ, for
him!


A better idea would be for someone with a
comprehensive games database to figure out
Boris Spassky's performance-rating as White
in the King's Gambit, let's say, decade by
decade since he ultimately morphed into a
mere 2500+ player.


I did not check to
see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
White in the King's Gambit. Let's see...
World Champion Karpov was rated what
back then? 2700ish? Oh-- did I mention
that he was the world champion? LOL!

Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear


I generally carry only one: a chess game
(or set), in a zip-up nylon bag which also
protects my roll-up vinyl chess board. I
am not into backgammon or checkers--
you can have 'em. ;D


- since
indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilised it much more.


Another interesting idea would be to see
how this opening has done overall-- all
results by all strong players. My guess is
that Black gets a lot of wins due to things
like neither player understanding what's
going on tactically (like Fritz does), and of
course, the extra gambit pawn.

When you consider that other openings
are "safer", there is a strong incentive to
chuck those openings in which Black can
score not only draws, but lots of wins as
well. In addition, the onus of justifying the
missing pawn is on White; this bothers
some people more than others.


This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying, since
if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still as
much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?


I have no idea. As I say, someone with a
comprehensive-style database could find
the answer. I usually resort to something
like www.chessgames.com, where people
upload their favorite games, seemingly at
random. For instance, while there might
be 100 games by Emory Tate, you will not
find *even one* by such talents as Larry
Parr, help bot, Phil Innes, nomorechess,
Rob Mitchell, or the inimitable VeniVidiVici.


But this is to escape help-not's own point, which was to challenge the d6
pawn and d4 being the only way.

My computer examined the famous
game GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer
from 1960, and rejected our man's
commentary from MSMG, saying:

"Black was just losing the whole time!
A pawn down, some interesting
complications, but nothing *I* couldn't
handle easily. Black tossed it away
by a single tactical blunder, and White
mopped up neatly." -- Fritz

You should make it clearer in the first place if it is help-bot or Fritz who
is offering opinions.

I think it is common knowledge that Fritz
is incapable of posting here without help.
By the same token, help bot is incapable
of comprehending what the heck is going
on in a King's Gambit without help from
Fritz. You're just a chronic complainer,
you are!


-- help bot

On Mar 26, 12:51 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

This is an overall record of +15 -0 =13. Surprising to me that
Spassky seems never to have lost with the KG in serious play. And his
opponents include Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer, Najdorf, Kholmov,
Portisch, Seirawan and Korchnoi, all-time greats every one.

Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.


I'm "all-in" on nearly-IMnes continuing to
bluster.

----------------------------------------------------------------

However, I would guess that in constructing
that database, "brilliant wins" were favored,
and there's a decent chance that some
losses by GM Spassky were simply omitted,
and maybe even some boring draws.

I believe that the fallen hero played quite a
few games in Europe, eventually dropping to
a low of somewhere around 2500 FIDE, and
it seems likely that he may have drawn more
than a few King's Gambits during that period,
even lost one or two. Somewhere out there
(no, I'm not leading into a song...) is a
database containing many more games by
Boris Spassky than just these few. (Heck,
maybe he just switched to being a die-hard
1.d4 player... ).


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 6:04 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me

I just want to say that I am taking no side or part in the Innes-
Murray-Helpbot argument over the importance of the KG as part of
Spassky's opening repertoire. I just wanted to supply some stats about
his record with it; others may interpret as they see fit.
One caveat: the ChessBase data may not be complete or entirely
accurate.

---

**No one is required to 'take sides' or 'interpret' what 12 games against
top GMs illustrate in a player's entire carear!

All that is illustrated here are the exceptions to the normal Spassky
repetoire against 2600+ players. That's what I wrote in the first place.

I am not dissing the KG at all, but initially stated that Spassky's trainers
strongly encouraged him to develop a much broader opening repetoire since
the KG was not going to be good enough to combat the top-tier - and Spassky
did - though serious study was not his metier.

Its interesting that in Cafferty's book, published 1972, there are 4 KGs
[some brilliant ones], and more than 100 other openings, and the long
forward by Leonard Barden makes the same point I did above - and cites
Krogius and also Ray Keene.

If USCF ever (a) find their own archives currently moldering in a
wharehouse, and (b) put them on line, then (c) a CL article 1970 has
extracts 'Portrait of a world champion', also published British Chess Mag,
May 1970, with interviewers, Krogius, Keene & Levy.

Barden's forward is very good on Boris's psychology, and the 'surprise
factor' of his opening repetoire- eg, playing the Marshall 3 times against
Tal, 'because' said Boris 'the Marshall is good enough to draw, which is all
I aimed at', and indeed Tal couldn't make headway against it.

His trainers were Tolush, then Zak then Bondarevsky, who seemed to
revitalise Boris after his year's ban from chess for 'underperformance' in
1961. Then Klaman knocked more sense into him and sharpened his play,
especially King attacks.

Spassky himself admitted he was a bit lazy, and indeed, would prefer reading
serious non-chess books, like Dostoyevski, eg - and personally I'm glad he
did, otherwise after similar struggles to Fischer's he would have lived half
his embittered, which was Fischer's fate for his devotion to chess and not
to his own maturity.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 8:50 am, "Chess One" wrote:

**people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
opinions.
It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is
probably
no
inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.

A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
*not* limited in his success with the King's
Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
most famous wins include one against
Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
seems to have had no particular limit
whatever here.

I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any 'whatever'
statement.

Who said it was a singular instance?

To take your question literarally, you did.


It is really hard for me to try and explain
simple logic to a simpleton, but here goes:

My providing one example in no way
indicates that *only* one such example
exists!

It illustrates that you argued from a single instance. And your subsequent
writing is now supplemented by Taylor Kingston's dozen references, which
include KGs played immediately before and after the W Ch match with Fischer,
both drawn, and the last 5 outings of the KG, all drawn.

In fact, I leave it to those lucky
fellows who own super-duper-chess-base
to determine what's what here, as I am
at a huge disadvantage, having only the
internet, where people upload games at
random.

And therefore your comments are random too. But you still make strong
statements about them, without knowing if they are typical or otherwise.

The game with GM Bronstein reminded
me of the one with GM Fischer,

Which was in 1960! [Mar del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?


Okay, my computer was unconcerned by
this purported error, seeing Black as on top
all the way through until a single blunder at
the end.

I mentioned this anecdote since it returns the subject to chess [and indeed
to our recently rehersed discussion if 1700 players can analyse as well as
GMs grin] and it provokes the issue if black's 11th move is actually
playable. It is interesting that your computer evaluation seems to think so.

That's not to say it preferred ...c5,
but it simply considered White to be a pawn
down nonetheless.

Yes - his other trademark was B x N on f6, and he made a living out of
that
too.


Hmm. So, I could maybe become a great
player by simply switching to B-g5 and Bxf6! ?
(With my luck they would all reply to B-g5 with
...Ng8!! and go on to trap my Bishop....)

BxN has to do with your willingness to invest in a King hunt.


And it
doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700 level, and we do not.

GM Karpov *was* at that level when he
lost to GM Spassky.

I think it is rejected because, after all,
Black has good winning chances too, and
nobody can understand what the heck is
really going on -- except Rybka and Fritz.

As above, perhaps some people can understand what's going on - Spassky
could! Which is why he didn't play the KG very much after he got good, since
it was too predictable and offered insufficient winning chances with white.

The closest *win* I found was against
GM Karpov, in 1982.

Spassky -Xie Jun, Monaco 1994 [Kieseritzky]
Spassky-Seirawan, Monpellier 1985, 1-0


I was referring to wins by Spassky as
White, in the King's Gambit, which exceeded
your set limit of 2500-2600. In other words, I
wanted to find B. Spassky-- G. Kasparov, 1-0,
in 16 moves from GM Kasparov's 2800 era; all I
found were two really big names, sans ratings,
and they were GM Karpov and GM Bronstein--
both world champion types. Offhand, I just
happen to know that in 1982, GM Karpov was
the world champ and he had a rating well
*above* your stated limit. True, BS probably
did not mind if AK knew a way to draw-- that's
a draw against the reigning world champ, for
him!


A better idea would be for someone with a
comprehensive games database to figure out
Boris Spassky's performance-rating as White
in the King's Gambit, let's say, decade by
decade since he ultimately morphed into a
mere 2500+ player.

Or perhaps that is your answer right there! Boris is a good guy, and
expanded his own repetoire far beyond the KG, and indeed, included The Rest
of Life too - otherwise he would have wound up as mad as Fischer. So I think
the real answer of his performance does not rest in chess.

I did not check to
see the list of GM Spassky's losses as
White in the King's Gambit. Let's see...
World Champion Karpov was rated what
back then? 2700ish? Oh-- did I mention
that he was the world champion? LOL!

Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear


I generally carry only one: a chess game
(or set), in a zip-up nylon bag which also
protects my roll-up vinyl chess board.

I hope you know to roll it with the checkered side outward? That stops the
curl and means the rooks in the corners don't skateboard on a and h files
all on their own. [Messages from the Masters, vol twa.]

- since
indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700
level,
he surely would have utilised it much more.


Another interesting idea would be to see
how this opening has done overall-- all
results by all strong players. My guess is
that Black gets a lot of wins due to things
like neither player understanding what's
going on tactically (like Fritz does), and of
course, the extra gambit pawn.

The KG has made a comeback - see the Johansson title I mentioned previously,
thanks in part to efforts by the Brits, Spielman and Nunn. Basically if
Basman can open with a steady diet of Grobs and Borgs and gain his IM-ship,
then certainly the KG is very playable at master level. Probably the Modern
Defence
1 e4 e5
2 f4 ef
3 Nf3 d5
[modern def, looks like a poorer var of the Scandinavian already - and is
very sharp and dangerous for both sides]
4 ed Nf6 [then, why not ...]

5 Bc4 !?

then as black do you like 5. Bd6 or Nd5

When you consider that other openings
are "safer", there is a strong incentive to
chuck those openings in which Black can
score not only draws, but lots of wins as
well. In addition, the onus of justifying the
missing pawn is on White; this bothers
some people more than others.

As above - here is black playing to win, but by substantially increasing his
own losing chances, which, I think if you essay the White side of the KG is
what you are looking to provoke - a fight!

This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying,
since
if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still
as
much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?


I have no idea.

Okay then

And I snipped the rest, since Fritz doesn't either.

Phil Innes


-- help bot

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?

Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?

and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.

Said our Phil earlier:

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."

So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
(twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
saved it for certain situations.

Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at all.

I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.

The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein après
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all draws
with him as White?

But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of
the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?

Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?

Usual straw-man diversion from Murray. The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can't
understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
instead divert to Fischer. Typical!

and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.

Said our Phil earlier:

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."

So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
(twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
saved it for certain situations.

Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their lies
and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, and
they haven't read anything.

Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new news
not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
be much the same. The End!

It seems hardly worth my time writing in this newsgroup, and I can
understand why other people, far more significant than me, would resign
their attention to evolving chess in this country. The only problem here is
that those who do so, don't really like to suffer the opinion of those who
did rather more, elsewhere.

Phil Innes
Vermont


Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at
all.

I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.

The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein
after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein après
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is
such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all
draws
with him as White?

But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.