owever it's not out of the
question Mig could be of 2200 skill and just had an off tournament,
these things happen

He posted the game he lost against Laura Ross:

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 c6 4.Nf3 Qb6 5.Nbd2 Bf5 6.b3 e6 7.e3 Nd7 8.c4 Ba3 9.Be2
Bb2 10.Rb1 Bc3 11.Rc1 Qa5 12.0-0 g5 13.Rxc3 [ 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.e4 Bxe4 15.Bg3]
13...Qxc3 14.Bg3 Qa5 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.e4 Bg6 17.exd5 exd5 18.Ne5 [ 18.Re1 Kf8]
18...Nxe5 19.Bxe5 f6 20.Bd6 [ 20.Bh5 Kf7 21.f4 fxe5 22.fxg5+ Kg7 23.Bxg6 Kxg6?
24.Qg4 ( 24.Nf3) ] 20...Rd8 21.b4 Qxa2 22.Re1 Kf7 23.Bg3 [ 23.Bc7 Rc8] 23...Qc2
24.Qxc2 Bxc2 25.Rc1 Bf5 26.Bh5+ Kg7 27.Bb8 a6 28.Ba7 Ne7 29.Bb6 Rc8 30.Re1 Nc6
31.Nf1 Bg6 32.Bf3 Be4 33.Bh5 Nxb4 34.f3 Nc2 35.Re2 Bg6 36.Ng3 Bxh5 37.Nxh5+ Kg6
38.g4 Rhe8 39.Rd2 Ne3 40.Bc5 Nc4 0-1

He claims to have sacrificed the exchange, and also claims to have played this
sacrifice before. I have no reason to doubt him, but it does look like an
oversight to me. Just quickly running through the game, my impression is that
he looked for clever ways to find compensation and none worked. But what strong
player has not been there? A player with less technique than Ms. Ross (I wager
the average 1900) would have probably blown it.

That has happened to any experienced player, and he did try very hard to find
some legitimate compensation. I get the impression in another game, he *could*
have beaten Ms. Ross.

He also made a comment on another game about "forcing his opponents to make
good moves," one not even noticing until the post-mortem that Mig's response
was forced.

Whenever I notice myself playing this way, I know it means I am forcing too
much at the board. If I can break myself of the habit, it usually means a
several hundred point gain in strength -one of those quantum leaps we make.

My own guess, if you care? Mig will end up being one of the many SEWMs out
there.*

But JFern is right, if nothing else all these people talking about him probably
helps Mig more than it hurts him (especially if he doesn't implode again and
come back here ranting and raving ). I have actually been exploring the
ChessNinja site and have considered subscribing to their newsletter after this
controversy. No such thing as bad advertising, I guess.

SBD

*SEWM - strong expert weak master - a player about 2100+ strength who has good
results and climbs into the rarified air of master on occasion.

PS - if he wants to gain rating points, he could always play Sam Sloan a five
game match in which Sam plays his Damiano as black and 1. g4 as white. If he
goes 5-0, there is his 2300 performance rating Sam dared him to get.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:49:26 +0200, Antonio Torrecillas
wrote:

En/na Sam Sloan ha escrit:
According to Doctor SBD, Mig has posted the following game from the
World Open:

[White "Greengard, Michael"]
[Black "Ross, Laura"]

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 c6 4.Nf3 Qb6 5.Nbd2 Bf5 6.b3 e6 7.e3 Nd7
8.c4 Ba3 9.Be2 Bb2 10.Rb1 Bc3 11.Rc1 Qa5 12.O-O g5 13.Rxc3
(13.cxd5 cxd5 14.e4 Bxe4 15.Bg3) 13...Qxc3 14.Bg3 Qa5 15.cxd5
(...)

Mig claims that 13. Rxc3 is a sacrifice which he has played before.
However, it was not a sacrifice. Mig was lost already. Otherwise, if
Mig plays 13. Bg3, Laura Ross wins a knight with 13. ... g4 14. Ne5
Bxd2.

Also, Mig gives 13. cxd5 cxd5 14. e4 Bxe4. However, instead of 14. ...
Bxe4, Laura can play 14. .... dxe4 which also wins a piece since the
bishop on h4 and the knight on f3 are both attacked by pawns.

Considering that Mig has Fritz to analyze for him, this is not only
poor analysis but a pure patzer game as well.

Remember, that Mig posted this game as an example of his play. One
wonders how he played in the other games which he did not post.

Sam, .... a good advice for you is to have a look carefully at that game
before claim to be right and Mig to be wrong!!

After your comment "13.Bg3 Laura Ross wins a knight with g4", white has
the fantastic 14.b4!! ...
You can try to refute it (with your Fritz if you want), but it is very
difficult to find a clear way to have some advantage with all your
pieces misplaced and your position weakened. ... Try to refute it!

Maybe Mig looked at it with Fritz and Fritz did not suggested 13...g4
after finding 14.b4!

But I agree with you that the comment "13. Rxc3 is a sacrifice which he
has played before." is a patzer comment, because only a patzer will
repeat this poor opening play (like only a patzer will defend black
position in some dubious lines with 4 pawns down, as we have seen here).

But all we are patzers, ... a 2400 player is a patzer looked by a
2600-GM, a 2000 player is a patzer looked by a 2300 player, ... and so
on, ... (it's no very different than in mathematics, in social status,
in force, in beauty, ...)

All we have our own place and must know our limits, it's very simple!

yours,
Antonio Torrecillas (patzer)

Pd: Myself from a Englih language point of view am a big "patzer" and I
don not understand most part of "word games" used here. I do not
undestand what does mean "mig migged" and I expect noy to be ridiculous
or unpolite with my subject.


Good analysis and excellent points.

Thank You.

By the way, I do not have Fritz myself. I just assumed that Mig has
it.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Remember, that Mig posted this game as an example of his play. One
wonders how he played in the other games which he did not post.

Here is one where he played the Grob as White.

1. g4 e5
2. f3 Qh4#

StanB