tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post5145400814862375817..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Causing OffenceTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-87188991916909613312011-09-25T21:21:24.706+01:002011-09-25T21:21:24.706+01:00Yes, possibly - Sadler was giving some speculation...Yes, possibly - Sadler was giving some speculation about his opponent's motives, which he felt made it more proper to do so anonymously. I thought that was fair enough.john coxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-89893954648819209272011-09-25T20:28:35.822+01:002011-09-25T20:28:35.822+01:00Quite right about "Smith", PG.Quite right about "Smith", PG.Martin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17616856982265044441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-83848687116693738812011-09-25T18:01:01.457+01:002011-09-25T18:01:01.457+01:00You are of course correct ejh. But that is an exce...You are of course correct ejh. But that is an exceptional case. I think naming the players makes the game more interesting in general. Therefore F.Smith v J.Bloggs is more interesting than Anon v Anon or Anon v J.Bloggs, even if I don't know who Smith or Bloggs are. It adds a dimension otherwise missing, makes the players more real I feel.<br /><br />PGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-80217907968060941592011-09-25T16:28:52.694+01:002011-09-25T16:28:52.694+01:00To my mind there's a case for leaving out a na...To my mind there's a case for leaving out a name on some occasions even if you normally give it. I omitted names <a href="http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2011/04/strike-two.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> for instance, because I was discussing matters of ethics where I didn't feel my opponents had behaved quite properly. I wanted to discuss the issues raised without accusing any named individuals - particularly in a context where they probably wouldn't see it anyway and would therefore be accused of something without having the opportunity to answer back, but in any case, without making it about <i>them</i>, and my account of what they did or did not do.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-62717404308226937062011-09-25T11:10:45.625+01:002011-09-25T11:10:45.625+01:00Personally I feel the opponent's name should a...Personally I feel the opponent's name should always be given. On this occasion it was easy to discover his name, and I found it was someone I know slightly and have played, which informs my view of the game.<br /><br />PGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-23576582203412114252011-09-24T08:45:46.351+01:002011-09-24T08:45:46.351+01:00Conversely, I nearly always give my opponent's...Conversely, I nearly always give my opponent's name.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-10278972394203784112011-09-24T01:46:59.417+01:002011-09-24T01:46:59.417+01:00Awesome effort, JB. We've all been there.
I r...Awesome effort, JB. We've all been there.<br /><br />I remember a furore in New in Chess where some Dutch guy wrote in accusing Sadler of being big-headed and this and that when he did exactly what you've done, quote a game without giving his opponent's name. Sadler wrote a rather grovelling reply; personally I thought he was right in the first place and his attitude (and yours) was the correct one.John Coxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-60983702397652490512011-09-23T17:06:41.101+01:002011-09-23T17:06:41.101+01:00@PJM
Not really. I usually don't mention name...@PJM<br />Not really. I usually don't mention names of my opponents explicitly, if only because they haven't asked to appear on the blog and may or may not mind. I expect that 99.9% of the time they wouldn't give a toss either way, but still, to be on the safe side, unless there's a particular reason to give the name I will most often not.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-39809179375770715412011-09-23T16:24:17.308+01:002011-09-23T16:24:17.308+01:00Is there a reason you've omitted your opponent...Is there a reason you've omitted your opponent's name? Just wondering as he's a clubmate of mine.PJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363739643128447051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-1348775786553893402011-09-23T13:17:18.325+01:002011-09-23T13:17:18.325+01:00As already discussed in another place, 42...Rh6 sh...As already discussed in another place, 42...Rh6 should win for Black - though White can retain some vague swindling chances by giving up his queen.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-87492788731264850372011-09-23T12:03:15.692+01:002011-09-23T12:03:15.692+01:00Very possibly - haven't looked closely myself ...Very possibly - haven't looked closely myself yet.<br /><br />I think the main point is that whatever was going on, I was not forced to let my king, rook and queen get forked. Incidentally, the official game score ends at 43 ... Kd7. Presumably the game inputter assumed I must have seen the fork coming and resigned before it was played. I had not.<br /><br />CHOKE with big choky knobs on.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-66249237697184753052011-09-23T11:59:02.159+01:002011-09-23T11:59:02.159+01:00Without looking at a computer, are you still winni...Without looking at a computer, are you still winning as late as move 42?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-2672764538248440312011-09-23T11:02:37.939+01:002011-09-23T11:02:37.939+01:00Have edited the post and included the full game sc...Have edited the post and included the full game score to allow interested readers to experience the full horror.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-63234343199502511032011-09-23T10:25:30.015+01:002011-09-23T10:25:30.015+01:00@Brenog: yes 1 ... Ng5 is tricky to see - tricky f...@Brenog: yes 1 ... Ng5 is tricky to see - tricky for me anyway - but there are other much easier wins too.<br /><br />@EJH: in my case, the latter - not really (I had 10 minutes plus increments left when I resigned), the former - most definitely.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-46945967629188425422011-09-23T10:14:36.694+01:002011-09-23T10:14:36.694+01:00Commiserations. It's so hard to see Black'...Commiserations. It's so hard to see Black's winning move (1...Ng5!) not just because it's a double piece sac but also because the knight seems perfectly placed on e4. I wonder whether you'd have spotted the idea had the knight been on f7?brenoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17462596442412730163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-66944975867991312162011-09-23T08:55:49.903+01:002011-09-23T08:55:49.903+01:00I can see how Sosonko managed not to win that game...I can see how Sosonko managed not to win that game, but to actually lose it was quite something. Panic? Time trouble?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.com