The 2001 Fischer internet hoax

[Nick Ivell]

One of the virtues of this forum is that it has never been about patzers chewing the cud.

I hope this will remain the case. Of course, I realise 'patzer' is a relative term; but I think most people will know what I mean.

[AlanLlewellyn]

the question isn't who is winning its if it could go disastrously or whether it seems it might go disastrously and the answer to that is yes.

[AlanLlewellyn]

you really must be looking at a different game

[AlanLlewellyn]

i have done multiple integrals over a range involving tan cos and sin in a physics degree in which i got a 2.1 hons , i have created an online database using systems analysis and multiple masters and i find this difficult-i am not dumb

[Chris Goodall]

No-one thinks you're dumb. Just not very good at chess. You mis-evaluated a position, and thought it was about to go disastrously when it was fine. You panicked. If you had simply considered every legal reply to your candidate move, which is easy to do, you would have had a +4.00 advantage.

In any event, what you've shown us here is a cheap one-move trap. Where is this 20-ply combination that you promised us exists?

[AlanLlewellyn]

are you trying to find evidence for the defence or the prosecution?

[AlanLlewellyn]

**** happens

[AlanLlewellyn]

its a human sign when things go wrong according to elton john

[Chris Goodall]

are you trying to find evidence for the defence or the prosecution?

I am trying to find evidence that anyone who has played you since 2001 has beaten you in suspicious circumstances with a superhuman 20-ply combination.

I played over your other game with Ken. Do you want the recap? He elected to drop an exchange rather than misplace his king. You then forgot that the knight on h8 wasn't the one you'd traded, and allowed him to take two pieces for the other rook instead of one. Then with two rooks for three pieces, you blundered another exchange back. You were left with a rook and pawn for two pieces, which was 0.00 until you played h3. To which Qd4+ was both intuitive and strong. Which of Black's moves do you think he had expert assistance with?

[AlanLlewellyn]

youre analysis is poor after Kxf7 comes dxe4 where he is just down a pawn

[AlanLlewellyn]

qd4+ followed by qf2 was very strong for him

[Chris Goodall]

youre analysis is poor after Kxf7 comes dxe4 where he is just down a pawn

I believe I said "elected to drop an exchange rather than misplace his king"? Kxf7 is misplacing his king. Obviously dxe4 wins the piece back.

qd4+ followed by qf2 was very strong for him

Are you telling me that Qf2 was the move he had expert assistance with? A move that conceded a draw by perpetual in a position that had been -1.2 in his favour?

Have you bothered to analyse any of these games with a chess engine prior to declaring your opponents' play suspicious, Alan?

[AlanLlewellyn]

the point is the Kxf7 loses a pawn in an otherwise stable position for white, preferable(for white) to the thought needed to try and get the knight out intact and mixing it needed. In-fact black has already got a piece for the rook in that line and with a trapped knight threatens to get two pieces for the rook and win.

[AlanLlewellyn]

isn't the fact you got that analysis wrong point to the complexity of this game or was it a simple game too.

[Matt Bridgeman]

Is it time to lock this thread and move on? Surely 10 pages is enough.