Van Wely,Loek - Heberla,Bartlomiej [D20]
O2C Doeberl Cup 2015 Canberra, Australia (7.3), 05.04.2015
Monday, 6 April 2015
An interesting novelty from the Doeberl
If you haven't been able to follow the games from the 2015 O2C Doeberl Cup in real time you may have missed the following game between GM Loek Van Wely and GM Bartlomiej Heberla. At first glance the idea of holding onto the extra c pawn in the QGA with b5, c6 and a6 looks like the sort of thing you see in schools chess, but Heberla happily gave up the exchange and went onto the attack. The real turning point of the game came on move 14 when Van Wely allowed Bb4+, forcing the king to go walking. After that Heberla had a strong initiative, and while Van Wely might have had better defensive move, momentum carried Heberla to victory.
Van Wely,Loek - Heberla,Bartlomiej [D20]
O2C Doeberl Cup 2015 Canberra, Australia (7.3), 05.04.2015
Van Wely,Loek - Heberla,Bartlomiej [D20]
O2C Doeberl Cup 2015 Canberra, Australia (7.3), 05.04.2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I watched this live with the kids. "The Herb" is a welcome addition to chess in this proud land that depends on soft commodities producers like myself who hedge and buy forward contracts and deliberately seek out tax advantages.
BTW The earth is in balance again - Dowden lost quickly, decisively and expectedly to a chess player who doesn't care whether they are banned from Chesschat for beating him.
Of course, no-one has been banned from Chesschat for beating anyone over the chessboard, but there might be someone out there actually naive or deluded enough to seriously believe that would occur.
Anyway, this line overall isn't a novelty. Chesslive has 20-odd high level games in this line, mostly from the last two years (some of the notable old ones are by Stephen Kerr, presumably correspondence). Repeat suspects include not only Heberla but also Edouard and Nakamura. Smerdon also played it against Edouard (but lost)!
My good man Dr Bonham. I know of many fine and upstanding chess players who have been banned for beating chess administrators and/or beloved chess identities - The banning of Mr Scott Stewart Esq. by the Melbourne Chess Club for beating a notorious Chesschat identity in blitz is a case in point.
To argue against the possibility of being sanctioned or disciplined by Chesschat sometimes very harshly indeed for whatever concocted reason would also be deluded would it not?
Theodore I can see you are trying to be funny but unfortunately it's not all that successful. Very few genuine chessplayers have ever been banned by CC and far greater patience was shown with all those banned than they deserved. All those who had developed history on the forum were given many chances to mend their ways. None of the reasons for banning have been concocted, however much some people have disagreed with some of them.
Kevin, (may I call you Kevin?) I can see you, in turn, are trying to be rational and logical but it's not all that successful either.
You see your own subjective bias rather skews your recollection of events.
Perhaps one day you may understand what sort of, in my opinion, putrid forum 'Chesschat' is. It does not promote chess in this colony at all. In fact I would say it is rather ghastly!
You need to get some psychological distance from it to understand. As a 'moderator' on the site, I'm afraid you cannot.
I bid you 'Adieu' :-)
You may indeed call me Kevin, and I may call you a troll hiding behind a pseudonym. The only question is which particular troll you are.
I've stated the fact that very few genuine chessplayers have been banned from CC and that those who were banned were given warnings and chances to mend their ways. You are unable to dispute those facts but instead assert that I am biased, while providing no evidence for this position beyond an unproven assertion that being a moderator makes me unable to appreciate the facts neutrally. In fact, as a moderator and admin on CC I have optimal access to those facts, while those who are critical of CC moderation have often shown that they have no idea. So the onus is on you to demonstrate any supposed errors in my comments.
It's quite plain from your failure to do so who is failing to be rational and logical here, as well as who is failing to be funny. And it's also totally plain that you are biased against Chesschat and biased against Tony Dowden.
Post a Comment