New forum vs Old forum

Topics relating to Northwest Chess Magazine.
Forum rules
Please keep your posts relevant to NWC-related topics. Inappropriate materials are subject to removal.

New forum vs Old forum

Postby hgpitre » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:37 pm

What is the relationship of this forum to the WAchess forum? What will be done to encourage NW chess players to use this forum? Will this be different from the efforts made by the NWChess leaders regarding the Wachess forum? Have the OCF leaders agreed to encourage use of this forum? When we see signs of their using this forum? How often will the NWC leaders be visiting this forum to see what topics are being aired and participate if relevant? I hope the leaders will discuss some of these questions here.
hgpitre
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby Russell Miller » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:23 pm

I am not an elected leader of either OCF or WCF but I did post a notice one of the other forums about this new one. I go along with HG that the leaders of OCF and WCF should read and respond to issues raised on this new forum. I would the USCF leaders would respond more to items on the USCF issues forun,

I note that the NWC leaders plan more use and more postings on the NWC website, maybe even some polls.
I hope both the forum and NWC website will get more promotion and readers and posters.

Russell Miller
Russell Miller
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby Russell Miller » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:26 pm

My chess e-mail list is not very big these days (lost a lot of information when moving from one ISP to another) but I did send out a notice to those still on my list about the new forum.

Russell Miller
Russell Miller
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby NWC_BM » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:04 pm

This forum is directly administered by the NWC board (including myself as Business Manager), whereas the old forum was administered by another person with no direct connection to the NWC or WCF boards. I admit I didn't pay much attention to the wachess forum, but I will be checking this forum regularly. However, it's important to have realistic expectations. Participating in discussion forums can be very time consuming, so a response should not be expected on every issue, nor every day. For anything urgent, you should send a separate e-mail to info@nwchess.com, or to the appropriate chess club, etc. Thanks, Eric.
Eric Holcomb
NWC Business Manager
NWC_BM
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Bend, OR

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby WCF President » Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:25 pm

HG and others.

It has long been my goal to have a forum for Northwest Chess and the Washington Chess Federation which is associated with the organization. This has now occurred. We have moved the hosting of nwchess.com to a new hosting service that will allow us to greatly expand the website and make it more interactive for the members of WCF and OCF as well as readers of Northwest Chess magazine.

As noted before the old forum (WAChess Forum) was run by an organization not affiliated with NWC or WCF. We hope to provide better service to our members.

Regards,

Duane Polich
WCF President
WCF President
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby hgpitre » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:32 am

Guys,

You are killing this forum.. by staying away.. Do you never call your friends on the phone? Do you never slap your friends on the back? Do you never want to celebrate a great game?.. Must it always be internal and private... never showing any joy?..Do you never read Chessbase,com for the interviews there? Do you think that if you never write or speak out you'll lose your chance of being as good as Peter Svidler?.. Has someone called you proud and egotistical, and you've sworn never to be open about yourself or your opinions ever again? .. Come on, it's our sport, past-time.. We have to celebrate it, or no one else will.

Now today I want to praise the NWC Foundation Forum, and especially the inclusion of regional games playable with just clicking on mychessviewer.. and especially for Drayton Harrison for the work he has put in to transcribing the games from scoresheets, and also to Fred Kleist, and to the future Oregon submissions.. Come on guys.. It's only good to share the efforts..

I was playing through a few games and I have really enjoyed the contest between Michael Lee and Andy May, two great young players. As a fan of the exchange sac, even when it is bad, I spent quite a bit of time there. I also don't have a Fritz quality to analyze with me, but I have a little program assistance nevertheless. When you make the sac it is extremely important to make the remaining pieces as strong a possible, but we try to do that always.. Anyway I ask you, if Andy May had played 27.. Qd6 instead of Ne4 would he have had a better fate than in the game? The difference is between improving the position of the Q versus temporarily improving the position of the N.. Maybe someone with Fritz or Ryba will be able to do this easily. Please share it here if you have the time.. Thanks.

In closing, I want to encourage Andy to keep up the fight.. and congrats to Michael for a great result in the state championship.
hgpitre
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby NWC_BM » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:30 pm

Good point about needing more local chess players to post interesting stuff on this forum.

To prevent spammers, all new users must be approved. Please register on the forum, and then send a separate e-mail to info@nwchess.com with your real name, the name you registered, and your WCF/OCF membership number if known. As long as you don't appear to be a spammer, I'll get you approved as quickly as possible. Thanks!
Eric Holcomb
NWC Business Manager
NWC_BM
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Bend, OR

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby NWC_ED » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:10 pm

hgpitre wrote:I was playing through a few games and I have really enjoyed the contest between Michael Lee and Andy May, two great young players. As a fan of the exchange sac, even when it is bad, I spent quite a bit of time there. I also don't have a Fritz quality to analyze with me, but I have a little program assistance nevertheless. When you make the sac it is extremely important to make the remaining pieces as strong a possible, but we try to do that always.. Anyway I ask you, if Andy May had played 27.. Qd6 instead of Ne4 would he have had a better fate than in the game? The difference is between improving the position of the Q versus temporarily improving the position of the N.. Maybe someone with Fritz or Ryba will be able to do this easily. Please share it here if you have the time.. Thanks.

In closing, I want to encourage Andy to keep up the fight.. and congrats to Michael for a great result in the state championship.


That really is a strong exchange sacrifice. I think Black has plenty of compensation with either 27. ...Ne4 or 27. ...Qd6, but sticking with the game choice, Black is nearly winning after 27. ...Ne4 28. Be3 Ng6! The threat is ...Nh4+ and ...Qxh3. The two choices that defend the h-pawn are 29. Bg4 and 29. Rh1.

The first is hit with (29. Bg4) 29. ...Nh4+ 30. Kg1 Qd6, and White is in dire straights: 31. Qe2 h5! 32. Bxh5 Qg3+ 33. Kf1 Qxh3+ 34. Ke1 Qh1+ 35. Qf1 Ng2+ 36. Ke2 Ng3+, for example, though there are a few branches to examine.

The second looks pretty bad, too, with lines like 29. Rh1 Qd6 30. Bc1 (what else?) 30. ...Nh4+ 31. Kg1 Qg6+ 32. Bg4 (forced) 32. ...h5.

Okay, now the engine check. :)

Fritz 7 more or less agrees with the first line above. It definitely likes 28. ...Ng6. It says 29. Bg4 is best, and offers 32. Bf4! Qxf4 33. Be6+ when White may escape into a bad but slightly less certain R vs 2 minors ending. I didn't see that at all, though I don't think it saves the game for White. The combination of ...Qd6 and ...h5 hitting the g4-bishop seems to show up in several lines. There are many other complications, but apparently Black can handle them. After 29. ...Nh4+, it prefers 30. Kf1, but 30. ...Qf7+ 31. Kg1 h5 looks strong. If the king runs the other way, 31. Ke1 Ng2+ 32. Ke2 (32. Kd1 Nxe3+ 33. Qxe3 Qf1+) 32. ...Ng3+ 33. Kd1, and now the engine finds the surprising 33. ...Qf1+ 34. Qxf1 Nxe3+, which will leave Black with a material advantage, though his two knights will be a little tangled up for awhile.

In the second line (29. Rh1), Fritz just gives Black something like +4 right away. It doesn't choose 30. Bc1, but doesn't offer anything that looks like an improvement. It does find something even more convincing for Black, playing 31. ...Bb6 (or 31. ...Qf6), with the idea of simply attacking and capturing the d4-pawn: 32. Bg4 Qe5! This is all +6 or +7 for Black, so I don't think we really need to worry about which is more accurate.
Ralph Dubisch
editor@nwchess.com
NWC_ED
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:20 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby hgpitre » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:31 am

Ralph,I think yours was a great analysis. I'd say you don't need Fritz or Rybka except for completeness. Thanks for the contribution.
hgpitre
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: New forum vs Old forum

Postby NWC_ED » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:44 am

hgpitre wrote:Ralph,I think yours was a great analysis. I'd say you don't need Fritz or Rybka except for completeness. Thanks for the contribution.


Thanks Hanniegn. Maybe we'd get more discussion and analysis if this was posted under a different topic.
Ralph Dubisch
editor@nwchess.com
NWC_ED
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:20 pm


Return to Northwest Chess Magazine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
buy cialis ca over counter sale cialis us online usa buy levitra online usa order cialis UK over counter
man tablets tablets us pharma NY tablets
Buy Cialis Philadelphia Online Buy Cialis Cheap Buy Cialis Seattle Online Buy Cialis online confidential