If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
wow! 3-straight 3-point games for kovalchuk. once again, kovalchuk naysayers of yore, where are you?!
king kovalchuk with his jesters elias and the ever-youthful-looking zajac
even with injuries to the devils' three top centres, kovalchuk is now 14th in league scoring and 8th in points per game with 50 points in 47 games. expect a top-5 finish from this talented, broad-shouldered gentleman
gary, did you ever manage to acquire kovy in your pool?
great game by kovalchuk the other night. 3 points including the gwg :D
it's a shame you didn't get him in your pool this year, gary!
After reading this I made an offer to the guy who has Kovalchuk. The guy needs a goalie. I offered Theodore and Johan Franzen. He wanted either Lundqvist or Fleury plus Franzen so it didn't get done.
I have a pretty good team anyhow and can play 2 of the 3 goalies.
great game by kovalchuk the other night. 3 points including the gwg :D
it's a shame you didn't get him in your pool this year, gary!
Yeah. I don't have him this year. I have Crosby on one of my teams. Maybe he'll be back before the All Star Break. At least I can carry him as my DL player.
great game by kovalchuk the other night. 3 points including the gwg :D
it's a shame you didn't get him in your pool this year, gary!
I *did* take him in my pool (thanks to you Ben...) and I enjoyed the points he grabbed for me the other night and look forward to a lot more! I have referred to him as "Koval-choke" in the past (out of frustration) but when he is on his game he is as good as anyone. I just want him to stay on his game... small requirement, no?
So, Ben, would you say that Kovalchuk and the Devils peaked too soon or too late?
their first half was just too bad. 27 points out after 41 games. the record, at any point in the season, is being 12 points out and going on to make it in. the devils cut it to 6, and that included 2 losses against ottawa interrupting an otherwise perfect 2+ weeks. if only...
nice analysis of the canucks series. i didn't see your post at the time. i think the canucks could have survived without any one of a number of their players, but hamhuis may have been the toughest. not only is he their best all-around D, but he turns bieksa from a mook into a stud. pretty hilarious that boom boom got 4.3 for 5 after his inflated worth was so clearly demonstrated in scf games 3-7
as someone who grew up in vancouver and has always cheered for the canucks to come out of the west, even though i've been a devils fan since the 90s, it was weird watching them lose the cup on home ice and feeling kinda good about. i call this the luongo effect. his comments after game 5 exemplify why nearly everyone who wasn't a canucks fan was cheering for the bruins
after game 7 i went downtown. the buses weren't travelling there so i had to run across the granville st bridge. a bunch of whites were acting like idiots on the streets. i guess an unfavourable finish for a team one doesn't follow is as good a reason as any to effectuate the chance to take a facebook profile pic in front of a burning car
not interested in the nonsense, i went to the vancity (this was before the boycott, faithful readers) to watch malick's BADLANDS. it was amazing
The one and only hockey thread. Yes, this is chesstalk, but
I'm sure that if it were 1967 we'd be hearing about George and
Johnny and Tim and Red and Frank ... After a season (or is it
some dozens of seasons) of mostly abstinence, I've been
watching the playoffs.
The local newspaper announced that the city is going to build
temporary bleachers at Harbourfront Plaza so that more can
watch the finals games on the big screen. Yes, the buzz is
building here on the left coast in a decidedly un-laid-back
way, intensified by the novelty that the local boys are the
favourites. Cue the obnoxious fans.
Chicago is the keyword. Before that series, Henrik said that
as far as he was concerned, the Black Hawks were the champions
and Vancouver the underdogs, despite finishing a distant first.
In the first two games, Vancouver went full bore, "total hockey"
if you like. Yet, in the end, it was a series that could have
gone either way. The teams were equal, somebody had to win.
Had the butterfly fallen on the other side of the knife edge,
it would have been a different, more familiar and plaintive
buzz.
NHL players are, of course, superbly conditioned athletes, but
IMHO, the Canucks are a notch above. They play closer to the
max than the other teams do, and that's why they have had so many
injuries (though their most famous injury was a simple accident).
Providently, they developed and traded for further talent,
because they had seen the injury scenario so many times before.
If they lose a key player in the finals, it won't be time for
the melting puddle of despond, they'll have somebody to
adequately fill the skates. Not a star necessarily, but
somebody who will pass the puck to the guys in the same
colour uniform. And always take the body.
So, Vancouver has depth; they're fast, big, they pass rather
than carry the puck, they clear the zone (unlike Canucks teams
of memory, mired down passively for minutes at a time in their
own end), they've got goaltending, they take the body, they're
almost brutal, almost dirty. OK, they're not the Broadway Bullies
(Broadway (9th Avenue) is the archetypal Vancouver street; Broad
Street Bullies was the nickname of some Philadelphia Flyers teams
of the 1970s, loaded with thugs; even some of their skill players
were chippy). The closest Vancouver has to a thug, Raffi Torres,
is also a skill player. His 2 goals and 2 assists in the playoffs
so far, is, if anything, a bit on the unlucky side.
Against Chicago, it looked like the Canucks didn't know how to
put the puck in the net. Sure, they could crowd the goalmouth
and bang away at it, but flair was missing. So, whatever the
Black Hawks did defensively, that was the right thing. Whatever
San Jose did, was the wrong thing. Beautiful three-way passing
goal between Burrows and the Sedins? How did all three of them
get open?
Boston has shown its ability to adapt, really savvy
coaching staff. You might say "they're professionals, of
course they can adapt!" If I may interject an observation
from another sport, remember the Expos? The greatest
championship team that never quite was. I remember
listening to the Expos on the radio, two situations they
could never learn how to handle. Numero uno, they would
load the bases with nobody out. That gives a lot of
chances to score: a fly ball, a nubber, a walk, a bunt ...
of course a hit or a home run. But I wish I had a million
dollars for every time they'd load the bases with nobody
out and then ... not score, not even a single run. Numero
dos, they had a talented starter who didn't have a lot of
stamina. Four scoreless innings, then in the 5th inning,
everything would bog down. The Expos manager never took
him out until several runs had been scored. Probably some
preconception about needing their starter to become the
pitcher of record. The pitcher? Don Stanhouse. He became
famous as "Stan the Man Unusual", relieving two years later
for the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. He was a
premier reliever (for Baltimore), but his notoriety rested
more on being so slow that batters would step out of the
box, causing the sedate game of baseball to become
krikkitian; galaxies could die between pitches. That of
course was a Bad Thing, but it did annoy sportscaster
Howard Cosell, so what's not to like? Expos weren't yet
contenders when they had Stanhouse, but still they could
have used him more effectively. And kept him. The failure
to score with the bases loaded and nobody out continued
through the Expos' years of near glory.
Anyway, Boston Bruins can adapt. They have superlative
goaltending and, of course, that huge Chara guy. Late in
the Tampa Bay series, they stationed Chara in front of the
opposing net as a screen. It worked. Remembering how well
a similar strategy with Byfughlien (did I put in enough
silent consonants?) by the 2009-2010 Black Hawks worked
against Luongo and the Canucks, this might also work. Of
course, it is risky to have only one defenceman back,
especially against a team as speedy as the Canucks are.
Doubtless, it's a strategy that awaits its moment. One
might be power plays. During the playoffs, Boston has
developed great discipline to refrain from penalties, a
discipline they'll have to continue to nurture against
a team so comfortable playing with, and so deadly playing
against, four skaters.
Vancouver could lay back and wait until the games are
closer together (only one off day between) before going for
total physicality. But I don't think they will. They are
the favourites; the high-speed, high-contact game is what
brought them here; they'd never forgive themselves if they
played some cagey strategy and then went on to lose.
Boston has the luxury, nay the necessity, to adapt.
Both teams are well-rested, which should favour Boston.
Vancouver has a couple of key players coming back from
(what else?) injury. I look forward to a gritty series. It
won't be Morphy, it'll be more like the complex close
combat chess brought to us by Grischuk and Gelfand in games
2 and 6 of their recent match.
The real question is, how are the Devils going to win the Stanley Cup this year now that they managed to finish out of the top 8 in the "meaningless" regular season?
That was a rhetorical question... don't bother with your retaliations about my weight since you cannot come back with anything remotely intelligent. I won't be back to read it ;-)
Do you remember why the Big M was traded? Last I heard he's a Senator.
It's all in Wikipedia. One interpretation of what they wrote is that, ultimately, he had to leave because he was playing for the Leafs. He was sensitive.
As a kid I was a huge Red Wings fan, and therefore hated the Leafs in their cup years. Well, there were other reasons to hate the Leafs, but that suffices. By 1968 I wasn't watching much hockey on Saturday night, but it was something of a frisson to hear Mahovlich's efforts as part of a Wing or Canadien (my second favourite team, then) offensive. Mon Canadien comprend des Mahovlich. Don't forget that The Big M won two cups with C=H on his chest. And later his little bro', Peter.
Just to save making another post, the other reasons were:
1. it seemed like all the televised games were Leafs games;
2. announcer Foster Hewitt's voice was as annoying as Howard Cosell's;
3. if they got a one-goal lead, Leafs'd just shut down the game into a defensive shell for the next 40 minutes. More depressing than a Maroczy Bind.
Last edited by Jonathan Berry; Thursday, 7 April, 2011, 09:47 PM.
Kovalchuk had a bad break. His line mates didn't score on his set ups and they didn't set him up for his goals. Probably his worst season in the NHL on points per game basis. I should have taken the team bus for him when I had a chance.
Do you remember why the Big M was traded? Last I heard he's a Senator.
Kovalchuk had a bad break. His line mates didn't score on his set ups and they didn't set him up for his goals. Probably his worst season in the NHL on points per game basis. I should have taken the team bus for him when I had a chance.
Do you remember why the Big M was traded? Last I heard he's a Senator.
in times prev many of you fronted on kovalchuk BUT WHERE IS YOUR KOVALCHUK NAY-SAYING NOW, UGLY MASSES?
So, Ben, would you say that Kovalchuk and the Devils peaked too soon or too late?
I've seen the Canucks only on highlight reels, but this year they seem to be speedier than last, rather like the 2009-2010 Blackhawks ... It remains to be seen if they have the "kind of team" that does well at playoffs, but they have "built character" working through all the rotating injuries (on D). Good thing the Eulers have been eliminated.
Here's a little chess-hockey quiz:
"The Big M" is what?
a) the path traced out by your knight during the tricky part of mating with bishop and knight against bare king;
b) Frank Mahovlich, who was with the Leafs the last time they won the cup in 1967. In 1968 he was traded to the Wings. He won two further cups with the Habs.
Leave a comment: