< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-07-05|| ||blackjacki2: never mind, only took me a few minutes. But I still don't understand how that opening would work for white.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||Honza Cervenka: Chigorin a la Steinitz.
<That's the opening Adams should have tried against Hydra> I am not sure if it could have been successful against Hydra but few years ago I have beaten with Steinitz gambit an older version of Fritz. And it would have been interesting too to see Hydra playing Steinitz gambit as white. What about a little thematic match man vs machine?:-)
|Jul-07-05|| ||chesswonders: Lot of moves not understood!|
|Jul-07-05|| ||Capafan9: This game was certainly very difficult to understand. The first move of many that made my jaw drop was 14 Ne5!. Letting black win the white queen for a rook and piece. Because if 15 Bxe2 Ne4+ wins. But i wonder if 12 ... Ne4+ would have served black better. Then 13. Bxe4 Rxe4 14. cxb7+ Kb8 and it seems to me that white has to try Ne5 here also. And white gets 2 pieces and a rook for the queen. The only other line I can see is 12... Re4 and black can just take and still have 2 minor pieces for the queen but the white king gets checked a bit by the black queen. But I still dont understand half of the moves played. Please comment back.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||ranchogrande: yes , thats the opening Adams should NOT have played vs Hydra !|
|Jul-07-05|| ||kevin86: The pieces fly in this one-sacs,forks,etc. White wins this with the help of a very active king.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||Knight13: Terrible opening for White, yet still wins.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||farrooj: If a computer surprises a GM with this kind of opening, will it win?|
|Jul-07-05|| ||mark1800: surely white just stumbled out of an initially horrible position. Not as great game on exclusively one players behalf.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||InspiredByMorphy: So many people including Adams have a mistaken mentality on what to play against a computer. If a computer could hope, it would hope to see the main lines of the most common openings played. Taking the computer out of its "book" and into something where it doesent have so many fine examples to draw its play off is key. For example if Adams played the Kings gambit or Vienna gambit, how many recent master level games in its database would it have to reference? Kasparov knew this when he played 1.d3 against Deep blue. Just my two cents.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||RSD770: In "The mammoth book of chess" by Burgess, he quotes Seirawan as saying that actually trying to get the comp. out of the book is a bad idea, because in it's opening book there might be mistakes which it will be forced to make, but if it is out of the book, it won't make those kinds of mistakes. I don't think Kasparov's strategy of the mid-ninetyes would work today.|
|Jul-08-05|| ||fgh: <offramp>: Many people here are acting like this game is super difficult and you cannot analyse it, but in fact, it's a very clear game. Does anyone here agree with me?|
|Jul-09-05|| ||Honza Cervenka: <fgh> I agree. White was perfectly in control of things on the board almost all game. Mortimer's 8...Nf6 was not probably the best option (it looks too slow) and Zukertort's 8...Bc5 played against Steinitz is objectively a little bit better, although it's difficult to say if the idea of sac of piece 7...0-0-0 is sound. Instead of Chigorin's 9.Qe1 white can play 9.g3 with intention 9...fxg3 10.Bg2 Bxf3+ 11.Bxf3 gxh2 12.Qd3 Rxd4 13.Qf5+ Kb8 14.Be3 etc. Chigorin's 9.Qe1 allowed 9...Bxf3+ 10.gxf3 Re8+ 11.Ne4 Qh5 12.Kf2 (the only move) 12...Qh4+ (12...Nxe4+ 13.fxe4 Qh4+ 14.Kf3 Qh5+ 15.Kf2 Qh4+ =) 13.Ke2 Qh5 = etc., but Mortimer missed this chance to equalize. 14.Ne5!! is excellent winning shot. Following course of game is almost forced.|
<Capafan9> If 12...Ne4+ 13.Bxe4 Rxe4 14.cxb7+ Kb8, then white can play 15.Kd3!? (real Steinitzian move, active King is attacking the Rook unpinning the Knight and covering e3) 15...Bxc3 16.Kxc3 with advantage of white. Also 15.Re1 looks well for white.
|Jul-12-05|| ||patzer2: White's 20. Nf7+! is a neat clearance move, setting up 21. Bxf4+! to deflect the Queen for the decisive Knight Fork 22. Nd5+!|
|Jul-12-05|| ||patzer2: Black's piece sacrifice with 7...0-0-0?! appears to be unsound. Better, I think, is 7...Nce7 8. Bxf4 0-0-0 =. White's defensive technique in withering Black's storm is impressive. However, he lets Black off the hook with 9. Qe1!?, when, instead, he should have played 9. cxb7+! Kb8 10. g3! fxg3 11. Bg2 with decisive advantage.
Black could have equalized and forced a draw by repetition with 9...Bxf3! 10. gxf3 Re8+ 11. Ne4 Qh5 12. Kf2 Qh4+ 13. Ke2 Qh5 14. Kf2 Qh4+ 15. Ke2 = 1/2 - 1/2.|
|Jul-12-05|| ||patzer2: White's 14. Ne5!! invites and 15. Qxe2!! initiates an impressive double attack combination. After 15...Bxe2 16. Bxe2!, White threatens to win a third piece for the Queen on any Black Queen move (e.g. 16...Qh4 17. Nc6+ Kxb7 18. Nxb4 ).|
After the followup 16...Ne4+ 17. Kd3!,
White creates a second double attack, threatening both the Knight and the Queen. Following 17...Nf2+ 18. Kc4!, White threatens both the Queen and the Bishop. Then following 19. Bf3! White threatens both mate with 20. Nf7# or a winning discovered check combination to win the unprotected Bishop with 20. Nc6+ Kxb7 21. Nxb4+ Kc1 22. Re1 .
Black's attempt to stop the mate with 19...c5! meets White's winning clearance, double attack and Knight Fork combination, as described in my first post here, for a decisive material gain.
|Aug-07-05|| ||who: RSD770 look at Topalov vs Hydra, 2004 where Topalov leaves the book early and comes out the better for it.|
|Jan-23-06|| ||DeepBlade: Everytime I see this game, I think about Fisher. He would never play this gambit!|
|Feb-10-06|| ||McCool: It's such a crazy opening, Mortimer doesn't now how to defend against it!|
|Feb-11-06|| ||Akavall: <InspiredByMorphy>< Taking the computer out of its "book" and into something where it doesent have so many fine examples to draw its play off is key.> |
Yeah, this. Also, I don't know why people never play anything like Traxler against a program. I know it sounds crazy, but Fritz 8 at least on my computer completly misevaluates the position, couldn't GM like Adams make a use of that? Just my thoughts.
Btw, the opening Chigorin played here looks crazy, but I don't think he was worse at any point of the game.
|Dec-26-06|| ||Atking: Totally agree with Honza Cervenka 9. ...BxNf3+ is equal 10.gxBf3 Re8+ 11.Ne4 Qh5. 9.Qe1!? is simply tricky probably inspired by Steinitz's style. Latter a symetrical BxN3+, this time Nc3,is suggested as better in some book with 16. ...BxNc3+ 17.bxNc3 Ne4+ But now 18.Kd1! (18.Kd3 Nf2+ with the idea of a perpetual) 18. ...Nf2+ 19.Ke1 NxRh1 20.Rb1 is very strong 20. ...c5 21.Bxf4...|
|Jan-17-09|| ||WhiteRook48: how is this a "terrible opening" for White?|
|Jul-05-14|| ||wwall: After 14.Ne5!, perhaps best for Black is 14...Rxe5 15.dxe5 Qxe5 16.Re1 Qd6.|
if 14...Bxc3+ first, then 15.bxc3 Re2+ 16.Bxe2 Ne4+ 17.Ke1 Nxf2 18.Rb1, threatening 19.Nc6 mate. If 18...Qh6 to stop 19.Nc6, then 19.Bxg4, threatening 20.Nd7 mate.
|Dec-01-16|| ||The Kings Domain: "Chigorin's Immortal".
It's funny how Chigorin likes to get into dangerous positions like the opening of this game and yet comes up with a beaut like this. A "Creative Genius" indeed.
|Jun-06-17|| ||TheFocus: Second Brilliancy Prize and 300 francs went to Chigorin for his game against Mortimer.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·