|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Oct-08-07 |
| psmith: <nimh> So, here's how it comes out if we score .25-.49 as an inaccuracy, .5-.99 as an error, and 1.0 and up as a blunder (as I suggested in a discussion of La Bourdonnais vs McDonnell, 1834: Staunton
inaccuracies 2
errors 2
blunders 1
Horwitz
inaccuracies 4
errors 4
blunders 3
But notice that Staunton's worst mistake according to Rybka is 39. Ng1, which Keene describes as a "brilliant stroke" and a "profound retreat." It is the beginning of a long-range plan. Rybka prefers the immediate 39. f5. This causes one to ponder. Perhaps 39. f5 is simply better; yet 39. Ng1 is the beginning of a profound plan that does win the game. Is the latter move then simply a mistake? In spite of the difference in evaluation I can't bring myself to characterize it that way. It is just another way to win. |
 |
Oct-08-07
 |
| nimh: I use the word 'mistake' in the meaning of 'a move which is not the best'.
If you know a more suitable word, let me know. |
|
Oct-08-07
 |
| InspiredByMorphy: <nimh> Is there a such thing as the "best" move? I certainly wouldn't deem a move best because my silicon friend does. Remember that Rybka was programmed by human beings. What is chess without mistakes anyway? |
|
Oct-11-07
|
| nimh: Correction, new threshold 0.33.
Staunton 5 mistakes:
13.e4 -0.12 (13.Na4 0.34)
22.Rbd1 1.51 (22.c5 2.40)
23.Qc3 0.95 (23.Rxd8 1.59)
34.Qh3 1.24 (34.Ba1 1.71)
39.Ng1 1.87 (39.f5 2.95)
Horwitz 9 mistakes:
13...fxe4 0.35 (13...dxe4 -0.12)
17...Bc5+ 1.20 (17...Na6 0.85)
20...Bc8 2.51 (20...Na6 1.59)
27...Qe7 1.57 (27...Rd8 0.95)
29...Na6 2.30 (29...a5 1.69)
37...Qb7 2.95 (37...Qf7 2.07)
40...Bb7 12.01 (40...c4 1.97)
41...Re8 19.80 (41...c4 11.46)
42...Bxf6 #15 (42...Bc8 18.10) |
|
Feb-21-08
 |
| Knight13: <What is chess without mistakes anyway?> Draw death. What Capablanca said. |
|
| Apr-17-08 |
| littlefermat: What a nice game to play over-- aesthetically pleasing and a very instructive build-up of White's army. |
|
Jun-29-08
 |
| FSR: Beautiful game. Regarding Jaymthegenius' suggestion that "this game is a fabrication, no one before Reti would know how to operate in the realm of an opening like this," I commend to him/her what Fischer wrote about Staunton. In Chessworld, Jan.-Feb. 1964, Fischer ranked Staunton one of the ten greatest players of all time. Part of his explanation: "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day. Playing over his games, I discover that they are completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it. In addition, he understood all the positional concepts which modern players hold so dear, and thus--with Steinitz--must be considered the first modern player." |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| sleepyirv: A long book could be written about good knight moves where the knight hits the home rank. The manouvering of the piece forces you to take it some odd places sometimes. |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| arsen387: a fascinating game by Staunton, worth going over and over. And thanks to Mr. Keene for instructive notes |
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| arnaud1959: After seeing a game like this one I would say that yesterday's champions are as strong as today's ones. |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| whiteshark: Nice finish. For the rest I think it was more Horwitz' weak play than Staunton' strong one. |
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| paavoh: <nimh> "I use the word 'mistake' in the meaning of 'a move which is not the best'. If you know a more suitable word, let me know." Perhaps "suboptimal" would do?! |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| ray keene: there is one sense in which applying computer analysis to such pre computer games is of academic interest only-i have played games where the psychological impact of a move has caused the opponent to collapse-where perhaps the optimal move according to a computer might have complicated things and encouraged the opponent to play on-- stauntons ng1 in this game is on a par with nimzos sublime retreat nh1 v rubinstein at dresden 1926-i am not sure a computer wd have have approved of either move-thats what helps to elevate chess to an art form and a struggle , beyond being just a hyped up crossword puzzle! |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| kevin86: A great example of what was called "trigger chess". Once Staunton advanced after the retreat,the opponent's position was "shot". |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| Marmot PFL: Staunton's deployment here is very sound with fair potential to attack later. The same setup with black is good against the Closed Sicilian. |
|
Jan-29-09
 |
| keypusher: <arnaud1959: After seeing a game like this one I would say that yesterday's champions are as strong as today's ones.> I would say they're utter fish. Horwitz's opening is unworthy of a modern C-player. OK, OK, I am exaggerating, but I think that is closer to the truth than saying Staunton and Horwitz are as strong as Anand and Aronian. As for the computer preferring f5 to Ng1, I wouldn't make much of it. White is winning either way. A computer's value is more in judging moves which tip the value of the position in one direction or the other. Staunton's play here was positionally far ahead of its time. But there is no hiding the fact that this is not a well-played game by modern standards. Very few games in the mid-19th century were. |
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| laskereshevsky: <Jun-29-08 FSR:> <<....Fischer wrote..."Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time.....where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it.....">> <Jan-29-09 ray keene:> <<....Stauntons  g1 in this game is on a par with nimzos sublime retreat h1 v rubinstein at dresden 1926...>> Same thought by myside....
|
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| WhiteRook48: they say that to advance you must retreat... great game by Staunton |
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| MrBlueLake: This game is a good example of a "master v amateur". Thanks to everybody who commented or analysed. |
|
| Jan-29-09 |
| Dr. J: Could someone refute 33 ... Rxf6 35 exf6 cxd4 36 fxg7 c5 please? |
|
| Jan-30-09 |
| nescio: <Dr. J: Could someone refute 33 ... Rxf6 35 exf6 cxd4 36 fxg7 c5 please?> Why do you want it refuted? It isn't a bad idea and the position after 36...c5 looks allright for Black. White may prefer 36.Nxd4 (instead of 36.fxg7) Ne8 37.Nxc6 with attacking chances. |
|
| Feb-02-09 |
| peirce: There are some details i would
like to check .
45 Be5 is not a mistake
I mean an illegal move but
it doesn t work due to tempi.
The move is made in order to
decoy the Black Queen , right?
So that White can deliver mate.
But Black has still the way to
bring the Queen to D7 and to
defend the g7 square.
46 B*g6 is not legal:
there is nothing to capture on g6.
|
|
Feb-19-09
|
| keypusher: <pierce> There is a black pawn on g6 that the bishop captures on the 46th move. If the pawn on h7 retakes, then Qh8 is mate. That was the purpose of 45. Be5. |
|
| Jul-26-09 |
| WhiteRook48: to advance you must retreat! |
|
Jul-27-09
|
| Knight13: <whiteshark: Nice finish. For the rest I think it was more Horwitz' weak play than Staunton' strong one.> Staunton had a plan all along: place the bishops in double-flank position, blow up the center, and then attack the Black king. And what was Horwitz's plan? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Annotations by 
