< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|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?
|May-19-10|| ||ariel el luchador: Decir que Stauton fue uno de los más grandes jugadores de todos los tiempos me parece una exageración el uso de los fianchetos no era desconocidos en el siglo XIX si bien se prefería otras cosas, Stauton se adelantó en algunas cosas a su tiempo pero no era más que Anderssen quien le ganó facilmente en Londres de 1851 y mucho menos que Morfi a quien siempre le escapó , no era mal analista ,posiblemente el aleman bledow de la misma época jugaba mejor knith 13 tiene razón Horwitz jugó sin plan|
|Mar-31-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Saw Keene's FB and twitter on this game ... thought I should take a look at it. |
New appreciation for Staunton, whom Bobby Fischer said was the "first player to play positional chess."
|Mar-31-11|| ||ray keene: thanks <aj> your comments always appreciated-did you see i also put up a game you had annotated on the times twitter site|
|Mar-31-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: No - missed that ... will go look now.|
|Mar-31-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: OK, feeling kind of stupid now. Looked at a whole page (or two), ran through several of the CG-dot-com games. |
Still have no clue which one you referred to (above).
|Apr-01-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Reminder - Fischer once did a list of 10 of the greatest chess players of all time, I am pretty sure that Staunton was on one of them.|
|May-05-11|| ||keypusher: <LIFE Master AJ: Reminder - Fischer once did a list of 10 of the greatest chess players of all time, I am pretty sure that Staunton was on one of them.>|
The hell you say.
|Nov-15-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: The Life Master is correct about Fischer putting Staunton on his list of top 10.|
|Apr-17-12|| ||Llawdogg: Nice game, nice finish.|
|Mar-12-13|| ||hyperactivemodernist: Amazingly modern game. Staunton seemed to have an understanding of positional chess on a level that wasn't commonplace until the 20th century.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·