| Oct-03-04 |
| aw1988: This is the only game in the database of Nimzowitsch losing to Samisch... is this the famous "why must i lose to this idiot" game? |
 |
| Oct-03-04 |
| Kean: It is probable, but seems the idiot knew how to play chess, if I remember well Saemisch has also a win against Capablanca. |
|
Apr-18-05
 |
| Caissanist: The only thing that the game with Capablanca proved was that Samisch was good enough, barely, to beat Capablanca if he was given knight odds. I found the kibitzing about the apparent reason for this horrible blunder to be a lot more interesting than the game itself. Ah Capa, you rascal you. |
|
Apr-19-05
 |
| An Englishman: Good Evening: As Raymond Keene points out in his excellent bio of Nimzo, he didn't always beat Saemisch! The database might not have every game between these two. |
|
Apr-13-07
 |
| whiteshark: <An Englishman:>
Only at Baden Baden 1925 Nimzowitsch was beaten by Saemisch, according to the crosstables.Nimzowitsch ended 9th, whereas Saemisch get 3rd place behind Aljechin and Rubinstein. If you look at the position after <20. Rxe5> you may realize, that Nimzowitsch is a pieces down. Sämisch played very poorly after that, but win at the end.
So his exclamation is quite understandable.
|
|
| Jun-18-07 |
| PolishPentium: Question: would not 26...Bc6 have been a little more dynamic for Black than the text move (26...Be6)? Direct the Bishop towards the vulnerable g2 square... |
|
Jul-26-08
|
| whiteshark: <PolishPentium:> If <26...Bc6> than <27.Qf5+ Qxf5 28.Ne7+ Kd7 29.Nxf5> 
click for larger view White is two connected passed pawns up in a   5 vs  3endgame. I think it offers no chances to stitch Saemisch up. |
|
| Jun-09-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Samisch was not an idiot, he was just in time trouble most of the time |
|
Jun-27-09
|
| whiteshark: <"why must I lose to this idiot" game> http://mitglied.lycos.de/gambit2000... |
|
