|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
May-17-06
 |
| ganstaman: <LluviaSean: Hmmm..I'm sure white made a mistake in the Opening... Arent counter-gambits (gambits made by black pieces) considered unsound because he plays against the initial move?> I don't think you can judge all countergambits like that. First of all, black can make the initial gambit, and then it would be white making the countergambit. Secondly, just because you move second doesn't mean your gambit will be unsound. The Falkbeer Countergambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5) comes to mind as an example of a very sound countergambit. You do need to take into consideration the fact that white moved first. But the position is what it is regardless of who moved first. In the Falkbeer, I think black is the one with easier, more natural development. From what I've read on this site, though, the Philidor Countergambit is unsound, though white can easily mess up and let black into the game. |
 |
May-18-06
 |
| An Englishman: Good Evening: So 21...Qa4+ is the solution to the puzzle, Black to play and win in 40 moves. Maybe. Does that mean that after 148 years, tens of thousands of man-hours and thousands of computer-hours, Bird-Morphy is solved? Maybe? |
|
May-18-06
 |
| Open Defence: It is interesting to know why Kasparov gae 17.. xf2 a !? maybe his analysis revealed something else ? after all he is Kasparov |
|
May-18-06
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: < <An Englishman>
"Does that mean that after 148 years, tens of thousands of man-hours and thousands of computer-hours, Bird-Morphy is solved? Maybe?"> Maybe. It certainly casts doubts on those who have dismissed Morphy's sacrifice out of hand. One of the (MAIN) reasons that I posted this analysis is that I was going to make a web page out of this game. I never really finished my analysis on the whole game, but this was too interesting to simply let idle on my computer. (And - I should stress - most of the work was done by others, and I am not taking credit for their work.) |
|
| Jun-12-06 |
| Kharjov: My question is not wheather or not the Sac 17. ... Rxf2!!! (or ?!!) is really sound/leads to a forced win, its what did Morphy see? Does anyone really think that Morphy saw 61. ... Kf1! when he played his move? If he did I question wheather he was human! and if he didn't see it why did he play it? 22.Kc1! would be easy for him to see so what did he think he had? |
|
| Jun-25-06 |
| THE pawn: I thought over this move for dozens of hours, and to me ( no I am not a GM) it is entirely sound, at least devilishly hard to refute. <I question wheather he was human!>
In my opinion Morphy is the best tactitian of all time and he would surely have hit the 2800 rating. I had the chance to study about 35 games from him, and he could find all the lines of an extremely deep move in a matter of minutes. This is extraordinary. |
|
| Jun-25-06 |
| RookFile: Most people think about the sacrifices in the middlegame which occur in this game. To me, the opening intrigues me. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5. About 20 years ago, this was regarded as unsound for black. However, later analysis shows that this isn't so simple. This opening leads to double edged positions, and I'm seriously considering adding it to my repetoire. |
|
Jun-26-06
 |
| Joshka: <Rookfile> Even if white were to play 3.Bc4 instead of the text? |
|
Jun-26-06
 |
| RandomVisitor: Ok... Here's my take on this famous game.
White should play:
22. Kc1! a5 23. Qc2 Qa3+ and now my improvement on previous analysis: 25. Kb1!? Ba6 (25... Qxc3 26. Rc1 Qh3 27. Bg3 =) 26. Rhe1 Bxe2 (26... Qxb2+ 27. Kxb2 bxc3+ 28. Kxc3 Bb4+ 29. Kc2 Bxe1 30. Rxe1 Bxe2 31. Rxe2 unclear) 27. Rxe2 Qa4 28. Rde1 Bxh2 29. Qa2 bxc3+ 30. Ka1 unclear) again, this is after just starting to look at the game. |
|
| Jun-27-06 |
| RookFile: Hi Joshka: after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4, the Openings explorer for this database awards the best score, and a plus score at that, for black with 3.... Be6. |
|
Jun-27-06
|
| RandomVisitor: Oops... In my above post the line should begin: 22. Kc1 a5 23. Qc2 Qa3+ <24. Qb2 axb4> and now 25.Kb1. |
|
Jul-03-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <RV> Your numbering in the June 26th post looks messed up. (You jump from move 23 to move 25.) |
|
Jul-04-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <RandomVisitor>
I took several hours to investigate your line. I used the straight Fritz 9 interface, and gave it 1,500 MB for RAM. (I generally gave it at least three minutes per ply as well.) This is what I came up with:
25. b1!?, (Inferior?) 25... a6;
This is interesting, as is taking on c3 with the Queen here. < [25...Qxc3; 26.Rc1 Qa3!;
This is better for Black, as 27.Rxc6 is now answered by 27...e3!; (opening the h7-b1 diagonal); which wins on the spot.] > Now I follow your analysis for a little while.
26.he1 xe2; 27.xe2  a4; 28.de1 b3!; 29.a1 a3; 30.g3 a8; 31.e3 c4; 32.xc7 a6; 33.h4 c1!;
(  ) Black is winning in all lines.
|
|
Jul-04-06
|
| LIFE Master AJ: I must add that I doubt anyone but a Super-GM could find such moves, at the onset, (when I first started looking at these lines without the aid of the computer) ... I felt that Black had very little compensation for the sacrificed material. |
|
| Oct-02-06 |
| Operation Mindcrime: Interesting and exhaustive analysis there. The "Guinness Book Of Chess Grandmasters", however, is a bit dismissive, stating that if Bird hadn't played 25. c2? the game might be a draw. Apparently this is not so... |
|
Jan-27-07
 |
| dougrhess: 22. ... Bf5 is mentioned by a couple programs as a follow up to 22. Kc1. Although it seems that 11.g4 is a blunder. No? |
|
Nov-13-07
 |
| nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33. Bird 5 mistakes:
9.Nh5 -0.29 (9.c4 0.15)
10.Qd2 -0.71 (10.Be2 -0.28)
11.g4 -1.88 (11.Bxf6 -0.70)
22.Kb2 -5.24 (22.Kc1 -0.15)
25.Kc2 -5.44 (25.Ka2 -3.66)
Morphy 3 mistakes:
5...d5 1.16 (5...Nf6 0.68)
13...Nc6 -1.33 (13...c5 -1.90)
17...Rxf2 -0.09 (17...Bb4 -1.16)
|
|
Dec-09-07
|
| Joshka: <Patzer2> 22. well the computer I have Fritz 8 gives 22.Kc1 0.00...guess ya can't get more drawish than that;-) |
|
| May-19-08 |
| Jesspatrick: Personally, I think that Bird's 4.Nc3, though not bad, is not a serious test of Black's idea. I'd rather see 4.dxe5 fxe4 5.Ng5 |
|
May-19-08
 |
| keypusher: <Jesspatrick>
As I recall there was some analysis by Zukertort (not of this game, but of the Staunton/Owen-Morphy/Barnes consultation game) that gave 4. Nc3 fxe4 5. Nxe4 d5 6. Nxe5! According to <nimh>'s Rybka, Morphy's 5...d5 was a mistake anyway. Of course, this was a cutting-edge line back in 1858 (and maybe now -- don't some books recommend 3...f5?), and there was lots of analysis for 4. dxe5, 4. Bc4 and 4. Nc3. |
|
May-19-08
 |
| InspiredByMorphy: <keypusher> It is true that 5. ...d5 loses a pawn to 6.Nxe5, however black doesen't accept the en prise knight and instead plays 6. ...Nf6 . Giving black a solid position with the open f file, just a pawn down. Quite similar to an open f file you may see in a kings gambit accepted as white. Play might continue 7.Nxf6 Qxf6 
click for larger viewOf course given whites response in the text, the move produced more favorable results than had the stronger move 5. ...Nf6 been played. The arguement will never be answered on the topic of whether Morphy knew he was playing a risky move that may lose a pawn which may lose the game, or whether he didn't know the line. I I lean more on the first of the two possibilities. |
|
| May-19-08 |
| Jesspatrick: There is a blog devoted to this opening and its contemporary play. http://contregambitphilidor.blogspo...
Take the games with a grain of salt. His variation index is good, though.
I've got to admit, this opening intrigues me, and I've got special prep on the white side. I'll publish the analysis after I get a chance to try my ideas out on a few practitioners. Without a doubt, the leading practitioner of this opening is Jim West. http://jimwestonchess.blogspot.com/ |
|
May-20-08
|
| keypusher: <Inspired By Morphy> That is a good point about the 6. Nxe5 line. <The arguement will never be answered on the topic of whether Morphy knew he was playing a risky move that may lose a pawn which may lose the game, or whether he didn't know the line.> I don't know the answer either, but it's telling that Morphy avoided the whole 3....f5 variation in serious games. |
|
| Aug-03-09 |
| MrMelad: The thing I like most about this game besides the glorious rook sac, is that in the final position after 30.Kd1 Qxh8 all of the white pieces are located awful and participating to form a nice but useless square. Bird obviously didn't intend to reach such a position... Morphy took him for a ride across the sky and left him falling when he couldn't hold on :) |
|
| Nov-03-09 |
| morphyesque: If 22.kc1 according to Maroczy white could have forced a draw by perpetual check as the bishop sacrifice at b4 is incorrect, thus ....bb4 23.cb rb4 24.qg5 qa3+ 25.kd2 rb2+ 26.ke1 re2+ 27.ke2 qf3+ 28.ke1 qh1+ 29.qg1 qf3 30.qg3 etc.If Bird had played 22.kc1 would Morphy have played for a draw since the ramifications of 17....rf2 could not have been seen in their entirety as there is no forced mate.A possible continuation could have been 22....a5 and white must play 23.qc2 for if instead 23.bg3 ab there is no time for 24.bd6 qa1+ 25.kc2 b3 mate nor 24 qb2 bc 25.qb8 ba3+ 26.kb1 c2+ 27.ka2 bc1 mate.Also 23.rhg1 intending the rook sac at g7 won't work because of ..bf5 24.qc2 qc2+ 25.kc2 e3+ |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
