|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Aug-28-07 |
| cn1ght: If this opening is bad for white because black gets equality and panws... than a lot of teens/early 20's do NOT know about it. In fact last few tournaments I was in I saw a group of kids laughing as a kid 'fell into' accepting the opening. Go figure I guess... |
 |
Aug-28-07
 |
| refutor: theoretically is it better to go into the goring gambit with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd 4.c3 dxc 5.Bc4 etc? |
|
Aug-28-07
 |
| Marmot PFL: <refutor> The Goring Gambit is tough to defend after taking the pawn. Now days I just decline it with 4...d5. |
|
| Mar-28-08 |
| shivasuri4: <soberknight>Black gets a slight advantage after the Schlechter defense which you wrote.His queenside pawns are a little better than white's kingside pawns. |
|
Apr-14-08
 |
| notyetagm: Wow, Dr. Lasker -smashed- in a blitz game. |
|
| Aug-14-08 |
| tzone135: bird may not have been the best player, but his games that he won were always so pretty |
|
| Dec-07-08 |
| WhiteRook48: Lasker DESTROYED! |
|
| Dec-17-08 |
| WhiteRook48: So, the lesson of it all is, don't go pawn grabbing in the opening with the opposing pieces observing your f-Pawn. |
|
| Dec-23-08 |
| WhiteRook48: I wonder...why Lasker would do this |
|
| Jan-07-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 4...Nf6 was better. |
|
| Feb-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 10...Ne7? 10...d6 is the saving move because the white  is pointing directly at the Black king |
|
| Apr-26-09 |
| YoungEd: Well put, <tzone135>. Anyway, if I'm Black, I play 9.  xf7, because I wouldn't see (especially at Blitz!) the following - fork by 10.  g5+. I'd lose my queen, but maybe not get mated by move 12! :) |
|
| May-07-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: To think that a man who got routinely slapped around by Morphy could do this to Lasker boggles the mind. |
|
May-08-09
 |
| keypusher: Lasker's score against Bird was +16-4.
Morphy's score against Bird was +10-1.
They both "slapped Bird around."
This is a blitz game (more likely a rapid transit game). So, not worth much. If you looked only at Lasker's offhand games, you would think he was much weaker than he really was. I've never seen the score of Morphy's loss to Bird, but consider how badly he played the one time he lost to Schulten. J Schulten vs Morphy, 1857
You don't measure a player by his worst games. |
|
May-08-09
 |
| sleepyirv: Shows the power of a good "surprise" opening in blitz. Though Lasker really did himself no favors going pawn hunting. |
|
| May-08-09 |
| shalgo: <soberknight> <Already in "Chess Catechism", published about 35 years ago, Larry Evans gave the line 1 e4 e5 2 d4 ed 3 c3 dc 4 Bc4 cb 5 Bxb2 d5! (give back the pawns with equality) 6 Bxd5 Nf6 7 Bxf7+ Kxf7 8 Qxd8 (looks good, but...) Bb4+ 9 Qd2 Bxd2 10 Nxd2 Re8 and black has equalized.> Larry Evans didn't invent this line. The earliest example I can find of it is a game Tartakower played in 1914. I don't know whether Tartakower invented it, but earlier opening books don't mention it. For example, the 1903 Larobok i schack gives only 6...Nd7 in this line and both the 1891 Handbuch (7th edition) and Gunsberg's The Chess Openings from 1901 do not mention 5...d5 at all. An issue of the British Chess Magazine includes a game in which 5...Qe7 was played as an attempted improvement over the then-book line 5..Nf6, but does not mention the possibility of 5...d5. Perhaps the relevant portion of Schlechter's 8th edition of the Handbuch included 6...Nf6, but I don't have a copy of that book. |
|
May-08-09
|
| keypusher: <shalgo>
I have seen the 5....d5 line attributed to Schlechter, so it may well be from the Handbuch. The 1891 edition is available on Google Books, but I can't find the 8th edition. |
|
| May-08-09 |
| shalgo: By the way, I left out that the BCM issue I looked at was from 1902. All of the sources I mention are available on Google Books. |
|
| May-08-09 |
| ILikeFruits: this motha...
got pawned... |
|
| May-08-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: <keypusher: I've never seen the score of Morphy's loss to Bird > Is that because it doesn't exist? When you find it, let me know. |
|
May-08-09
|
| keypusher: <AnalyzeThis: <keypusher: I've never seen the score of Morphy's loss to Bird > Is that because it doesn't exist? When you find it, let me know.> I don't think it does. The moves of many of Morphy's casual games were either never taken down, or the scores were lost. I think the score of the Bird-Morphy series was +10-1=1, but I only know of five scores. Against Thomas Barnes, Morphy scored (I think) +19-8 in 1858, but there are only nine games in the database from that series. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| May-08-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Anything's possible. It would be strange for Bird to beat Morphy and not publish that little detail somewhere. |
|
May-08-09
|
| keypusher: <AnalyzeThis: Anything's possible. It would be strange for Bird to beat Morphy and not publish that little detail somewhere.> Oh honestly. Bird did publish the fact that he beat Morphy. He did not publish the score. You can look up his exact words on this very website. You should enjoy it, because it was in the context of Bird arguing, based on his experience against both, that Morphy was better than Steinitz. |
|
May-08-09
 |
| Calli: Bird's other games against Morphy are almost surely lost. Bird obviously didn't have them because he lived another 50 years and never published them. Morphy had them in his head, but would only publish what he deemed worthy. There were several collectors in the 19th century of "stray" Morphy games. Sometimes spectators wrote down the moves as the game was played. I believe one or two Barnes games were recovered that way. Barnes having 5 unpublished wins over Morphy is more surprising than Bird's one, but perhaps could be explained by the chronology. |
|
Jul-02-09
 |
| Knight13: <Bird arguing, based on his experience against both, that Morphy was better than Steinitz.> Except that Morphy decided to stop playing chess in order to keep a good reputation. Except that his was way more reasonable than Fischer's. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
