Oct-28-03
 |
| kevin86: Black gives up his old queen for a new one. Bird got cooked in his own soup. |
 |
Nov-27-03
 |
| ChessPraxis: 10. Nxc6 doesn't generate any counterplay because Black can defend with Bd7. |
|
Nov-27-03
|
| ChessPraxis: White's bad moves must have been due to H Dobell. |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Spitecheck: .... Was there any good white moves here? :)
Okay Nf3 might have been alright?!, but resigning was the highlight of white's play. Spitecheck |
|
Nov-27-03
 |
| talchess2003: yes, im surprised at white's play. it is horrible. |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Spitecheck: Bird's one and only consultation for this game?, he told Dobell to "set the pieces up I'll be back in 3 minutes old chap, I'm just gonna have a smoke", 2 minutes later he came back and they were putting the pieces back in the box. Quite plausible. :)
Spitecheck |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| shadowmaster: <Bird got cooked> Lol, Happy Thanksgiving everyone! |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Shadout Mapes: Funny that you trash Bird's opening play, but he plays the same here: Bird vs L Van Vliet, 1893 . He was known not to be afraid of wierd openings. |
|
Nov-27-03
 |
| Honza Cervenka: By the way, Herbert Dobell was the first Secretary of the Hastings and St Leonards Chess Club. He was an organizer and mastermind of regular regional chess events in Hastings since 1880s. |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Spitecheck: Honza are you a bit of a historian for that period? His name does sound familiar I've probably read it in other texts. Spitecheck |
|
Nov-27-03
|
| Honza Cervenka: <Spitecheck> I like chess history, although I am not an expert on this matter. Herbert Dobell's name I have memorized from one writing about famous 1895 Hastings tournament, which I have read recently. By the way, his name is mentioned also on the official site of Hastings Chess Congress. |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Lawrence: Well done, chessgames, I bet next Thanksgiving it will be a game from a tournament in Turkey. |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| MoonlitKnight: I'll remember 4...g5?! if anyone plays the Bird against me. |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Spitecheck: Isn't this From's Gambit, some player's stronger than myself told me it was better for white to transpose into the King's Gambit rather than except the offered pawn. Spitecheck |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| ughaibu: Here's a great From's gambit: Bird vs Lasker, 1892 |
|
| Nov-27-03 |
| Eggman: <10. Nxc6 doesn't generate any counterplay because Black can defend with ...Bd7> Actually, 10.Nxc6 Bd7?? 11.Rxh2 gxh2 12.Qh4, n'est pas? After 10.Nxc6 Qxh1 White is down the exchange and both 11...Bd7 and 11...Qxf1+ are threatened, and I can't see any effective counter, e.g. 11.Nd4+ Bd7 or 11.Ne5+ c6 12.Qf4 f6, winning. Finally, 10.Rxh2 gxh2 11.Nxc6 h1=Q is basically the same as above. |
|
| Jun-14-05 |
| aw1988: <kevin86> Your avatar is great in certain situations. I was just reading "Bird got cooked in his own soup" which was mildly funny, but coupled with a large smiley face nearly had me on the floor. |
|
Jun-14-05
 |
| Knight13: This game is hallirious! Two great players fell for the From's Gambit trap and got beaten in only 9 mooves! LOL. |
|
Jul-02-05
|
| Knight13: 5. c3? and 9. b3?? are the embarrasing mistakes. They overlooked ...Qxh2. This game makes me think that the guy named Bird in the White player section is NOT Henry E. Bird. |
|
| Jul-02-05 |
| aw1988: Yes, it is. |
|
| Jul-16-05 |
| aw1988: Post deleted AGAIN. Why do you go to the trouble of deleting a post to make me look like an idiot?? If you're going to delete a post, TELL ME, otherwise it is simply annoying. |
|
Mar-18-06
 |
| Benzol: Which one is the actual game and which one is the duplicate? See Bird / Dobell vs Gunsberg / Locock, 1892 Practically the same opponents but different years. |
|
Jan-31-09
 |
| Phony Benoni: <Benzol> Considering the game scores only, the only difference comes on movas 6 & 7: 1892: 6.Nd4 Nc6 7.Qa4
1897: 6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Nd4
Of course, the 1892 order of moves allows Black a mate in three by 6...Qh4+. However, one poster on that page quoted a book by Assiac which not only gave that order of moves but commented on the missed mate. On the other hand, <The Fireside Book of Chess> by Chernev and Reinfeld gives the 1897 order of moves, without the missed mate. Not that I'm holding them up as paragons of historical accuracy, but this at least indicates that both scores have some validity. Personally, my belief is that when two world-class players miss a beginner's mate in three in the opening, it's because the mate never existed. So I'd favor the 1897 order of moves. As for the players: since Bird and Gunsberg were players of more or less the same rank, it would seem unusual that Bird wouild have a consultant and Gunsberg not. In these situations, you generally have two weaker players against a stronger, or two teams of a stronger and weaker opposing each other. Hence, I'd favor the 1892 players and the 1897 order of moves. But that's just logic, not historical proof. Certainly one of the games should be made an alternate game score for the other and then deleted. |
|
