| Dec-14-03 | | kevin86: This reminds me of an even more wild game. In this one,white's queen is trapped in the corner by 2 black pawns on a2 and b2. Both pawns are defended by bishops. |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | technical draw: 36.Ne7x is a tribute to one of our fellow posters-Spitecheck! |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | suenteus po 147: <technical draw> It's not just a spite check! I mean, yeah, Duras spots it, but if there had been time pressure or if Duras had simply been inattentive, he could have just as easily played 36...Kh8?? 37.Nxf7#! So while it is a spite check in the end, I applaud Burn for fighting with his very last breath. It shows that he believed people could be beaten beyond simply logic. Such a tactic would never work against a computer, but people can (and do!) make mistakes, either through frailties, vanity, arrogance, inattention, or whatever else. You'll never know unless you try! Never give up so long as there is a chance! |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | Bears092: <You'll never know unless you try! Never give up so long as there is a chance!> Indeed. Here is a game of mine from a few months ago (I was black). I know that I made a few mistakes, but that is beside the point. My opponent made an ever bigger one. Can you find it? [Event "IL HS State '03"]
[Site "Peoria"]
[Date "2003.3.8"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Andrey Gusev (STV)"]
[Black "Dan Laurila (LF)"]
[TimeControl "55/5"]
[Result "0-1"]
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 Bd6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Qe7+ 7.Be3 Bb4+
8.Nc3 c6 9.Qb3 Be6 10.c5 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 Nbd7 12.Bd3 Bg4 13.Ne5 Nxe5
14.dxe5 Nd7 15.h3 Bh5 16.O-O Nxe5 17.Bd4 Nxd3 18.Rfe1 Nxe1 19.Rxe1 f6
20.Rxe7+ Kxe7 21.Qg3 Rhg8 22.Qd6+ Kf7 23.Qc7+ Kg6 24.Qxb7 Rgc8 25.g4 Kh6
26.gxh5 Rab8 27.Qxa7 Ra8 28.Qf7 Rf8 29.Be3+ g5 30.hxg6ep+ Kh5 31.g7+
Rxf7 0-1 |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | suenteus po 147: <Bears092> I see what you mean. 18.Rfe1! must have stung since you lose your queen. And of course I would have been quaking in my boots with the combo starting 29.Be3+! Played through properly, it's mate: 31.Qxh7# It's funny how one little mistake can completely turn the tables. I'm guessing White must have had either persistence of vision that the Queen was still defended by the pawn, or thought you were so demoralized that you would move your king, allowing him to take your last two rooks with a dastardly pawn promotion. Kudos to you for playing it out and coming out on top! Never resign! |
|
| Dec-15-03 | | Bears092: I saw 18. Rfe1 coming. I was pretty sure that I would end up with 2 rooks for the queen. I missed that Be2 saved my queen while jettisoning the bishop. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Gypsy: <24.bxa3> The alternative 24.Bc3 leads to some interesting tactics. Duras monograph gives: 24.Bc3 a2 25.Bd3 Bxd3 26.Rxd3 Ba3!! 27.bxa3 Rxc3! 28.Rxc3 b2 29.Rcc1! Rxa3! 
click for larger viewand 30.Nd2 bxc1Q+ 31.Rxa1 a1Q ... 0-1. But it seems that White could fight on with 30.Re1, as Black may not have anything much better than 30.bxa1Q Rxa1 with at least a material equality. Instead, Black can proceed, with lesser fireworks but more convincingly to the point: 24.Bc3 Rxc3! 25.bxc3 a2 26.Bd3 Bxd3 27.Rxd3 b2 
click for larger viewwith, say, 28.Rdd1 bxa1Q 29.Rxa1 Nb6 ... and an easy win on material. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | RookFile: Ah yes, here's good old Burn getting slapped around like an A player again. Of course, chessmetrics reliably informs us he was 2600 player at the time. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Bartleby: Indeed, it's too bad <cizio> didn't come swaggering in here claiming that any 2100 player today could beat Burn; he might have had a good shot at proving it. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Gypsy: <here's good old Burn getting slapped around like an A player again> Well, good old Burn he was. At 63 years old, he was more than a generation senior to the second oldest participant of the tournament, Dr. Tarrasch (49). In fact, this is arguably the last serious game of Burn's career; the game was played in the last round of the last big tournament that Burn played in. Burn faced red-hot Duras (29), who in the last 8 days of the tournament collected 7.5 points from 7 games and 1 adjournement (against Rubinstein) to finnish the tournament as a joint winner together with Rubinstein. Final standigs at Breslau 1912 were: 1-2. Duras-Rubistein, 3. Teichmann, 4-5. Schechter-Tarrasch, 6. Marshall, 7. Spielmann, 8-11. Breyer-Barasz-Przepiorka-Mieses, 12. <Burn> (7.5/17), 13-14. Levitskij-E.Cohn, 15. Carls, 16. Lowcki, 17. K.Treybal, 18. Balla. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | madlydeeply: Say, how did Ben Finegold do in this challenge of greats? |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Gypsy: <madlydeeply> ??? |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | madlydeeply: --exactly-- |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Bartleby: <Gypsy> On the Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 page Marmot made the comment that today's GMs (Benjamin Finegold was the example Marmot chose), in a match, could "easily" defeat Steinitz & Lasker (and ipso facto Morphy and Co.), and "at least" draw Alekhine and Botvinnik (we could probably add Keres, Fine, and Euwe to that list). <Madlydeeply>, being a devout Lasker-phile, fairly went bonkers at the remark (to great hilarity). |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Gypsy: <Bartleby> Thanks for an explanation! Finegold seems to be a fine player (I had to look him up) -- but Lasker is Lasker. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 32...Ra1