< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Nov-03-07|| ||Poisonpawns: Fantastic Attacking chess here|
|Nov-18-07|| ||MissesManyMoves: Walter Tevis mentions this game briefly in his 1983 novel The Queens' Gambit. (page 51)|
|Nov-24-07|| ||Karpova: This game won a prize for the most brilliant game of the tournament (Minev/Donaldson).|
|Aug-06-08|| ||arsen387: Rubinstein is the greatest player ever not to become a World Champion. He really deserved to be. Great game and annotations help a lot. I liked the mate that could have arised after 13...Kd8 14.Rxd1+ Kc8 15.Ba6+ Kb8 16.Nc6+ Qxc6 17.Be5+ (17...Qc7 18.Rd8+ mate) 18.Rc1!! and mate next move, as is described in annotation to move 13.|
|Jun-03-10|| ||Crocage: this game should be in the daily puzzle|
|May-10-15|| ||Blind Pigs: I appreciated A.R.'s not swapping the N for the dark squared bishop. Seems obvious that this would probably lead to a draw (as opposed to swapping it for thr light squared bishop in a couple moves), but it's surprising how many players make careless positional errors like that.|
|May-11-15|| ||MagnusVerMagnus: If Rubenstein had the positions that Capa had out of the openings he would have been WC for many years, only endgame player comparable imho is Carlsen, though many like Morphy, Lasker, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik are very close.|
|Feb-06-16|| ||TheFocus: Two brilliancy prizes were donated by Baron Albert de Rothschild. The first prize of 300 crowns was awarded to Rubinstein for his victory over Duras; and the second prize of 200 crowns was awarded to Marshall for his victoty over Mieses.|
Source: <American Chess Bulletin> August 1908>, pg. 169.
|Jun-15-17|| ||keypusher: <MagnusVerMagnus: If Rubenstein had the positions that Capa had out of the openings he would have been WC for many years,>|
What makes you think he didn't? I've heard Capablanca called many things, but opening expert isn't one of them. Rubinstein, on the other hand...
<only endgame player comparable imho is Carlsen, though many like Morphy, Lasker, Petrosian, Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik are very close.>
|Jun-15-17|| ||MissScarlett: Offhand, I can't recall if Rubinstein ever had a world championship challenge accepted by Lasker or Capa. The problem being that it was then incumbent on the challenger to raise most, if not all of the prize fund, by soliciting monies from wealthy patrons. In that regard, Rubinstein was about as useful as a pair of sunglasses on a man with one ear. Passing around the yarmulke at the local synagogue probably wouldn't have helped much.|
|Jun-15-17|| ||keypusher: < MissScarlett: Offhand, I can't recall if Rubinstein ever had a world championship challenge accepted by Lasker >|
I hesitate to disagree with you, but I thought a match with Lasker was on the calendar for October 1914.
|Jun-15-17|| ||schnarre: ...Another good example of the Queen being deployed too soon, & getting duly punished for it.|
|Jun-16-17|| ||kevin86: A great finish! after a good start.|
|Jun-05-18|| ||Penguincw: Video analysis of this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9a....|
Love the last move - retreat.
|Sep-01-19|| ||mel gibson: That's a tough one.
I would have played 11. h3
to unpin my Queen.
Stockfish 10 agrees with the text and says:
(11. Nce5 (♘c4-e5 ♘c6xe5 ♗f1xb5+ ♘e5-d7 ♖a1-c1 ♕c7-d8
h2-h3 ♗g4-e6 ♘f3-g5 ♖a8-b8 ♘g5xe6 f7xe6 ♗b5-c6 ♖b8-c8 O-O ♔e8-f7 ♕d1-f3
♘d7-b8 ♖f1-d1 ♕d8-b6 ♗b2-d4 ♕b6xc6 ♖c1xc6 ♘b8xc6 ♗d4-c3 ♘c6-d8 ♗c3-b2 h7-h5
b4-b5 ♖h8-h6 a3-a4 ♔f7-g8 ♗b2-d4 g7-g5 ♗d4xa7 g5-g4 ♕f3-e2 g4xh3 g2xh3
♘d8-b7 ♗a7-d4 ♖h6-g6+ ♔g1-h1 ♗f8-g7 e3-e4 ♔g8-h8 b5-b6 ♘b7-c5) +2.90/39
score for White +2.90 depth 39
|Sep-01-19|| ||RandomVisitor: After 10...b5, surprising is 11.h3:
click for larger view
45/77 1:08:13 +3.26 11.Nce5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxd1 13.Bxb5+ Nd7 14.Rxd1 0-0-0 15.Nxd7 Rxd7 16.Bxd7+ Qxd7 17.Rxd7 Kxd7 18.Ke2 f6 19.Rd1+ Kc7 20.Rc1+ Kb7 21.f4 e6 22.b5 Bd6 23.Rc6 Rd8 24.Ra6 e5 25.fxe5 Bxe5 26.Bxe5 fxe5 27.Re6 g6 28.a4 Rc8 29.Rxe5 Rc4 30.a5 Rb4 31.Kf3 Kc7 32.Rc5+ Kd6 33.Rc6+ Kd7 34.Ra6 Rxb5 35.Rxa7+ Kc6 36.Rxh7 Rxa5 37.Rh6 Rf5+ 38.Kg4 Kd5 39.Rxg6 Rf2 40.Kg3 Rf1 41.Rg4 Rh1 42.h4 Ke5 43.Rf4 Ke6
<45/66 1:08:13 +2.72 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 bxc4 13.Bxc4> Qb7 14.Rc1 e6 15.Bb3 Rc8 16.0-0 Bd6 17.Ba4 0-0 18.Bxc6 Qe7 19.Qd1 Rfd8 20.Qa4 Bb8 21.Rfd1 h6 22.b5 Nd7 23.Qe4 Bc7 24.a4 Ba5 25.Qd4 Nf6 26.Qc4 Nd5 27.Qb3 Nb6 28.Bd4 Qb4 29.Qxb4 Bxb4 30.Ra1 Ba5 31.g4 f6 32.f4 Rc7 33.Kf2 Nc4 34.Rac1 Nd2 35.Bc5 Rf7 36.f5 exf5 37.gxf5
44/73 1:08:13 +2.41 11.Ncd2 a6 12.Rc1 Qb6 13.Be2 Rc8 14.h3 Bd7 15.Nb3 e5 16.0-0 Be7 17.Nc5 Bxc5 18.Rxc5 0-0 19.Nxe5 Nxe5 20.Rxe5 Bc6 21.Bd3 g6 22.Qa1 Qb7 23.f3 Rfe8 24.Rxe8+ Nxe8 25.Rc1 Bd7 26.Bd4 Rxc1+ 27.Qxc1 Qc8 28.Qd2 Qc7 29.e4 Be6 30.Qg5 Qd7 31.Qc5 f6 32.Kf2 Kf7 33.Qb6 Qd6 34.Qa7+ Kg8 35.Ke2 Bc4 36.Bxc4+ bxc4 37.Qc5
|Sep-01-19|| ||agb2002: I know this game.|
|Sep-01-19|| ||patzer2: It seems there are multiple solutions to today's Sunday (11. ?) puzzle.|
My pick was the game move 11. Nce5 with the alternative winning follow-up 12. Bxb5+ +- (+2.57 @ 35 ply, Stockfish 10).
However, as <RV>'s deep Stockfish analysis indicates, even the quiet move 11. Ncd2 +- or the surprising 11. h3! +- yield a winning advantage.
P.S.: So where did Black go wrong? Carl Schlecter's 1908 analysis here is correct in suggesting 10...b5? is the clear losing move, allowing 11. Nce5! +-. Instead, Black can get some practical drawing chances with 10...g6 ± to +- (+1.47 @ 33 ply, Stockfish 10), but against strong play White very likely still wins after 10...g6.
So, as Schlecter's notes suggest, Black needs to look for earlier improvements.
Schlecter's analysis indicates "4...Qa5+" is Black's first "bad" move. I disagree. While 4...e6
⩱ to = is arguably better, 4...Qa5+ ⩲ to = is not inherently "bad."
Our Opening Explorer indictes 4...e6 is more popular than 4...Qa5+. However, the computer evaluations and results with 4...Qa5+ are about as good as with 4...e6.
IMO Black's first significant problem in the opening is not 4...Qa5+ =, but instead the tempo wasting 6...Qc7? for which Schlecter has no comment. After 6...Qc7?! 7. c4 ± (+1.07 @ 31 ply, Stockfish 10), White, with superior development and more space, stands clearly better.
Instead of moving the Queen a third time in the opening with 6...Qc7?, the second player can improve with 6...g6 as in Black's win in M Lushenkov vs E Najer, 2011 or 6...a5 as in the draw in S Ernst vs P Ladron de Guevara Pinto, 2019.
|Sep-01-19|| ||RandomVisitor: <patzer2><Our Opening Explorer indictes 4...e6 is more popular than 4...Qa5+. However, the computer evaluations and results with 4...Qa5+ are about as good as with 4...e6.>|
Interesting, a medium length computer run provides the following:
click for larger view
41/61 1:10:48 -0.04 4...e6 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.Be2 Bxc5 7.b3 Nc6 8.0-0 Qe7 9.c4 dxc4 10.Bxc4 0-0 11.Nbd2 Rae8 12.Bb2 Ba3 13.Bxa3 Qxa3 14.e4 e5 15.Qe2 Qd6 16.Rfd1 Bg4 17.h3 Nd4 18.Qe3 Bh5 19.Bd3 Bxf3 20.Nxf3 Rd8 21.Rac1 Rfe8 22.Bc4 h6 23.Bb5 Re7 24.Bc4 a6 25.Bd5 Nxd5 26.exd5 Nxf3+ 27.Qxf3 e4 28.Qe3
41/58 1:10:48 +0.37 4...a5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Na4 Nbd7 7.Bb5 Be7 8.c4 dxc4 9.Nb6 Rb8 10.Nxc4 0-0 11.Bd2 Nxc5 12.Bxa5 Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 Bd7 14.Bxd7 Ncxd7 15.Nb6 Nxb6 16.Bxb6 Rfc8 17.0-0 Ne4 18.Rd7 Bf8 19.a3 Rc2 20.Ne5 Rxb2 21.Bd4 Rc2 22.Nxf7 Re8 23.Ne5 b5 24.f3 Nc3 25.Ra1 Ne2+ 26.Kf1 Nxd4 27.exd4 Be7 28.Ra7 Bf6
40/57 1:10:48 +0.66 4...Nc6 5.c3 a5 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.b4 Qb8 8.a3 e5 9.Bb2 e4 10.Nd4 Be7 11.Be2 0-0 12.Nd2 b6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.cxb6 Qxb6 15.0-0 Rfc8 16.Rb1 Bb5 17.Bxb5 Qxb5 18.a4 Qd3 19.b5 Nd7 20.Nb3 Nb6 21.Qxd3 exd3 22.Rfd1 Nxa4 23.Rxd3 Bf6 24.Rxd5 Nxb2 25.Rxb2
By the way, I'm generating a lot of computer runs lately because I am at home recovering from foot surgery on Thursday.
|Sep-01-19|| ||1stboard: Too famous a game , but very instructive.
In Irving Chernev's 62 most instructive Games of Chess
|Sep-01-19|| ||patzer2: <Random Visitor> Thanks for the deep Stockfish analysis of 4...e6 and a few of its alternatives. |
I know 4...Qa5+ ⩲ doesn't assess quite as well as 4...e6 = on computer analysis. However, I think 4...Qa5+ ⩲ is one of those moves the computers (particularly Stockfish) underestimate.
Perhaps that's because it's difficult for humans to exploit any small advantage gained against 4...Qa5+. As I previously mentioned, 4...Qa5+ seems to perform about as well as 4..e6 in human play.
P.S.: Wishing you well for a full recovery from foot surgery.
|Sep-01-19|| ||RandomVisitor: <patzer2><P.S.: Wishing you well for a full recovery from foot surgery.>The surgery was successful, now comes the 4 months recovery from a tear in my peroneus brevis tendon.|
|Sep-01-19|| ||Breunor: Wow, playing through games like this remind me of why it is great to be a chess fan. I feel like clapping!|
|Sep-02-19|| ||RandomVisitor: After 4...Qa5+
click for larger view
<56/78 17:20:59 +0.47 5.Nbd2 e6 6.a3 Bxc5> 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Qd8 9.b4 Be7 10.c4 a5 11.b5 Nbd7 12.cxd5 exd5 13.a4 Nc5 14.Ba3 Bd6 15.Bb2 Re8 16.Nb3 Nce4 17.Rc1 Qe7 18.Qd4 Bf5 19.Rfd1 Rac8 20.h3 Qd7 21.Bf1 h5 22.b6 Qe6 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Nxa5 Bc5 25.Qe5 Bxb6 26.Nxb7 Nxf2 27.Re1 Qxe5 28.Nxe5 Rc2 29.Bd4 Bxd4 30.exd4 N2e4 31.Bd3 Ra2 32.Nc6 Be6 33.a5 Ng3 34.Nc5 h4 35.Nxe6 fxe6 36.Rxe6
|Sep-02-19|| ||patzer2: <RV> Thanks again! After looking at your deep Stockfish analysis, I'm, thinking 4...e6 = is slightly better than 4...Qa5+ ⩲. In other words, it's probably better for Black to play ...e6 sooner (i.e. 4...e6 =) rather than later (i.e. 4...Qa5+ 5. Nbd2! e6 ⩲)|
However, I also believe your deep Stockfish analysis confirms Carl Schlecter's 1908 assessment of 4...Qa5+ as a "bad" move is at best an exaggeration and at worse simply wrong.
P.S.: Of course, in 1908, Schlecter didn't have the benefit of years of practice and theory with 4...Qa5+ or a strong computer program like Stockfish to analyze it. Given those limitations and the fact that 4...e6 = assesses slightly better than 4...Qa5+ ⩲, I think he did a pretty good job of analyzing this fascinating and instructive game.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·