|Jul-04-02|| ||morphynoman: What a game!! 12... gxf5 13. Nxe6!! fxe6 14. Bh5+ Kf8 15. Bh6+ Kg8 16. Qg4+!! fxg4 17. Bf7 mat!
And what about 21... Rxe2!! |
|Feb-01-04|| ||capanegra: This is a great game, with a beautiful attack and counter-attack. It is also worth mentioning that if 13…♙f5x♘e4 14.♙e6x♙f7+ ♔f8 15.♘e6#.
But there is something I don’t get it. If Spielmann’s attack in the opening was sparkling as the books say, then why did he lose? I think the key moment is at move 19, when white has sacrificed a rook, but enjailed black’s queen. After that, Eliskases iniciates a tremendous counter-attack and knocks his opponent out. So, is all over for white at move 19, thus he should never have reached that position? Was the error committed when he lost time trying to capture the queen with 15.♙a4 and 16.♙a5? Or was he just bluffing? |
|Feb-01-04|| ||Catfriend: Nice! In fact, a trapped queen... hmmm.... Well, a pearl in my coll.|
I'm sorry for the scepticism, but I feel white's attack, though beautiful, isn't 100% correct
|Feb-01-04|| ||Sneaky: Catfriend, check out a famous trapped-queen encounter: Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1958|
|Feb-01-04|| ||Calli: "Was the error committed when he lost time trying to capture the queen with 15.a4 and 16.a5?"|
Yes, I think so. 15.Rxf5! would seem to be more in the spirit of the attack than 15.a4?
|Feb-04-04|| ||capanegra: <Calli> 15.Rxf5, very nice move! Yes, that seems to be the way...and tell me, how would you continue if 15...Nf8 or 15...c5? |
|Feb-04-04|| ||Calli: Probably cannot analyze such a position to the end, but after c5 white would continue Ng7+ and Rf2 (to block the diagonal). Now the d pawn is protected because if cxd4 then Qxd4!. This works because if QxQ, he has the Ne6 fork. Anyway, my point being that Spielmann would be at home in such a situation. |
|Nov-03-04|| ||aw1988: I think they were drunk while conducting this brilliancy. They were drinking numerous kegs of XX. |
|Nov-13-05|| ||Autoreparaturwerkbau: Brillant game. Short but intense.|
|Jan-14-07|| ||Brown: Spielmann here plays the Geller Gambit by transposition, without an early a4, many years before its namesake came on the scene. In Geller's style, Spielmann would have done better by playing 11.Bh5 or 11.a4|
|Mar-03-07|| ||DWINS: <Calli> and <capanegra>, Reuben Fine says that if 15.Rxf5!? c5! wins for Black.|
I ran this position through Junior 6 and Junior gave Black an advantage of 0.85 after 16.Ng7+ Kd8 17.Rf2 Kc8 18.a4
I'm not sure that this is a win as Fine claims but it does seem to indicate that Black is better.
However, in over the board play, you are probably correct that Spielmann would have liked such a position.
|Apr-04-09|| ||Brown: Unbelievably, there may be at least a draw and maybe a win <!!!> found for white after <20.Ng5+ Bxg5 21.Bxg5 Rae8 22.Rf1+ Kg7 23.Qh4 h5 24.Bf6+ Nxf6 25.Qxf6 Kh7 <..Kh6 26.Rf5!>> with perpetual.|
Stopping at this position, we see that black's king has only two defenders - two rooks - while white has a rook, bishop and queen in the attack. Black will need a move or two to bring the bishop and queen to the aid of the king or into some sort of counter-attack, namely with ..c5. So white could venture, after the above line with..
<26.Bxh4!> with four main defenses for black.
A) 26..gxh5 27.Qf7+ Kh6 28.Rf6+ Kg5 29.Qg7+ Kh4 30.Qg3#
B) 26..Rhg8 27.Bxg6 Rxg6 28.Qf7+ Kh6 <..Rg7 28.Qh5+ Kg8 29.Qxe8+ Kh7 30.Rf8> 29.Qxe8 c5 <..Rxg2+ 30.Kxg2 c5+ 31.Ka3 Bc8+ 32.Ka4> 30.Qh8+ Kg5 31.g3
C) 26..Reg8 27.Rf4 gxh6 <..g5 27.Re4> 28.Qf7+ Kh6 <..Rf7 29.Qxh5+ Kg8 30.Qe8+ Kh7 31.Rh5#> 29.Rf6+ Kg5 30.Rf5+ Kh4 31.Qe7+ Kg5 32.Qe4#
D) 26..c5 with two breaks
D1) 27.Bxg6+ Kh6 28.Bxe8 Qxf6 29.Rxf6+ with a complex endgame.
D2) 27.Qf7+ Kh6 28.Rf6 Qxf6 29.Qxf6 Kxh5 30.h4 Kh6 31.Qf4+ Kg7 32.Qc7+ Kf6 33.Qxb7 with another complex endgame.
Line D seems like best play, and should be no surprise, as it gets some other pieces involved. Some interesting play here, if Spielmann decided to forget the queen and go after the king instead.
|Apr-04-09|| ||Brown: Hah! After all that work, I punch it into the computer, and it kicks out 21..Rhe8, easily winning for black. Another issue of the correct rook.|
So it looks like white either must try 15.Rxf5 or 11.Bh5.
|Jul-27-09|| ||suenteus po 147: <I think they were drunk while conducting this brilliancy. They were drinking numerous kegs of XX.> This was game 7 of a ten game match between Spielmann and Eliskases played in Linz, Austria in 1932. Eliskases beat Spielmann by one point, with a final score of +3 =5 -2.|
|Feb-15-13|| ||Eduardo Bermudez: Bravo Eliskases !! who was born 100 years ago !!|
|Feb-20-13|| ||Eduardo Bermudez: http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2...|
|Feb-28-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: More GOTD material.
Chernev, Fine, Kmoch, Tartakower, Soltis ... (and probably others) have all praised this game as one of the best ever.
A few years ago, I remember analyzing this game with Fritz 10 or Fritz 11, But I could not find that work when I went looking for it.
|Feb-28-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: White appeared to have a winning attack at one point, after he trapped the Black Q, yet it all came undone on him somehow. (Incredible tactics here, must be lots of puzzles in this game!!! CG staff, are you paying any attention here?)|
|Feb-27-15|| ||offramp: <capanegra: ...Was the error committed when he lost time trying to capture the queen with 15.♙a4 and 16.♙a5? Or was he just bluffing?>|
15.a4 does seem a bit irrelevant. As <Calli> says, 15.Rxf5 looks better.
click for larger view
If 15...gxf5 then 16.Bh5#!
|Aug-15-15|| ||ToTheDeath: Terrific attack and counterattack. Eliskases was underrated.|
|Apr-06-16|| ||john barleycorn: < offramp: ...
15.a4 does seem a bit irrelevant. As <Calli> says, 15.Rxf5 looks better. ...>
According to Eliskases 15.Rxf5 leads to a lost position for white:
15.Rxf5 c5 16.Nxg7+ Kd8 17.dc Qc6 18.Rf7 Rf8
After 15.a4 the move c5 is a mistake:
15.a4 c5 16.Ng7+ Kd8 17.Ng5 Bxg5 18.Bxg5+ followed by 19.ab
After 21.Qf3 Eliskases writes:
"Up to here Spielmann has calculated, as far as possible for humans but yet not far enough."
|Dec-27-18|| ||Everett: D Sidorchuk vs S Sukharev, 2000|