|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-18-18 | | zanzibar: The first two Reti--Euwe match games were played before the Amsterdam tournament, as reported on 1920-05-22. The tournament began on the 23th, so the final two match games likely were played in June, matching the newspaper accounts. Only four games were played, all decisive. |
|
| Jan-18-18 | | Retireborn: <z> Many thanks once again. Interestingly (or perhaps not) the 1932 Euwe v Flohr match was also split in two around a tournament in Bern, as I recall. |
|
| Jan-18-18 | | zanzibar: <RB> the 3rd game was probably played before the tournament as well... but I'm reasonably sure the 4th game was in June. I'll double-check all this after the 1st pass - right now it's still working notes. |
|
| Jan-18-18 | | sneaky pete: From delpher this link to the weekly chess column by Van Trotsenburg in the Algemeen Handelsblad of Saturday June 19, 1920. https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/v... It states that this was the 4th and last game of the match. I also found the column of June 5 (same editor and newspaper) with the second game, the QGD Tarrasch Defence won by Réti. So the game numbering here is right, and Münninghoff was wrong. But at least we know now that this 4th game was played in June. |
|
| Jan-18-18 | | Retireborn: <sneaky pete> Many thanks again. I've been able to adjust my Chessbase data accordingly. |
|
| Jan-18-18 | | zanzibar: <RB> you'll likely have to adjust it again too. |
|
| Jan-18-18 | | zanzibar: Biographer Bistro (kibitz #17476) I think this game is best dated from June 5, 1920. Details can be found in the PGN comments by following the link-chain above. |
|
May-03-20
 | | al wazir: Euwe was 19 when this game was played. |
|
May-03-20
 | | FSR: Strange problem, since the Stockfish analysis given with the game says that White's 10th and 11th moves were both blunders, giving Black a winning advantage, and that White's 13th move was inferior. However, Stockfish doesn't say where Black should have improved and won his won game instead of being mated into oblivion. I'm confused. |
|
| May-03-20 | | agb2002: A bit too famous. |
|
| May-03-20 | | mel gibson: A very strange game.
Stockfish 11 says the answer is to castle.
10. O-O
(10. O-O (O-O c5-c4 ♖a1-b1 ♕b2-a3 ♘c3-b5
♕a3-c5+ ♗g5-e3 ♗g7-h6 ♗e3xc5 ♗h6xd2 ♘b5-c7+ ♔e8-d8 ♘c7xa8 c4xd3 ♘f3xd2
d7-d6 ♗c5xa7 d3xc2 ♖b1-b2 ♘b8-a6 ♗a7-b6+ ♔d8-e8 ♗b6-d4 ♖h8-f8 ♗d4xf6 ♖f8xf6
♖b2xc2 ♖f6xf1+ ♔g1xf1 ♘a6-c5 ♖c2-c3 ♗c8-f5 ♘a8-b6 ♔e8-d8 ♔f1-e2 e7-e6
♘d2-b3 ♔d8-c7 ♘b6-a8+ ♔c7-d7 ♘b3xc5+ d6xc5 ♖c3xc5 ♔d7-d6 ♖c5-c7 e6xd5
♖c7xh7 d5-d4 ♘a8-b6 ♔d6-c5 ♘b6-d7+ ♔c5-d6 ♘d7-f6 ♔d6-e6 ♘f6-e8 ♗f5-e4
g2-g3) +6.47/35 104)
score for White +6.47 depth 35 |
|
| May-03-20 | | Brenin: Does 13 Nc7+ also win, e.g. Kd8 14 Bxe7+ Kxc7 15 Qf4+, or 13 ... Kxe7 14 Qg5+ ? Alternatives 13 ... Kf8 or Kf7 don't look any better. |
|
| May-03-20 | | goodevans: <Brenin: Does 13 Nc7+ also win...> Looks to me like it does indeed. |
|
| May-03-20 | | goodevans: < FSR: [...] I'm confused.> ... but probably not as confused as Stockfish!
Somewhere in the SF algorithm it must truncate branches that it decides aren't worth pursuing. I can only assume it has lopped off branches that turn out to be winning for white, though quite why I have no idea. I have posted before about positions that SF doesn't seem to understand but it's a long time since I've come across it being as confused as it is here. |
|
May-03-20
 | | chrisowen: Reti record don't fade away no? |
|
May-03-20
| | chrisowen: Fab b1 no? |
|
| May-03-20 | | W Westerlund: I never understood this famous game. It seems that Euwe misplays the opening - you should think that he should be well versed in the theory of the Staunton gambit when playing the Dutch, but no. I do not understand why he plays 9. ... Qxb2. I do not understand 10. ... Nxd5 - why not just Qa3? I do not understand 13. ... d6 - what purpose does it serve? |
|
| May-03-20 | | mike1: at 29 Ply SF comes up with a completely different assessment:
1) +4.42 (29 ply) 12.♔f2 ♕b2 13.♗xe7 ♗d4+ 14.♔g3 ♗e5+ 15.♔h4 ♘c6 16.♘xe5 ♘xe5 17.♗b5 ♕d4+ 18.♕xd4 cxd4 19.♗d6 b6 20.♘c7+ ♔d8 21.♗xe5 g5+ 22.♔h5 d6 23.♗xh8 ♔xc7 24.♖e1 ♗g4+ 25.♔xg4 ♖xh8 26.♖e7+ ♔b8 27.♗d3 h6 28.♖f7 ♖c8 29.♖f6 h5+ 30.♔xh5 ♖h8+ 31.♖h6 ♖xh6+ 32.♔xh6 g4 33.♔g5 ♔c7 34.♔xg4 |
|
May-03-20
| | chrisowen: Tell me we're alright no begs discard? |
|
| May-03-20 | | goodevans: <W Westerlund: I never understood this famous game.> You're not alone there.
<I do not understand why he plays 9. ... Qxb2.> My guess is that he was expecting 10.Rb1 Nxd5 11.Rxb2 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 Nxc3 which would have been fine for black. <I do not understand 10. ... Nxd5 - why not just Qa3?> 10...Qa3 11.d6 would not have been good for black. <I do not understand 13. ... d6 - what purpose does it serve?> I think this is designed to defend against a frontal assault on the e-file, e.g. 13... d6 14.Qe3 Nc6 15.Bxd6 Kd7 and black is holding on. It's all pretty hopeless by now anyway. Alternatives don't fare any better. 13...Qa1 14.Bd6 or 13... Nc6 14.Qg5 would be equally bad. |
|
May-03-20
| | chrisowen: <Brenin> Nc7 it is safety in numbers no? |
|
| May-03-20 | | seneca16: Westerlund- Qxb2 was probably based on a mistaken evaluation of his followup Nxd5. d6: well what else? He is trying to get his pieces out into the game. |
|
May-03-20
| | chrisowen: Hey mack on a cloud? |
|
| May-03-20 | | Brenin: Answering my question above, 13 Nc7+ also seems to win, Black's best line (there are several others) being 13 ...Kd8 14 Bxe7+ Kxc7 15 Qf4+ Kb6 16 Qd6+ Nc6 17 Qxc5+ Kc7 18 Bd6+ Kd8 19 Qg5+ Ke8 20 Bxg6+ hxg6 21 Qxg6+ Kd8 22 Qxg7 Re8 23 Qf6+, with 23 ... Ne7 or Re7 answered by 24 Ne5 and mate in a few moves. |
|
| May-04-20 | | sudoplatov: Reti beat Euwe 6-3-4 but the first 5 wins were in this match (Euwe was 19). EDO has Reti @ 2556 end Euwe @ 2406. Euwe was just starting out rated #61 and Reti #11. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 11.Nxd5