< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Dec-10-08|| ||whiteshark: <Mr.Melad> Intriguing find(!!), but I was joking. For all numbers bigger than 10 I've only a vague understanding. :D/|
|Dec-11-08|| ||WhiteRook48: Oh yeah? How about 150.79645... divided by 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993-
|Dec-11-08|| ||WhiteRook48: Ok, why are we doing way too much kibitzing on the number 48? Maybe I should make a different number... like 47... but then you guys would put 46 + 1 or 96/2 - 1, which is confounding me... Never mind.|
|Dec-11-08|| ||whiteshark: Anagraming <WhiteRook> lead to double entendres|
|Dec-18-08|| ||WhiteRook48: The kibitzing here seems to have died down. Whew! At least no worries about the number 48... oh no... not again... HEY I SAID NO!!!!!
50 - 2
|Dec-18-08|| ||norami: The number e, sum of the inverses of the factorials, is roughly 2.71828. The number e to the tenth is about 22,000 and about one out of ten integers near that are prime. The number e to the eleventh is about 60,000 and about one out of eleven integers near that are prime. To prove that pattern always holds is the most important unsolved problem in mathematics. For historical reasons it's known as the Riemann Zeta problem. If you solve it you will be acknowledged as the greatest genius who ever lived. Greater than Fischer! Greater than Kasparov! Greater than Einstein! EVEN GREATER THAN OPRAH WINFREY!|
|Dec-19-08|| ||WhiteRook48: Is this just because of discussing some dumb move??? And then my username gets messed with????|
|Dec-19-08|| ||WhiteRook48: Is this just because of 3...Bg4???? and some dumb discussion about Nimzowitsch???|
|Dec-20-08|| ||WhiteRook48: And no, if I solve the the Riemann Zeta problem I will not be greater than Fischer or Kasparov or Einstein.|
|Dec-22-08|| ||WhiteRook48: Or Morphy.|
|Dec-29-08|| ||WhiteRook48: can't we just get back to the game?? Argh. 3...Bg4??|
|Nov-30-09|| ||MaczynskiPratten: A modern master would probably resign when he is a piece down without compensation after about move 33, where his attack has clearly petered out. Was he being rude to play on, or did he underestimate Morphy? It rebounded on him horribly. The last 15 moves are not so much a defeat as a complete humiliation. White's pieces are inviolable, his pawn forces Black's Rook back and it is then imprisoned by White's Bishop, and White simply marches another pawn up. How helpless do you have to be before you resign? To use a Fischerism, this must really have cracked Harrwitz's ego in the match.|
That being said, given that Morphy's position looks much superior at move 10, he doesn't seem to make much headway over the next 20 moves or so, even allowing Harrwitz some counterplay.
|Dec-30-10|| ||Elsinore: You can't go 13 months on a Morphy game without a Kibitz. Done.|
|Apr-17-13|| ||Dragi: he could resign in 28|
|Mar-18-14|| ||RookFile: The opening was hilarious, for a moment I thought this was Morphy's famous win at the opera. Harrwitz was pretty crafty and got an opposite sides castling situation a pawn down. Morphy stayed on top of the situation and won a nice game.|
|Mar-18-14|| ||morfishine: Further proof of why 3...Bg4 is so weak. Harrwitz's persistence in playing this line, especially against Morphy, defies rational analysis|
|Mar-18-14|| ||FSR: I can't tell without further research whether this game was played before or after Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858. If Harrwitz knew of that game and decided to follow Black's play, he's an idiot. In any case, even by 1858 standards his match preparation must have been atrocious. As I've said before, if Black insists on playing 3...Bg4, he <must> play the gambit 4...Nd7. That has actually given Black an even score in CG.com's database, Opening Explorer, against strong opposition, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches....|
|Mar-18-14|| ||john barleycorn: <FSR> according to Maroczy's book on Morphy the Harrwitz game was played in September 1858 (8th game of their Match) and the opera game was played in October 1858.|
|Mar-18-14|| ||Sally Simpson: The Morphy-Harrwitz ended on the 4th October 1858. The Opera game was played in November 1858 (most sources say the 2nd of November.)|
3...Bg5 is indeed a dangerous gambit due to the fact nearly everyone knows the Morphy game and underestimates Black's play.
Blackburne played it as did Nimzovitch. Black's 'attack' will need a blunder of sorts to justify the pawn sac. If you totally depend on your opponent making a blunder somewhere along the line (as I do) then this is the opening for you. (the 4...Nd7 variation)
This game deserves to be more well known. I's not on here.
King's Bishops hitting f7 & f2 within a one move of each other, this is man's chess.
Rick - Kronsbein, Frankfurt 1938
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 4. dxe5 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 dxe5 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qb3 Bc5 8. Bxf7+ Kf8 9. Nc3 Bxf2+ 10. Kxf2 Qd4+ 11. Be3 Ng4+ 12. Kf3 Qxe3+ 13. Kxg4 h5+ 14. Kf5 Qf4+ 15. Ke6 Qxf7+ 16. Kxe5 Nc6
click for larger view
|Mar-18-14|| ||FSR: <Sally Simpson> Entertaining game, albeit totally unsound. 11.Kf3, 11.Kg3, 11.Ke2, and 11.Ke1 all win easily; after 11.Be3?? Ng4+ White could still hold with 12.Kf1! Qxe3 13.Nd1=. You should submit it: PGN Upload Utility|
|Mar-18-14|| ||FSR: <norami: The number e, sum of the inverses of the factorials, is roughly 2.71828. The number e to the tenth is about 22,000 and about one out of ten integers near that are prime. The number e to the eleventh is about 60,000 and about one out of eleven integers near that are prime. To prove that pattern always holds is the most important unsolved problem in mathematics. For historical reasons it's known as the Riemann Zeta problem.>|
As Mr. Spock would say, <Fascinating.>
|Mar-18-14|| ||keypusher: Amazingly, this was once a line, and 4....Bxf3 was standard. Bilguer actually recommended 5.gxf3 instead of Qxf3. Staunton's Handbook sensibly preferred 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4, giving 6....Qf6 7.Qb3 b6 8.Nc3 c6...yeesh. Why would anyone want to play like this as Black? 6....Nf6 was evidently Harrwitz' "innovation" since this game preceded the opera game. Surely a few NNs had tried it before, though.|
Joerg Walter gathered the ancient authorities here.
City of Berlin / Julius Mendheim vs Magdeburg, 1833
The first 4....Nd7 in the database is from 1889, though I'll bet there are earlier examples. Anyone know of any?
L Van Vliet vs Lasker, 1889
Louis Van Vliet clobbers young Emanuel Lasker after a very rocky opening from both sides.
|Mar-18-14|| ||Sally Simpson: HI FSR
"....albeit totally unsound."
The whole game of chess is totally unsound.
Some pieces can move backwards, some can't. One piece can jump over others, the rest can't and if one piece is in such a position that is cannot avoid being taken on the very next move then the game is over.
A PGN Upload Utility. Good.
I might have to sprinkle on some of my games other than those they have.
Do you think they would be interested in....
Gordon Morrison - G. Chandler, Edinburgh Minor 1978.
My play is based on the theory you can only move once when it is your turn. So if I leave as many pieces hanging as I can then then mu opponent will get all bamboozled as to which one to take.
The storm clouds suddenly cleared and my opponent spent ages deciding on whether or not to play 16.0-0.
Eventually he simply shrugged his shoulders, decided he had wasted enough time and played 16.0-0-0.
(this game actually got printed in NIC.)
1. b3 e5 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 Bc5 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Qxe5+ Be6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Bb5 O-O 8. Bxc6 Ng4 9. Qe4 Qf6 10. Be3 Bf5 11. Qf3 bxc6 12. c3 Bd6 13. dxc6 Rfe8 14. Ne2 Re7 15. Nd2 Rae8 16. O-O-O Ba3
(...and please don't humour those mathematical nutters, today is obviously their medication day and they have got themselves all excited.)
|Mar-18-14|| ||FSR: <Sally Simpson> I had naively supposed that your name is "Sally Simpson." Apparently not. Your comments about having multiple pieces hanging at once bring to mind Tal's remark that one's opponent can only take one piece at a time. As for your game, one could not ask for a better illustration of "castling into it." The game is certainly entertaining, and hey, if it's good enough for New in Chess . . . . By all means, submit it.|
|Feb-04-17|| ||Dave12: 30..Nf7 would not help, i guess, against Bg4 with the threat of Bxd7 followed by Qf6+.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·