|Nov-03-05|| ||keypusher: One of my favorite games from the Hastings tournament, and a harbinger of things to come for Lasker and Janowski.|
|Sep-14-06|| ||Whitehat1963: What happens if 33...Qxb5?|
|Sep-14-06|| ||WannaBe: <whitehat1963> I'd play 34. Rxc8+|
|Sep-14-06|| ||Whitehat1963: Fair enough, but why does, according to Teichmann, 33. Nb5 leave black "defenseless"?|
|Jan-06-08|| ||keypusher: <Whitehat1963> White is threatening the pawn at d5 and also a knight fork at d6. I don't see a decent defense, e.g. 33...Rd7? 34. Bxf5 or 33...Rf6 34. Nd6 and Black has nothing better than ...Rxd6.|
|Jun-07-10|| ||YoungEd: It's interesting that Teichmann's annotations really don't give any variations at all, but speak to general prinicples and considerations. I wonder if he played more by principles than by concrete analysis.|
|Jun-07-10|| ||Boomie: <YoungEd: It's interesting that Teichmann's annotations really don't give any variations at all, but speak to general prinicples and considerations. I wonder if he played more by principles than by concrete analysis.>|
Teichmann was known as a capable analyst and he achieved many fine results in major tournaments. His greatest success was Game Collection: Karlsbad 1911 where he finished clear 1st ahead of Rubinstein and other great players.
So he was quite capable and comfortable with "concrete analysis". Personally I prefer the descriptive style as it better reveals how GMs think. I can always load the position into my engine if I want to "pour concrete".
|Jun-08-10|| ||YoungEd: Hi, <Boomie>,
Teichmann was of course an astute tactician and calculator; all great players are, and he was indeed great.
I still think it's interesting to ask where he fit in along an imaginary "principles-calculations" continuum. We might say that Kotov is an example of one strongly on the side of the "calculations" end of the continuum, whereas perhaps Edward Lasker or Steintiz would be more on the "principles" side (at least, judging from their writings).
I agree that the type of commentary given here is more helpful to one like myself.
|Jun-08-10|| ||Boomie: <YoungEd: I agree that the type of commentary given here is more helpful to one like myself.>|
I would go even farther and say it is more helpful to everyone. If we have a question about a move not played, we can always work it out for ourselves. Or we can leave a question here and the CG analysts will eventually respond.
You will find that those game analysts that include alternate lines are all too frequently wrong. Even the "immortals" like Morphy make mistakes (games annotated by Morphy). By the way, this collection is well worth playing over. Morphy learned chess by studying these games. Game Collection: WCC Index [La Bourdonnais-McDonnell 1834]
The chess computer has removed the need to include lines in analysis. Most analysis today is taken from the engines and nobody dares publish without checking lines with an engine. Besides most of us will not understand the meaning of a line without some description.
|Jun-08-10|| ||Marmot PFL: Even with the IQP black seemed fine until he started pushing the f and g pawns. Positional suicide.|