|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-21-08 | | Operation Mindcrime: I agree with <Peligroso Patzer> - how on earth did White allow this in a correspondence game? Ne3+! is a nice move, but not at all difficult to see... |
 |
Jul-21-08
 | | ahmadov: <Operation Mindcrime: I agree with <Peligroso Patzer> - how on earth did White allow this in a correspondence game? Ne3+! is a nice move, but not at all difficult to see...> This was probably Iverhov's first ever corr. game... |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | depraved: <regi sidal> least favo(u)rite ex-wife?
we should all be so lucky!
<mollyboo> I believe your line is what was known as the 'Wild Cunningham'; <zooter> 3....Qh4+ is a line which went out of fashion in the nineteenth century, though in, I think, 1986, Short won a miniature vs Kasparov, which was more in the nature of an exhibition-if my recollection does not fail me, they played this game after a match had already ended, leaving the game superfluous, and Short was allowed to choose the opening! <najdorfman> This is actually the first I've heard of any Bronstein analysis in the Bishop's Gambit; |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | zb2cr: Wow, this was one bad correspondence game. As pointed out by <zooter> and others, it looks like an opening trap example. |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | 234: Sunday puzzle Jul-20-08 <72. ?> Yates vs Rubinstein, 1925 |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | Samagonka: It doesn't get no easier... |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | Frankly: I suppose that it's one of those situations where it's the kind of thing that is so unexpected in the very early part of the opening as to allow for occasional occurrence, on the basis that the opponent plays according to principle without even conceiving of the potential for serious tactics at that stage. A bit like the mate with the knight in the Budapest, or the Siberian trap in the Smith-Morra. And yes, I suppose even in a correspondence game, if one refuses to believe there is a tactic, one might just send the move in as if playing a blitz game. |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | Jesspatrick: What an unfortunate forkation of the  and  |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | TheaN: 1/1
Geez. >_>. This is not even monday material.
--A--
8....Ne3†
Yeah.
9.Ke1
As taking the Knight...
--B--
9.dxe3
9....Qxd1†
...discovers the pin nicely...
10.Ne1
-b-(Kf2 Qxh1)
10....Qxc1
...and Black wins a piece to boot.
 --A--
9....Nxd1
And White is hopelessly lost.
|
|
Jul-21-08
| | awfulhangover: A correspondance game! Was white an illiterate? |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | get Reti: First look was Bh3, then Nd3. |
|
Jul-21-08
| | andymac: <ahmadov> "This was probably Iverhov's first ever corr. game..." - I suspect this was his LAST ever corr. game... |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | johnlspouge: Candidates (8…): Ne3+
8…Ne3+ (threatening 9…Nxd1)
9.dxe3 Qxd1+
White can resign after 8…Ne3+, because he must lose at least Q for N. <<Samogonka> wrote: It doesn't get no easier...> Umgangssprache! Very nice! I couldn't express it no better myself... |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | number 23 NBer: Ne3 wins the queen. Perfect Monday puzzle. |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | realbrob: Very easy one, as soon as you notice that the white queen is unprotected... 8.Nf3 is a horrible blunder that allows Black to play 8..Ne3+ and win the queen. It's amusing when you see this kind of things in a cc game. I wonder if White thought for 3 days before playing Nf3? |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | kevin86: I saw this one in an instant;black wins the queen either by fork of direct capture if the pawn takes the bishop. Quick knockout EI8HT moves! |
|
Jul-21-08
| | A.G. Argent: Cute game. And it really don't get no easier. |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | playground player: How does this happen to someone who supposedly knows what he's doing? |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | YouRang: That's about as Mondayish as they come. :-)
Incredible that this was a correspondence game. Perhaps white figured he would have to do any serious thinking until he got past the opening... |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | al wazir: White would have had a decent game after 7. Bxf7+, e.g., 7...Kxf7 8. Nxh4 Nxe4 9. Qh5+ g6 10. Qh6 g5 11. Nf3. |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | Once: Now, that was easy. Just as Mondays ought to be.
But let's rewind to the crunch point in this game. Why did white play the lemon 8. Nf3? His reasoning probably went something like this. My knight is attacked by the black queen. It's also rather offside (knight ... rim .... dim). So let's bring it back to f3. At this point, his internal alarm bell should be ringing, but it wasn't. It all looks so safe. The black knight on d5 is attacked by the e4 pawn. The white king is awkwardly placed on f1 but immune from bishop and queen checks. What clues in the position ought to have warned white to look a little deeper? I think there are at least three clues: 1. The white king and queen are sitting on forkable squares - ie squares of the same colour that can be forked by a single knight move. 2. Black has a far advanced knight - and we know that many classic combinations involve one of those. 3. The queen on d1 is unprotected. John Nunn's advice is that Loose Pieces Drop Off. These three clues should have prompted white to examine the position carefully for knight forks, especially in correspondence. We can all spot the winning move when it is presented to us as a "black to play and win" puzzle. But it is harder to spot the same tactic a move earlier when our alarm bells don't ring. |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | ChessWhiz2: That was so darn sad! That's why you never play the King's Gambit. The guy who did was terrible! Was he out of his mind or something?????? |
|
| Jul-21-08 | | vangogh228: Another example of the appearance of a guy mucking up the King's Gambit. I've played the King's Gambit literally hundreds of times and I have never lost a single game in the opening. This one was lost because of a blunder unrelated to the opening, but the opening continues to get a bad name. |
|
Jul-21-08
| | capybara: I found the wining move almost immediately. |
|
Jul-21-08
 | | boz: I saw the winning move even before I looked at the position. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
