|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-21-03
 | | patzer2: <Honza Cervenka> Thanks for providing the pretty mating variation starting with 13...fxg2+! I assume you meant 17...Qf4!! I seem to recall that the letter D is used in German notation to identify the Queen (e.g. Dame in German). Also, I was wondering if you saw an escape for White after the 13...Bd6 played in the game? It seems to me that 13...Bd6 to set up a shorter and simpler mating variation may be the most practical move, since the sharp waiting moves 16...Bc5!, 17. Qf4!! and 18...Qg5! are much more difficult to find over the board when contemplating Black's 13th move. |
 |
Dec-21-03
| | patzer2: For those interested, you can copy and paste the following web site into your browser to find the names of the chess pieces in 60 different languages: geocities.com/TimesSquare/Metro/9154/nap-pieces.htm#T I apologize for not providing it as a link, but links to longer web site names do not always work well on ChessGames.Com. |
|
Dec-21-03
| | patzer2: Use the following link and scroll down until you find the table giving the notation in German, French, Italian, Greek and Polish: http://www.code.gr/chess-converter/...
I know when I lived in Germany for a time with my family in the early 1980s, and first visited a local Chess Club, I was surprised to see D used for Queen and S for Knight. |
|
| Dec-21-03 | | talchess2003: That is one LONG name. Of what nationality is he? |
|
| Dec-21-03 | | talchess2003: Nice variation Honza :P |
|
| Dec-21-03 | | ezumpf: I don't understand Black's 4.b5 and even more 12.d5. I don't see the point. Somebody please explain. |
|
| Dec-21-03 | | Chizoad: Ezumpf, 12.d5 is opening up the square for the black bishop which plays a key role in the combination. 4.b5 was a fashion of the times. Kasparov (as black) played Nigel Short in a thematic game with this variation, and I think the game is in the Chessgames.com database. Kasparov said he wanted to resign after playing 4.b5 because the move had no point. Check "My Great Predecessors" for his analysis. |
|
Dec-21-03
| | patzer2: I suspect the complexity and double-edged nature of the 3. Bc4 line, allowing Black immediate counterplay with 3...Qh4+, is a major reason 3. Nf3 is the most frequently played move at the Master and Expert level in the King's Gambit Accepted. Of course 3. Nf3 also eliminates a lot of lines for White to remember while at the same time sustaining a longer initiative for White. |
|
Dec-21-03
| | patzer2: <Chizoad> Short vs Kasparov, 1993 was won by Short who played 6. Nf3!, improving on the dubious 6. Nc3?! played in this game. Despite Kasparov's lament, 4...b5 has a point in deflecting the white bishop to a not very useful square/diagonal, where white will have to waste a tempo to put it back into play. The move also opens up a useful diagonal for the Black c8 bishop to move to a6 or b7, with the idea of a sort of Polish Opening or Orangutan in reverse (a slightly similar idea can also be found in the 5...b5 a variation of the two knights defense as in Estrin vs Berliner, 1965 and perhaps to a lesser degree in the Evans Gambit -- Yeah! I know the comparison is a stretch, but hopefully you get the idea that 4...b5 may not be a total waste or without precedent). However, I do agree the intent of Kasparov's comment is sound in that with best play by White, Black's compensation is probably not adequate to justify the pawn sacrifice. Yet, even so, Kasparov missed a chance to improve by not playing an obvious improvement at Black's 10th move, as pointed out by Honza Cervenka in the Kibitzing to that game at the above link. |
|
Dec-22-03
| | patzer2: The sequence 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 in the King's Gambit Accpeted is not without punch for White, as indicated by the Short vs Kasparov link above as well as the result in Corcoran vs Howland, 1952 The idea is that with the tempo gained chasing the Black Queen (e.g. 6. Nf3!), White can develop a strong attack against the Black King. However, BCO (Kasparov and Keene) indicate Black can equalize with the rarely played 4...c6 as in Zsofia Polgar vs S Solomon, 1986 |
|
| Dec-22-03 | | ezumpf: Thanks Chizoad and patzer2. Really helpful. |
|
Jul-04-04
 | | refutor: <Patzer2> of course 6.Nf3 was also played in the immortal game ;) |
|
| Apr-15-06 | | MorphyMatt: Kieseritsky is always inventing brilliancies or on the losing end of them lol |
|
| Apr-15-06 | | IMDONE4: lol... He was a great player, although we look down upon him for suffering from The Immortal Game |
|
Oct-18-07
 | | nimh: Rybka 2.4 mp, AMD X2 2.01GHz, 10 min per move, threshold 0.33. Schulten 4 mistakes:
12.Bc4 -3.10 (12.Bf4 1.17)
13.Bxd5 -12.13 (13.Nc7 -2.98)
14.Qe1 #6 (14.e5 0.00)
17.Kh4 #2 (17.Be6 #3)
Kieseritsky 2 mistakes:
10...f3 1.01 (10...d5 0.00)
13...Bd6 0.00 (13...fxg2+ -12.13) |
|
| Jan-04-08 | | DanLanglois: How did Rybka analyze 14 e5(!) to an even game? White is stone cold won. 14...Bxe5 15 Bxf3. |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | WhiteRook48: Anderssen, I remember played g6+ Kh6 Bf8#. But why delay? You have a mate in one. Beautiful queen sac. |
|
May-15-09
 | | heuristic: <Rybka analyse 14.e5 to an even game? White is stone cold won> 14...Re8 15.Bxf3 Nxe5 16.Be4 Bxh3+ looks playable. |
|
| Nov-20-10 | | Igor Egin: A fantastic checmate! But game was too 'vulgar' (I MEAN THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY STRAIGHT ATTACKING MOVES). |
|
Nov-21-10
 | | sevenseaman: 15. Qxh3! Did Kieseritsky announce a mate in four? Even Schulten would have seen the impending demise. |
|
| Dec-17-11 | | Penguincw: Very unique mating pattern. |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | squaresquat: I've read that Bobby Fischer thought 3.Bc4 was promising for white. I've been playing it with good results. The Queen check is just a temptation.When Black sees Bishop coming out with a juicy mate threat, it looks like the attack really has substance.But it is 'light horse charge, just brushed off;white is left with a very good center as a result of the tempos lost by Black Queen. |
|
Mar-02-12
 | | Fusilli: <sevenseaman: 15. Qxh3! Did Kieseritsky announce a mate in four?> I've seen this expression before. Did people really "announce" mate in N in the nineteenth century (and maybe before)? |
|
| Mar-02-12 | | AlanPardew: For sure, but, beware, if your announced mate failed to materialise, you could be publicly thrashed to within an inch of your life. |
|
Mar-02-12
| | Fusilli: <Alan> Conversely, what if you had and gave forced mate in N moves but failed to announce it? Would you then be considered a chicken? :-) |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 8...Nd4
