| Nov-08-03 | | Bad Star: Miles actually spent some time polishing the e2-square with his finger (until Christiansen's face had assumed a suitable shade of red) before making the move 6.♘xe4. The game was of course agreed drawn in advance. |
|
Nov-08-03
 | | Eggman: 6.Qe2 wins, e.g. 6...Qe7 7.Nd5 Qd7 8.d3, as Anand found out the following year: A Zapata vs Anand, 1988 |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: What's with the pre-arranged draws??? Can they do that? |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | azaris: This was during the Cold War. You know how the dirty Westerners always colluded to prevent those poor Soviet communists from winning. |
|
| Jan-05-07 | | RookFile: Pretty clever too, in a tournament in San Francisco. |
|
| Nov-04-07 | | whiteshark: Yes, a draw as result has been agreed before. Miles and Christiansen were playing together in the Porz team in German 1st league.
Therefore Miles couldn't play the winning move <6.Qe2> after Christiansen blundered with <5...Bf5??>. Instead the game continued this way and was published in the next Informator. Anand, of course didn't know about this background but trusted the Informator game blindly. |
|
| Jan-09-08 | | TigerG: What's wrong with miles? He could have won with 6. Qe2. Did he not see that or what. |
|
| Jan-24-08 | | parmetd: first of all the anand game was played in 1986 a year before this not a year after, and second this game was not agreed draw, larryc messed up and miles messed up back. |
|
| Jun-15-08 | | Manic: <parmetd> That sounds a pretty ignorant comment, considering that nobody else supports that argument looking over kibitzes on both anand's and this games page. |
|
| Jun-08-09 | | sheaf: <parmetd> zapata-anand was played 1988...larryc messed up is obviously true, but to claim that miles missed Qe2 is like claiming lightening struck me twice...and I am still alive..;-)...This game was actually a pre-arranged draw. Qe7 doesn't defend the piece because of the obvious Nd5, well its not obvious to u I am sure.. |
|
| Jul-17-09 | | WhiteRook48: 6 Qe2 wins from zapata-anand |
|
| Jun-01-10 | | parmetd: how exactly is the comment the ignorant? It is the truth whether you like the truth or not. |
|
| Jul-07-10 | | MaczynskiPratten: <parmetd>: if you claim it is the truth, you need to provide some evidence to counter all the material pointing the other way. Several records seem to show that Zapata-Anand was 1988, none 1986 as you state. |
|
Feb-01-15
 | | Domdaniel: <azaris> -- < This was during the Cold War. You know how the dirty Westerners always colluded to prevent those poor Soviet communists from winning.> OK, I'm ten years late in spotting this, but ... best post ever! |
|
| Feb-02-15 | | TheBish: I bet that after Anand repeated the blunder with 5...Bf5??, he never trusted any published analysis ever again! |
|
Aug-01-18
 | | FSR: "Nick Pelling explains Anand’s mishap in his entertaining Chess Superminiatures: ‘While looking through the Informator chess journal, he found a Petroff’s Defence game (Miles-Christiansen) with an opening novelty where the game was drawn quickly. So when he happened to reach that same position, he played the novelty … only to discover it immediately lost a piece. And so resigned. What had actually happened was that Grandmasters Tony Miles and Larry Christiansen had agreed a draw in advance, but decided to play to move 20 for show. But Christiansen blundered on his fifth move, and accidentally allowed Miles to win a piece … had Miles played the correct 6 Qe2. What Tony Miles then did was spend a few seconds polishing the e2 square until Christiansen’s face had gone bright red with embarrassment at his mistake. Miles then captured the Black knight on e4 instead, before agreeing their pre-agreed draw a few moves later.’" http://www.kingpinchess.net/2014/03... |
|
Aug-01-18
| | FSR: <TheBish> The publishers of Chess Informant gave Miles-Christiansen as an "RR" (editorial comment) to another game, without analysis. Anand evidently took the facts that two strong grandmasters had played the game, and that Informant had given it as an "RR," as reasons to believe that 5...Bf5 was a reasonable move. If he had only spent five seconds analyzing it before playing it, I'm sure he would have found the refutation . . . . |
|
Kibitzing
