< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Jan-16-13|| ||PaulLovric: < Phony Benoni> thank you|
|Jan-17-13|| ||Tridel: I had no idea that games could be punned more than once. And I checked the link PaulLovric thank you! And thank you Phony Benoni for providing me more info.|
|Jan-18-13|| ||IndigoViolet: There's only one moniker for this game: <Golden Shower>. Anything else is taking the piss.|
|Feb-16-13|| ||Tigranny: No offense or anything, and I forgot to add this to previous comment, but I'm pretty surprised that there are a few collections that consider Qg3 the best move ever, especially when complicated continuations in other brilliant games are not even considered.|
|Feb-16-13|| ||AylerKupp: To declare a move as being "best" one must first establish a criteria to what is meant by "best", and that's not easy. Regardless, I'm sure that most will agree that 23...Qg3 is a spectacular move, particularly if you don't anticipate it. I suspect that Levitsky didn't, and I wish that someone had taken a picture of his face when Marshall played it. And I wonder how long it took Levitsky to resign after Marshall produced 23...Qg3.|
The only move I recall with a similar effect was Fischer's 21...Qd7 in R Byrne vs Fischer, 1963. In fact, I think that Fischer's move is even more remarkable because it was so unspectacular, yet Byrne's resignation afterwards was shocking to all those who were witnessing the game. I also wish I knew how long Byrne thought after Fischer played 21...Qd7 before he resigned.
But 21...Qd7 could hardly be considered the best move ever since it was part of a calculated sequence of moves. If any move in this game deserves to be called the best it's 18...Nxg2. It's this move which was, as Byrne said, "the shocker", because it was so unexpected.
So perhaps that's one requirement for a move to be considered the best ever. It must be unexpected both to the opponent and to anyone watching the game. Another requirement might be that the move is part of a deep combination that changes the course of the game, turning either a loss or a draw into a win.
If anyone is curious as to what moves others consider the best ever, check this site: http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/f.... It considers 23...Qg3 to be the 3rd greatest move ever.
|Mar-01-13|| ||wachter123680: Yes, nice comments to many but DanielBryant is so far off on his Kibitzing, my read is there is no option for the Bxf7+ as he put it. Marshall could not have been beaten in this game if this move were possible.|
|Apr-26-13|| ||fetonzio: the most amazing move ever played?|
|Apr-26-13|| ||Everyone: <fetonzio> No.|
|Apr-26-13|| ||Benzol: It's certainly one of the most unexpected moves ever played.|
|Apr-27-13|| ||Nerwal: I would try to rate moves using three criteria.
First would be flashiness. How stunning, beautiful and unexpected a move looks. Well 23... ♕g3 is a perfect ten in that area.
Second one would be depth, number and difficulty of variations involved to justify the move. In this case they are just two very short variations and one a bit longer but everything is obvious and forced. Fischer's 18... ♘xg2 in Byrne-Fischer is much stronger in that area (or say 17. h4 in Polugaevsky vs E Torre, 1981 ).
Third would be efficiency of the move : it should be the best move of the position and by the biggest margin possible. For instance 17. ♘d5 in Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851 would fail (it makes a mess of an easy win). Well in this game 23... ♕g3 is not necessary at all and some other moves are not much worse, although there are no move obviously stronger and by forcing a liquidation it's not without practical value. By contrast, Alekhine vs Verlinsky, 1918 gives an example of an insane queen move which is the only solution to a complicated problem.
So overall 23... ♕g3 only meets criterion 1 and lacks in both 2 and 3. So it wouldn't be my choice for greatest move ever. It may be the most spectacular one, though.
|Jun-07-13|| ||JSYantiss: Really like that analysis, Nerwal. A personal favorite of mine is 17...Be6 from Byrne-Fischer, Game of the Century. How would you rate that?|
|Jun-09-13|| ||PawnSac: < Nerwal: I would try to rate moves using three criteria. > |
The criteria presented are:
1. aesthetic appeal
but i would suggest a FOURTH criteria..
i.e., what consequence does the move have in the game?
For all it's visual appeal (and it IS undeniably spectacular) it only wins a piece. After 23. ..Qg3 24. Qxg3 Ne2+ 25. Kh1 Nxg3+ 26. Kg1 Ne2+ 27. Kh1 Rc3
black has won a knight, and though the position is resignable, it is not forced. White could have chosen to play on a piece down. Whereas in some other games the final blow removes ALL defense with immanent mate that is unavoidable. In such case THAT move would rate higher for it's effect / consequences.
It may be true that capturing the queen by a pawn ends in mate...
hxg3 Ne2++ or
fxg3 Ne2+ Kh1 Rxf1++ and
Qe4 (to prevent Qxh2++) Nf3+ Kh1 Rxh2++
but these weaker moves are not forced.
|Jul-07-13|| ||celtrusco: Disculpen, sólo soy un aficionado, pero me parece que la lucha ya estaba ganada mucho antes, con excelentes jugadas como 21...Rh6, para no mencionar otras, y que la textual 23...Qg3 sólo fuerza la simplificación de 24 QxQ, para quedar con la pieza de más ya lograda, y obviamente ganador final.
Igualmente pienso que es una gran partida de Marshall, no sólo por el último movimiento.|
|Aug-01-13|| ||PaulLovric: if the last move of this match is the third best move ever played, why isn't it included in the top 100 games ever played?|
|Aug-24-13|| ||PaulLovric: <<PaulLovric: if the last move of this match is the third best move ever played, why isn't it included in the top 100 games ever played?>>|
|Aug-25-13|| ||offramp: < PaulLovric: <<PaulLovric: if the last move of this match is the third best move ever played, why isn't it included in the top 100 games ever played?>>>|
|Aug-25-13|| ||OhioChessFan: <Amarande> a similar move in that a major piece is left between two pawns, either of which can capture. Really, the Rf4 is in the way of your Queen, so it's more a clearance move to facilitate Qd2. Anyway, Re4 is a nice move and mate soon.|
|Aug-26-13|| ||nezhtal: Qg3 is a beautiful move, as is Fischer's 17...Be6 against Byrne but I've gotta toss another hat into the ring. Rashid Nezhmetdinov's 12. Qxf6 vs. Oleg Chernikov Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962 is the most stunning move I've ever seen, not just because of the Queen sac but because of how deep Nezhmetdinov had to see to know there was justification for it.|
|Feb-08-14|| ||PJs Studio: You're onto something with Nezhmetdinov's 12.Qxf6 nezhtal. I knew it was coming and it still made me jump (like watching a horror movie) when I saw it. Two pieces for the Queen and a God awful amount of pressure. |
I would never have the balls to play this move. I do know of Nezhmetdinov's work...he was an awesome thinker.
|May-04-14|| ||Lossmaster: Was 23...♕g3 really the last move played? In "Chess, A Celebration of 2000 Years", p. 194, I read this:|
<For better or for worse, Lewitzki decided in favor of 24.♕xg3 ♘e2+ 25.♔h1 ♘xg3+ 26.♔g1 ♘xf1 27.gxh3 ♘d2. (As Black held most of the pieces, White gave up.)>
I don't know if it's a trustworthy source, though: there's a blatant mistake in the accompanying diagram, where White's Queen is printed in black!
|May-04-14|| ||RookFile: Marshall's own book ends it after ...Qg3. It really doesn't matter what anybody else said.|
|Sep-10-14|| ||Ke2: how many Marshall freakin Gambits are there??|
|Sep-10-14|| ||perfidious: Besides all the gambit lines bearing Marshall's name, he had a go at the Modern Benoni, something sharper still than most of his gambits: Capablanca vs Marshall, 1927.|
|Nov-04-14|| ||1 2 3 4: The move wasn't necessary, but it was brilliant.|
|May-12-15|| ||tanu123: very very very beautiful!!!!!!!!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·