< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-06-06|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: Georgiev was indeed a little disrespectful to Nunn to feign as if he could still win (or draw) against Nunn despite being a queen down.|
|Aug-06-06|| ||acirce: Kasparov vs Kiril Georgiev, 1988|
|Aug-06-06|| ||Phony Benoni: Reminds one of the famous Fischer--Reshevsky game, which also involved the move Ne6: Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1958|
As for Georgiev not resigning, I think he put up an excellent fight. And sometimes the pieces can pull off a miracle: Spielmann vs Stoltz, 1931
|Aug-06-06|| ||Sleeping kitten: Looks like Tal vs Oll, 1986
played two years earlier.|
|Aug-06-06|| ||RandomVisitor: 8...Ngf6 =.|
|Aug-06-06|| ||Forcioni: fighting even when down a queen!! this is some fighting spirit! even after losing the queen on move ten he valiantly hanged on for more 30 moves!!! I do not think that this is disrespect, disrespect was what Bardeleben did in his game against Steinitz in Hastings 1895, when he realized that the "old lion" had forced mate, he simply left without resigning!!! I admire Giorgiev's spirit and morale in the heat of the battle if not his tactics....|
|Aug-06-06|| ||Phony Benoni: I imagine Georgiev wanted to give the spectators their money's worth. They don't come just to watch grandmasters play 10-move games.|
|Aug-06-06|| ||patzer2: Black's blunder 8...fxe6?? (better was 8...Ngf6 9. Nxf8 Nxf8 =) enables the deflection 9. Qh5+! which sets up a pin to win the Black Queen.|
|Aug-06-06|| ||Eggman: <<Black's blunder 8...fxe6?? (better was 8...Ngf6 9. Nxf8 Nxf8 =) enables the deflection 9. Qh5+! which sets up a pin to win the Black Queen.>>|
9.Qh5+, which simply drives the black King to the desired square, would not be considered a deflection.
<<fighting even when down a queen!!>>
Georgiev was never down a Queen, he was down a Queen for two minor pieces. That is not so, so bad. There are examples in theory where Black purposely sacrifices Queen for two minor pieces, a pawn, and the initiative.
|Aug-07-06|| ||patzer2: <Eggman> < 9.Qh5+, which simply drives the black King to the desired square, would not be considered a deflection.>
You may have a point there. According to the definitions at
and http://www.angelfire.com/games5/che... a deflection is a tactic designed to force a piece from the defense of another square or piece. In this case, the King is not defending. So, your point is well taken.
Still, there should be a name for such a maneuver (driving a piece to the desired square). Decoy fits when a sacrifice is involved to force or lure a piece to the desired square. But in this case, your description "drive the King to the desired square" is all I can see at the moment.
Any differing opions or suggestions?
|Aug-07-06|| ||Phony Benoni: <patzer2> I have seen the terms "driving on" and "driving off" used, but for the life of me I can't remember where. Maybe they will ring a bell for someone else.|
|Aug-07-06|| ||moiz: A chess player must extend the courtesy of "resign" to his opponent, when he finds himself in the position Black was in here. O.W.Holmes must have the last say here : The whole force of conversation depends on how much you can take for granted. Vulgar chess-players have to play their game out; nothing short of the brutality of an actual checkmate satisfies their dull apprehensions. But look at two masters of that noble game! White stands well enough, so far as you can see; but Red says, Mate in six moves;White looks,nods;the game is over. Just so in talking with first-rate men; especially when they are good-natured and expansive, as they are apt to be at table.|
|Aug-07-06|| ||kevin86: Black blundered early-and resigned late.|
|Aug-07-06|| ||patzer2: <Phony Benoni> Thanks for the suggestion of "driving on" and "driving off." I haven't seen it used as such before, but it does seem to fit in with the definition of a "forced move" as given at http://www.angelfire.com/games5/che...:|
<Forced move: A move for which there is no legal or reasonable alternative...>
|May-01-07|| ||Magician of Riga: and you people complain about grandmasters drawing too many games and having no fighting spirit? Why do you complain when a grandmaster decides to fight on? Should they resign immediately if they are down so much as a pawn? Mistakes do happen and such games can be saved. I myself am rather displeased when my opponent resigns too early. If they are down a piece then its acceptable but if they simply have an uncomfortable position I'd appreciate if they played on. I wouldn't be angry if my opponent decided to continue playing when he's down material. If I'm confidant in my skills what do I have to be worried about? If I manage to lose or let the win turn into a draw I have only myself to blame and must commend my opponent on his heart and perseverance.|
|May-01-07|| ||Magician of Riga: Nunn lost his queen here J Augustin vs Nunn, 1977 how disrespectful of Nunn to play on down a queen for 2 pieces perhaps he should have resigned earlier.(sarcasm)|
|Jan-13-08|| ||newzild: Well, I have no problem with Georgiev playing on. I recall a famous Fischer game where he called his opponent's resignation a "bitter disappointment" because he had a brilliant mate planned. Play on, I say. Give the chess fans their money's worth.|
|Jan-13-08|| ||newzild: Fischer's game: R Byrne vs Fischer, 1963|
|May-14-09|| ||WhiteRook48: funny blunder|
|Jun-10-09|| ||hedgeh0g: It's incredible that there were two oversights in a row by Georgiev, starting with 5...h6?! Perhaps Georgiev saw the response Ne6!, although why he would willingly go in for that line is beyond me. However, 8...fxe6?? is obviously a complete blunder.|
|Feb-15-12|| ||LawrenceBernstein: Splendid technique!|
|Mar-20-12|| ||Granny O Doul: I guess Georgiev was unfamiliar with the Karklins-Dlugy (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de 4.Ne4 Nd7 5.Bg5 Ngf6 6.Qd3 Ne4 7.Qe4 Qa5+ 8.Bd2 Qb6 9.0-0-0 Nf6 10.Qe5 Be6 11.Ba5 and 1-0 in 8-10 more moves....I may be a bit off with the move order) game from a few years before.|
|Feb-18-13|| ||sfm: <... 'he [rather unsportingly] played on.'
Only in chess could it be considered unsporting to refuse to give up>
So true. People have a lot of ideas about 'the right time to resign'.
Considering the level they play on, all the top players resign very late.
That is why they are top players. A chess player is a fighter or he is nothing.
Success in chess is just as much the good games you won in style, as those you were lucky to save by never giving up.
|Feb-18-13|| ||Dionysius1: It also might be that by playing on the eventual loser learns more about the opponent and maybe some lessons about how to play the position from the victor's side. Certainly in athletics it would be unsporting, but there, the ultimate loser can set himself other goals - a personal best, a sense of what it feels like to lose and how to cope with it etc|
|Feb-18-13|| ||Dionysius1: Plus another, invidious motive for playing on. I remember telling my team captain that I got almost as much enjoyment from having taken part in a tough game I lost than in an easy game I won. He was not best pleased, and I realised that playing team chess was no longer for me!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·