|Jun-02-03|| ||Honza Cervenka: Chessgames.com, this game doesn't work in MyChess viewer. |
|Jun-02-03|| ||drukenknight: Honza: sometimes if you try it over, by resetting the Java Viewer, in the little window. INstead of the default java viewer try "Misty Beach." This seems to work for me even though the default viewer does not work. |
|Jun-02-03|| ||chessgames.com: Should work now. |
|Jun-02-03|| ||caseyclyde: The postition repeated itself 3 times during moves 30, 32, and 34 but nobody claimed a draw. Guess the rule wasn't in effect in 1894 |
|Jun-02-03|| ||Bears092: either that, or neither man claimed the draw. |
|Jun-03-03|| ||Honza Cervenka: I am not sure but I think that then there was in effect another rule, which claimed that the draw could be claimed after threefold repetition of moves, not position. Schlechter couldn't claim draw as Tarrasch didn't play 35.Nf5. |
|Apr-18-04|| ||dac1990: According to my sources, it was 31. g5. Wonder what happened there. |
|Sep-25-04|| ||jamescoul: According to Jerry Silman's "Reassess Your Chess," move 31. is g5. However, I thought he left out the repeated moves for the sake of brevity. |
|Aug-27-05|| ||Mameluk: All big comentators in the history ´missed´ 23... d5 because then chess would lose such an educational game. Even Reti who points d5 out gives an exclamation mark to almost every Tarrasch´s move before, but there must have been something wrong with his play. Anybody knows what does f.e. Kasparov say?|
|Mar-23-07|| ||chk12: I don't know about Kasparov, what I know is that 21. Qd1 or even 21. Qb1 were more correct and in this way 23. ... d5 would have been prevented..|
|Apr-29-09|| ||vonKrolock: after <22...♘f7>, the natural 23.♘e2 would be countered by 23...f7-f5!, then Tarrasch came with that famous 23.g2-g4?!|
click for larger view
Schlechter, in the first round of his first abroad appearence - black against the leading tournament player of the time! - let pass the chance for a <d7-d5>!! breakthrough, that could secure him at least a draw - His performance in Leipzig was somewhat discreet in the whole, but still with highlights like Schlechter vs Mieses, 1894
|Apr-29-09|| ||vonKrolock: ...and further, but not so clear, it came a flash moment when some active play was at hand: <25.h2-h4> f6-f5!? 26.gxf5 ♖h6 27.♖h3 ♘g5 28.♖h2 ♘f3 analysis diagram |
click for larger view
complex - white should be better positioned, but in moment he's being tactically harassed
|Mar-02-10|| ||kingscrusher: According to "Modern Ideas In CHess" by Richard Reti, Move 31 is g5 (written as P-KN5)|
|Mar-02-10|| ||kingscrusher: I think this game is meant to be of Stylistic importance because Tarrasch carried the torch for the Steinitz school of chess but in particular put new emphasis into not having cramped positions. This was like a demo for punishing a cramped position, which is why perhaps Richard Reti chose it.|
|Jun-21-10|| ||DocHoliday: This game is incorrect. The mistakes starts at move 31.
The correct pgn is
[White "Tarrasch, Siegbert"]
[Black "Schlechter, Carl"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 Nxd4 8.
Nxd4 exd4 9. Bxd7+ Qxd7 10. Qxd4 O-O 11. b3 Rfe8 12. Bb2 Bf8 13. Rad1 Qc6 14.
Rd3 Re6 15. Rde3 Rae8 16. h3 Qb6 17. Qd3 c6 18. Na4 Qc7 19. c4 Nd7 20. Kh1 f6
21. Qc2 Ne5 22. Nc3 Nf7 23. g4 Qa5 24. Rd1 Qb6 25. h4 Ne5 26. Rg3 Nf7 27. f3
Nh8 28. Ne2 Qc7 29. Rdg1 Qf7 30. Nd4 R6e7 31. g5 fxg5 32. Rxg5 g6 33. Nf5 Re5 34. f4 Rxf5 35. exf5 Bg7 36. fxg6 1-0
|Feb-10-12|| ||Llawdogg: Kingscrusher, this game would be perfect for one of your instructive videos.|
|Apr-19-13|| ||marljivi: It seems to me that white is much better even in case of 25...f5!? 26.gf5Rh6 27.Rh3Ng5 and now 28.Rg3!Rh4 29.Kg2Ne4 30.Ne4Ree4 (30...Rhe4? 31.Bg7Bg7 32.f6 ,and in case of 32...Re2?? not 33.Qf5? ,but 33.Qh7!Kh7 34.Rg7Kh6 35.Rh1mate.) 31.f3!?...(Taking under control the square g4/preventing Rg4 defense.) 31...Ref4 32.f6!?g6 (32...Qc5? 33.fg7Be7 34.Qe2!Qh5 35.Qe7Rh2 36.Kg1Rh1 37.Kf2 ;32...Qe3?? 33.fg7Be7 34.Bc1 .) 33.Rg6Kf7 34.c5!Qc5 35.Qc5dc5 36.Rg7Bg7 37.fg7Rh6 38.Rd7 .|
|Apr-19-13|| ||marljivi: Ok,I have to correct myself-after 35...dc5 white's best choice is to play 36.Rg3!...(Not 36.Rg5h6! 37.Rg3...(37.Re5?Kf6!)37...Rd4 38.Bd4cd4 39.Rg4Rg4 40.fg4c5,since now there is no g5-move,and 36.Rg7?!-as suggested by me in my previous comment-is also not that clear:36...Bg7 37.Rd7...(37.fg7??Rd4 ) 37...Kg8! 38.Rg7!...(38.fg7Rd4 39.Bd4cd4 40.Rb7d3 is a draw: 41.Rd7a5 42.Kf2...(42.a4d2 43.Rd2Kg7=.)42...Rh2 43.Ke3Ra2 44.Kd3h5 45.f4h4 46.f5Rf2 47.Ke4h3 48.Ke5h2 49.f6Re2=,and also 40...Rh5!? comes into consideration.)38...Kf8 39.Be5Rd4(White was threatening Bd6Ke8,Re7Kd8,f7 .)40.Rb7 and surely white has compensation for the exchange,but it is doubtful to me whether he is winning.) So,36.Rg3!Rd4 (36...Ke8? 37.Rg7! ;36...Ke6? 37.Rg7 ;37.Rd8!? .)37.Bd4cd4!? (37...Rd4?! 38.Rf1!Kf6 39.Rg8!?Kf7 40.Rg4 with big advantage to white.) 38.Rg4Rg4 39.fg4c5 40.g5Kg6 41.Rh1d3 42.Kf3b5 43.Ke3c4 44.bc4bc4 45.Kd4d2 46.Kc3Kg5 47.Kd2Bb4 48.Kc2h5! 49.f7Kg6 50.Rh4!...(Not 50.Rf1Kg7 51.Rf5h4 52.Rf4h3 53.Rh4Kf7 54.Rh3Ke6,etc.) 50...Kf7 51.Rc4Bd6 52.Ra4Bc5 53.Ra5Bb6 54.Rh5Ke6 55.Kb3Kd6 56.Kc4Kc6 and black should hold the draw here.For example-57.Rh6Kb7 58.Kb5Bf2 59.Rh7Kc8 60.Kc6Kd8 61.Rh8Ke7 62.Ra8Bg1 63.a4Bf2 64.a5Bg1 65.a6Bf2 66.Kb7Kd7=.|
|May-12-14|| ||Stonehenge: <31. g5>
I don't know, according to this newspaper article from September 7, 1894, the 31st move was indeed 31. Nf5.
|May-12-14|| ||john barleycorn: Tarrasch, Das Schachspiel (p. 462):
Es gibt keinen Widerstand mehr."
|May-12-14|| ||Sally Simpson: 31.g5 in MegaBase and 31.g5 in Tarrasch's Best game by Reinfeld.|
Reinfeld most likely got it from Tarrasch's 'The Game of Chess' page 375
where Tarrasch writes here.
Position after Black has just played 30....Re6-e7.
click for larger view
"Black's pieces have been huddled together like a flock of sheep into whose midst the wolf is about to leap."
31. g5 fxg5
"Further resistance is impossible."
I fear the newspaper article (a good find BTW) may be wrong given that Tarrasch himself gives 31.g5.
However Tarrasch used this repeat moves and position a few times in his games as if toying with an opponent. (or gaining time on the clock to check all the finer points.) So the article may indeed be correct.
Tarrasch vs Spielmann, 1920
Look at moves 17 -26.
After move 26 and a few three fold reps unclaimed by Spielmann, Reinfeld writes.
"Having indulged in his old sport of demonstrating that he has a draw whenever he wants it. Tarrasch now gets down to business."
|Jun-30-16|| ||zanzibar: <DSZ v49 N9 (Sep 1894) G-5738 p273> gives...|
31. Sd4-f5 continuation as here.
Both <ChessBase> and <NIC> give 31.g5, probably following Tarrasch's edits.
My vote is with <stonehenge> on this one.
(I seem to recall Tarrasch doing similarly in at least one, possibly more, games)
|Apr-24-17|| ||linuxguy: Ludek Pachman once said in those days it was five-fold repetition for a draw (commenting on a game where Steinitz repeated four-fold, so as to get closer to the time-control and thereby adjourn the position).|
|Apr-24-17|| ||JimNorCal: If you flip from move 20 or so to move 30 or so, the change in the position is striking.|