Sep-03-06
 | | luzhin: Spielmann plays the opening terribly. Black has to try really hard to lose this game. Exchanging his fantastic fianchettoed king's bishop on move 32 was especially perverse. |
 |
| Sep-03-06 | | euripides: <luzhin> a very interesting game. I'm not sure White's position in the early middle game is all that bad; although Black has a passed pawn, white's pawns seem to have more mobility, and White's knight seems more effective than either of Black's bishops. I wonder if this game interested Spielmann's friend Nimzowitsch. |
|
| Sep-03-06 | | euripides: ... on reflection I notice Black was a pawn up. Yes, I guess he should not have lost this ... |
|
Sep-03-06
| | luzhin: Euripides, Black should have won it! For a start, he could have played 27...Ra3 threatening Bxb3 with devastation. Obviously White can defend b3 in the short term, but Black will follow up with a5,a4 opening up White's king's defences like a tin of sardines. |
|
| Sep-03-06 | | euripides: <luzhin> <27...Ra3> 28 Bd2 Qb5 29 Nc3 or 29 Qb2 is not at all clear to me. I think that White always had some positional compensation for the pawn, and that Black basically lost through playing on the wing where White was stronger. |
|
Sep-03-06
| | luzhin: Euripides, I think White's only compensation for the pawn was the fact that he was Spielmann. And after your suggestion of 28.Bd2 in response to my idea of 27..Ra3, did you see that Black has the shot 28..Bh6(!)? If White then plays 29 Bxh6 the game might continue 29..Bxb3 30.Qb2 Rxa2 31.Qxa2 Bxa2+ 32.Kxa2 Qa4+ 33.Kb2 Qb5+ 34.Ka1 Qxe2 with a decisive material advantage. This is not all forced, but serves to demonstrate that it was not Black's game plan of attacking White's king that was at fault, but the manner in which he carried it out. |
|
| Sep-03-06 | | euripides: <And after your suggestion of 28.Bd2 in response to my idea of 27..Ra3, did you see that Black has the shot 28..Bh6(!)?> I didn't consider that. But 28 Bxb4 looks good enough to me. The basic problem here, I think, is that Black has only three pieces in the attack; White has all five pieces (apart from the king) defending. If Black could get his black-squared bishop in on the act, things would chnge: but I don't see a way, provided white is aggressive enough in chasing the black pieces. I don't think BLack's attack is well founded. |
|
Sep-03-06
| | luzhin: Euripides, I'm sorry. For some reason, while playing the game in my head, I had visualised White's King on c1, in which case the Bd2 would be pinned to the c1-h6 diagonal. Please disregard my last note. Of course Black's choice of 27..b6 was an attempt to open up the position for his two Bishops, but it seems wrong on principle to denude his own King of its protective carapace. |
|
| Sep-03-06 | | euripides: <luzhin> no problem ! I agree 27...b6 is suspect. |
|
| Oct-21-10 | | muwatalli: spielmann played this Qf3 variation twice in 1904 and both games he obtained terrible positions out of the opening!
the other game was this one
Spielmann vs Duras, 1904
you would think he would be the better prepared in a fairly rare gambit variation of his choice, in this game 6. Bb4 is recommended/best, in the other 8 Qg3 is recommended with a good game. |
|
