|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-23-07 | | hscer: I admit to sometimes missing a piece's presence because it's too far away from where on the board I'm concentrating |
|
Jun-16-07
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: Something very similar happened to me here (to my credit, it was an online blitz game...) I was Black and had totally outplayed my opponent here:
click for larger view
I had no particular shortage of winning moves, the easiest one being the simple ...Kxh7 leaving me up a piece, a pawn and a mate threat. I could have gained an even bigger advantage earlier had I not gone for this "direct mate": 21...Qxc2+??? 22.Bxc2 Rxc2+ 23.Kxc2 1-0. |
|
| Jun-16-07 | | Wolfgang01: SwitchingQuylthulg: Did somebody demand you to copy Reshevsky? Or were You in Zeitnot?? (lol) |
|
Jun-16-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Or were You in Zeitnot??>To add to the tragedy, I wasn't - my opponent was down to something like four seconds (one reason he'd got to all that trouble in the first place), but there was too much increment to play for a win on time. The error probably goes down to fatigue. That's the good thing about being fatigued, you can blame errors on it ;-) |
|
| Dec-24-08 | | WhiteRook48: This might be what happened:
Reshevsky (plays 40. Qxg6+): Checkmate!!
everyone stares. Has he triumphed again?
Savon's eyes drift toward the bishop on b1. Meanwhile his king is screaming "Help!"
And then the bishop on b1 zooms over and grabs the queen.
Reshevsky is now staring, and all of a sudden white's king is screaming instead! |
|
| Jan-03-09 | | thebribri8: The real shame is that Reshevsky had an ACTUAL mate in 4. |
|
| Jan-03-09 | | WhiteRook48: the other shame is that white blundered queen |
|
| Jan-10-09 | | WhiteRook48: what's the mate in 4? |
|
| Jan-13-09 | | thebribri8: I was thinking 40. Rh8+ Kg5 41. h4+ Kxh4 42. Rxh5+ gxh5 43. Qxh5#, but now i see 40. g5+ Kxg5 41. h4+ Kxh4 42. Qf4# |
|
| Jan-13-09 | | WhiteRook48: oh. Thanks!
Oh and by the way, I think you should update your profile since the kibitzes have gone out of the 100 range. |
|
| Jan-14-09 | | thebribri8: Thank you. I just did. I also activated my chess forum, if any of my followers wishes to comment. :). |
|
| Jan-14-09 | | savagerules: <Pawn and Two: Burt Hochberg, who was in the press room at the time, offers a vivid accouunt of the the reaction to Reshevsky's oversight:
Werner Hug, the Swiss International master, came tearing into the room like a bull elephant, yelling; "Reshevsky blundered! My God, what a blunder! He had a mate and sacrificed his Queen!" Bronstein later told me it was "the blunder of five centuries." > Like blunder of the century wasn't enough, no it was the blunder of five centuries. hahaha |
|
| Feb-15-09 | | WhiteRook48: no, it was the blunder of six centuries |
|
| Dec-15-09 | | jlssoft: This game is typical of Reshevsky's career; he takes (took) too long in the opening and got into time trouble (the blunder is on 40th move), the win is 40. g5+ Kxg5 41. h4+ Kxh4 42. Qf4#! |
|
Sep-26-10
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <jlssoft: This game is typical of Reshevsky's career; he takes (took) too long in the opening and got into time trouble *** > According to a post in this thread by <Gypsy> from <Jun-06-04>: <“ *** Reshevsky was not in a time pressure here. Alegedly, Reshevsky had 18 minutes left! ***" > Reshevsky got into time pressure so often that it is natural to assume that zeitnot is the explanation for a blunder by him on move 40, but apparently that was not the case here. |
|
Sep-26-10
 | | Fusilli: I had a teacher when I was a kid who always said "if your opponent leans on the board too much, threaten his rook on a1". Reshevsky was short and I doubt he was leaning on the board so much that the bishop on b1 fell out of sight, but one way or another, he forgot about that bishop. |
|
| Aug-06-11 | | Tigranny: WhiteRook48, I liked what you said about the black king screaming for the bishop to capture the queen. |
|
Nov-25-11
 | | kbob: I had forgotten what an amazing attacking game this was by Reshevsky until the blunder. He had qualified for the candidates in the previous cycle, but at this interzonal I think he fell two games short, so it didn't really change things. I remember a quote at the time from someone who saw both players several hours later, Savon looking "sheepish" and Reshevsky appearing "absolutely distraught". |
|
| Nov-25-11 | | King Death: < kbob: I had forgotten what an amazing attacking game this was by Reshevsky until the blunder. He had qualified for the candidates in the previous cycle> Reshevsky was lost for most of this middlegame until his opponent let things get away, and he finished in the bottom half of the table in Palma 1970. He did qualify at Sousse 1967 though because of the rules that applied then. |
|
| Nov-25-11 | | Darek: Samuel can play nice finish
40 Rh8+ Kg5 41 h4+! Kh4 42 Rh5+! gh5 43 Qh5 # ! |
|
| Jul-21-12 | | Pulpofeira: Well, at least is a consolation for SR that he`s been favoured by serious blunders of his opponents in more than one occasion; Szabo missed a mate in two and Boleslavsky a forced draw, both in Zurich 53. Although he hadn`t any possibility to win that tournament, but that`s another story... |
|
| Sep-26-12 | | brankat: <Qxg6+>, a Super-blunder for ages! :-) |
|
| Oct-29-12 | | master of defence: This is the case of don´t see a defence to checkmate. |
|
Oct-29-12
 | | Eggman: <<Darek>> Yes, but there's a faster mate: 40.g5+ Kxg5 41.h4+ Kxh4 42.Qf4#. |
|
Oct-29-12
 | | perfidious: That story involving Wolff and Anand is most amusing, and reminds me of my first game with Maxim Dlugy. In a complicated Saemisch KID middlegame, I sacrificed a pawn and had decent play for it, though probably no more. At one point I played Ra1-a3 and got the strange feeling Dlugy would play ....Be3, leaving that piece en prise. To my amazement, several moves on he played that very move and looked shocked when the rook snapped it off! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 18...Nxe4