|Mar-07-11|| ||Phony Benoni: It doesn't take long to realize that Black has a much better idea of what to do in this variation. White is almost immediately reduced to near helplessness.|
The light-squared bishop retreat to h7 is a standard idea in this formation with the Black pawns on c6/d5/e6. The bishop is much stronger than a White knight, and White cannot easily oppose it with his own LSB. (Compare the Caro-Kann line 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3.)
Playing 23...Rxf1+ is a nice little finesse. If he plays 23...Nxd4 first, White can reply 24.Rxf4. After 24...Rxf4 25.cxd4 Bb4 26.Qe2, White is attacking the rook. Black would have to play 23...gxf4, when his kingside pawns may become targets.
White could surely have played on. After all, he's only a pawn down. And has a lousy position with no prospects. And that passed c-pawn is going to be hard to stop.
I've been in this sort of position enough to know White is feeling Sheer Disgust at this point. He's conscious of having been totally outplayed, and has the feeling he's just going to embarrass himself by playing further.
It's easy for us to say he should have kept fighting, but there are times you just want to get out of there and forget the whole thing. I have a lot of sympathy for him at this point. Besides, he's a far stronger player than I am, and probably foresaw the forced tactical ending Our Assembled Brains will find during discussion today.
|Mar-07-11|| ||scutigera: I wouldn't press White to play on: after he loses back the piece, he'll have to exchange some more to have any hope of saving the rook. Nor is his king safe. His queen looks trappable, too. And how much time does he have on his clock by now? After 26 Qe7 Bxe8, how does he defend against both 27 ..Bf7+ and 27 ..Bd3? It's Miller time, dude.|
|Mar-07-11|| ||sfm: <scutigera:
After 26 Qe7 Bxe8, how does he defend against both 27 ..Bf7+ and ...
By turning the table? ;-)
|Mar-07-11|| ||scutigera: <sfm> Dang &*@%$ algebraic notation! When are we going back to "B-KB7" the way God intended?|
|Mar-07-11|| ||haydn20: 11 Ne1 doesn't look good to me and after 14 Ndf3 White's Q-side crumbles. I'm not good enough to figure what went wrong here, and I can't see anything but misery after Bxe1.|
|Mar-07-11|| ||rilkefan: I take it 18.Bd2 loses the qside to Ba3 and Bb2?
Is 7.Qe1 and 9.Qe2 book?
|Mar-07-11|| ||Gilmoy: <scutigera: 26 Qe2> Surely not to e2, in light of 27..Bd3 doubling on Nf1.|
26.Qd1 Bxe1 and Black will have his choice of 27..Bd3, Bf2+, R(f4,f2), Qc3, or even something with his N. White can't play any of:
27.Ne3 Bf2+ 28.Kh2 Qc3 fork <and 29.Nc2 isn't possible>
27.Bb2 c3 28.Bc1 c2 <this is happening regardless, no need to invite it :)>
27.Bd2 Rxf1+ 28.Bxf1 Qxd2! 29.Qxe1 Qxd4+ 30.Kh2 Qxe5+ <even the alternative 30.Kh1 Be4+ 31.Bg2 Bxg2+ 32.Kxg2 doesn't let White skewer a pawn, because now his K is forkable: 32..Qxe5 33.Qxe5 Nxe5 34.Re1 Nd3 haha 35..Kf7>
Maybe 27.a5 to allow Ra2. Black could continue Qc3-(Bf2+)-Rf4 and unzip White's pawn chain.
|Mar-07-11|| ||AylerKupp: <Phony Benoni> Yes, I know how White feels also. As Kenny Rogers said, "You've gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them". I was fortunate enough to know that and I owe my entire professional career to it. I was an unemployed recent college graduate and I was playing in a chess tournament. I played probably the worst game of my life and was soundly defeated in record time. I went to my wife-to-be's home earlier than planned and met a friend of her father's who was about to leave. He game me a contact to call who granted me a job interview and I was hired, partly I'm sure because of my "connection". The rest, as they say, is history.|
Had I played better that night and the game lasted longer I would not have arrived at my wife-to-be's home early enough, never met that friend of her father's, never gotten that job interview, and never gotten that first job that got me in a little known field at that time (software). It turned out that I had an aptitude for it and recently retired after 40 years. Needless to say, my life would have been very different. I think it's been referred to as the "butterfly effect".
So, the next time anybody out there has a really bad game and loses quickly, take heart. Your life may be about to change for the better.
|Mar-07-11|| ||kevin86: Not only does black get the piece back,but also is in total control of the show.|
|Mar-07-11|| ||Chessmensch: <AylerKupp> You should assemble additional examples of such turns of fate and write a book. No kidding. Those kinds of books often succeed. You are retired and should have the time.|
|Mar-07-11|| ||scormus: <AylerKupp: <Phony Benoni> Yes, I know how White feels also. As Kenny Rogers said, ...> |
You relate some very deep truth, and your story really brings the point home. It could almost be taken from Confucius.
Eames wins this game with astonishing ease, I never saw the KIA demolished quite so comprehensively as this.
I once played against someone with the name G Moore, about that same grade, think it might have been the same player. It was a very humbling experience for me .... an interclub match against a much stronger team and I'd rather conceitedly argued that I was our teams best player and should get board 1. Big mistake, I had B in that game and never got a look in.
<... know when to fold them>
|Mar-07-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <AylerKupp> NIce story. Of course, one could argue that after receiving such a drubbing, there's no way life could change for the worse.|
<rilkefan: Is 7.Qe1 and 9.Qe2 book?>
Indeed they are, because of a trap well worth knowing.
click for larger view
If White wants to play e2-e4 in this position, preparing it with 7.Re1 won't work. After, say, 7...Be7 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.dxe4 Qxd1 11.Rxd1 Bxe4, Black wins a pawn.
Playing 7.Qe1 avoids this, and 9.Qe2 is just getting the queen out of the way. It's not the most graceful of maneuvers, but Black has wasted a little time with his LSB anyway.
In fact, there are probably players who take up the King's Indian Attack just so they can play moves like 7.Qe1, befuddling their opponents and impressing their spouse-to-be.
Though you have to be careful about that. I need to toss in my NN story here.
While attending the US Open over the years, I got involved in an ongoing early-morning hearts game with a bunch of other regulars. Just a way to relax after the game.
Except for NN. He regularly won because he took the game seriously. That wasn't so bad. What really bugged the rest of us is that he kept reminding us how good he was and what stupid misplays we had just made.
One night, NN brought his fiancee to the hearts game, and that was the night nothing went right for him. After about his tenth disastrous hand in a row, his fiancee turned to him and remarked, "I thought you said you were good at this game!"
|Mar-07-11|| ||Gilmoy: <AylerKupp: ... an unemployed recent college graduate ... defeated ... earlier than planned ... job interview and I was hired ...>|
<Chessmensch: <AylerKupp> You should assemble additional examples of such turns of fate and write a book.>
I recall the British chess author "C.H.O.D." Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander once wrote about his own version of this. As a poor university student, he had his Immortal on the board, wandered the hall in a fit of nerves like Kasparov at Wijk ann Zee, saw the forced win, came back to the board, and ... <transposed the 2nd-to-last move>, losing instantly.
Which ultimately caused him to abandon chess as a profession, and go on to a fine career as a mathematician, codebreaker, and chess author. And he admitted that it probably worked out better that way. The problem with being a 20-something with an Immortal is that people expect you to keep doing that ...
|Mar-07-11|| ||mastermind7994: Nice game. The move that got my attention was 20...g5. Although it weakenens the kingside, it leaves white with a cramped position and takes f4 as a nice dark-square outpost. The weakened side of the Black king is not to be exploited easily in the game.|
|Mar-07-11|| ||AylerKupp: <Phony Benoni> <Chessmensch> suggested above that I should write a book about examples of such turns of fate. I don't know that I have enough material for that, but I have a lot of stories, and I could certainly write a book about them.|
A Digression: Before I retired we had a yearly holiday party just before Christmas. I used to have a "Stump Ed" contest with the following rules:
1. Every contest participant would write a topic in a piece of paper.
2. I would read every topic and I had 15 seconds to come up with a story about that topic, or make one up (which I thought would be equally if not more impressive). If I could do it within 15 seconds, the person whose topic it was would give me $ 1.00. If I couldn't, I would give them $ 5.00.
I warned the prospective participants that they shouldn't be fooled by such seemingly attractive 5-to-1 odds; the odds were not really in their favor. And, sure enough, each year I made money.
Now back to a card-related story. My wife and I used to play bridge on a regular basis, and she was my partner (not a good idea!). One time I took a losing finesse on a 3 NT hand.
My wife: "Why did you take that losing finesse?"
Foolishly thinking that she wanted a reason, I proceed to review the bidding, review the play of the hand, and I indicated that I had therefore concluded that the odds were overwhelming that the queen that I was finessing against was in the proper position. Which, of course, it wasn't.
My wife: "You should know better than to play the odds at no trump".
And here's where the chess part comes in: I've actually been thinking of writing a book titled ""NN's Best Games of Chess". Does anybody think there may be market for that?
|Mar-07-11|| ||Phony Benoni: <Gilmoy> If that's an Alexander story, he borrowed it from this game: A Kreymborg vs O Chajes, 1911. Either that, or it's more common than we think.|
My own chess/career story is a bit more positive. I had applied for a job in a library, and was selected primarily because the interviewer thought being a chess player meant I was really intelligent.
I let it go at that.
|Mar-07-11|| ||WhiteRook48: that is such a nice shot: 24...Nxd4|
|Mar-07-11|| ||Rob Morrison: Black's move that I really like in this game is 14. . . c4! When I first looked at it it looked counterintuitive to me . . . to let white lock up the centre with 15. d4. But it worked brilliantly and looks to have been based on a deep understanding of the position.|
|Mar-08-11|| ||joupajou: 23 a3 might hold white's defences a little longer, or am I missing something?|
|Mar-11-11|| ||Gilmoy: <AylerKupp: topic ... 15 seconds ... $1 ... $5> Computer science has a classic version of this. Prof. Don Knuth (Stanford) offered an exponential reward for verified bug reports in his TeX typesetting package: $0.01 for your 1st bug (that he confirmed and fixed), $0.10 for your 2nd, $1.00 for your 3rd, ... etc. Two results came from this:|
1. Knuth paid out several $10 rewards (for a person's 4th bug), but never* (as of a couple decades ago) anything higher than that.
2. TeX is now one of the most thoroughly debugged programs in the history of computing :)
<Phony Benoni: <Gilmoy> If that's an Alexander story, he borrowed it from this game: A Kreymborg vs O Chajes, 1911.> No, the incident I recall was from a book by C.H.O.D. Alexander (~150 pp, hardback, weird oversized aspect ratio), and he wrote that it happened to him. And it seemed that it was either mate-in-2, or no mate at all. So he resigned instantly; there was no end-game.
Probably it has happened to every successful chess author :)
|Mar-16-11|| ||AylerKupp: <Gilmoy> Thanks for the Knuth story. I should have known that one, given my background. And $10 (or for that matter $100, $1000, etc.) for finding a bug is cheap indeed. Goes to show what people can achieve when they're properly motivated by a challenge (which doesn't have to involve large $$$'s)|