< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Feb-23-12|| ||syracrophy: After 22.♕e1 the great Steinitz missed the simple 22...♖h1+ 23.♔f2 ♖xf1+! <In fact, it doesn't even deserve a "!">|
click for larger view
Three possible captures but one of them is mate and the other two leads to the loss of the ♕
|Feb-23-12|| ||thomastonk: <syracrophy: After 22.Qe1 the great Steinitz missed the simple ...>|
Young Steinitz didn't miss this line, but you missed <JoergWalter>'s comment above!
I have checked the details to be sure:
Suhle's tournament book gives "22. Dd1-e2 (?)", ie, 22. Qe2 instead of 22. Qe1.
L÷wenthal's tournament book gives "22. Q. to K's 2nd.", ie, again 22. Qe2 instead of 22. Qe1.
But almost half a century later Bachmann wrote in "Schachmeister Steinitz" that 22. Qe1 has happened.
|Apr-30-12|| ||JoergWalter: <thomastonk>
Reti's book "Masters of the chessboard" may have "popularized" the mistake 22.Qe1. Tartakower in "500 Master games of chess" got it right 22.Q-K2.
|Apr-30-12|| ||psmith: Has anyone submitted the correction to the score at move 22?|
|Apr-30-12|| ||Calli: <psmith> submitted correction with a link to the tournament book http://books.google.com/books?id=vO...|
|May-16-12|| ||psmith: <Calli> It's right now! Thanks!|
|Jul-24-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Dubois vs Steinitz, 1862.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF STEINITZ.
Your score: 17 (par = 15)
|Jan-05-15|| ||Ke2: a clockwork combination from steinitz|
|Feb-24-15|| ||Fusilli: <WhiteRook48: why did white play 15. hxg3??> It's called choose your poison.|
|Feb-24-15|| ||RookedFileFan: 15. gxh2 is still mate if hxg3 is not played.|
|Apr-05-15|| ||Ziryab: This game is either analysis of Dubois vs Steinitz, 1862 or mistaken attribution to Steinitz of a later game played by Chigorin. Hugin's link to Edward Winter's article, "Confusion", sets the record straight.|
|Jul-04-15|| ||Ke2: This site earlier had this game up in place of the current game V Knorre vs Chigorin, 1874. So according to Edward Winter it's analysis. |
Regardless this combination is so very Steinitz style. It reminds of some of his analysis in the Greco Gambit for instance.
The funny thing about Steinitz is you can either see his smooth beautiful clockwork, or his stodgy practical play accepting all of Tchigorin's Evan's gambits.
|Apr-03-16|| ||john barleycorn: the wrong move 22.Qe1 was given in first (?) in: Deutsche Schachzeitung, September 1862 p.282.|
|Mar-18-17|| ||offramp: Serafino Dubois is such a wonderful name. It deserves to be in a Mel Brooks film.|
|Mar-18-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: < offramp: Serafino Dubois is such a wonderful name. It deserves to be in a Mel Brooks film.>|
No one says that about the name "Blanche Dubois"
|Mar-18-17|| ||morfishine: And here we are treated to a Dumbious game title attached to a mediocre game|
This section of <CG> has morphed into LOTD 'Lame of the Day'
|Mar-18-17|| ||sneaky pete: <This game is type: ANALYSIS>|
No, you fools! The game with 9.Nxg5 h4 that you deleted recenrly was analysis (and Dubious). This is the real game as it was played in rhe 1862 tournament.
I also hate it when kibitzes about spurious games are transferred to another, real game after the phony has been removed. I demand that my comments on the 9.Nxg5 h4 version from 13 years ago disappear from this page.
Please burn this kibitz after reading it.
|Mar-18-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <offramp: Serafino Dubois is such a wonderful name. It deserves to be in a Mel Brooks film.>|
He already made one called "Robin des Bois".
I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance here, but if 11. hxg5 h5 12. Bh2 Nh4?
|Mar-19-17|| ||sneaky pete: <♕ sac: 10... hxg3>|
Huh? I don't see any ♕ sac here.
|Mar-19-17|| ||Howard: This game was, in fact, analyzed in the September, 1978 issue of Chess Life & Review.|
|Mar-19-17|| ||Saniyat24: where is the sacrifice move 10...hXg3|
|Mar-19-17|| ||Saniyat24: maybe 18...Qc6 is the sacrifice?|
|Mar-20-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: Correction: If 11. hxg5 h5 12. Bh7 Nh4?|
|Dec-05-18|| ||Domdaniel: <morf> -- < And here we are treated to a Dumbious game title attached to a mediocre game
This section of <CG> has morphed into LOTD 'Lame of the Day'>|
Fine. You don't seem to much like this kind of thing. I don't agree with you -- I like puns, even dubious (sic!) ones. There is high magic to low puns, as somebody said -- Thomas Pynchon, probably. And they don't come much smarter or much paronomastic (sic!) than TP.
But why oh why did you have to tack that 'LOL' on at the end? It is just a form of cretinism. There is nothing funny about the context, is there? Why on earth would you want to laugh? Unless you were some kind of idiot. Which you have not previously appeared to be.
I guess this is one of those "non-humorous" LOLs? Whatever they might be.
'Lubricate One's Labia'?
'Lather Our Lovepatch'?
'Lady of Longford'?
'Let Out Laughter'?
'Lots of Lurv'?
'Little Obeys Large'?
'Luck of Leap-years'?
And so on, usw, etc.
|Dec-05-18|| ||john barleycorn: <Domdaniel: ...
But why oh why did you have to tack that 'LOL' on at the end? It is just a form of cretinism. There is nothing funny about the context, is there? Why on earth would you want to laugh? Unless you were some kind of idiot. Which you have not previously appeared to be. ...>
<...Unless you were some kind of idiot. Which you have not previously appeared to be. ...>
he fooled us all big time.
<...Which you have not previously appeared to be...>
any subtlety to NOT appear like an idiot was completely unintentional by him.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·