< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Dec-18-05|| ||kevin86: What a game by Tarrasch! Imagine giving up your queen vs Lasker!!! In this case,the long time champ looked like the beginner;the attack was brutal,longlasting,and fatal .|
|Dec-18-05|| ||Koster: Weren't both players still teenagers when this game was played? Something to remember before getting too ctitical.|
|Dec-18-05|| ||Tariqov: <Soltari>after 29Kf5Rf3+ 30.Kxg6(any other moves the same Bxe4+ comes)Bxe4+ 31.any king moveBxb1.|
<kevin86>you do know that the lasker in this game is Berthold Lasker not Emanuel Lasker??
|Dec-18-05|| ||kevin86: <Tariqov> no,I just caught it now.|
A good combination-even against LASSIE
|Dec-19-05|| ||Cogano: If everyone will forgive my naivety & ignorance, why did white resign after 28.Kf4 Ng6+? If there is a mate to follow, or material to be won at least, then I surely can't see it. I'd appreciate it if someone would enlighten me. Thanks a lot, take very good care one & all & have yourselves a most joyous day, every day.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Calli: <Cogano> Good question. White will lose the Knight at e4. 28.Kf4 Ng6+ 29.Kf5 Nh4+ 30.Kf4 Ng2+ 31.Kf5 Rf3+ 32.Kg5 Bxe4 |
|Dec-19-05|| ||al wazir: <TTLump: BTW, Chessmaster 7000 has declared the game drawn after 115 moves starting with 21 ... Rhg8, 22. Nxf6 etc. assuming best play by both sides after that point.>|
I have more respect for your analysis of tactics than for Chessmaster's conclusion that the game is a draw. How many plies deep was its analysis? Did the program go deeper into alternative lines that were evaluated close to the main line?
|Dec-19-05|| ||al wazir: Not that anyone is likely to care after all the mindsweat that has already flowed, but the line I liked doesn't seem to have been considered yet: 21...Qxe6 (like Tal, I always look for the queen sac first) 22. dxe6 Bxd4+ 23. cxd4 Rhg8+ 24. Kh1 Rg2 25. Qd3 (25. Qxg2 fxg2+ 26. Kxg2 Bxe4+ 27. Kg1 Rxf1+ 28. Kxf1 Bxb1, and black has at least one extra pawn) Rfg8 24. Bd2 g2.|
At that point I gave up. I could probably calculate farther without looking at a board, but it would take me hours. (Query: Was the game played with time controls? They were introduced only late in the 19th century.) Worse, not all of white's moves in my analysis are forced.
It was just too much for me. And not just for me, it seems.
|Dec-19-05|| ||KingG: <al wazir> I assume you mean 24...f2. In any case, the queen sac is unsound. At the end of the line you gave, Black has no way of continuing his attack.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Richard Taylor: I didn't even try towork this one out I looked vaguely at Rg8 as played butthen - when I saw what happenned in the game I realised I wouldn't have found what Tarrasch did....sometimes I get those Sunday ones. But I doubt I would have got this one.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Richard Taylor: "...positional moves preparing an attack (or defending against an opponent's attack) occur more often than actual combinations. Some would go so far as to argue that combinations are simply a special category of positional moves..." yes and if you (one) study's Tal's games his combinitave play is based on strategical ideas via Nimzovich and of course via Morphy etc - tempo, development, poor piece placement etc
Botvinnik Kaprpov's games are prohylactic to tactical storms -maintaining balance -keeping a state of defence -ready to acttack if need be...and im this way Korchnoi also is hard for Tal to beat as he anticipates most weakenings..in most cases. But Tal didn't want to be like Karpov or Botvinnik he loved the near randomness - despite what I said teris an element of the unknown'in Tal's play...they are both creative styles -different personalities - but positional elements are always essential.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||al wazir: <KingG: I assume you mean 24...f2.> Thanks. Yes, I meant f2, and the move count should have been 26 instead of 24. If 27. Nxf2 then 27...Rg1#. But otherwise I don't see any useful continuation for black.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||DexterGordon: Probably nobody's reading this any more, but... I still don't quite see the win after 29.Kf5. Black can win material, but the e6 pawn is very close to queening.|
<Tariqov: after 29.Kf5 Rf3+ 30.Kxg6 (any other moves the same Bxe4+ comes) Bxe4+ 31.any king move Bxb1.>
For instance, in this line, 31.Kg7 Bxb1 32.e7 and White has no way to stop the pawn. What am I missing??
|Dec-19-05|| ||mymt: yes I see what mean - the R cant check to allow the B to get back to cover e8 [because of Bc1 & h2] if it takes on b1 but ...Kc8-d7 might work.
<Calli> idea seems OK.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: after some blunders earlier this week, I actually got a little of this puzzle! I found 21...Rhg8, I saw the threat of the double-check Bxd4 and I found the line if 22.Nxf6. However, I missed 22...Qxe6 and the rest of the line.|
|Dec-19-05|| ||patzer2: <Dexter Gordon> You're not missing anything. Black wins in the final resigned position after 29. Kf5 with 29... Nh4+! 30. Kf4 Ng2+! 31. Kf5 Rf3+! 32. Kg5 Bxe4 33. Rb5 Kc8 34. Ra5 Kd8 35. Kxh5 Ke7 (-4.53 @ 12 depth per Fritz 8).|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Petrocephalon: I'm not doing much for my popularity here, as I suggested both this game and the Short-Adams to cg.|
Renfield does not discuss 21..Qh4 in his book of Tarrasch's best games, which suggests in turn that Tarrasch didn't consider the move either.
I'm curious though, how 'easy' is it for most of you to calculate 21..Qh4 to a win? To me it isn't clear (I don't really follow the Fritz analysis...). From a practical point of view, a move which you can calculate OTB to a win (even if it's a long but definitely winning endgame) is better than the objectively best move for which you can't calculate all the plausible variations. (In other words, there are different definitions of 'clear', aren't there?)
By way of a peace offering, here is a Tarrasch game I recently uploaded containing a beautiful (and sound!!) combination on the final move, no doubt familiar to a few:
Tarrasch vs Allies, 1914
|Dec-19-05|| ||Petrocephalon: <Kevin86> "A good combination-even against LASSIE" LOL!!|
|Dec-19-05|| ||Calli: Hey, hey watch it! Strong player Lassie, she used to give Alekhine's cat rook odds. ;->|
|Dec-21-05|| ||TTLump: <...I have more respect for your analysis of tactics than for Chessmaster's conclusion that the game is a draw. How many plies deep was its analysis? Did the program go deeper into alternative lines that were evaluated close to the main line?>|
good questions. I had set the timing for standard tournament clock settings, 2 hours for 40 moves, etc. The number of plies varied depending on how close it was to the time control and how many pieces were still on the board. It was averaging around 12-ply at the start and 20-ply at the end. I have seen commentary stating that most chess programs are not particularly strong in end-game play and my version of Chess Master is several years old. so ... I would not argue this point with you at all, still it is interesting ...
as far as the last part of your question, I can't answer that, but it is a very interesting question. Is this type of information normally available from chess software?
|Dec-21-05|| ||TTLump: <Petrocephalon: ...
I'm curious though, how 'easy' is it for most of you to calculate 21..Qh4 to a win? To me it isn't clear (I don't really follow the Fritz analysis...). From a practical point of view, a move which you can calculate OTB to a win (even if it's a long but definitely winning endgame) is better than the objectively best move for which you can't calculate all the plausible variations. (In other words, there are different definitions of 'clear', aren't there?) ...>
Hey, I am cool with your selection. It has certainly generated some interesting discussion as well as show us that even Grand Masters are not perfect ..
I agree that it is always better to select a move where you can calculate the clear advantage, but in this position, for me there was no such move, and since I OFTEN find myself in that position, I pick the best looking move based on strategic considerations such as mobility, central control, targeting weaknesses, king safety, etc. In this case, the necessity of moving the queen SEEMED obvious. The fact that Qh4 turned out to be the correct move tactically was likely a fortuitous accident for most of us mere mortals.
|Dec-21-05|| ||Petrocephalon: Tarrasch/Renfield (my source) are both at times a bit glib with their analysis and evaluations. To be fair though, Tarrasch would presumably not have bothered analyzing casual games from his youth to any great depth(see Honza's post regarding the context of this game), while Renfield had the task of annotating around two hundred games without the benefit of a computer. So it's not a terrible shock that the combination is inaccurate... ah well.|
|Dec-21-05|| ||patzer2: <Petrocephalon: I'm curious though, how 'easy' is it for most of you to calculate 21..Qh4 to a win?> Not too difficult. After 21...Qh4! 22. Ng3 Bf6!, Black's plan is to play 23...Rg8, sac the exchange with 24. Bxg8 Rxg8, and follow-up with 25...Nxf5 with a decisive attack on White's weak castled King. White's position is clearly lost.|
|Dec-25-05|| ||Cogano: <Calli> Thank you kindly for clarifying that for me. Alas, I don't have your or the other users' understanding to effect such an analysis, since I
haven't read any books on opening & end-game analysis and have had very little playing experience. And, when I do try to analyze a game, I torture
myself with every last possibility, which usually takes an eternity, since
I'm never sure which possibility is a reasonable continuation, and one the
winning player (White or Black, as the case may be) would/will play. Since
I've come across games where a reputed player played in a bizarre way and/
or committed errors, I'm never sure which possibile continuation qualifies
as reasonable and likely to be played. So thank you again for taking the time to clarify that for me. Take very good care, Season's Greetings,
Happy New Year (since I'm not sure we'll exchange further posts before then, so better now than late!), and have yourself a most joyous day, every day.|
|Dec-25-05|| ||Cogano: <Calli> First, I meant to say egregious errors. And, I forgot to mention, regarding your games collections. I have a book that, other than the game featured in the weekly chess article, offered me my first glimpse of competitve chess between champions. So, since your game collections include some of Marshall's, you may be interested to check it out. I'm not in a position to judge how good a player he was, compared to other masters, but
some of his games in there did impress me, though, to be fair, I'm unsure how much that was due to his skill, experience & brilliance, and how much due to the other player's egregious errors & bizarre playing! It's called 100 Chess Gems, collected by Francis Percival Wenman, who also provides commentary, published by Cadogan Books Plc, London House, Parkgate Road,
London, SW11 4NQ. And thanks again for the help. Cheers!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·