< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-13-04|| ||karnak64: <Can anyone recommend a puzzle book?> Instead of a book, may I recommend a program? CT-Art 3.0 has changed my game around; I see tactics now much faster, and I'm not surprised as often over the board except by much superior players. I got it for about 30USD, and it's the best money I've spent on a chess toy. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||EyesofBlue: <karnak64: <Can anyone recommend a puzzle book?> Instead of a book, may I recommend a program? CT-Art 3.0>|
Tell me more... is there a website or something with info?
|Jul-13-04|| ||RonB52734: <Can anyone recommend a puzzle book?> There is a book called, I believe, "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess," which is really nothing more than a collection of back-rank mating problems with a small amount of commentary. It's full of Q sacs, of which I understand Fischer was thought to be particularly fond. Certainly a good book for a serious beginner; it may be a bit basic for anyone beyond that. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||MatrixManNe0: A puzzle book, you say? Perhaps "Sharpen Your Tactics!" by GMs Anatoly Lein and Boris Archangelsky would enlighten you. |
|Jul-13-04|| ||midknightblue: I am psyched to have got this one right too. it is kind of cool. By the way, <karnak64> great bio! By the way, can you give us any numbers about how your rating changed with that CT-Art 3.0? I have gotten away from tactics lately, because I thought they were my strength, and I needed work in other areas. Lately, I realize I need work in all areas :( |
|Jul-14-04|| ||ruylopez900: <hoit> Yes, CT-ART 3.0 is quite good, the solution is right there, when you make your move and it has several levels of hints (like the crucial pieces, gives you a similiar position, shows which piece to move etc.) As for a book There is one by Fred Wilson (?) Called <303 Tactical Chess Puzzles> (or along the lines of that). The Beginner ones can be a bit challenging, but once you master them the rest of the book gets quite easy, even though before they seemed quite difficult. |
|Jul-14-04|| ||RonB52734: Two books “303 Tricky Checkmates” and “303 Tricky Chess Tactics”, by Fred Wilson and Bruce Alberston. |
|Dec-09-04|| ||Knight13: Nice to see this game. It's interesting. |
|Dec-09-04|| ||InspiredByMorphy: 13. Bxf7+ looks better to me. |
|Jul-04-06|| ||nummerzwei: After 23. BxNg4 white has one single pawn for the exchange and should be lost.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||bridgepro: White 4th move is not in the spirit of the Vienna. 4. Qg4 poses interesting threats (e.g. if 4...Qf6, 5.Nd5...Qxf2+ 6.Kd1 with a winning attack for white.|
|May-01-10|| ||wordfunph: Zukertort-Lipschutz
click for larger view
23.Bxg4 is the right move and the game will be fought until endgame..
23.Qg3 was a help-mate.
|May-12-12|| ||Llawdogg: I've seen this queen sacrifice before in a tactics problem. It's nice to come across the game.|
|May-12-12|| ||Cibator: Was this game played before or after Zukertort's world title match against Steinitz in 1886? If after, then his indifferent performance here becomes more explicable; he was pretty much a broken man after old Wilhelm had finished with him.|
On another tack entirely: according to Golombek, Bogolyubov when bringing off an elegant coup against inferior opposition was in the habit of remarking: "this move poor Lipschutz did not expect" - Lipschutz being Bogo's generic name for such players (English speakers might instead say "old Muggins" or something). So it's nice to see Lipschutz being the one to strike an unexpected winning blow for a change.
|May-12-12|| ||jnpope: Looks like they both missed it:
|May-12-12|| ||Pawn and Two: <Cibator> Zukertort's title match with Steinitz was played in January - March, 1886. |
The British Chess Association tournament was played in London - July 1886. This was Zukertort's first serious chess, after his disastrous match with Steinitz. Would Zukertort be able to recover his pre-match form?
London 1886 was a strong tournament of 13 players. It was a severe test for Zukertort. Blackburne placed first, while Zukertort could only tie for 7/8th, with a score of 50%, (+5 -5 =2).
The British Chess Magazine noted that Zukertort's play at London 1886 had been; <...very disappointing, and altogether wanting in the precision that characterised it in 1883.>
The magazine continued its' comments on Zukertort's play at London 1886; <... he was weak and irresolute; gaining advantages only to throw them away; initiating fine attacks but to let them slip through his fingers; attaining winning end-games, and then by a blunder throwing them away.>
|May-12-12|| ||Pawn and Two: <jnpope> Thank you for providing the documentation, that proves the above chessgames game score is incorrect.|
As noted by the contemporary game scores and annotations, both players missed the pretty mate in two, beginning with the Queen sacrifice, 23...Qh1+!.
In the game, Lipschutz actually played 23...Rg8?, and he did not score the win, until Zukertort's resignation after 53...Rf2.
On another site, I found a copy of a July, 1886, New York Times article, which corresponds with the information you provided.
|Aug-10-12|| ||psmith: <jnpope>, <Pawn and Two>: did either of you submit a correction slip?|
|Sep-04-12|| ||jnpope: I did months ago...|
|Jan-01-13|| ||jnpope: And I also submitted it again on 12/30/2012...|
|Jan-27-13|| ||jnpope: And again on 1/27/2013...|
|Feb-02-13|| ||jnpope: Zukertort,JH - Lipschutz,S [C25]
GBR London, 1886.07.13
[British Chess Association Tournament]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 d6 5.Na4 Bb6 6.c3 Qf6 7.Nxb6 axb6 8.Ne2 Nge7 9.0-0 g5 10.f4 gxf4 11.Nxf4 exf4 12.Rxf4 Qg5 13.Rf5 Qg7 14.Rxf7 Qg4 15.Qf1 Ne5 16.Rf4 Qh5 17.Bb3 N7g6 18.Bd1 Bg4 19.Rxg4 Nxg4 20.h3 Rf8 21.Qe1 N6e5 22.hxg4 Nxg4 23.Qg3 Rg8 24.Bd2 0-0-0 25.Bb3 Rg7 26.Rf1 Qg6 27.Rf5 h6 28.d4 Re8 29.Qh3 Kb8 30.Bc2 Ree7 31.Qf3 h5 32.Bd3 Rg8 33.Bf4 Reg7 34.Bg5 Re8 35.Bh4 Qh6 36.Rf4 Ka7 37.Be1 c6 38.Bd2 Qg5 39.Bf1 Qh4 40.Qh3 Qxh3 41.gxh3 Nf6+ 42.Kh2 Nxe4 43.Be1 d5 44.Bh4 Nd2 45.Bd3 Re3 46.Bf6 Rgg3 47.Bf5 Rgf3 48.Bg5 Re2+ 49.Kh1 Rxf4 50.Bxf4 Rf2 51.Bxd2 Rxd2 52.h4 Rxb2 53.Bg6 Rf2 0-1
[St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1886.07.31]
[Charleston Sunday News, 1886.08.22]
|Oct-13-13|| ||jnpope: Hooray! Fixed on 10/12/2013|
|Oct-13-13|| ||Everyone: <jnpope: Hooray! Fixed on 10/12/2013>|
That's a turn-up for the books!
|Jan-30-16|| ||zanzibar: Well, I have yet another score, from what should be a very reliable contemporaneous source - <Chess Monthly v7 (1886-87) p297-298 Game 684.|
Hoffer and *Zukertort* being editors, one might think the score definitive for this particular game.
It gives <48...B K 5> (p298)
or <48...Be5>, which is engine preferred fwiw.
Of course, Davies, NIC, and just about everybody else gives 48...Bg5.
(And lest you think <CM> infallible, I call your attention to these corrections:
[Note1 "Source error, '39 B to B sq (m)' is ambiguous, should be 39.B4 to B sq (m)'"]
[Note2 "Source error, '40 Q to R 5' should be '40 Q to R3'"]
For my own version of the tournament, I'm going with Hoffer, also fwiw.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·