< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Sep-30-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: NO ONE has discovered this game before??? Black sacrifices both Rooks on their original squares on Knight forks! White is subject to one of the most amazing attacks I've seen. Black threatens both a mating attack and a victory by Zugzwang.|
First, after 37.Rd2-f2,Bd4; 38.Rd2,h6!! is a great Zugzwang, using the same killer move as in Nimzowitsch's immortal. Second, Black threatens a mating attack with his King! The King can play ...Kb6-b5-b4, followed by ...axb2; Rxb2,Ka3; Rxc2,dxc2; any,Bxb2#.
Is this the only game of its kind? Timmerman's entire concept could be unsound for all I care--this is one of the greatest games I've ever seen.
|Oct-21-05|| ||Queens Gambit: Very cool game.|
|Oct-21-05|| ||WannaBe: This is a gem. Sac'ed both rooks!!|
|Oct-21-05|| ||moiz: If I were Gert Jan Timmerman, I would consider myself at par with Tal, Morphy and Fischer all together, for that one day!!!|
|Oct-21-05|| ||khense: When you have two rooks and your best hope is stalemate...give it up! Whew!|
|Oct-21-05|| ||schnarre: Nice game on Black's part!|
|Oct-21-05|| ||dakgootje: Yeah its indeed a very nice game... wouldn't be too happy here with myself if i was white... :)|
|Oct-21-05|| ||Saruman: Up to 10.-b6 I think its all theory.|
|Oct-21-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: My god this game is impressive! I need to look up more about this Gert Jan Timmerman.|
|Oct-21-05|| ||Marvol: Amazing game. Not only does black sac both rooks on their original squares to knight forks, he also gets a triple pawn that just avalanches to white's first row.|
"cr", is this a correspondence game?
|Oct-21-05|| ||Poisonpawns: Yeah one of the great correspondance games.This variations complexity reminds me of the Fritz variation in the Two knights defense.|
|Oct-21-05|| ||weary willy: Hort vs Gligoric, 1970. This game has some echoes - and is a great game in its own right|
|Oct-21-05|| ||ReikiMaster: In the end black doesn't even need the zugzwang - simply marching up with the King is decisive.|
|Oct-21-05|| ||kevin86: Let's see:too bad there's nothing noteworty about this game,lol.Triple pawns,a double rook sac,a strong mating attack, and Zugzwang!!!!|
Add to all that a king march to secure a victory.
|Oct-21-05|| ||ikava: Hello: Can someone explain what is a Zugzwang?|
|Oct-21-05|| ||WannaBe: Zugzwang, in short, it's your move, and every piece that can move causes your position to get worse, or even lose the game. I am sure other posters will give a 'slight' variation on the definition of the word. =)
Also look at Game Collection: Zugzwang! by <iron maiden>.|
|Oct-21-05|| ||WannaBe: Latest hit-single, "Everyone Wang-Zugz Tonight."|
|Oct-21-05|| ||geaux82: i thinks the theme of sac rook finds that in san luis 2005 games. correct?|
|Oct-21-05|| ||Tartalacreme: <moiz: If I were Gert Jan Timmerman, I would consider myself at par with Tal, Morphy and Fischer all together, for that one day!!!>|
Timmerman is the 15th correspondence chess world champion. As this game was played by correspondence, it lasted several months.
|Oct-21-05|| ||ikava: Thanks Wanabee. In which move would you say the zugwang starts? What´s the origin of the word??|
|Oct-21-05|| ||Madman99X: Is there anything white can do after say.... move 24?|
24. c3 comes to mind, as 24... h5 seems to give up the last ounce of time white has left.
Simply put, I would like to think that one has at least drawing chances, after having traded both knights for the opponents rooks.
|Oct-21-05|| ||WannaBe: <ikava> I can answer the second question, Zugzwang, is a German word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang|
I am not smart enough to answer your first question. Some of the more knowledge enriched members here might be able to help you there.
|Oct-22-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: Technically, the final position is not a true Zugzwang, even though Black can choose to win by that means. Part of the problem is that there are two definitions of zugzwang. The strict definition is that *both* players have reached a position where whoever moves first loses. The most famous example is the Trebuchet: White--Kf5,Pe4, Black--Kd4,Pe5. The player to move must lose his pawn. I prefer the looser definition--only one player is put in zugzwang. In this game Black is never, and can never be put in Zugzwang.|
Incidentally, I have heard differing opinions on whether zugzwang must be capitalized or not.
Now that I've completely confused everyone, I must add another required component of a zugzwang--the winning side must not threaten anything at the moment of zugzwang. Zugzwang is compulsory self-destruction.
In this game, Zugzwang has not yet occurred at the moment White resigns. Black can, if he chooses, force White into Zugzwang by the series of moves I mentioned in my initial post. However, Black also threatens instead to launch a mating attack that will lead to at least a decisive gain of material--therefore, the final position is not a true zugzwang. That's one of the reasons why this game is so amazing. Black can either mate his opponent or force him to self-destruct.
And White can't stop either.
|Oct-22-05|| ||offramp: The third line - right at the top of the page - gives the opening: <"cr NL NBC-25 1991 · Vienna Game: Stanley. Frankenstein-Dracula Variation (C27)..."> What is the "Stanley" bit?|
|Oct-22-05|| ||backyard pawn: Zugzwang. Hmmm. I've often felt that whatever move I choose, I will weaken my position.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·