|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Apr-15-07
 |
| playground player: Oh, please! Tarrasch didn't play this game like a computer--he played it like Adolf Anderssen! Anderssen was coming up with beauties like this long before anybody even imagined computers. |
 |
Apr-15-07
 |
| kevin86: How good is this? White offers rook odds and then sacs his queen and mates in just 21 moves. Just note-the comedy conclusion:black has a mate in two but alas,cannot deliver mate after he is dead. |
|
Apr-15-07
 |
| tatarch: I wonder if starting a rook down is roughly equivalent to giving up like 1000 elo points or something like that. Along those lines, who thinks they could beat a grandmaster with rook odds? I'm an average player but I bet I could--if I could survive the opening. (And I realize that's a pretty big "if.") |
|
Apr-15-07
 |
| keypusher: <tatarch> A chess club in Manhattan had an odds tournament many years ago, which Andrew Soltis wrote a column about. If the rating difference was over 600 points, the stronger player gave odds of a rook. (There were lesser odds for smaller differentials in playing strength.) The odds-givers lost only one game out of about 40, when what Soltis described as an underrated A-player beat Arthur Bisguier at rook odds. So, I would guess an 1800 player would lose to a GM at rook odds most of the time. |
|
Apr-16-07
 |
| fm avari viraf: This game is simply mindblowing. Inspite of Rook odds, Tarrasch's imaginative play sacrificing his Queen to draw Romberg's King into the open battle field & weaving a mating net is sheer beauty & a Masterpiece! < patzer2 my complete analysis > throws more light on this beautiful combo. Congrats. |
|
| May-01-07 |
| BadTemper: If you lose at rook odds to a GM you are not 1800..
|
|
| May-12-07 |
| sleepkid: <If you lose at rook odds to a GM you are not 1800.. >
What are you talking about? You really have no conception of the difference between an 1800 rated player and a GM. In fact, there must be dozens and dozens of games on this website where one GM beats another GM without developing one of their rooks. Essentially the same as giving rook odds. |
|
| May-18-07 |
| BadTemper: That is nonsense and you know it.
Are you saying that in all of these games the losing player would have resigned if the undeveloped rook was taken off the board? How can you say that this is essentially the same as giving rook odds? Also, the game would not have been even remotely the same if the rook was off the board. It changes the dynamic of the game completely.P.S. I love again the personal attack, that I have no conception, etc. Time to add another person to my ignore list. |
|
May-18-07
|
| keypusher: <If you lose at rook odds to a GM you are not 1800.. > This is wrong. See my April 15 post. I suspect Black in this game was a good deal stronger than 1800. |
|
| May-18-07 |
| BadTemper: Keypusher, you may be right in fact. But I have a strong urge to suggest that he was quite out of form. Egad. I could imagine the possibility of myself losing at rook odds to Kramnik or Kasp etc, especially in a 25 min game but it wouldn't go down like this, that's for sure. |
|
May-18-07
|
| keypusher: <Bad Temper> I don't know how good you are, but I think you're right. I wouldn't lose like this either (and I am about 1800). But that is because amateur players today tend to know much more about the opening than their counterparts did 110 years ago. |
|
| May-26-07 |
| nescio: <keypusher> <BadTemper> Browsing through yesterday's games in the first round of a weekend tournament the following game caught my eye. It illustrates the enormous difference in practical strength between a professional grandmaster (Friso Nijboer) and a good amateur with a national rating of 1815. Playing very nonchalantly, the grandmaster drops a bishop at the 9th move and by move 19 is even a rook behind. But he has managed to complicate matters and Black, no doubt flustered by the excitement of a possible win and upcoming timetrouble, ruins his position completely. [Event "Limburg Open"]
[Site "Maastricht"]
[Date "2007.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nijboer, Friso"]
[Black "Marcel van Haaren"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "66"]
[EventDate "2007.05.25"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. d4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Nf6 5. Bg5 d6 6. Nc4 Be7 7. Ne3 c6 8. c4
Qa5+ 9. Nc3 Qxg5 10. h4 Qa5 11. g4 g5 12. d5 Rg8 13. Qc2 Na6 14. O-O-O Nb4 15.
Qb1 Nxg4 16. Qxe4 Nxf2 17. Qxh7 Rf8 18. a3 Nxd1 19. Ncxd1 cxd5 20. axb4 Qa1+
21. Kd2 gxh4 22. Bd3 Be6 23. cxd5 Bf7 24. Rf1 Rc8 25. Rxf7 Qc1+ 26. Ke1 Rxf7
27. Bb5+ Rc6 28. Qg8+ Rf8 29. Qe6 Rf6 30. Qc8+ Kf7 31. dxc6 bxc6 32. Bxc6 Qb1
33. Bd5+ Kg7 1-0
|
|
| May-29-07 |
| sleepkid: <BadTemper: That is nonsense and you know it. > I'm sorry. Your original statement <"If you lose at rook odds to a GM you are not 1800"> is actually the nonsense here. When I last played I had a performance rating of 2108. I've beaten plenty of masters, I've even drawn an IM rated player before. I've never beaten a GM. In fact, in the games I've played GMs (rated 2400 and above), I've gotten fairly clobbered. The stronger ones could easily spot me a knight and still win. Now, imagine what they would do to someone ranked 300 points below me? Rook odds? Not a problem. In the lower ratings, a hundred points or so doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but once you start to get up there, legitimate points become harder and harder to earn. Also, there was no personal attack in my previous post, just a mere statement of fact, if you were 1800, and you had played a few GMs, you'd probably have an understanding of how vast the gap in skill level is, and probably would not have made such a statement. |
|
| Jun-10-07 |
| sanyas: I think this is the most beautiful mating combination ever. The final position is a "pure mate". |
|
| Jul-30-07 |
| sanyas: Improvements: 6...Qe7, 7...d6, 12...Qd8, 13...Rg8 14.fxg7+ Rxg7. <patzer2> After 16...Be3, 17.Rf6 is best. |
|
| Jul-30-07 |
| izimbra: Interestingly enough, mate was forced after 13...Bg4 whereas black still has a large advantage after 13...Neg4 (though 12...Kh8 was also a mistake). |
|
| Aug-30-07 |
| IamHorribleAtChess: Just wondering, but what do you mean, if anything, Sanyas, by the term "pure mate". |
|
| Oct-11-07 |
| dotty hill: <IamHorribleAtChess> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_m... |
|
| Oct-11-07 |
| paladin at large: You know you have been Tharrasched when they take away your first name. |
|
Sep-08-08
 |
| Sem: In a pure mate every square around the enemy king is covered only once by one of your own pieces. It means an efficient and therefore elegant use of material. |
|
| Dec-21-08 |
| thebribri8: This game deserves the official title of "ridiculous". |
|
| Jan-04-09 |
| WhiteRook48: wow! and white's about to get mated himself. |
|
| Jan-14-09 |
| WhiteRook48: typical Tarrasch game. |
|
| May-12-09 |
| mindmaster: Amazing Tarrasch game I have evr seen... |
|
Nov-11-09
 |
| siegbert: brilliant. these mates are hard to play for most of us.ive got a book on tarrasch. its full of brilliant mates like this one. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 15.Qxh6+