|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-08-09 | | chessman95: I think he forget to take his medicine. |
 |
| May-06-09 | | blacksburg: hehehe scandinavian is teh best hehehehe |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | WhiteRook48: Mieses-Kotroc Variation hahaha was that 3 Ke2??? |
|
| Oct-06-09 | | antharis: Here is the original source from <Kongressbuch des DSB, Kiel 1893>:
<Um mit einem Scherz zu schließen, bringen wir die nachstehende kurze Partie: Lindemann – Echtermeyer, Eröffnung Damenbauer gegen Königsbauer 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Dxd5 Weiss wollte nun 3.Sc3 spielen, ergriff aber in der Hitze des Gefechts den Lc1 und pflanzte ihn nach c3; zur Strafe musste er also einen Königszug machen (und es blieb nur….) 3. Ke2, worauf Schwarz mit 3. ... De4 matt setzte.> In English something like:
<To end up with a joke, we look at this very short game: Lindemann vs. Echtermeyer, opening queens pawn versus kings pawn 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5. Now white wanted to play 3. Nc3 but touched accidentally the bishop c1 and set it to c3. As penalty he had to move the king (and there was only...) 3. Ke2, after which black plays 3... Qe4 mate.> So white wasnt mad nor stupid or somethng like that. He just touched a wrong piece and due to the penalty he had to move the king. Sad but true. I love the story behind this game! ^^ |
|
| Oct-10-09 | | Cercatore: No sense game... |
|
| Oct-19-09 | | dannygjk: Hmmm, Misiere chess anyone? |
|
| Oct-20-09 | | TheaN: The opening name... 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 is the regular Scandanavian, right? Sooooo, the Mieses-Kotroc Variation is 3.Ke2????????? Who the hell would like his name related to such a move :)? Or it is the variation that involves 2.exd5 or 2....Qxd5? As opposed to 2.e5 or 2....Nf6? That would make more sense. |
|
| Feb-10-10 | | Petrosianic: <To end up with a joke, we look at this very short game: Lindemann vs. Echtermeyer, opening queens pawn versus kings pawn 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5. Now white wanted to play 3. Nc3 but touched accidentally the bishop c1 and set it to c3. As penalty he had to move the king (and there was only...) 3. Ke2, after which black plays 3... Qe4 mate.> There are two other stories I remember about the Penalty King Move rule. There's an infamous Rubinstein game, where he adjourned knowing he had to make a King move, but not knowing which one. So he's supposed to have deliberately sealed an illegal King move that put his king right in the middle of the enemy pawns. His opponent is supposed to have had the choice of either a) accepting the move, b) rejecting it and making him play another, or c) making him play a penalty King move. Option a) was out of the question, and c) was superflouous, since he already knew the move had to be a King move of some kind. So that left Option b), but he had the whole evening to work out the right move. Not sure which game that was. There's another story that Tim Krabbe put in a Chess Life & Review article in the late 70's. White had a combination that absolutely depended on his King being on h1 rather than g1, where a stray check would have ruined it. But he didn't think he could just play Kh1 outright without making Black wonder why he was playing it. So, apparently he "accidentally" touched a piece that couldn't move, which legally required him to make a "penalty" move with the King, which allowed him to play Kh1 less suspiciously. Not sure what game that was either, but I could probably find it in a half horu or less just by going through Krabbe articles from 1976-1978. |
|
Aug-22-10
 | | OBIT: <Petrosianic>The game you are talking about is Breyer vs J Esser, 1917. Krabbe included it in an article called "Breaking the Law" that appeared in the September, 1976 issue of "Chess Life." (There appears to be some dispute about whether this actually happened as described, but Krabbe calls the story "too good to be apocryphal.")
click for larger viewIn the position after Black's 13th move (diagram above), Breyer, who had already sacrificed a knight, saw a long combination involving more sacrifices but which would be refuted if his king were on e1, where it indeed was. Since the odd-looking 14. Kf1 would undoubtedly give his opponent cause for suspicion, he touched his QR "accidentally on purpose" and apologized for the fingerfehler. His opponent then fell right into Breyer's trap: he notified the arbiter about the touched piece, and, since the rook had no moves, by the rules in effect at the time Breyer would be compelled to move his king. Apparently to make it look good, Breyer protested the decision but eventually relented and played 14. Kf1, as he had planned all along. The reason for having the king on f1 becomes apparent at move 22, when 22...Bh4+ followed by ...Qe7 would refute the combination. |
|
Aug-22-10
 | | FSR: 3.b4 is the Kotrc-Mieses Gambit. As you might imagine, no one has tried to get his/her name attached to 3.Ke2?? |
|
Oct-03-10
 | | Nightsurfer: That early King's Walk 3.Ke2???? ... is foolhardy - but that does not prevent a guy at Paris 32 years later to commit suicide on the same square: N Tchinenoff vs R Maillard, 1925 |
|
Oct-03-10
 | | Phony Benoni: Then there are games like this: G Weissgerber vs A Van Nuss, 1933 Final position:
click for larger view |
|
| Nov-08-10 | | bunbun: ahh, the refutation of the King Attack!! |
|
Nov-10-10
 | | kevin86: helpmate! |
|
| Nov-10-10 | | Tigranny: Isn't that an on-purpose blunder - Ke2? |
|
| Nov-22-10 | | Yigor: Awesome! I didn't know about this mate in 3 moves.:p |
|
| Mar-10-11 | | meppi: one month ago i lost to 3Ke2 in tournament play. now i know the refutation thankyou chessgames.com! |
|
| Nov-27-11 | | Penguincw: I think that's the worst move white can play from that position:
click for larger viewexcluding resgination (which is not really a "move"). |
|
| Apr-01-12 | | BlackSheep: I enjoyed this battle of the titans , well played . |
|
| May-18-12 | | Oliveira: Very helpful piece of information brought out by <antharis>. But it is still very strange White didn't mate right away. So, I should suppose Lindemann was a real sportsman and alleviated the penalty for his opponent. Yet we're told that he still was able to win with  e4. Indeed, a mystery game! |
|
May-18-12
 | | Eisenheim: great - so everyone now things my opening with the white pieces is bad? |
|
Aug-28-12
| | FSR: As CG.com mentioned 7 years ago, E Schiller vs H Pack, 1969 features a similar blunder by Black (see Schiller's comment for the explanation). |
|
Aug-28-12
| | FSR: Another ...Ke7?? game, albeit not ending in mate: L Palau vs S Kalabar, 1927. |
|
Feb-19-13
| | FSR: As <whiteshark> noted, Edward Winter discusses the game at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (scroll down to #5381). What reportedly happened is that White picked up his bishop and put it - rather than his knight - on c3. Since he had made an illegal move, the rules then in force required him to move his king instead. It is not clear whether Black (a) played 3...Qe4#, (b) saw the mate but chose not to execute it, instead torturing his opponent for a while before winning (perhaps with 3...Qe5+, which wins easily), or (c) simply overlooked the mate and played something else. In any case, the cross-table shows that Black won. |
|
| Mar-27-13 | | ughaibu: Concerning my question, on page one: Lindemann vs Echtermeyer, 1893 does anyone know if the Horowitz(?) game is in the database? |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Annotations by 