< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Nov-16-04|| ||malbase: The first game is Castellvi-Vinoles 14??
From my research there are no Lucena games.
Lucena wrote a chess book for Emperor Maxmillian. In one History Site, chess before the 15th was slow strategic maneuvering with composed chess problems.
The second statement "composed chess problems" probably refers to Lucena.
Possibly Lucena played. But the games were not recorded.
Note that some of these old old games do not make sense, for several reasons.
The rules were different. The Bishop could not go more than 3 or 4 squares on one move. (Bf1-c4,
never to b5).
I was searching for Ruy Lopez games played at the time. They are in the book. There are no B-b5 moves in any game (Ruy Lopez). Only to B-c4.
Possibly the Ruy Lopez came out a book that Ruy Lopez wrote.
However for your request: There are Greco Games, alot of them. Now Chessgames.com or Chessbase.de may have them also. But the book in question has Greco's notes to the games.
Note: The book like the Yugoslav Opening Series is in 7 languages. The notes are in Algebraic so everyone can understand them.
The book was an interesting project.
|Nov-16-04|| ||malbase: For those who asked. I do not believe there are any Lucena games in print. However he did write a chess book. Now he played at a time when there was no electric light. Assume he played during the day, because he gave this advice:
Lucena from whom we've learned the famous Lucena position and through his writings we gained such important lessons as, "if you play by day, place your opponent facing the light, which gives you great advantage." |
|Nov-16-04|| ||SBC: <Lucena invented the ...>
Be careful not to confuse Lucena with Polerio.
You can read about chess liturature during the Renaissance here:
Including: Frà Jacopo de Cessole, William Caxton, Francesch Vicent, Luis Ramirez Lucena, Francí de Castellví & Narcís Vinyoles & Bernat Fenollar, Pedro Damiano, Marcus Hieronymus Vida, William Jones, Ruy Lopez de Segura, Orazio Gianutio del Mantia, Giulio Cesare Polerio, Dr. Alessandro Salvio, Gustavus Selenus, Pietro Carrera, Arthur Saul and Il Calabrese, himself (Greco).
and partially, here:
including: many of the above writers but also Paolo Boi (il Siracusano) and Leonardo di Bona (il Puttino), both players, not writers.
more about the Renaissance and chess can by found on links here: http://batgirl.atspace.com/archives...
|Nov-18-04|| ||capablancakarpov: <malbase> <For those who asked. I do not believe there are any Lucena games in print> No, you are wrong,Joaquín Perez de Arriaga wrote a book about Lucena´s " Arte de Axedrez " in 1997,commemorating the 500th anniversary of the book.In that book of more than 600 pages also are included the other rules that Lucena wrote in other 3 chess manuscripts ,Gotinga manuscript dated 1505,Paris/Place manuscript dated 1515 and Paris manuscript dated 1530. Also,with that book the original book was given ( a facsimil edition, of course ). |
|Nov-18-04|| ||Jaymthegenius: I think I will order from Chessinformant as opposed to Cardoza, Chessinformant has a good reputation, so good, that Philidor or Lucena would not get to write for them if they came today ( I believe Eric Schiller would easily defeat these two even on a bad day, as he is familiar with LOTS of chess theory.) |
|Nov-18-04|| ||SBC: It's my understanding that, while Lucena is considered a possible, even likely, author of both the Gottingen Manuscript and the Paris Manuscript, in fact their authorship is unknown. |
|Nov-18-04|| ||Shams: HAHA!
Azaris, those are sage words my friend. Schiller is a complete hack. He makes Reinfeld look professorial.
|Nov-22-04|| ||capablancakarpov: <SBC> I read the links that you give me, and are very interesting, but while i don´t know much about renaissance chess,i know a lot about Lucena ( not Juan Ramirez de Lucena,or Luis Ramirez Lucena,which are invented names, Lucena was simply Lucena ). Lucena wrote "Arte de Ajedrez con CL juegos de partido" in 1497 ,giving no less than 11 rules ( not 10 ):1.Damiano Defense C40,2.Giuoco Piano C50-7,Giuoco piano C53,2 Knights defense and fegatello attack C57-9 ( this three in the same rule) 3.Philidor defense,Ruy Lopez counter gambit C41-1 4.Petroff defense,Damiano variation C42-4 5.Scandinavian Opening B01-1,2 6.French Defense C00,Lengfellner System B07 7.King´s Bishop Opening C23
8.Ruy Lopez Opening.Cozio Variation C60-2.Classic Defense C64-1 9.Van´t Kruijs Opening A00-1 10.King´s Bishop Opening,Philidor Counter attack C 23-4 11.Double Fianchetto A01-1,A00-8.All of this were novelties except the Scandinavian Opening which appeared first in Castellvi-Vynoles.Damiano copied all the original openings of Lucena,giving best lines in some openings,and while his book was reprinted and Damiano received openings names, Lucena, the original inventor, was forgotten.Later, in 1505, Lucena wrote the Gottinge Manuscript, in which he gave better lines for some of his old openings,and wrote for the first time 5 new openings: 1.Ponziani Opening,Jaenisch Counter attack C44-8 2.Queen´s Gambit Accepted D20-6 3.Queen pawn´s Opening,Mason variation D00-4 4.Dutch Opening or Bird Opening A02-9 5.English Opening,Symmetrical Defense A34 . Later, in 1515 he wrote the Paris/Place manuscript, in which he improved some of 1512´s Damiano´s lines and gave a new opening: 1.King´s Gambit accepted,Classic Variation C39. Finally, in 1530, he wrote the Paris Manuscript in which he only improved some of their old opening ideas.And Lucena wrote this 3 manuscripts without any doubt,basically because he signed with Lucena at the end of the Manuscripts,so Lucena was the greatest opening innovator of all time,with no less than 16 new openings writen for the first time. |
|Nov-22-04|| ||SBC: <capablancakarpov>
Tell me more about Lucena.
and, if you get a chance, answer some questions I have (for my own understanding and clarity)
Why has his name been fictionalized (Luis Ramirez )?
If Lucena signed both the Gottingen and the Paris Manuscript, then why do the historians I had consulted claim the authorship is only probably but not provable?
I was aware that Calvio and Perez had researched the Valencian/Castellvi/Vynoles connections, but I didn't know that Perez wrote a book on Lucena. What specifically did he find, that hadn't already been uncovered, which would indicate some revision in thinking?
|Jun-09-05|| ||Jaymthetactician: That he wouldnt stand a chance against today's players, and that Lucena's a begginner skill.|
|Dec-27-05|| ||Jaymthetactician: Also Lucena didnt invent the Dutch defense, he said that it wasnt all that great (he did play a Nimzo-Indian like system though). This is common sense as castling is a must of the Dutch and without castling the dutch would be refuted (perhaps he worked out the refutation to the dutch like he did with the Damiano?).|
|Jun-09-07|| ||jellyace: Wow, another "White went on to the market" without any analysis.|
|Aug-28-07|| ||venk98: i c chessgames.com to know this"and white went on to win" ????|
|Sep-19-07|| ||wolfmaster: The wheels on the Bus go round and round...|
|Dec-06-07|| ||xeroxmachine: Jaymthegenius: <Aeron Nimzowhich are far superior to Lucena in all aspects of chess. >Which Nimzo are you referring to?|
|Jan-26-08|| ||wolfmaster: One of the first King's Gambits.|
|Jun-23-09|| ||playground player: Ah, yes, those poor hapless chess masters of centuries ago! Why, anyone alive today could beat any one of them just be showing up. And if he couldn't, surely his computer could.|
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and we think we're tall.
|Dec-27-13|| ||Sergash: In the end position, White has a small advantage, but not enough to hope for a win, so the end of the game is missing.|
The game might have continued like this, for example :
<11...Qb5+! 12.Ke1!> (12.Qd3 Qxd3! (12...Qxb2?? 13.Ke2!! Qxa1 (not taking the rook would even be worse!) 14.Bd2! Qb2 15.Bb3 Nc6 16.Bc3 Qxb3! 17.axb3 ) 13.cxd3 Nc6! 14.Be3! Ke7! 15.Bb3! Bg7 ) <Qxb2 13.Nd2 Qxd4 14.Rb1! Nd7! 15.Rxb7 Ke7 16.Bd5! Rc8 >
|Dec-28-13|| ||Sergash: 10.Ne6
White could also have played :
10.Kg1!?/! fxg5 (or 10...Qg6 11.h5! Qg7 12.Ne6 (only move) Bxe6 (only move) 13.Bxe6 ) 11.hxg5 (only move) Qg6 (only move) 12.gxh6
|Dec-28-13|| ||Sergash: 9...f6?!
Understandable that Black would like to chase that white knight away, but this weakens important white squares in Black's position.
Two possible improvements here :
A- 9...Bd7 10.Nc3 (10.Kg1!? Nc6 11.Nc3 0-0-0 / ) Nc6 (only move) 11.Be3 (11.Kg1 would transpose into 10.Kg1!?) 0-0-0 /
B- 9...Nc6 10.Nc3 (10.Qd2!?) Bd7 11.Nd5 (11.Kg1 or 11.Be3 would transpose in the lines given under A- 9...Bd7) 0-0-0
|Dec-28-13|| ||Sergash: 9.Bxf4?!
No rush to take back this pawn! Much stronger is :
9.Nc3! c6 (the immediate threat of Nd5 which would, at the same time, target c7 and Nf6+ winning the black queen cannot be parried with developping pieces; thus White is increasing his advance in development!) 10.Bxf4
|Dec-28-13|| ||Sergash: 8...Nh6
It is also possible to give back some material immediately, in order to get rid of that powerful white bishop :
8...Be6!? 9.Bxe6! fxe6 10.Nxe6 Na6 (threat : Nxc7+) 11.d5 but it doesn't seem to be a significant improvement!
|Jan-04-14|| ||Sergash: 7...g4?
This move was never seen again after this game, at least in other known games!
More commendable are :
<A- 7...h6 8.Nc3! Ne7!> (8...Bg7! 9.e5! Be6N (9...Ne7 10.Nb5 (10.exd6 cxd6 11.Nb5! Nf5 (Short (2690) vs Amin (2281), MCA Simul. in Alejat (Libya) 2003, won by Black!) 12.c3 ) 0-0! 11.Nxc7 Nbc6! (11...dxe5 12.Be2! Nf5! 13.Nxe5 (only move) Ng3+ (only move) 14.Kf2! Nxh1+ 15.Qxh1 g4 =) 12.exd6! (12.Nxa8?! dxe5! 13.Nc7 Rd8! ) Nf5 (only move) 13.Rh2! Ng3+! 14.Ke1 (only move) Bg4! 15.c3 (only move) ) 12.) 10.d5! Bd7 (10...Bg4 11. exd6 (11.Nb5 Bxf3! 12.Qxf3! Qxf3+ 13.gxf3 Kd7 =) cxd6 12.Kf2 =) 11.exd6 (11.Nb5 Bxb5! 12.Bxb5+ c6 (or 12...Kf8 =) 13.Be2! g4! 14.Nd2! cxd5! 15.Bxg4! Qxe5 16.Nf3! Qe7! 17.Qxd5 Nc6 =) cxd6 12.Nb5 Bxb5! 13.Bxb5+ Kd8! = or 13...Kf8 =) <9.e5! g4> (or 9...Bg7 which brigns us back to the position after 8...Bg7 9.e5 Ne7 seen above) <10.exd6! cxd6> (10...gxf3 11.dxe7 fxg2+ 12.Kxg2 (only move) Qg6+! 13.Be7 = Zill (2305) vs Degtiarieff (2393), Germany Championship 2007 in Bad Koenigshofen, won by Black) <11.Ng1! d5 => (11...f3 12.gxf3 g3 (12...d5 13.Bd3 would bring us back to the mother-line) 13.) <12.Bd3> (12.Bb5+ Nbc6 13.Nge2! f3! 14.Nf4 Qf5! 15.gxf3! Be6! =) <f3 13.gxf3 Nbc6! 14.Nge2> (14.Nb5 Kd8! =) <gxf3! 15.Nf4 (only move) Qg4 (only move) 16.Nb5 Nf5! 17.Qe1+! Kd8 18.Rg1! f2! 19.Qxf2 Qd1+ 20.Qe1! Qxe1+ 21.Kxe1 = / >
<B- 7...Be6 8.Be2 (Duran vs Riek, Chrudim Open 1993 (Czech Republic), won by White) g4!N 9.Ng5! Nf6 10.Bxf4> (10.Nc3 Qg6 (10...h6! 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Bxf4 would transpose in 10.Bxf4) 11.Bd3! (threat : e5 attacking the queen and winng a piece) Qg7! 12.Bxf4 h6! 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Be3! Nh5 (threat : Ng3+) 15.Ne2! Nc6 = / ; 10.e5!? dxe5! 11.dxe5 (only move) Nd5! 12.Nc3! Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nd7! 14.Bxf4 0-0-0 15.Nxe6! fxe6 16.Bxg4 Qf7! 17.Qf3 (only move) =) <h6! 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Nc3 Nbd7 13.g3 0-0-0 =>
C- 7...Bg7N!? 8.Kg1! Bg4! 9.Be2 = or 9.c3 =
|Jan-04-14|| ||Sergash: 7.h4!
A strong move. Is Polerio the inventor of that move?
An equally strong move, here, would be 7.Nc3.
|Apr-13-17|| ||Yigor: 2...exf4 [KGA, -0.29] 3. Bc4 [KGA: Bishop's Gambit, -0.29] Qh4+ 4. Kf1 g5 [Bishop's Gambit: Lopez Variation, +0.07] 5. Nf3 [+0.04] Qh5 6. d4 [-0.18] d6 [+0.00] 7. h4 g4 [mistake, +1.5/+2] 8. Ng5 Nh6 9. Bxf4 [mistake, approx. +0.9] f6 10. Ne6 Bxe6 11. Bxe6 [approx. +0.8]|
PSCC: 2EFe (KG) --> 6Fe3f*2E (KGA) --> 6Fe3f*2Eg (Lopez variation).
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·