< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-21-05|| ||notsodeepthought: : <arieszodiac> Capturing the knight looked odd to me too, but it makes no difference - black is lost even if she captures the rook: 50 ...B:f5 51 Q:f5 and now if 51 ...Q:e5 52 Q:e5 d:e5 53 c:b4 followed by 54 b5, when white will promote a pawn. If instead 51 ...d:e5 52 Qc8+ Kf7 53 Qc7+ followed by 54 Q:Q and 55 c:b4, which leads back to the line above.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||PinkPanther: The 5 consecutive checks aren't anything particularly noteworthy. Also, how exactly do you know that this the only game in the database that features 5 checks like this? Do you comb all the games for such stats?|
|Aug-21-05|| ||khense: I used to play 2 NF3 & 3 Bf4 against the Kings Indian decades ago. Nobody liked it - but also they didn't like the black side of it. Against the Sicilian I played 2 Nf3 & 3 C3 and had good luck against stronger players|
|Aug-21-05|| ||turkishgrandmaster: Usually when people use London system they win.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||al wazir: <PinkPanther: The 5 consecutive checks aren't anything particularly noteworthy.> They aren't thematic. It's easy to set up a position where this happens (e.g., by trading rooks and queens on a rank or file), but if this is the only game in in teh database in which it happened it is indeed uncommon. Almost equally uncommon is that there were no checks in the first 43 moves. <Also, how exactly do you know that this the only game in the database that features 5 checks like this? Do you comb all the games for such stats?> Yes, <chessgames.com>, how do you do it? Can we (users) do this kind of search? How do we insert the proper Boolean combination in the search routine?|
|Aug-21-05|| ||jahhaj: <PinkPanther> Have you ever seen another game with five consecutive checks? Two is noteworthy, five is remarkable.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||offramp: Two is not noteworthy. Three is unusual. 6 is the world record.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||jahhaj: <turkishgrandmaster> The London system (like the Colle) is one of those insipid openings that make me despair. Usually played by unimaginitive players who want to take all the joy out of the game. |
Fortunately the statistics don't back you up, after 3.f4 the score is W 25.7%, D 36.7%, B 37.6%. That's not a good percentage for White, see the Opening Explorer
|Aug-21-05|| ||jahhaj: <arieszodiac> Because after 50...xf5 White can force the exchange of queens to an easily won pawn ending. E.g. |
50...xf5 51.xf5 xe5 52.xe5 dxe5 53.c4
50...xf5 51.xf5 dxe5 53.c8+ f8 54.xf8+ xf8 55.c4
50...xf5 51.xf5 dxe5 53.c8+ f7 54.d7+ f6 55.xg7 xg7 56.c4.
I expect Susan knew she was lost we she played 50...dxe5 and was just hoping for a swindle.
|Aug-21-05|| ||sfm: Hmmm. What would be the theoritical maximum for consequtive checks? Wonder if some clever person could construct a position...|
|Aug-21-05|| ||WMD: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/records...|
|Aug-21-05|| ||chessgames.com: We have special search tools that allow us to scan the database for a 'regular expression' in order to locate exotic beasts such as consecutive checks, underpromotions, very late castling, and so forth. There were several games with 4 consecutive checks, but this one is the only one in our database with 5.|
Another interesting thing that we can search for is that old Hollywood cliche, where one player delivers check, and it's answered with checkmate. One pretty example is here: Alekhine vs A Popovic, 1930.
In the future we'd like to see system in place where these special searches can be requested.
By the way, Tim Krabbe's excellent page on consecutive check compositions is here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/c.... It seems the record for compositions is 37 checks in a row.
|Aug-21-05|| ||PinkPanther: Regardless of whether or not it's "uncommon", it's not particularly spectacular.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||notsodeepthought: For a game that has "merely" 4 consecutive checks, but is a real gem, check out Portisch vs Pinter, 1984 - another game, like this one, ending with a notable Hungarian losing (and another notable Hungarian winning).|
|Aug-21-05|| ||notsodeepthought: In the post above, I meant to refer to Portisch vs Pinter, 1984.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||actinia: <jahhaj>
the London System is quite useful against computers and in bullet, if you happen to like bullet
|Aug-21-05|| ||kevin86: In fairy chess-with different pieces-there is a possibility of perpetual consecutive checks. Five is enormous under regular game conditions.|
These are unique:
Castling and mating.
mating by en passant.
six queens on the board at once.
Queen and knight losing to queen alone (a blunder)
|Aug-21-05|| ||Sneaky: The consecutive checks aren't particularly interesting but the game itself is great. I never would have thought that 37.Rg1 would have worked out so spectacularly.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||iron maiden: It's a nice attack by Macieja but Polgar played much too passively.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||dac1990: Are there any games in the database which are over 40 moves long and lack any checks?|
|Aug-21-05|| ||OhioChessFan: Black's pointless Rook move up the g file seems to me to be the losing maneuver. Over the course of 3 moves, Black is back where she started, while White has gained 2 tempos.|
|Aug-21-05|| ||Bobwhoosta: Karpov-Unzicker, 1974 has the first and only check occur at move 41. Black resigns shortly thereafter. Move 41 is also the only piece exchange, and before this there is only one pawn that is exchanged throughout the entire game. Karpov and his slow-squeeze...|
|Aug-21-05|| ||Bobwhoosta: The rook moves up the file looked to me as if Polgar wanted to provoke an attack in the interests of a counterattack. At the time white has a solid positional advantage and maybe Polgar didn't want to sit and wait for the hammer fall, prefering the active chess she usually goes for. She almost survived in the complications as well, it made it practically difficult as opposed to technical and easy.|
|Aug-27-05|| ||PinkPanther: <dac 1990>
I'm sure there are a ton.
|Aug-28-05|| ||patzer2: White's attack on the weakened castled position, starting with 35. g4!?, is instructive.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·