< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Jul-08-16|| ||al wazir: For what it's worth, earlier comments based on engine analysis seem to confirm my suspicions.|
|Jul-08-16|| ||The Kings Domain: Fun game. Gotta love those hair-raising kingside attacks; whether on the giving or receiving end of it it's always a thrill.|
|Jul-08-16|| ||morfishine: A game chock-full of inaccuracies
|Jul-08-16|| ||posoo: ok da old posoo is NOT infaluble. will somone PLESE explane da note to 14 kf1?!?!? HOW|
is dat directed at da moove ...kg7?!?!
|Jul-08-16|| ||Phony Benoni: <posod> Had Breyer played the immediate <14.Qg4> and the game continued as it did, this position would have resulted after <14...Kg7 15.Rh7+ Kxh7 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Bxg6 fxg6 18.Qxg6+ Kh8 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.g6>|
click for larger view
And Black could defend by 20...Bh4+ and 21...Qe7. The idea of 14.Kf1 was to avoid this check down the road, and it's the depth of that idea which has impressed so many since.
|Jul-08-16|| ||kevin86: This play seemed to have three parts: First, white developed his piece, while black didn't; second, white attacked on the king side while black's queenside pieces; finally, white chopped up the queenside and ended with a winning endgame. Funny, if it weren't so sad.|
|Jul-08-16|| ||Phony Benoni: The ...Bh4+ clearance move that could have come up in the game is a familiar theme, yet one easily missed. I can recall an incident where Fischer either missed it in analysis or pointed out that somebody else missed it, but the exact details escape me. Surely somebody can fill us in.|
In the meantime, a trivial example from my own praxis:
click for larger view
Moody - Weber, Kalamazoo, 1979. Simply 1.Qh6+ recovers the rook with a better game, but I couldn't see how Black could survive after <1.e5>. The answer, of course, was <1...Bh3!>.
There is a similar kind of idea in the From Gambit. After <1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ng5 f5 7.e4 h6 8.e5 Be7 9 Nh3 gxh3 10.Qh5+ Kf8 11.Bc4 Rh7 12.Qg6>
click for larger view
Black's key defensive idea is <12...Bb4+! 13.c3 Rg7 14.Bxh6 Qh4+!> and 15...Qxh6.
|Jul-08-16|| ||posoo: thank you benones|
|Jul-08-16|| ||parisattack: <RookFile: I realize that computers are showing lots of improvements for both sides in this game....>|
Yes, indeed. Using an engine it almost looks like a blunder-fest. "Beautiful theory, ugly fact stuff." But it is a remarkable game and the concepts from Breyer are amazing. I first saw the game in Cole's Dynamic Chess and it made quite an impression on me.
This one of Breyer's is also awesome - Euwe vs Breyer, 1921
|Jul-08-16|| ||Phony Benoni: The only games which aren't "chock full of inaccuracies" are those which are so boring that we haven't bothered examining them to find the inaccuracies.|
|Jul-08-16|| ||morfishine: <Phony Benoni: The only games which aren't "chock full of inaccuracies" are those which are so boring that we haven't bothered examining them to find the inaccuracies> I think this statement is inaccurate due to your use of the word 'only' |
|Jul-08-16|| ||Sneaky: Let the perfectionist play postal. — Yasser Seirawan|
|Jul-08-16|| ||ajile: <Bartacus: 8...c5 has been given as the best move, leading to equal play.>|
Completely logical since White has transposed into a Stonewall structure with 6.f4. Note that moving the Black c pawn twice is not that big of a concern since White has closed the center.
The normal way to attack either the Black or White side of a Stonewall is to advance the c pawn to the 4th rank. The attack on the opponents d pawn creates useful counterplay and if cxd is allowed the dissolving of the center usually reveals weaknesses in the Stonewall setup.
I like 6.f4 though since now Black must find the strategic way out which is moving his c pawn twice.
|Feb-17-18|| ||Retireborn: I seem to recall that a source for this game other than Reti's book was found; does anybody know anything about the game, tournament, month, round no etc?|
|Feb-17-18|| ||MissScarlett: I didn't know this was in a Reti book, but Edochess has Breyer and Esser meeting in both a tournament and a short match in 1917:|
It seems Esser was living in Budapest for some time during the war, but I don't if that was by accident or design.
|Feb-17-18|| ||Retireborn: Many thanks again, <MissS>. I believe this game is from the match, but would like to know more. I assumed Reti's annotations were from one of his books, but I'm probably wrong about that.|
Perhaps I'll splash out on Jimmy Adams' book.
|Feb-17-18|| ||MissScarlett: Are you aware the GM Istvan Bilek had an article, <Breyer's Brilliancy>, in the August 1987 <BCM>? Nothing in particular is said about the circumstances of the game, but there's an editorial footnote: <Ken Whyld has checked contemporary German sources and established that 18.Qh5+ Kg8 18.Bxg6 was the actual move order. Hence Reti seems the source of the error when transcribing the game.> |
So apparently there's an issue, at least, between the German and English versions of Reti's book (I'm not well versed in the classics), but for our purposes, the game was published in contemporary sources. The only problem is finding some non-idle German-speaker to track one down for you. Good luck with that!
|Feb-17-18|| ||Telemus: <Retireborn: I believe this game is from the match> Why? In fact, it comes from a tournament. And it was published in several chess magazines in those days. Here you find it reprinted from "Deutsches Wochenschach": https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=... (incomplete game-score).|
The game J Esser vs Breyer, 1916 can be found here: https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=... (1916 seems to be wrong).
|Feb-17-18|| ||Retireborn: <MissS> Thanks again. No, never seen Bilek's article, my source for the game was some fireside anthology book, edited by Edwards(?) as I recall. I did later see a more complete and correct version of the game, which I associate with Hans Ree, although my memory has not retained any details.|
<Telemus> Many thanks to you too. I think my original source must have referred to it as part of the match. So if I understand your link correctly it's from the 5-payer Budapest tournament held in July 1917? That's already most of what I wanted to know.
|Feb-17-18|| ||MissScarlett: Reti's text is online: http://www.openchessbooks.org/reti-...|
Interesting that already by August 1918 (<Deutsches Wochenschach>) this game is being presented as a truncated masterpiece.
|Feb-18-18|| ||Telemus: <Retireborn: So if I understand your link correctly it's from the 5-payer Budapest tournament held in July 1917?> Yes, both games are from this event.|
|Feb-25-18|| ||Telemus: Chapter 17 "An immortal game" of Jimmy Adams' book on Breyer deals with this game on 20 pages. First, the game is presented with the combined comments of Reti (from Modern Ideas in Chess), Földeak (Magyar Sakkélet), Coles (Dynamic Chess) and Breyer (Bécsi Magyar Ujság).|
Then it follows an analysis by Ervin Haág (Magyar Sakkélet). Next is an article of Mark Dvoretsky (64), and finally there is an article by István Bilek (Magyar Sakktörténet).
|Feb-25-18|| ||Retireborn: <Telemus> Thanks for that. Do any of these writers mention the round number of the game, by any chance?|
|Feb-26-18|| ||Telemus: <Retireborn> Chapter 16 "Creative competition in Budapest" presents Breyer's other games from the tournament. It begins with the following sentence:|
"A further small double round tournament in Budapest, starting on 29 May 1917 but with games being played rather randomly over the summer, ended: [...]"
Then 6 games are presented, 5 with exact dates, no round numbers (Breyer won his first game against Barács by default). The games are presented in this order:
Sterk(W), Barácz (W), Havasi(B), Havasi(W), Esser (W) and Sterk(B). Probably not enough to compute round numbers.
This game is dated July 1917 in chapter 17.
|Feb-26-18|| ||Retireborn: <Telemus> Many thanks! I won't worry about round numbers then.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·