|Jan-29-07|| ||Shams: on 8...Ke7 I can't make 9.Bg5+ Nf6 work out. does white have anything more convincing than 8.QxQ followed by bxc3?|
|Jan-31-07|| ||keypusher: <Shams> Not that I can see. I have Tartakower's best games book at home; I'll see if he says anything about it (I think this game is in the notes to one of his tournament games).|
|Jan-31-07|| ||Shams: after 8.Qxd8 Kxd8 9.bxc3 Be7! (it took Fritz a half an hour to agree with me that this is better than Bc5) Fritz likes white at around +1.1. But I think I prefer black...NN missed his shot at immortality (or at least getting called by his real name).|
|Jan-31-07|| ||keypusher: <Shams> Hmm, I doubt Tartakower is going to trump Fritz in a position like this. How does Fritz feel about Nxc3 over bc?|
I think I would prefer White after either 9. bc or 9. Nxc3, since Black's king in the center is still going to cause him problems. But it's certainly better for him than taking the bishop!
|Feb-02-07|| ||keypusher: <Shams> This game is not in Tartakower's best games collection, not even in the notes. But this one is: Tartakower vs Przepiorka, 1929|
(The game score is wrong; the correct score, beginning 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. f3, is given in my kibitz there.)
I like what Tartakower writes about 3. f3 in his notes to the Przepiorka game:
<Designated by several theorists as the 'Tartakower Attack', this variation is <new> and <good>. Only that which is good in it is not new (the eventual sacrifice of a pawn to accelerate the mobilisation of the K side, as for example has already been done in the Staunton Gambit: 1. P-Q4, P-KB4; 2. P-K4, PxP; 3. P-KB3!), and, on the other hand, what is new in it is not good (the possibility for Black to transfer the centre of gravity of the struggle to the Q wing).
So then, as in most of my theoretical predilections (or innovations), I reckon above all on the practical chances and not on a scientific basis.
The inherent property of such a style is that, according to some critics, it lacks -- style!>
|Jan-22-15|| ||sachistu: This game is in The Mammoth Book of Chess by Burgess. The venue and score is as given here. Apparently, the entire game (or almost all of it) has been repeated at least twice. The game Blackall-Bigelow, New York, 1935 is an exact match, whereas in Tatai-Mariotti, Reggio Emilia, 1967/68 Black resigned after 13.Ne6 (in my database). Burgess says Black resigned after 12.Qe8. Burgess also cites Gallagher-Sathe,London, 1985 where Black tried 8...Ke7, but after 9.Qb3 cb2 10.Qb4 Kf7 White had an enormous attack (according to Burgess). Louma, in Ceskoslovensky Sach mentions that same line and suggests 11.Bb2.|
|Jan-22-15|| ||Nerwal: Tartakower gave this game in his <Bréviaire des Echecs>; it was played during a simultaneous display. He assessed 8... ♔e7 as better than the game, and after 9. ♕b3 cxb2+ 10. ♕xb4+ ♔xf7 11. ♗xb2 he gave the assessment that White has a very strong attack, but Black can still try to defend.|
|Jan-22-15|| ||schnarre: 6...Bb4+ seems a wasted move to me.|
|Jan-23-15|| ||sachistu: Thanks <Nerwal>. I don't recall Louma crediting Tartakower for the better ...Ke7, but that may, in fact, be the source of his note. Burgess also does not mention Tartakower's suggestion. So far, I have not found the 'several victims' Burgess claims Gallagher has caught with this line. However, in the 28 games I've seen where Black tried ...Ke7 the results were overwhelmingly in White's favor|