|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-25-04 | | capanegra: I read in Chernev's "Wonders and Curiosities of Chess" that when Tarrasch sacrificed his Bishop with 71… xc2 (the first Pawn gets out of the board after 70 moves!), many kibitzers around the board considered it suicidal. The real question is: after that, is White inevitably lost, in spite of his extra piece? |
 |
| May-25-04 | | panigma: After a three-fold repetition, do both players need to declare a draw, or just one? |
|
May-25-04
 | | acirce: One. |
|
| May-25-04 | | panigma: Yeah, that was stupid of me. Otherwise they'd just agree to it before the repetition. |
|
May-25-04
 | | kevin86: I changed my mind about this:I thought that it was very boring at first,but it had a nice ending-and something of note:16 pawns on the board through 70 moves! A draw can be claimed on the third repetition of the position-WITH-the same player on the move. This can happen at any time during the game (say on moves 65,73,and 101). Either player can claim a draw! I think that a tournament can have a "local rule" that the COMMITTEE can claim a draw. One exception:neither player can castle between the repeats. Just my own humble knowledge. |
|
May-25-04
 | | Calli: Brilliant conception by Tarrasch. A true sacrifice and better than many other highly rated combinations. <capanegra> "is White inevitably lost, in spite of his extra piece?" Certainly it is lost after 80.Qa3. I would say that it also looks lost at 78.Rxa2. White should avoid the rook exchange and perhaps put the knight at e3. Possibly with threats like Nxd5 or Nxf5 or maybe even g4. Perhaps something like 75.Nf1 b5 76.Qd2 Qa1 77.Ne3
The queen and rook prevent the exchange and White can play Rb2 to hinder the pawn advance. What do you think? |
|
| May-25-04 | | capanegra: <<Calli> Perhaps something like 75.Nf1 b5 76.Qd2 Qa1 77.Ne3>
Yes, that seems to be a better defence. Maybe Black could continue with 77… a3 (threatening a5 and b4) 78.b2 b3 79.a2  xc3 80.xc3 xc3 81. f3 b4 82.xa7 b3 83.a1 (better than 83.b7 c2) b2 84.b1 b3 85.e2 and White apparently saves the game.But reviewing a little more, what do you think about 73.ca2? The pin seems to be interesting. For instance, 73…b5 74. b1 b4 75.e2 followed by b2 |
|
May-25-04
| | acirce: <kevin86> The castling thing is no exception since a position where you can castle is never identical with a position where you can't. Also one should mention that if the en passant capture is allowed in one position and the "same" position is reached later it is also not the same. |
|
May-25-04
| | Calli: <capanegra> Herr Docktor would probably continue with 73.ca2 c2! 74.xc2 xa1 75.b2 1a2 I like this for Black because of White's bad Bishop. |
|
| May-25-04 | | capanegra: Of course, <Calli>. I overlooked the threat 74…xe3. Very clear analysis, as always. By the way, check this pretty variation that could have happened: 76.b1 a4 77.b4 xb4 78.cxb4 a4, and the Pawn cannot be protected because of the fork, leaving Black with three passed Pawns. I also noticed in Chernev’s book that 79…g7! was a good move, precisely to prevent the maneuver a3-f8+ with perpetual check. If instead Black played 79…a5 80.a3 xa3 (not xb1 because of f8+) 81.xa3 b4 82.c2 b3 83.a3 and the Pawns are controlled. |
|
May-25-04
| | Calli: Very nice. Kind of exciting to figure out when the pawns can be stopped. When there are only pawns and knights, the moves must be very precise. |
|
May-26-04
| | kevin86: <acirce> very fine point! In other words if the last move before repitition was a pawn move that would allow en-passant on the first repitition and obvious not future ones-then the position is repeated but NOT the same---just like the castling example that I mentioned. Thanks. |
|
May-27-04
 | | Gypsy: Here is a real conundrum: What if two rooks, say, switch places; is that the same or different position? Do the rules deal with such a case? |
|
May-27-04
| | kevin86: I would say ,yes-because the possible moves are all the same. There is no special value of one rook over another. I have two humorous ways that the position is really not the same. 1 a ceramic chess piece is dropped and broken-and replaced. 2 the position IS NEVER really the same,as there is movement in the fourth dimension-ie time has passed. HA HA!!! |
|
May-27-04
| | acirce: The rules seem to interpret that situation just like <kevin86> does, <Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.> -- http://www.fide.com/official/handbo... article 9. |
|
May-27-04
| | Gypsy: Thank you guys. Comes to think of it, position is never the same also with respect to the 50-move clock. |
|
May-27-04
| | acirce: Good point, the number of moves remaining to the 50 move draw is quite significant in some positions and it is not too difficult to imagine a case where that influences the evaluation. So "logically" they shouldn't be considered the same position but then of course no position can ever be repeated. |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | Knight13: It's funny how all pieces eventually lines up on the a-file. And all thoes King moves Black made which was both useless and useful. Very interesting game! |
|
Jun-14-05
 | | Honza Cervenka: Is the year of the game correct? If I remember it correctly, this game was played in the second round of tournament within the second congress of Bavarian Chess Society (Bayerische Schachbund) in August of 1888. The game was certainly published in Tarrasch's Dreihundert Schachpartien and it was written before 1896 (I have not my copy just now and so I cannot look in it but I am quite sure of that.) |
|
Jun-15-05
 | | Pawn and Two: The second congress of the Bavarian chess federation at Nuremberg 1888 was a double round tournament of 6 players. Tarrasch won the tournament with a score of 6. Von Gottshall and Mieses were next with 5 1/2. L. Paulsen and Harmonist scored 5 points and Metger 3. Von Gottshall did win his 6th round game against Tarrasch. First place was ultimately determined by Tarrasch's 10th round win over Paulsen. |
|
Jun-15-05
| | Pawn and Two: My last entry should read: Von Gottschall did win his 7th (not 6th) round game against Tarrasch. |
|
Mar-31-06
 | | keypusher: Useless but interesting: Black's queen sits on e7 from move 38 to move 74. |
|
Jan-01-08
| | Pawn and Two: Fritz 11 indicates 75.Nf1 was White's best move, with the following continuation: (.32) (25 ply) 75...Rb6 76.Qd2 Rb1 77.Kf2 a5 78.Ra2 Qb3 79.Ne3 a4, and now, (.00) (25 ply) 80.Qc2 b4 81.cxb4 Qxc2+ 82.Rxc2 axb4 83.Nxc4 dxc4 84.Rxc4, with a drawn position. After 75.Nf1, Black could also try, (.64) (25 ply), 75...b5 76.Qd2 Ra4 77.Ne3 a5 78.Qe2 Qe7 79.Ra2 Qb7, and now (.77) (25 ply), 80.Nd1 Qb6 81.Kf2 Kg6 82.Qb2 Rxa2 83.Qxa2 b4 84.Ke3 Kh6 85.Qb2 Qb5 86.Qa1, and after 86...Qb6 87.Kd2 bxc3 88.Qxc3, Black may be able to draw, but it is best to take the clear drawing line with the move 75...Rb6. At move 80, White's best try was 80.Na3. Black then has good winning chances with the continuation: (-.41) (27 ply) 80...a6 81.Nc2 a5 82.Ne3 b4 83.Qc2, and now, (-1.42) (27 ply) 83...Qa3 84.Ke2 b3 85.Qb1 a4, (-1.66 ) (25 ply) 86.Kd2 Kg6 87.Ke2 Qe7 88.Qa1 a3 89.Nd1, (-1.85) (24 ply) 89...a2 90.Nb2 f6 91.exf6 Kxf6 92.Nd1, and now, (-4.41) (21 ply) 92...Qa7 93.Ke3 Kf7 94.Kd2 e5 95.fxe5 Qa6 96.e6+ Qxe6 97.Qb2 Qe4 98.Qa3 Qd3+ 99.Ke1 Qxg3+, and Black is winning. |
|
| Jul-18-08 | | ravel5184: <Minor Piece Activity>, here's one for your Game Collection: King activity! |
|
| Jan-22-09 | | WhiteRook48: 100 moves... well, at least White didn't resign on move 99! :) |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
