|Mar-10-05|| ||Mate Hunter: Why didn't black play 25...Bc6 and 26...Rh8 instead of 25...Rg8? |
|Mar-10-05|| ||tamar: <Mate Hunter> He had to guard the knight on g7. If 25...Bc6 26 Bg6+ Ke7 27 Qxg7+ is a mate in one. |
|Mar-10-05|| ||Eric Schiller: Here are notes from the draft of a forthcoming book I'm writing on the Rubinstein opening.
<1.d4 d5 2.e3 e6 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.b3 Nc6 6.Bb2 Bd6 7.Nbd2 O-O 8.O-O cxd4 9.exd4 Nh5 10.g3> This line had already been shown to work well for White in Capablanca vs. Corzo, 1901.
<10...g6 11.Ne5 Bd7 12.f4> The stonewall is even more effective when there is no White pawn at e3, as it is easier for the pieces to maneuver. Unless Black can put tremendous pressure on d4, White will have a free hand for the attack. <12...Ng7 13.a3> White has such a good game that taking time out to discourage ...Nb4 is worthwhile.
<13...f5> Black has set up his own stonewall, hoping the barriers will hold against White's attack. They won't. <14.Qe2 Be8 15.Ndf3 Rc8 16.Kh1>
16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Ne5 would also have given White a nice game.
<16...h6?> Creates a critical weakness.
16...Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Qb6 was worth a try, though after 18.a4² Black is still in an inferior position.
<17.Qe3> A very clever move. White anticipates a battle at f4 and g5.
<17...Be7 18.Rg1 g5> Black's kingside aggression is a reasonable plan. <19.g4!> A great move! The kingside will open up, and all of White's forces will get into the act. Even the dark square bishop! <19...gxf4>
19...fxg4 20.fxg5 gxf3 21.gxh6 and Black is busted.;
19...Nxe5 20.Nxe5 fxg4 is a slight improvement on that plan, since there is no longer a White knight pressuring g5. 21.Nxg4 Rxf4 22.Nxh6+!
20...fxg4 is demolished by 21.Qxh6!
<21.Nxg5 hxg5 22.Qg3 f4>
22...fxg4 23.Raf1! is very awkward for Black.;
22...Nxe5 23.Qxe5 f4 would be a slight improvement, as the queen would not be in the most active postion at e5, despite being centralized. Still, after the rook comes into the game from a1, an eventual advance to h4 will open things up.
<23.Qh3> The h7-square cannot be defended. <23...Nxe5 24.Qh7+!> An important intermezzo. Retaking the knight can wait. <24...Kf7 25.dxe5 Rg8> Black seems to have defended. The king will be able to stroll to the queenside eventually, perhaps finding safety at b8. The dark squares seem safe enough.
<26.a4!> Rubinstein opens up a path for the dark square bishop! <26...b6 27.Ba3 Rc5> Black offers the exchange to blunt the attack. White will collect it, but first will get queens off the board. <28.Qg6+! Kf8 29.Qf6+ Qxf6 30.exf6> The knight at g7 is trapped!
<30...Bc6 31.Bxc5+ bxc5 32.fxg7+> Black resigned.
|Mar-10-05|| ||soberknight: <Mate Hunter> 25...Bc6 26 Bg6+! Ke7 27 Qxg7+ and mate next move. 25...Rg8, as played, was the best move. |
|Mar-18-05|| ||Minji: At 8, it looks like a Colle-Zukertort. Certainly an early one, at 1903. Could this be? |
|Mar-18-05|| ||ughaibu: As Zukertort was long dead by 1903, early is an odd term to choose. |
|Apr-10-05|| ||Karpova: <ughaibu>
colle was born in 1897, so he was six years old at the time this game was played. the term "early" is not odd.
think first before you write.
<Minji:Could this be?> of course it could (as you can see).
|Apr-10-05|| ||ughaibu: Karpova: my post mentions Zukertort, not Colle, take your own advice. |
|Apr-10-05|| ||Karpova: <ughaibu>
think first before you write!
colle-zukertort is an opening system.
you neither understood Minji's nor my post.
colle lived from 1897 to 1932.
zukertort from 1842 to 1888.
now guess why it's called colle-zukertort...
|Apr-10-05|| ||ughaibu: My guess is that this system was used by both Colle and Zukertort. As Zukertort was dead and Colle hadn't yet started playing it, isn't an "early" example. If the posts of either of you contain missinterpretable content I will be surprised. |
|Apr-10-05|| ||Karpova: what kind of snootiness is needed to think you could never err.
zukertort started playing it around 1875. so this line was 28 years old when this game was played. this line gets still played today, that's 130 years after zukertort played it for the first time and 102 years since rubinstein used it against salwe.
but you come up saying the term "early" doesn't fit it.|
in the end it's just nitpicking to criticize the term "early" which may be your favourite preoccupation but isn't mine. go on if you want or need it...
|May-17-05|| ||Tautriadelta: It is amusing reading the banter between Karpova and Ughaibu about whether or not this is an early example of the Colle-Zukertort. I don't propose to enter the argument but would point out that with one exception Colle never played this opening. Presumably the Zukertort later had Colle's name associated with it because of the similarity with Colle's (and Koltanowski's) system. If you are really interested in learning the history you should try Adam Harvey's excellent book published by CEI entitled Colle Plays the Colle.|
|Dec-19-06|| ||Bridgeburner: <Eric Schiller> <<21.Nxg5 hxg5 22.Qg3 f4> ...22...Nxe5 23.Qxe5 f4 would be a slight improvement, as the queen would not be in the most active postion at e5, despite being centralized. Still, after the rook comes into the game from a1, an eventual advance to h4 will open things up.>|
This understates the critical position that's been reached here. 22...f4?? loses instantly for the reason given in your notes: it forces the Queen to do what it wanted to do anyway - go to the h-file, which in conjunction with the opening of the b1-h7 diagonal caused by the ill-fated and premature 22...f4, initiates a mating attack.
The exchange of Knights on e5 is much better as the Queen is now blocked from the h-file. Black's position is quite defensible.
For example, if (after 22...Nxe5 23.Qxe5 f4) 24.h4, then:
24...gxh4 25.Raf1 f3 26.Bc1 a6 27.Bf4 Bb5 28.Bxb5 axb5 29.Rxf3 Rxc2 30.Rgf1 Qe7 31.b4 Rf6 is OK for Black <32.Bg5 Rxf3; 32.Qg5 Qf7 33.Rh3 Qg6>
|Oct-24-09|| ||Richard Taylor: This is a Colle-Zukertort - or Rubinstein Opening - they are very similar. There is book on the Colle-Zuk and it is promoted as almost an infallible winning system - but it is not, IF Black plays correctly, and cannily. However I sailed right into one in a recent tourney. Some young fellow had prepared his "Zuk 'em" ideas and I got crunched up so I now know "all about it"! |
I now know Rubinstein clearly either used Zuk and Colle's ideas or both and or made his own system thus it is called here the Rubinstein opening... but:
"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as as sweet." (Romeo to Juliet (re the family names Montagu and Capulet, in "Romeo and Juliet" by Bill S.)
|Mar-31-10|| ||birthtimes: If 22...Nxe5 23.Qxe5 f4 24.a4 Qf6 25.Ba3 Qxe5 26.dxe5 Rf7 27.Kg2 d4 28.h4 gxh4 29.Kh3 and White stands better due to: 1) 2 good bishops vs. a bad bishop and knight, 2) better pawn structure, and 3) better play for his rooks.|
|Jan-18-11|| ||birthtimes: Nice understanding by Rubinstein of what is known today as the Colle-Zukertort opening...|
|Dec-30-12|| ||perfidious: < Richard Taylor: ....There is book on the Colle-Zuk and it is promoted as almost an infallible winning system - but it is not, IF Black plays correctly, and cannily....>|
We may be thankful that there is no such system, else chess would be the poorer.
As to <Karpova>'s words of wisdom for <ugh-haibu>, pity he seldom manages to think before his utterances. Of course, when one is infalllible, pronouncements are hurled from on high without the need for justification at we, the unwashed masses.
|Dec-30-12|| ||Richard Taylor: <perfidious> True but unfortauntley chess book editors want to have titles such as "Win with the French [any other opening] ..." or "Win with the Latvian" and they give almost all the examples of the opening in question as wins for whoever adopts the system. It is irritating but sometimes one can learn from such books, as long as one is armed with a reasonable computer and access to games online etc and skepticism...|
One is Gary Lane's book on the Scotch which is good, but gives too many winning examples of ins for white. Also it is necessary to just have a general book on such an opening.
Given one wants to spen tiem studying openings. I just play over master games etc
|Jan-20-13|| ||Diglot: 1.d4 d5 2.e3 e6 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.b3 Nc6 6.Bb2 Bd6 7.Nbd2 0–0 8.0–0 cxd4 9.exd4 Nh5 <More frequently tried here is 9...Qc7, 9...Bd7, and 9...Nb4> 10.g3 g6 <10...f5 was tried in Capablanca vs. Corzo (Havana, 1901) with White winning> 11.Ne5 Bd7 12.f4 Ng7 13.a3 f5 <13...f6 seems preferable. Or perhaps 13...Rc8> 14.Qe2 Be8 <Doesn't seem terribly helpful. 14...Nxe5 or 14...Ne8 seem more proactive> 15.Ndf3 Rc8 16.Kh1 h6 <16...Nxe5, 16...a6, or 16...Qc7 all look more preferable> 17.Qe3 Be7 <17...Kh7 looks good> 18.Rg1 <!> 18...g5 <Interesting is 18...Qb6 19.a4 Nb4 20.a5 Qc7 21.Rgc1> 19.g4 <! Opening up the kingside. A viable alternative is 19.Nxc6 Rxc6 20. Ne5> 19...gxf4 <Should have gone for a Queenside thrust with 19...a5> 20.Qxf4 Bg5 21.Nxg5 hxg5 22.Qg3 f4 <Bad mistake which gives White an attack. Better was 22...Nxe5, though White will still enjoy a small initiative> 23.Qh3 <! Only move to maintain advantage> 23...Nxe5 24.Qh7+ <Not quite as good (but still fine for White) is 24.dxe5 Rf7 25.Qh7+ Kf8 26.a4> 24...Kf7 25.dxe5 Rg8 26.a4 <! Getting the Bishop into play> b6 27.Ba3 Rc5 <Everything else leads to mate> 28.Qg6+ Kf8 29.Qf6+ Qxf6 30.exf6 Bc6 <No other good defense e.g. 30...e5 31.Bxc5+ bxc5 32.fxg7+ Kxg7> 31.Bxc5+ bxc5 32.fxg7+ 1–0|