< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jun-21-05|| ||Jaymthetactician: Also, why not 6...dxe5 7.dxe5,Nc6
|Jun-21-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <Jay> See also Andrey D Mingrelia for an explanation.|
|Aug-02-05|| ||dorn: <chessgames.com> The game is probably fictious. Pedro Damiano died in 1544, I've never heard about another chess player with the same name. And the game is identical to this one: Greco vs NN, 1620|
|Aug-02-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <dorn> Kibitzer <sneaky pete> suggested that (nearly) all the games dated 1801 seem to be dated wrong. So, the game itself could be real, but the date not. Hope that helps you (and <others> who ask this question).|
|Nov-11-05|| ||AlexanderMorphy: this looks like one of them greco games...where he forces his opponent to take a minor piece and then wins the game in the very next move by winning the queen!|
|Nov-11-05|| ||AlexanderMorphy: <dorn> yes you are correct this game is the exact same game as the Greco one! I knew i had seen a similar game somewhere!|
|Feb-15-06|| ||prinsallan: Almost an exact copy of Grecos game here: Greco vs NN, 1620|
|Nov-03-06|| ||Rocafella: What can we learn from this game? I'll leave you to figure that out|
|Mar-16-09|| ||dwavechess: 13/14 concur with Rybka 3 at 3 min. per move with rybka.abk book for Damiano|
|Mar-16-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 3...Nxe4... even NN knows better than that|
|May-24-09|| ||Amarande: It appears that 8 ... fxe5! is the right move here. This allows the threat to c7 posed by White's Nd5 to be covered by Nf6, rather than the uncomfortable Queen maneuvers that result in the loss in this game.|
White can then win a pawn by 10 Nxe7 Nxe4 11 Nxc8 Rxc8 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 fxe5, but it doesn't look like the extra pawn can be retained for long - e.g. 13 ... Bb4+ 14 Ke2 (best, if 14 c3? Nxc3!, and 14 Kd1 Rd8+ simply helps develop Black's game) O-O followed by Rce8 and the e5 pawn goes lost, since with e1 and f4 covered White is unable to adequately protect it in time. Not to mention Black has all his pieces in play and White none - against which White has only the advantage of the two Bishops. An unclear variation, in which I'd probably prefer Black.
If instead 10 Nxf6+ (the only other reasonable alternative, as 10 Qf3? Nxd5 11 Qxd5 exd4+ is obviously bad for White) gxf6, and Black has saved the Pawn, with a useful open g-file should White castle short. It thus looks to me that this variation probably leads to O-O-O on both sides, with an unclear outcome. As this variation occurs rarely, it's difficult to say with clear authority who is for choice. Note that 11 Bb5+? appears to be bad here; 11 ... Bd7 looks good for White, as after the trade of Bishops, Black's Bishop is quite bad, but 11 ... c6! can be played instead. Kieseritzky shows the effects of this variation in NN vs Kieseritzky, 1846 if White should accept the Rook; if White attempts to decline with 12 Bd3 then 12 ... exd4 wins a Pawn as the pinned Queen cannot recapture.
|Jul-24-09|| ||just a kid: I think that 3...Nxe4? wasn't a decisive mistake,but it gives White a large advantage.|
|Aug-26-09|| ||Knight13: Whoever NN was probably only spent 5 minutes looking over ...Nf6 seriously.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Domdaniel: If only History had considered 2...Nf6 totally refuted by this game ...|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Penguincw: Don't blame NN for making the mistake. How would they know what to do > 500 years ago.|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Domdaniel: <Peng> But why is NN still making basic errors five centuries later?|
|Dec-19-11|| ||Penguincw: < Domdaniel: <Peng> But why is NN still making basic errors five centuries later? >|
Maybe because of their strength. Some are beginners like me. Others are masters but without a profile.
|Dec-19-11|| ||Domdaniel: Five hundred years? I reckon NN is a vampire.|
|Dec-20-11|| ||Phony Benoni: Doubtful, since he's usually the one getting it in the neck.|
|Dec-20-11|| ||Domdaniel: This is true, and it would have been hard for NN not to exact bloody revenge. Yet I know of no reports such as "chess master found sucked dry".|
Though Karpov was reportedly 'drained' after some of his matches.
|Apr-09-12|| ||Nightsurfer: Herewith a statue that Odemira has erected in order to commemorate the great son of that city, <Pedro Damiano>:
But the way the artist has depicted Damiano that is fiction, however, since it is not known how Damiano has looked like.
|Apr-18-12|| ||Nightsurfer: Hello <dorn>, it has been only today that I have read your assessment (dating from 2005) that this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> "is probably fictious", and hello <AlexanderMorphy> and hello <prinsallan>, it is only today that I have read your assumption (that dates from late 2005 and from 2006, respectively) that this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> is more or less identical to Greco vs NN, 1620 ... but so what?|
You seem to suggest that this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> might be a copy of Greco vs NN, 1620 - but there is no logic in that very suggestion, isn't it?! Why?
Well, there is a more than solid source that clearly states that this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> has been played in the very year <1497> indeed! The solid source, that is the biography on <Pedro Damiano> that has been published by <Mario Silva Araujo>, the title is <"Damiano, O Portugues E A Sua Obra">.
Talking of this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497>, you find the source in <"Damiano, O Portugues E A Sua Obra">, namely by turning to page 2 of the <"Documentacao"> in the annex: there you will find the recording of the moves of that very game plus the comment that the relevant game <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> is the <"... partida mais antiga da historia do xadrez jogada por um portugues ...">.
Since the very biography <"Damiano, O Portugues E A Sua Obra"> is based on extensive investigations by its most distinguished and highly revered author <Mario Silva Araujo>, therefore there is no reason to doubt the foregoing assessment by <Mario Silva Araujo> with regard to that very game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497>.
Plus: Since the date of that very game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> is that very year <1497>, please compare <"Damiano, O Portugues E A Sua Obra"> once more, namely by turning to page 2 of the <"Documentacao">, therefore one has to conclude that Greco vs NN, 1620 - that has been played 123 years after (!!) this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> - has copied that very game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> ... and not vice versa!
Sorry folks - be it <dorn> or <AlexanderMorphy> or <prinsallan>!
|Apr-18-12|| ||Nightsurfer: Hello dear <Webmaster>, please do a CORRECTION with regard to the SITE where this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> has been played.|
This game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> has not been played at "Paris", that is a given fact.
++ This game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> has probably been played at !! <ROME> !!, please compare http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/n....
The foregoing assumption is based on the fact that <Pedro Damiano> had been forced to emigrate from Portugal in 1496 and that he has found a new home in Rome in 1497, please compare <Mario Silva Araujo> in his biography <"Damiano, O Portugues E A Sua Obra">.
Conclusion: This game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> has probably been played at <Rome> in that very year <1497>.
|Apr-19-12|| ||Nightsurfer: Stunning cases of replay are more likely than one might assume. This game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497> has become the matrix for a case of replay (be it a case of actual play on the board or be it a case of cocky copying for the sake of featuring <Maestro G.Greco>'s famous manual on chess), and that case of replay (or just copying) has happened 123 years later after this game here <Pedro Damiano vs NN, 1497>, please compare Greco vs NN, 1620 .|
BTW, a corresponding (and noteworthy!) case of replay is the game R Gralla vs S Stojanovic, 2008 that is a kind of remake of Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 - a kind of remake that has been put on the board FOR REAL and that has been put on the board 150 years (!!) post festum, please check out the postings in the corresponding forum with regard to both Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 and to R Gralla vs S Stojanovic, 2008 correspondingly.
|May-23-12|| ||Nightsurfer: This is the first time in chess history that the constellation 12.Bb5! ... pp. has been put on the board. A case of second coming has been recorded 417 later at Munich 1914, please compare C Krause vs V Costin, 1914 and move on to move no. 8, namely 8.Bb5! ... pp.!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·