|Feb-20-06|| ||Autoreparaturwerkbau: Romantic Danish at it's best...|
|Feb-20-06|| ||Jim Bartle: So don't try playing this opening in certain Muslim countries.|
|Apr-13-06|| ||korger: <Romantic Danish at it's best...>|
I'm sorry to spoil the fun, but White's attack was unjustified, and Black's resignation in this position can only be explained by an oversight that stems from psychological stress. 23... h8 24. xe5 g8 25. xh8+ xh8 26. xh8 d5 and it's White who should resign.
|Jun-08-07|| ||CitricAcid13: What about 23 ... Rh8, 24. Qxe5, threatening both the night on a5 and the pawn on f5, with tempo... which coulda continue the attack further, not sure.|
|Jun-16-09|| ||GrahamClayton: <CitricAcid13>What about 23 ... h8 24. xe5, threatening both the night on a5 and the pawn on f5, with tempo... which coulda continue the attack further, not sure.|
Black could play 24...d5, blocking the attack on the knight and defending the f5 pawn at the same time.
What does White play now? 25.h8 h8 26.h8 leaves him effectively 2 pawns down, while I could not find a checkmate after 25.g4+ h4.
|Mar-11-12|| ||FSR: <GrahamClayton> After 23...Rh8 24.Qxe5, Black might as well play 24...d6 with tempo. Then White's best looks like 25.Qe2+ Kg6 26.Bxh8, when 26...Qxh8 27.Qxd2 Nc6 leaves Black with a winning material advantage. Your 24...d5 also isn't half bad, one line being 25.Qe2+ Kg6 26.Bxh8 Qxh8 27.Qxd2 Nc6 28.Qxd5 Qd4+ 29.Qxd4 Nxd4, followed by ...c5 and ...Be6, again winning. White can't stop ...c5 with 30.Rac1? because of Ne2+.|
|Mar-11-12|| ||hugogomes: The line I saw wins for White, (there is a BUT):
23. g4+, fxg4) (loses)
24. hxg4+, Kh4
25. Kg2!, Ng6
26. Kf3!!, Bxf4
27. Rh1+, Kg5
28. Rxh8, Qxh8
(if 24. Nxg4 also loses, you can check with an engine)
The problem is
24. hxg4, Kh4!!
And white can resign.
|Mar-11-12|| ||Once: A surprising finish. White is threatening Qh7#, but I couldn't help feeling that he didn't have enough bits to force the attack through.|
Turn on Fritz to see what he thinks. After 22. Qg7 Rh8, black is winning comfortably with an eval of -3.5. All other moves lead to a forced checkmate for white.
So definitely a case of premature resignation. I am told that you can get pills to help with that. Even if we are too embarrassed to talk about it.
Stepping back through the game with Fritzie and he is pretty sniffy about the whole thing. White's attack was unsound and ought not to have won. Black was comfortably ahead all the way through. In fact the only duff move he made was to resign!
Then again, isn't that the way with life? Some folks seem to get by with oodles of bluster, bravado and BS. I recall a conversation I had with a consultant who was trying to sell me something. All was going well with his presentation until he had strayed into an area where I had considerable expertise. So I asked him a technical question to probe his knowledge and then he started to waffle.
Me: Can I just stop you there? You don't know what you are talking about, do you?
Him: Ah, er, no.
Me: Thanks for being honest. Eventually.
He didn't get the contract. Which was lucky because until that point I was quite taken in by him. Bravado, bluster and BS can sometimes overcome a lack of ability.
And that probably just about sums up the Danish gambit too. It ought not to win, but it does. And surprisingly often.
|Mar-11-12|| ||Penguincw: Who knew the black king would have to crawl out so far?|
|Mar-11-12|| ||Garech: A ridiculous game! Also, a ridiculous gambit I am ashamed to say I used to play.|
Not only white but black gets this whole game totally wrong. Up to move 8 everything is fine for black; he has won two pawns at the (safe) expense of development; he can even castle instead of 8...Na5!?, which lost a lot of his freely claimed advantage.
White should play Nd5 at move 11, where there is good compensation for the pawns (no the case at all after 11.h3)
12.Bxh7 is totally ridiculous; again Nd5 was the move but white still has little for the pawns.
13...Bd6 was the correct defensive move for black:
click for larger view
after which, again, white has nothing, now for the price of a piece and two pawns.
14.Nf6+ is the second ridiculous piece sacrifice; again totally wrong.
18...Rh8 is a sound way to give back some material and defend; after 19.Qxb4 Nac6 white again has nothing for the material:
click for larger view
The coupe de grace was of course the resignation with a winning position! Perhaps Haughton's nerves were gone when faced with such play; or perhaps there is more to the story/score than we know. In any case; an amusing game - and a welcome reminder as to why I don't play this gambit anymore.
|Mar-11-12|| ||Memethecat: I know porns where superfluous 140yrs ago but I didn't think they threw pieces away so freely. |
This could of been a game of "who makes the best blunder" in which case Haughton was winning hands down, by far the best & most consistent blunders. That is till the end, when Lindehn resigned a won game, you just can't compete with that kind of skill.
|Mar-11-12|| ||HeMateMe: "Chicago Hotdog"?|
|Mar-11-12|| ||FSR: <Memethecat: I know porns where superfluous 140yrs ago>|
People have been looking at porns for centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...
|Mar-11-12|| ||BlackSheep: "Chicago hotdog" ? Worst pun ever ! I have no idea what its supposed to mean unless it was one of them "you had to be there" gags and I was on holiday at the time . Weird game too at a glance it looks like Rh8 solves blacks issues (other more determined kibitzers seem to agree on this point) it just seems that whites kitchen sink gambit/attack just ran out of utensils .|
|Mar-11-12|| ||tivrfoa: Well said <Once>.|
|Mar-11-12|| ||FSR: <BlackSheep: "Chicago hotdog" ? Worst pun ever ! I have no idea what its supposed to mean unless it was one of them "you had to be there" gags and I was on holiday at the time .>|
I'm no great fan of the pun, but I've certainly seen worse. Chicago-style hot dogs are well known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicag... (I never eat hot dogs myself, but many love them.) This game was played in Chicago, and White played like a "hot dog" - i.e. in a very flashy manner, showing off (and totally unsoundly, in this case). See definition 2 at http://www.urbandictionary.com/defi....
|Mar-12-12|| ||HeMateMe: <People have been looking at porns for centuries>|
That's true. In fact, a young actor named Ronald Reagan was in the original movie <Caligula> WITH Caligula, himself.
I much preferred the remake, done by Penthous publisher Bob Guccione, which by the way, includes a very young Helen Mirren, as an extra.
|Mar-13-12|| ||FSR: <HeMateMe> I didn't see the movie, but do recall Roger Ebert's review. He gave it zero stars, and wrote something like, "Vile, sick, revolting trash." Excuse me - that should have been "sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash." http://tinyurl.com/7rhxkud He was at pains to say that he had nothing against good porn, but that this wasn't it. Incidentally, Ebert co-wrote the screenplay for Russ Meyer's "Beyond the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneat...|
|Mar-13-12|| ||KKDEREK: Good to know <FSR>..Jesus, I hate Roger Ebert "thumbs up"..He 's a sellout..|
|Mar-13-12|| ||kevin86: Mate on h7 is hard to stop-virtually impossible.|
|Mar-13-12|| ||Jim Bartle: FSR, I'm shocked, shocked at your sloppy scholarship. It's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens." Ebert did write both.|
And I like Ebert as a critic, very much. I know he's generally fairly generous, so I just take that into account.