< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-12-06|| ||ray keene: i am amazed by this game-i have the feeling that a computer might make blacks ideas work but otb its too hard|
|Jan-12-06|| ||itz2000: why not 14 .. Bxb1??
38 .. Qxb5 isn't a mistake??!?!?!
|Jan-12-06|| ||notsodeepthought: <itz2000> 14 ... B:b1 could be followed by 15 N:g7 and now if Kf8 16 Bh6 and the threat of Ne6+ forces black to give back the bishop, so now he's up an exchange but down a pawn and his kingside is a mess. If instead Kd7 16 Bf5+ Kd6 17 Bf4+ again regains (at least) the bishop and the king is in the middle of the board. I think 14 ... Bf6 was the safer choice.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||Jarlaxle: An Englishmen posted this game was a quite normal game of chess...?? i would hardly consider this a normal game. either way its a beautiful game|
|Jan-12-06|| ||al wazir: I'm pretty sure that my suggestion 30. Bd7 would have won immediately, and no kibitzer seems to disagree. If 30...Qxd7 then 31. Qxd7 Rxc1+ 32. Kf2, and black has to choose between getting mated on the back row, letting the b pawn queen, or losing even more material.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||steamengine18: The pun probably refers to some old cartoon (something like Tom and Jerry) where I remember the cat used to say 'I hate mieces to pieces'.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||chessic eric: <al wazir> In your first line 33.Rxe7 isn't possible due to the white bishop on d7 (from 30.Bd7). White still wins with a different version of your line
35.b6 and black's pieces cannot stop the pawn from queening...
|Jan-12-06|| ||kevin86: Here is a rare ending:two rooks plus piece vs queen. That is such an advantage for the pieces that it can be won WITHOUT pawns.|
The game is rather odd-but look at it this way-chess is rather odd in itself. Just imagine the total number of brain cells that have been used on this game of 8 by 8-with 32 pieces!
|Jan-12-06|| ||Ezzy: N Miezis (2470) - R Fontaine (2507) [A29]
XXXV Rilton Cup Stockholm SWE (8), 04.01.2006
<1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nb6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Rb1 Be7 8.b4> There are 5 games in my database with this position. Strangely enough, 4 of those games are Miezis(all white) +2 -2. Miezis and his opponents must like the theoretical battles of this position.< 8...Bf5 9.b5 Nb4 10.d3 e4 11.Nh4 Be6 12.Bxe4 Nxa2 13.Nxa2 Bxa2 14.Nf5 Bf6 15.Bxb7 0–0> : 15...Bxb1 16.Qb3 0–0 (16...Rb8 17.Bc6+ Kf8 18.Qxb1 Bc3+ 19.Kf1 and black has to defend against 20 Ba3+ 21 Ne7+ 22 Nd5+ winning the bishop! ) 17.Bxa8 Qxa8 18.e4 Bxd3 19.Qxd3 c6 20.f3 Rd8 21.Qb3 Both lines seem ok for black, but it seems the players wanted more. And they got it!! <16.Ba3 Re8 17.Rc1 Qd7> This seems to be a bad move. I don't see any reason not to move the black rook from a8. <18.Ne3 Rab8> Black should have played 18.. Qxb5 because he loses the rook for bishop anyway. <19.Bc6 Qh3 20.Qc2 Rxe3 21.fxe3 Bd5 22.e4> [Equally good and offering attacking possibilities is 22.Bxd5 Nxd5 23.Qc6 Qg2 24.Rf1 The threat is now 25 e4 and the knight is lost. So 24...Bg5 25.Bc5 Rd8 26.Kd2 With the strong threat of 27 Rf5 ]<22...Be6 23.Qc5 Rd8 24.Bb4 Na4?> Gives up a pawn for nothing, and leaves the queen in a more attacking position. <25.Qxa7 Nb2 26.Qxc7 Bg4> I think black was relying on the cheap tricks of 27.. Nxd3+ or 27...Qg2 winning. <27.e5> But white is having none of that nonsense. <27...Bg5 28.Rf1> Threatens mate in 3 <28...Bh5 29.Be7> White still has to be careful, becuase black can launch his own viscious mating attack! eg [29.b6 Qxh2 30.Bf3 Qxg3+ 31.Rf2 Qg1+ 32.Rf1 Nxd3+ 33.Kd1 Qxf1+ 34.Be1 Qxe1+ 35.Kc2 Qxc1+ 36.Kb3 Qb2+ 37.Ka4 Qb4 mate! <29...Rc8 30.Qxc8+ Qxc8 31.Bxg5 h6 32.Be3 Qe6 33.Be4 Bg6 34.Bxg6 fxg6 35.Bd4 Na4 36.Rc4 Nb6 37.Rc6 Qd5 38.Rd6 Qxb5 39.Rxb6 Qa5+ 40.Kf2 Qd5 41.Rd6 Qf7+ 42.Kg1 Qe7 43.Rc1 g5 44.Rcc6 Qb7 45.e6 Qb1+ 46.Kf2 Qh1 47.e7 Kf7 48.Re6 Qxh2+ 49.Ke1 1–0>
What a fantastic imaginative game by both players. One slip by white and black had some amazing tactical mating resources.
A great game of the day!!
|Jan-12-06|| ||al wazir: <chessic eric: In your first line 33.Rxe7 isn't possible due to the white bishop on d7. White still wins with a different version of your line however>|
You're right. Thanks for correcting the line. I can still pat myself on the back, but with only one hand.
|Jan-12-06|| ||Ludamad: isnt the pun based of reese's pieces, the candy? Anyway quite the game, sound or not.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||dakgootje: amazing game! Long time ago that i didnt understand so many moves, at least at first sight, lol =)|
Also i couldnt imagine that black 20th move 20. ...♖xe3 was sound
Not too long ago that the game was played also =)
|Jan-12-06|| ||chessic eric: <al wazir> I still think you deserve a two handed-pat because you certainly wouldn't try to play 33.Rxe7 OTB, and the fact that the b5 pawn is the trump was obviously the basis of your decisive 30.Bd7!|
|Jan-12-06|| ||Ezzy: <prinsallan - This is what I played against my computer from (I play Black) 15... Bxb1 16. Bd2 Bxd3 17. exd3 Qxd3 18. Bc6+ Nd7 19. Qg4 O-O 20. Nh6+ Kh8 21. Bxa8 Qb1+ 22. Qd1 Qxd1+ 23. Kxd1 Rxa8 24. Nxf7+ Kg8 25. Ng5 h6 and the game is still alive, I think.> I would definately get another computer. I will just mention 1 glaring mistake it made. 21 Bxa8?? allowing 21..Re8+ which leads to mate or a massive material loss for white. eg 21 Bxa8?? Re8+ 22 Kd1 Qb1+ 23 Bc1 Qb3+ 24 Kd2 Bc3+ 25 Kd3 Nc5 mate.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||itz2000: 38 .. Qxb5 isn't a mistake??!?!?!|
|Jan-12-06|| ||Ludamad: why would it be? he's forked.|
|Jan-12-06|| ||Granite: And who said romantic chess was dead?|
|Jan-13-06|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: I'm astonished that everyone seems to think this game is not normal. Perhaps I can better appreciate how chess has changed in the past 12-15 years since I've been away from chess for that long.|
First, I think I wrote that to very strong players the game might seem quite normal. In other words, the GMs and IMs who engage in the wild tactical brawls so normal to high-level chess would not be surprised by the tactics. We all agree that the WC tournament last year was full of fighting chess. In fact, the first half of the tournament was notably short of draws.
Second, remember that I haven't looked at a board for over a decade. Someone like me will readily notice changes that have slowly accumulated over that period of time. People didn't play like this during my most active years, 1970-1989: perhaps because Karpov had such influence. Fifteen years of Kasparov and computers have radically changed this game.
Seriously, Miezis-Fontaine isn't normal by today's standards? Sure looks typical of high-level play to me. I guess I am an old buzzard.
|Jan-13-06|| ||asip87: 30. Qxc8 31 Bxg5, winning with R, wat a 'slightly' mistakes for black!
but it was doubt coz white's mazing 2B n Q very though inneed, nice game ....|
|Jan-13-06|| ||itz2000: <ludamad> sorry, when I said ..38 I ment ..37...|
He lost a knight for no reason.
isn't that a mistake?
|Jan-13-06|| ||nescio: <Ezzy: There are 5 games in my database with this position. Strangely enough, 4 of those games are Miezis(all white) +2 -2. Miezis and his opponents must like the theoretical battles of this position.>|
Possibly Miezis is one of those masters who play the same opening variations again and again out of principle. Some of you recently noticed this about Rublevsky and I remember well the games of Wolfgang Uhlmann, Lajos Portisch and Andrei Sokolov, to name a few.
|Jan-18-06|| ||prinsallan: <Ezzy> Thanks for that m8, I had a gut feeling my poor Mac blundered ^^|
|Jul-30-12|| ||vinidivici: dude...whats wrong with 14...bxb1 ?|
|Jul-30-12|| ||Shams: <vinidivici> Your question has been answered already on this thread.|
|Jul-30-12|| ||vinidivici: yeah...whats make the different just rook compared to bishop but white with overwhelmingly better position and more active pieces.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·