|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-27-11
 | | perfidious: <FSR: <theagenbiteofinwit> No, I was in college. I didn't play in law school.> Did you have any wacko law professors, such as John Grisham alludes to in A Time to Kill? |
 |
Jun-27-11
 | | FSR: Certainly some were characters, but I wouldn't call any of them "wackos." |
|
| Sep-05-11 | | solskytz: <WhiteRook48>
Good question (though 2 years ago)
Personally I liked, after 32. Qg6+ Kg8, the idea 33. Rh1, intending 34. Rh8+ and 35. Qh7 mate. Many roads lead to Rome... |
|
Sep-27-11
 | | Shams: <FSR> At what point were you out of your preparation? |
|
Sep-27-11
| | Shams: <FSR: Certainly some were characters, but I wouldn't call any of them "wackos."> Hypo: you call one of your law professors a "wacko" and then the Governor appoints him to the bench. Could you run afoul of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct? RULE 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicative officer, public legal officer, or <of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office>... http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/i... |
|
Sep-29-11
| | FSR: <solskytz: ... Personally I liked, after 32. Qg6+ Kg8, the idea 33. Rh1, intending 34. Rh8+ and 35. Qh7 mate. Many roads lead to Rome...> Dunno about that. 33.Rh1 Bf5! looks like 0-1.
<Shams: <FSR> At what point were you out of your preparation?> After 18...Qxd6 I was already on my own. |
|
Sep-29-11
| | FSR: <Shams> Interesting hypothetical, although in Illinois the governor does not appoint anyone to the bench. (I went to Columbia, so my professors most likely would be candidates for appointment in New York, if anywhere, rather than Illinois. One of my law professors, the brilliant Gerry Lynch, is now on the Second Circuit. I would be delighted if he were appointed to the Supreme Court.) The language "a candidate for . . . appointment to judicial or legal office" seems to imply some sort of organized process and the lawyer's knowledge (or, at a minimum, ability to know) of it. For example, in Illinois there is a committee that assesses the qualifications of those seeking appointment to the federal district court, and makes recommendations to Illinois' two senators, who then make recommendations to the president (at least when a Democrat is the president; I greatly doubt that Bush cared what Senators Durbin and Obama thought). The names of those seeking such appointment are public knowledge. So if one's law professor had been announced as being one of the persons who was seeking to be appointed to the district court, and one called him a "wacko" thereafter, that could be problematic. That raises a couple of further issues. First, is calling someone a "wacko" a factual statement that could run afoul of this rule? Note that in the analogous context of defamation law, even calling someone a "liar" is not, without more, actionable defamation. Second, to what extent do the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct apply to law students, as distinguished from lawyers? That brings another issue to my mind. When you asked if any of my law professors were wackos, were you trying to entrap me? :-) |
|
| Sep-29-11 | | qqdos: <FSR> Sprenkle's errors (after 23...Nc6!) include 24...Qd6?? and 27...Rd8?? Your moves 26.Bc5!! and 28.Rxh6+!! were excellent. Your admirers should read Eric Schiller's 1994 book on The Aggressive Nimzowitsch Sicilian, p.128 and Grigory Bogdanovich's 2009 book "Play 2...Nf6!", p.197. The latter thinks 22...Nd8? is bad and that the only try is 22...Qxg2 when the decisive riposte is 23.Rc1! He will have no truck with either 23.Rf2 or 23.Qh5 because his move "gives White a significant advantage in all variations"! My one regret, is that your discovery 30 years ago has dashed our (my) fading hopes that (B29) may yet be resurrected. I will continue the search! |
|
| Nov-23-11 | | Sprenk: Boy oh boy, I can never escape this game! 19...Qxh2 was a TN at the time, and I remember looking at the position after 21...Rg8 more than once in my home analysis, though not deeply. In fact, I think I defended that position once before in a tournament game against my friend Stephen Dowd, but he quickly took a wrong turn. It's a wild position, and I was happy to play wild positions at that time in my life (still don't mind them). My feeling was it was a matter of who could coordinate their pieces first. Fred played very well though, and I had to rethink the line. I looked quite extensively at the line after the game, but I always got the sense that White was getting the best of it, so I gave up the Nimzo-Sicilian (or the "Boneyard Gambit," as Steve Dowd and I labeled it.) and started playing main lines. Never looked back--but then the FSR game was published in Informant, was voted a top innovation, and then I opened up Nunn's Beating the Sicilian one day to see . . . That wasn't the "fame" I was looking for. Maybe computer analysis can save 2...Nf6 for Black, but I doubt it. If nothing else, White can simply play 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3, where Black either has to play a bad line (3...d5) or allow a transposition back to main line Sicilians after 3...Nc6 4. d4 (4. Bb5 is also a good form of the 3. Bb5 anti-Sicilian line) cxd4 5. Nxd4 |
|
| Nov-30-11 | | qqdos: <Sprenk> apologies if unwittingly I revived unwelcome memories - absolutely no offence intended. But it is great to have the comments of both participants on this landmark game! As a devotee of wild positions, bravo and as a long-suffering student of the "Boneyard Gambit", may I ask if you have the salient moves of your game with Steve Dowd to share with us. All the best! |
|
| Dec-07-11 | | qqdos: It is perhaps instructive to take a look at Unzicker vs O Sarapu, 1970 where <FSR> on Nov-27-05 explained the genesis of his innovation 18.Nxd6! (in the instant game) and pays tribute to earlier analysis of this move by David Levy. He also leaves us with a glimmer of hope that after 24.Kd2, instead of 24...Qd6? 24...Ne5! 25.Rh1 Nxd3! "comes close to equalizing" - presumably 26.cxd3 Qc7=. Schiller in his book (see above) suggests 25.Bxh7 Rd8+! 26.Bd3 also looks "drawish". Do we wait for the fat lady? |
|
Jan-22-12
 | | Fusilli: I was wondering if Black can ever create significant threats in this line. In Short vs Minic, 1985, black got really annoying. <FSR>'s handling of the White side seems very dangerous for Black. Was Short not aware of the novelty from four years earlier? Altogether, nice game, <FSR>, fully worthy of the Chess Informant! |
|
Jan-22-12
| | FSR: <Fusilli> I assume that Short knew of this game: Chess Informant's panel of judges had voted 18.Nxd6! the 8th-9th most important TN of Volume 32, so it was a fairly high-profile game. When I saw Short-Minic, I understood Short's 16.Qf5 (rather than the usual 16.Qh5 f5, as in the present game) as being a way of transposing into my game with one move less having been played by both sides. Look at the position in my game after 19.Qxf5. If Black had played 19...Nf8 (instead of Sprenkle's 19...Qxh2) and I had responded 20.Qf7+ Kh8 21.Qf4, we would have reached the exact same position as in Short-Minic after 20.Qf4. Alternatively, if you look at Short-Minic, if Minic had played 18...Qxh2 (instead of his 18...Nf8), 19.Qxf7+ Kh8 20.Bg5 etc. would have transposed into my game. |
|
Jan-22-12
| | FSR: <Fusilli> Thanks for the compliment. I assume that Short knew of this game: Chess Informant's panel of judges had voted 18.Nxd6! the 8th-9th most important TN of Volume 32, so it was a fairly high-profile game. When I saw Short-Minic, I understood Short's 16.Qf5 (rather than the usual 16.Qh5 f5, as in the present game) as being a way of transposing into my game with one move less having been played by both sides. Look at the position in my game after 19.Qxf5. If Black had played 19...Nf8 (instead of Sprenkle's 19...Qxh2) and I had responded 20.Qf7+ Kh8 21.Qf4, we would have reached the exact same position as in Short-Minic after 20.Qf4. Alternatively, if you look at Short-Minic, if Minic had played 18...Qxh2 (instead of his 18...Nf8), 19.Qxf7+ Kh8 20.Bg5 etc. would have transposed into my game. |
|
Jan-22-12
| | Fusilli: <FSR> Got it. I guess Minic's plan, with Nf8, is an improvement. |
|
Jan-23-12
| | FSR: <Fusilli> Sorry about that - I revised my original comment, but then forgot to delete the old version. <qqdos> 23.Qf4! is more accurate than my 23.Qf2?! Then if Black trades queens, White gets a favorable endgame with the bishop pair. |
|
| Feb-14-12 | | Llawdogg: Your nickname should be Fred Rhine Stone Cowboy. That could be your theme song too! |
|
Mar-13-12
| | FSR: <Llawdogg> K Thompson vs F Rhine, 1992 was GOTD, using the pun <Like a Rhinestone Cowboy>. |
|
Mar-13-12
| | FSR: Steven Dowd in his recent review of ChessBase 11 writes: <For a theoretical novelty in an opening I knew well, I found that the game Rhine-Sprenkle, Midwest Masters 1981, is still the top theoretical novelty in the Nimzowitsch Sicilian. That is the famous game from the Informant and Nunn's Beating the Sicilian; it is also Game #218 in 1000TN!!.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Mar-14-12 | | qqdos: <FSR> Presumably Steven (Stephen?) Dowd is the same Dowd mentioned by <Sprenk> in his post of Nov-23-11. Perhaps he could now give us the score of his early (B29) tournament game Dowd vs Sprenkle, as I rather hopefully asked on Nov-30-11. |
|
Mar-14-12
 | | DoctorD: Sorry, I do not have that game score, or any of my game scores, for that matter. I am a notorious "score destroyer" (which I found is not that uncommon). I always take or took enough time to analyze my games afterwards, but was often so disgusted with my play in games that I destroyed entire series of games wholesale. I realize that is not a pretty confession, but it is an honest one. Steven B. Dowd |
|
Sep-17-12
| | FSR: Good Wednesday puzzle after 27...Rd8. |
|
Oct-02-12
 | | PinnedPiece: What an interesting game.
Some questions:
1. Not sure I understand the buzz over move 18. What alternatives were there for 18.? b3? Nf6+? Bg5? Qxf5?
2. Playing along, I was a little surprised to see 32.Qg6+ since it seemed like the perfect chance to bring the Ra1 into play....so I was a little amused to see 32..Kg8 and 33.Qh7. Does this indicate that you hadn't actually calculated all that far in advance? I often feel bad about moving "prematurely" and hoping that what looks good IS good (a la Duke Ellington "If it sounds good, it IS good") rather than doing extensive mental calculations involving multiple possible paths... 3. I enjoyed ignoring the score and playing along, trying to guess your next move. When one of your games is elevated into the "Guess The Move" category, you will have truly arrived!!!! . |
|
Dec-20-12
| | FSR: <PinnedPiece> I think the discussion to which you allude was actually about move 16. In the later game Short vs Minic, 1985, White played the novelty 16.Qf5. As I explained in my January 22, 2012 post(s), 16.Qf5 seems to just transpose into "my" line, but with one move less being played by both sides. As for 32.Qg6+, as I explained previously, during the game I was thinking about whether to play 32.Rf1+ (best) or to gain two moves on the clock by playing 32.Qg6+ Kg8 33.Qh7+ Kf7 first. (I was in mild time pressure.) I didn't really see any need to do so - 32.Rf1+ looked easily winning. I pondered this question, wasted maybe two minutes doing so, then glanced anxiously at my clock and decided I'd better move before I flagged. So I threw in the repetition (32.Qg6+). Had I realized that this was going to be a famous game that would be published in Chess Informant, ECO, and other books I would have played the immediate 32.Rf1+! |
|
Feb-18-13
| | FSR: Charging Rhino. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
sac: 29.Rh8+