< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|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.
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.|
|Aug-06-13|| ||waustad: Nice game to play through to celebrate his b'day.|
|Aug-06-13|| ||KlingonBorgTatar: Happy Birthday <FSR> !! Very nice game you have here. An X-treme gladiatorial combat!!|
|Aug-06-13|| ||FSR: <waustad> <KlingonBorgTatar> Thanks!|
|Aug-07-13|| ||MarkFinan: Really really good game but has noone seen 27..Bh3 for black? Games still whites with correct play though.|
|Aug-07-13|| ||FSR: <MarkFinan> That is an interesting try, which had never occurred to me - not during the game, nor after the game, nor when I annotated the game for Chess Informant. <Sneaky> mentioned, and analyzed, it in the first comment to this game.|
|Aug-08-13|| ||MarkFinan: Yeh, i just read sneakys earlier comments from 07 and he's right, its still hopeless fo black..
That's probably why it didn't occur to you during or after the game, its not as good as it originally looked. :)|
|Aug-08-13|| ||Ziryab: I just went through the game in Informant 32. Great annotations, FSR!|
|Aug-09-13|| ||FSR: Thanks, <Ziryab>! I spent a lot of time on those. It wasn't so easy back in the pre-Houdini days.|
|Aug-16-13|| ||Conrad93: I didn't bother to check, but did anyone mention 16. Rxf7?|
Oh, never mind. Seems a bit drawish.
|Aug-16-13|| ||Conrad93: <23.Qf4! is more accurate than my 23.Qf2?! Then if Black trades queens, White gets a favorable endgame with the bishop pair.>|
That's not bad, but Houdini prefers 23. Qd5, and, if black plays 23...Be6, white can play 24. Qe5 with a huge advantage for white.
The queen trade would lead to a drawish position, because material-wise both sides are even.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·