Feb-03-08
 | | Chessical: Tullidge's <51...a1(Q)> achieves nothing but the giving away of a valuable threat which was tying down White's Rook. Instead:
<51...a4> 52.Bf8 Ne3 53.Ra1 (<53.Rxe3?> Rxg5+ wins for Black, and avoids <53...a1Q??> 54.Re5 and mate!)<53...Ke4> 54.Rxa2 Nf5+ 55.Kg2 Kxf4 56.Rxa4+ Ke3 57.Bc5+ Ke2 with some advantage to Black. In the above line, <52.Bb4> is weaker as it puts the Bishop on a vulnerable square <52...Ne3> 53.Bd6 Rh3+ 54.Kxh3 Nxc2 55.Re5+ Kxf4 56.Rxd5+ Ke4 57.Rd1 winning as the <a> pawn is better than White's <c> pawn. |
|
| Feb-03-08 | | Gilmoy: 51..a4 52.Bc5 is almost zugzwang: Ne3 is unplayable, and any other N move allows 53.Re5#. 52..a3 Be7 (to snuff Rxg5+) really is zugzwang. 52..a1=Q 53.Rxa1 Nd2 <fork threat> 54.Be3 Ne4+ 55.Kg2 Nxc3 56.Ra3 etc. Looks like Black is losing both a-pawns regardless. |
|
Feb-03-08
| | Chessical: <Gilmoy> Thank you for your comments on this interesting position. In your line: <51..a4> 52.Bc5 a1=Q 53.Rxa1 Nd2 54.Be3 Ne4+ 55.Kg2 Nxc3 56.Ra3, I believe that Black has a better option. <55...Kg4> seems to offer more than immediately taking the <c3> pawn, penetrating White's K-side and harassing his King, e.g. <56.Rxa4> Rh3 (the Rook sneaks in) 57.Bd4 Rg3+ 58.Kf1 Kf3 59.c4 Nd2+ 60.Ke1 Nxc4; and White's King is trapped on the first rank with the nasty threat of <Rh3> if his own Rook wanders away from the third rank. |
|
| Feb-03-08 | | whiteshark: An alternative was <41...Re3+ 42.Kf2 Re4 43.Kf3 Nd2+ 44.Kf2 Re6 45.Bd4 a3 46.Ra1 Nc4>,
click for larger view although I can't see a breaktrough for black. |
|
| Sep-06-11 | | DrMAL: This opening, the Charlick Gambit with 2.e5!? is considered dubious but it still fascinates me (as reminded by my losses to a Russian buddy playing it recently during friendly games). Supposedly, 2...Nc6 is "main line" because it transposes to a Scandinavian but 2...d5 looks equally good (maybe 2...g6 or 2...e6 also, I tried all four and got advantages but no wins for black), with 3.exd6 being thematic since when he first played this here (for the 2nd Australian Chess Championship tournament at Adelaide that he won with 7.5/9 points) it's purpose was to avoid a closed game. If you have more information on this other than the reference below, please let me know, thanx. http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-O... |
|
Sep-06-11
 | | FSR: 2.e5 has always been a rare bird against the Sicilian, but it was for a time Steinitz's recommendation against the French. It was often played by him and others in the 1880s and 1890s. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... These games include a crushing win for White in Pollock-Tarrasch, Hastings 1895. W Pollock vs Tarrasch, 1895 |
|
Sep-06-11
| | FSR: 2.e5 has always been a rare bird against the Sicilian, but it was for a time Steinitz's recommendation against the French. He and others often played it in the 1880s and 1890s. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... These games include a crushing win for White in W Pollock vs Tarrasch, 1895. |
|
| Sep-07-11 | | rilkefan: I take it if say 44...Rb8 then 45.f5, 46.h6, 47.h7. |
|
Sep-07-11
| | FSR: <rilkefan> You mean 46.g6, but yes, I'm sure that was White's idea. |
|
| Sep-07-11 | | rilkefan: Oops, right, somehow typing moves is hard. - I had figured black should hold the ending but now I'm not sure. |
|
Sep-07-11
| | FSR: btw, I've never seen 1.e4 c5 2.e5!? called the Charlick Gambit before. 2.e5 is not a gambit. Moreover, the term is usually seen as another (and more accurate) name for what is today generally called the Englund Gambit, 1.d4 e5? Charlick favored the 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6 version of the gambit, e.g. Apperly vs H Charlick, 1894. |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | DrMAL: Well, in reference book that was cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ox... it is called Charlick gambit I don't think it really has accepted name, it is just that Charlick was known to play it. 2...d5 would transpose into variety of other openings (Opening Explorer) but Charlick took 3.exd6 this gives opening it's unique and interesting character. Englund gambit is name for 1.d4 e5 as you stated http://studimonetari.org/edg/latex/... this is sometimes called Charlick gambit as well especially with 2.dxe5 d6 a favorite of his(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_...). Charlick gambit 1.e4 c5 2.e5 (should include 2...d5 3.exd6) as book cited calls it, is also not normally not considered suitable for master level as you know, but I think it is very interesting and quite suitable, at least for players as high as ELO 2400. Thanx for other references, cheers. |
|
| Jun-11-13 | | optimal play: <DrMAL> <...when he first played this here (for the 2nd Australian Chess Championship tournament at Adelaide...> Strictly speaking this was actually the 1st “proper” Australian Chess Championship tournament since the match held between Esling & Gossip two years previous only lasted two games before Gossip defaulted. <<<THE ADELAIDE JUBILEE INTER-COLONIAL CHESS CONGRESS.>Chess congresses have been held nearly every year for a decade or two in the great European and American capitals, but this is the first occasion on which a group of her Majesty's provinces have joined together to set a distinct colonial mark in the history of the royal game. Those who are acquainted with international chess congresses will recognise that it was a plucky thing to attempt on the part of the Adelaide chess players to get up an inter-colonial congress. The obstacles at first appeared insurmountable, and for weeks or even for months the efforts of the congress committee seemed likely to end in a collapse, but as the result shows a most successful termination has been brought about. It was the holding of the Jubilee Exhibition that first suggested the idea of a congress to Adelaide chessists. Not long after the foundation stone of the Exhibition was laid, Mr. H. Charlick, the recognised champion of this colony, [my note: champion of the colony of South Australia only, not national champion yet] and a few other enthusiastic Adelaide players, met together and decided to invite subscriptions for a congress...> - South Australian Weekly Chronicle (Adelaide, SA) issue Saturday 20 August 1887> |
|
| Jun-11-13 | | optimal play: <<<THE CHESS CONGRESS.> Mr. Charlick, the local crack, found a warm opponent in Mr. Tullidge, who ably replied to the Sicilian opening, and before the game had far progressed had developed a strong attack. The Adelaide man nothing daunted fought tooth and nail, gradually changed the aspect of the game,
and eventually won after 6 hours 4 minutes' play. Mr. Tullidge, who resigned on the seventy-third move, only occupied 2 hours 24 minutes,
whereas the winner took 3 hours 40 minutes to move.> - South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA) issue Tuesday 23 August 1887> |
|
| Jun-11-13 | | optimal play: <<<<Fifth Day.> The major tourney in this meeting was advanced another stage on Monday, when the fifth round was played. All the games lasted over the luncheon hour, and were well contested...> The last game finished was between Messrs. Charlick and Tullidge. The latter adopted the Sicilian defence, and Mr. Charlick, for the first time, we believe, in Australian match play met it with Steinitz's counter attack to the French defence. From the very satisfactory way in which Mr. Tullidge met this novelty it may be surmised that the attack is not particularly sound. For a very long time the game was even, but when the board had been cleared down to a couple of pawns each it was found that the South Australian had the superior position, and he made the most of it, Mr. Tullidge resigning at the 72nd move after over six hours play.> - South Australian Weekly Chronicle (Adelaide, SA) issue Saturday 27 August 1887> |
|
| Jun-11-13 | | optimal play: <THE ADELAIDE JUBILEE INTER-COLONIAL CHESS CONGRESS.> After 5 rounds (with 4 more to play) the points table stood as follows:- Henry Charlick (1-1-1-½-1) [+4 =1 -0] (4½/5) Clear 1st David Heiman (1-1-0-1-1) [+4 =0 -1] (4/5) 2nd Frederick Karl Esling (1-1-½-1-0) [+3 =1 -1] (3½/5) = 3rd George Hatfeild Gossip (1-0-1-½-1) [+3 =1 -1] (3½/5) = 3rd Henry Hookham (0-1-½-1-0) [+2 =1 -2] (2½/5) 5th George B Hall (0-0-0-1-1) [+2 =0 -3] (2/5) = 6th William Tullidge (0-1-1-0-0) [+2 =0 -3] (2/5) = 6th Joseph George Witton (0-0-1-0-1) [+2 =0 -3] (2/5) = 6th Patrick Eiffe (1-0-0-0-0) [+1 =0 -4] (1/5) 9th John E Crewe (0-0-0-0-0) [+0 =0 -5] (0/5) 10th |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
