< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-14-09|| ||Big Easy: Didn't get it. Today's puzzle showed me that I need to try to think "outside the box" more and not always assume the move is going to be a sacrifice or a check.|
|May-14-09|| ||TheChessGuy: This is supposedly the first game where the Budapest Gambit/Defense was used. It's fun against an unprepared opponent, but dangerous. White can just sac back the pawn and get very active piece play in return.|
|May-14-09|| ||keypusher: <TheChessGuy>
Adler vs Maroczy, 1896
|May-14-09|| ||mworld: i thought it was Bc6 ... not quite sure why it wouldn't work either yet :(|
|May-14-09|| ||mworld: <eblunt: < zooter: Hmmm...I'm happy I got the correct idea, though Bb7 is stronger than Bc6 >
After 23 .... c6, white has 24. a4 which allows the white bishop to escape after 24 ... xa4 25.g2. However white's b2 pawn is dropping pretty soon after, so I'd certainly have Bc6 as winning as well.
thanks for the elaboration!
|May-14-09|| ||doubledrooks: I cast my vote for 23...Bb7, threatening Ba6+ with a skewer and double attack on the rather immobile white bishop.|
|May-14-09|| ||Poohblah: I got 23 ... Bb7 followed by ... Ba6 as well, though I had no idea what white would do.|
|May-14-09|| ||beenthere240: In retrospect 23. c5 doesn't look like a good move.|
|May-14-09|| ||CHESSTTCAMPS: When I looked at this position last night, I didn't think it was tactically interesting enough to do a solution post. However, there are some instructive points to make, including a tactical point that I missed.|
1. The dangers of being "mobility challenged"
In all board strategy games, mobility is a key consideration and chess engines attach significant weight to it. This is certainly a good example of an endgame position where the immobility of two pieces costs white the game.
2. Retreating moves are harder to find
This is conventional chess wisdom, and some of the posts indicate that this was an issue for some folks. I did not experience this difficulty here, because the lineup of the K & B strongly suggests a skewer as the appropriate tactic, so both Bc6 and Bb7 came to mind quickly.
3. The choice between Bc6 and Bb7
My choice was Bb7, but I couldn't find a compelling tactical reason for this preference. I did see that 23...Bc6 24.cxb6 axb6 25.Rxc6 loses an exchange instead of a piece, but at first glance 23... Bb7 24.cxb6 axb6 25.Rd3 (the game continuation) does the same.
< johnlspouge> made the practical point <... Bb7 gives White a lot less wiggle room than Bc6.>
Other things being equal, the choice that limits defensive options should be preferred, so on that basis alone, Bb7 wins.
<eblunt> noted <After 23 .... Bc6, white has 24. a4 which allows the white bishop to escape after 24 ... Bxa4 25.Bg2. However white's b2 pawn is dropping pretty soon after, so I'd certainly have Bc6 as winning as well.>
I didn't consider 24.a4, but I agree that this is also hopeless for white. After Bc6, perhaps white should try 24.cxb6 axb6 25.a4 Bxa4 26.Bg2 Rb1 27.Ra3 Rxb2+ 28.Kd3 hoping for 28...Bb5+?? 29.Kc3 winning. Not much hope against the likes of Breyer.
|May-14-09|| ||YouRang: After a few desperate moments of seeing nothing (except that black was somewhat cramped), it occurred to me that a bishop skewer down the a6-f1 diagonal would be great for black.|
I can't move the bishop to that diagonal directly, but I could back off the bishop and then go there. To my slight surprise, there seemed to be little black could do about it.
I debated for a few moments about whether 23...Bc6 or 23...Bb7 would both work, but finally decided to just go with 23...Bb7 since it avoids complications. It looks like white's bishop is a goner.
|May-14-09|| ||beenthere240: What surprised (and impressed) me in the game continuation is the resourceful way that black kept going after the bishop, instead of just gobbling the exchange and the a pawn after 28. Kf3.|
|May-14-09|| ||WhiteRook48: didn't work|
|May-14-09|| ||Criswell: First post on this excellent site.
Going to go for 23. ...Bc6.
Here we go...
23. ...Bb7. So close, but I must admit that Bb7 is a superior move.
|May-14-09|| ||akapovsky: way to easy i didn't even consider Bc6 but Bb7 just sprang to me from no where.it actually felt like a monday i can't belive it ,in just seconds.:)|
|May-14-09|| ||outplayer: I have thought for 8 minutes until I have found the answer.|
|May-15-09|| ||SuperCatMonkey: I had ...Bc6 as well, but I can see the advantage of ...Bb7.|
|Jun-01-09|| ||patzer2: With 23...Bb7! Black uses the threat of a winning skewer tactic to win material for a decisive endgame advantage. It also solves the Thursday, May 19, 2009 puzzle solution.|
|Mar-30-10|| ||Nightsurfer: The defense 4. ... h5 after 4.Qd4 ... is the natural reaction, but 90 years after that match Black has tried out something new, namely --> 4. ... d5?!?! <-- during the match >> B Farzamfar vs R Gralla << (Hamburg, Germany 2006), that match can be found in the databank by following the link as follows: www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1529568 , please have a look!|
|Mar-30-10|| ||Nightsurfer: Strange, it has not worked to quote the link here, Webmaster, please help!|
|Mar-30-10|| ||Nightsurfer: ... of course the link to >> B Farzamfar vs R Gralla << (Hamburg, Germany 2006) correctly runs as follows: www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1578395 , in the foregoing I have mistakenly quoted the Esser-Breyer-link once more again ...|
|Mar-31-10|| ||whiteshark: quick link: B Farzamfar vs R Gralla, 2006 :D|
|Apr-11-10|| ||Nightsurfer: Thanx, Whiteshark!|
|Feb-25-18|| ||Telemus: A few days ago I posted a link to a chess column claiming that the game was played in a 5-master tournament in Budapest 1917, see Breyer vs J Esser, 1917 (kibitz #121). After that someone changed the date of this game (before it was 1916).|
Now I learned that the information in this chess column is wrong and the error occured already in the source mentioned there.
In fact, this game was played in a 4-master tournament in Budapest 1916, most likely on 14-Nov-1916.
Jimmy Adams quotes in his book on Breyer (see at Google books, p. 372) an essay by Bottlik and Gyuricza. Therein the date is mentioned, but a few lines below 10-Nov-1916 is given as the first publishing date. So, one of the dates is wrong, too. Since Bottlik gave already in 1999 in his book on Breyer 14-Nov-1916, the typo is probably in the publishing date.
PS: I have also found sources with Dec-1916.
PPS: The English Wikipedia mixes up things with <Abonyi played it in 1916 against the Dutch surgeon Johannes Esser in a small tournament in Budapest.>
|Mar-27-18|| ||Retireborn: <Telemus> Gillam confirms the date of November 14th 1916 (source Budapest newspaper Vilag.) He mentions that Abonyi sponsored the tournament, but didn't play in it, as you rightly point out.|
|Apr-10-18|| ||Retireborn: Another game which I have found very interesting to analyze with Houdini.|
Breyer's plan with ...b6 and ...0-0-0 isn't really a good idea, and Esser misses chances to seize the advantage with 13.c5! or 14.c5!
When he does play c5 on move 23 it's (almost inevitably!) a losing blunder, as his king is exposed to a vicious bishop check on a6.
After 14...f6! the initiative passes to Black, but he does give White one more chance with 18...Bxf3 (18...Rxh6 was more solid.) But Esser once again misses 19.c5! bxc5 20.Ba6+ Kb8 21.Rxc5 Bxh1 (21...Rxh6 22.Qc3 is no better) 22.Bf4 d6 23.Rd5! A beautiful move, with some advantage as Black evidently can't take the rook.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·