|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-24-09 | | WhiteRook48: what kind of game is this?? |
|
| May-18-09 | | mack: <WhiteRook48> Chessbase covered this recently... http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp... |
|
| Jun-05-09 | | WhiteRook48: I think the players were in protest |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | Capabal: What a hilarious game. I read the account by Rogoff at the Chessbase link provided above. It makes me wonder what the rules really are regarding these kinds of things. I mean, in principle, chess is a game that allows both players to agree to a draw, with no minimum number of moves stipulated. Nor are there any rules regarding how serious the actual moves must be. Anyway, this is what Rogoff says: <The Hübner game was certainly a bizarre experience. Robert Hübner, having recently finished second in the Interzonal to Fischer, was playing white. I was having an extremely good tournament (not counting the Hübner game, I ended up with the second highest performance rating and score on first board, after Karpov). But I was hardly expecting an easy game, playing black against one of the best players in the world. Then he shocked me by offering a draw after one move! I should never have accepted, of course, but being a team tournament, and being so inexperienced, I somehow thought I should do so. The tournament director rightly refused the result, and ordered us to replay. Things got more and more bizarre, as Robert began to force me to take his pieces. I did so, but at the same time I did not want to win such a game, so I gave them back in (almost) equal measure. Eventually another draw was agreed. By this time, the whole tournament had effectively stopped and people were standing on the tables watching. As a minor footnote, the tournament director eventually decided to forfeit Hübner when he refused to try a third time to play a real game. We played again at the World Championship Interzonal in Biel in 1976, again with Hübner as White. This time, after a very sharp opening, I emerged with a small advantage in a sharp position. Hübner offered a draw, which of course (!) I refused, after which I was outplayed and lost.> |
|
Aug-06-10
 | | Eric Schiller: Actually, there is quite a bit more to the story. I was acting as team captain that day, as Benko was indisposed. I advised Ken to take the draw as he was Black and Huebner was, well, Huebner! After the arbiter, Sajtar, rejected the result (in 1981 at the FIDE meeting in Atlanta he admitted tothey me he was wrong), he ordered a rematch and several silly games were played. One went 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ng1 Ng8 etc. Another saw them trade off al pieces to get to K. vs. K. The firast game, and the one that should be offic ial was 1.c4 1/2-1/2. The Russians pressed for a double forfeit but Huebner insisted that he alone bore responsibility. He had played an exhausting adjournment session in the morning. It should be mentioned that Ken did not want to accept the forfeit win but the rest of the team persuaded him to do so. Arguing for the US team, I rejected the official complaint that the 1-move draw deprived spectators of a battle as hundreds of other games were available, and short draws were common. Why go through the pretense of making a few book moves? For example a famous Vlasti Hort game at Hasting went 3 moves and his comment was "and off to breakfast"! |
|
| Aug-06-10 | | Riverbeast: Mockeries of chess like this should not be permitted in a serious tournament |
|
Aug-06-10
| | Eric Schiller: The mockery was well-deserved reaction to ridiculous ruling by arbiter. There was no rule against short draw, and in team events they were common tactics. Huebner had good reason to not want to play, he was exhausted but his team captain wouldn't put in a reserve player. I believe Huebner even told his captain he was going to make a quick draw. He decided to make it obvious by offering a draw right away but he did not do so before the game, which was a common practice in those days even though it was against the rules. |
|
| Aug-06-10 | | whiteshark: <Eric Schiller>
<Huebner had good reason to not want to play, he was exhausted> As far as I understood (or better, figuring it out) games started around noontime/early afternoon and were adjourned around move 40. Analysing over night, and finished the next morning, when the next round stated a few hours later. Was it approximately so, <Eric>? Well, here are Hübners previous two games ere round 8. Both adjourned and both were hard, difficult and interesting in their own way. Round 6: Karpov vs Huebner, 1972 Round 7: Huebner vs S Fedder, 1972 so this would make it 2 consecutive days w/o much sleep <...but his team captain wouldn't put in a reserve player. I believe Huebner even told his captain he was going to make a quick draw.>
The text, I've posted here (Huebner vs K Rogoff, 1976), 2nd paragraph) says, Hübner demanded a pause, but the team captain refused (for team spirit reasons) and Hübner accepted when he got the permission to draw the Rogoff game. |
|
Aug-06-10
| | Eric Schiller: Just so. |
|
| Jan-15-11 | | wordfunph: bizarre game indeed, a disdain to Caissa.. |
|
| Jan-15-11 | | wordfunph: according to GM Pal Benko, "this incident was in the nature of a protest because Huebner had many adjournments pending and he wanted to rest. But his captain assigned him to play against the Americans, telling him that a quick draw would be acceptable." |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | PinnedPiece: I can't make any sense out of 12.h4??
Help!!
. |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | Keith Dow: Dear PinnedPiece,
"I can't make any sense out of 12.h4??
Help!!"
The reason is quite simple. The board they played on was on top of a counter. The h4 move was played with gusto such that the force went through the board and became a counter attack. |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | PinnedPiece: <KD> Ah!
Amazing how these tactics become so obvious once they are pointed out. Anglo-Indian defense has always been a weakness for me, however.... . |
|
| Apr-29-11 | | hedgeh0g: Black has to give back the rook to avoid getting mated. |
|
Jul-05-11
 | | perfidious: The play from the final position is obvious to even a weak player like myself: 13.Bxg7 Nxf2 14.Rh2 Ng4 15.Rh1 Nf2 and repeat the position till move 30, as White actually loses after 14.Bxf8 Kh8 15.Nc3 bxc3+ 16.Kc2 Nxh1 17.Bg7+ Kxg7. Oh, I forgot, they'd done away with that silly rule by then..... Well, then, what do our esteemed readers suppose they'd have done with this gem, had it been played in a tournament in the sixties? Keene vs D W Anderton, 1977 |
|
| Jul-25-11 | | Chris00nj: This game is hillarious. |
|
| Sep-29-11 | | whiteshark: He who defaults first defaults best. |
|
| Mar-05-12 | | RookFile: The Bishop on h8 is especially hilarious. |
|
| Mar-05-12 | | King Death: The game that <perfidious> mentioned is great! One of <ray keene>'s finest moments and it belongs next to this beauty! |
|
| Apr-06-12 | | wordfunph: 11...Bg7!!! note my 3 exclams :) |
|
| Apr-07-12 | | King Death: By the way Rogoff was lucky that White was in a peaceful mood because the fishy move 12...ab should have lost to 13.h5 followed by h6 and hg. It's all over then. |
|
| Sep-13-12 | | The Last Straw: <King Death> You call this a peaceful mood??! And 13.h5 ♗xh8 14.hxg6 hxg6: Now what?
click for larger view |
|
Sep-13-12
 | | gezafan: Rogoff should have taken the win after 5.Qxd7.
This type of game reflects badly on chess.
There are many well known drawing variations. The players could have simply played one of those. |
|
Oct-30-12
 | | Eggman: It probably isn't a coincidence that this is the same Huebner who deprived the world of a candidates final back in '80-81. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 