< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-12-10|| ||Phony Benoni: Hmmmm. The ECO Code is A00, for <Uncommon Opening>. Back in 1497, weren't all the openings uncommon?|
|Nov-18-10|| ||blueofnoon: Looking at this game, I would say Lucena did not make any serious mistake, and his king side attack is what modern GMs would play, too.|
Would like to know why some of kibitzers judged him as 1200?
|Dec-30-10|| ||balachandar: apart from opening theory, which was surely undeveloped those days, this game is very nice.|
|Jan-17-11|| ||kevins55555: <<<<<<<<NN's rating is 2720??? Lol!>>>>>>>>|
|Jan-17-11|| ||kevins55555: NN's rating is 2720??? Lol!|
|Apr-18-11|| ||samky: These exclaim moves are... not so good. The attack itself is not very good... unless back then it was like checkers and when your opponent offers a piece you're forced to take it even if it means forgoing a defense to allow mate.|
He wasn't 1200 or anything, but by today's standards this is barely at the level of coffee house chess.
|Apr-28-11|| ||squaresquat: the fundamental concept is play in the center in response to play on the wings, white was ignorant of what had not yet been articulated.|
|May-09-11|| ||noah913: where r u getting the ratings? i cant see it|
|Oct-10-11|| ||Kuhlberg: A very nice game by Lucena! White´s pieces on the queen side were totally inactive and of no use for the defense.|
|Jan-24-12|| ||Knight13: Try 11. Nb5.|
|May-10-12|| ||DanielBryant: The first recorded instance of castling, and it was Black on the queenside to boot.|
|May-14-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: GOTD: The First Instance of Castling
PS. "16...?" Black to play and win, would make an excellent Friday/Saturday puzzle.
|Nov-13-12|| ||kevin86: First recorde castling! and it's QUEENSIDE!|
|May-12-13|| ||JIRKA KADLEC: 11...g5?! (11...a6) 12.Ne1?! (12.Nb5) 14...h4? (14...Qe7) 15...h3? (15...Bxh2+ ) 19.Rh1? (19.Rf4! ) 25.Qxf6?? (25.Qg1! )|
|Aug-02-13|| ||Sergash: I do not agree that this game is better tnan the other one from Lucena! This one is full of big mistakes!|
Variations from Houdini 1.5a.
3...d5?! = the Lucena Gambit?
4.Qd1?! (4.exd5 Nf6 5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.Nf3 )
6.Nf3? (6.exd5 0-0 7.Nf3 =)
6...Be6?? (6...dxe4 7.Nd2 Qe7 8.Qe2 Bb4 )
7.Bd3?? (7.e5 Bxe5 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Bd3 )
8.b3? (8.exd5 Nxd5! 9.O-O = / )
8...h6?! (8...Bb4! 9.Bd2 Bxc3! 10.Bxc3 dxe4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Bxe4 Rd8! 13.Qc1! Qc3+! 14.Ke2 O-O / )
10.Qe2?! (10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Qe2+ Qe7! 13.Bxg7 Rg8 14.Bf6 Qxe2+ 15.Kxe2! Rxg2 16.c4 Be6 17.h3 =)
11...g5?? (11...Rhe8! 12.Qd1 dxe4 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Bf5 15.Bxf5 Qxf5 )
12.Ne1?? (12.e5 g4 13.exd6 gxf3 14.Qxf3 Ng4 15.Nb5! cxd6 16.Bxh8 Rxh8 17.Be2 )
12...h5? (12...Nd4 13.Qd1 Be5! )
13.f3? (13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bxd5 15.Bxh8 Rxh8 16.c4 Be6 17.Be4 )
13...g4?! (13...Be5! )
14.f4?? (14.Nxd5! Nxd5 15.exd5 Bxd5 16.Bxh8 Rxh8 17.Rd1 )
14...h4? (14...Nd4! 15.Qd1 dxe4 16.Nxe4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 (17.Bxd4 Bc5! 18.Bxc5 Nxc5 ) Bc5 18.Kh1 f5! 19.c3! Nxb3! 20.Qxd7+ Rxd7 21.axb3 fxe4 )
15.f5?? (15.Na4! Nxe4! 16.Bxh8 Rxh8 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Rd1 g3! 19.Qxe4 )
15...h3?? 15...Bc5! 16.Kh1 Nh5! (threat: Ng3+!) 17.Qxg4 Ng3+! 18.hxg3 hxg3+ 19.Qh3 etc.)
16...Bxh2+?? (16...fxe6! 17.Rxf6 hxg2 18.e5! Bxe5 19.Na4! et tout n'est pas clair) 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Nd1)
19.Rh1?! (White missed 19.e5!)
22.Ng2?! (22.Qg2! Qe3 23.Kf1 Qf4+ 24.Qf2 Rh1+ 25.Ke2 Rh2 25.Ng2 )
25.Qxf6?? (25.Qxa7! fxe6 26.Ne2! )
|Aug-20-13|| ||justsojazz: Sergash wrote: <3...d5?! = the Lucena Gambit?|
4.Qd1?! (4.exd5 Nf6 5.Bb5+ Nbd7 6.Nf3 ) >
4.exd5 is not a legal move, since the white pawn is on e3.
Besides, I don't see why 3...d5 is a gambit.
<6.Nf3? (6.exd5 0-0 7.Nf3 =)
6...Be6?? (6...dxe4 7.Nd2 Qe7 8.Qe2 Bb4 )
7.Bd3?? (7.e5 Bxe5 8.Nxe5 O-O 9.Bd3 ) >
Again, 6.exd5 is not possible because the white pawn is on e3. The same goes for 6...dxe4 and 7.e5
It appears that this analysis is based on a different game / set of moves – ?
|Aug-22-14|| ||Ke2: <just> Lol yes, it seems like he has 1.e4 for 1.e3 so it becomes a Centre Game|
|Sep-03-14|| ||Christoforus Polacco: <jirka kadlec>
19.Rf4 is interesting (I've thought about it in first moment) but probably not bad answer is 19.... Rh3 with threat 20.... Rdh8.
NN wanted to avoid double rooks (problem for white queen) on h-column so he played 19.Rh1
25.Qg1 Nf3 is not good because king will shoot the knight on ''f3''.
So, probably Lucena's idea was 25....Qh3 with next knight's jump.
After 25.... Qh3, the white horse on ''g2'' can't move and king can't move too, cause of the fork.
Only bishop can go Be2 or pawn go ''e4''. But probably is enough :)
For example :
25.Qg1 Qh3 26.Be2 Nfg4 27.Ke1 Nf2 28.Nf4 Qh2 29.Kd2 Ne4+ 30.N:e4 Nf3+ with fork.
But white exchange queens 29.Q:h2 R:h2 or even 27.N:d5 and I have no idea what to do :)
Probably 25.Qg1 is the end of dreams.
A few words about Lucena.
Probably he was the strongest player in this time in Europe (I don't know about Arabian players).
So, is without sense compare him with ours modern rating. For example my opponent with 1800 p. lost with me in tournament after 8 moves (Kieninger trap in Budapest Gambit) Somebody could say after this short game that he is 1000 only.
And we go to another point - our rating this is rubbish. Children have chess classes- very often too high. Women don't respect theirs titles and want to be men's masters and grandmasters. Men don't respect men's titles because FIDE want money and trade titles and even respect norm before ending of tournament (curiosum). And there is player who has grandmaster's norm and after two years is not able to overrun 2400 to go for next title....
Grandmaster from ''2600 club'' is today not to big favour too- its too many :)
What I want to say ?
Before IIWW it wasn't grandmaster title and eveybody knew who was good player and who was bumbler.
Lucena in XV century was very good player. In his time.
Probably the best - anyway one ''of the..."" We should respect old maestros because in next 5 hundred years nobody respect our masters.
And the semi human and semi robot with chip in brain will say dismissively :
- Carlsen ? Primitive from XXI c.
If you want be champion you must be the best in your time. We live now. No in the future. The same Lucena - he was the best in his time. It's enough :)
|Sep-09-14|| ||Ke2: <And the semi human and semi robot with chip in brain will say dismissively : - Carlsen ? Primitive from XXI c>|
|Jun-18-15|| ||Shoukhath007: Please provide mobile version site sir|
|Jun-18-15|| ||Poulsen: Actually we don't really know how strong Lucena was - we know something about him because some of his writings has been preserved.|
We might deduce, that he must have been a strong player - perhaps even acting as coach or teachers for others. But for all we know the local baker, blacksmith, clerk, pater or magistrate could have beaten him regulary, but just didn't have the time to write a book about it.
One thing is certain IMO: if he indeed was a strong player or perhaps even the strongest player, he could not have become so on his own. Someone, likely more than one person, must have helped him reaching his insights - such as the smothering mate.
So someone else at the time must have been of almost the same strenght as Lucena.
|Apr-10-16|| ||The Kings Domain: Good kingside attack by black, impressive for its day.|
|Apr-10-16|| ||morfishine: <The Kings Domain: Good kingside attack by black, impressive for its day> Impressive for any day, or week, or year, or decade, or century, etc.|
|Apr-10-16|| ||The Kings Domain: morfishine: :-)|
|Mar-31-17|| ||Yigor: 1. e3 (+0.04) e5 (Reversed French: +0.15) 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4!? (-0.18) d5 (Reversed French: Exchange Variation)|
PSCC: 1E -> 2e1E -> 2De1E -> 6De1E -> 6De2d1E
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·