< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Aug-24-10|| ||YouRang: <Phony Benoni> LOL!|
|Aug-24-10|| ||OhioChessFan: <OhioChessFan: 19. gxf7+ Bxf7 20. Qd3 The pawn capture first appeals to me once more.
I wouldn't want to be Black in this position: >|
<Phony: Neither would I, since I don't play the Sicilian. But after 20...exf4 threatening to trade queens, I don't see any particular problems for Black. For that matter, what's wrong with 20...Bxc4?>
19. gxf7+ Bxf7 20. Qd3 exf4 21. Nd4 Qc5 is a tough position but I think White is clearly better.
click for larger view
19. gxf7+ Bxf7 20. Qd3 Bxc4 21. Qxc4+ Rf7 22. 0-0-0 and I think White is probably winning already.
click for larger view
|Aug-24-10|| ||OhioChessFan: FWIW I threw 19. gxf7+ Bxf7 20. Qd3 into Fritz10 and at lower plies he likes 20...exf4 and the interesting 20...Rbc8|
|Aug-24-10|| ||OhioChessFan: Wow, I have played with 20...Rbc8 some and there are perpetuals all over the place. Maybe it isn't so good a position for White.|
|Aug-24-10|| ||whiteshark: <6.Be2!!> The slip of a spoiler. Splendid shot, <PB>! :D|
|Aug-24-10|| ||rapidcitychess: Finally! A spoiler!!
I got my wish today.
<Once><singing songs and telling jokes> Yep. :)
Really, today is a break. I've found I get a little more enjoyment out of making people laugh than to solve a easy puzzle.
But today they got us all. Except for dzechiel. But he never misses a puzzle.
|Aug-24-10|| ||OhioChessFan: <Chessgames.com> spoiler got spoiled!|
|Aug-24-10|| ||TheBish: Lepeshkin vs Alekseev, 1955|
White to play (19.?) "Easy"
It doesn't take long to see (for the tactically inclined, anyway) 19. Qxe6!, threatening 20. gxf7+ Rxf7 21. Qxf7#.
If 19...fxe6 20. Bxe6+ Rf7 21. Bxf7+/gxf7+ Kf8 22. Rh8#. If instead 19...d5 20. Qxb6 Rxb6 21. Bxd5 is easy, which leaves only 19...Qe3+ 20. Kd1 Qf3+ 21. Kd2 and...
Hey, wait a minute! I detect a spoiler! Sound the alarm!
SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!
Ok, point taken. So Black has at least a draw, don't have time to find a win for Black, but probably there. In any case, NOT an easy win for White!
|Aug-24-10|| ||CHESSTTCAMPS: <David2009> You went further with the analysis position than I did. My first attempt matched your play up through move 28, but I varied with 29.Rdf1 and ended up losing it. After a 2nd failed attempt, I set it aside. I did win the position you set up on the first attempt (Nd7 removing the defender). |
Too bad that all of this interesting analysis and commentary is based on a faulty game score!
|Aug-25-10|| ||Once: Great spot, <phony>|
Now that is seriously funny - and what a dilemna for chessgames.com. Do they correct the game score and keep make all the kibitzing utterly irrelevant? Or do they delete 6 pages of lovely and lively chat? Or keep the game score as it is?
|Aug-25-10|| ||scormus: To correct or not to correct, that is the question. In many businesses people will leave it as it is, even suppress the damming evidence. And risk getting into a lot of trouble.|
I think it would be a shame to correct it. It's not a matter of law or war. It's better than that, it's CG.
|Aug-25-10|| ||guinnessed: evgeny alekseev playing chess in 1955 ?? can someone explain|
|Aug-25-10|| ||CHESSTTCAMPS: My vote is that the game should be kept as is (with all kibitzing commentary) in the Tactics Archive, but there should be some kind of link and/or annotation to point to the correct game score.|
|Aug-25-10|| ||David2009: <CHESSTTCAMPS: <David2009> You went further with the analysis position than I did. My first attempt matched your play up through move 28, but I varied with 29.Rdf1 and ended up losing it. After a 2nd failed attempt, I set it aside. I did win the position you set up on the first attempt (Nd7 removing the defender). > Congratulations - that is the very quick win. The slow but steady win starts from the diagram with Ng4 and leads finally to an interesting R v PP ending which White narrowly wins:
click for larger view
(Crafty link http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t...; earlier post Lepeshkin vs Alekseev, 1955).
<Too bad that all of this interesting analysis and commentary is based on a faulty game score!> I agree wholeheartedly and suggest that CG corrects the annotations, not the game score - se my next post (in preparation).
|Aug-25-10|| ||Phony Benoni: <quinnessed> Evidently, it was a different person named Alekseev. This person's first name is unknown.|
Reluctantly, I have to vote for correction. Accuracy trumps piquancy. But such corrections are the sort of work I do all day, so there's probably some force of habit here.
|Aug-25-10|| ||David2009: <scormus: To correct or not to correct, that is the question. In many businesses people will leave it as it is, even suppress the damming evidence. And risk getting into a lot of trouble.
I think it would be a shame to correct it. It's not a matter of law or war. It's better than that, it's CG.>|
I agree. All that needs be corrected are the Annotations to the game referring to the correct score, especially at move 6 (reference: Lepeshkin vs Alekseev, 1955), and an additional annotation in the final position explaining that the score has been left unaltered at the request of members of CG.
PS- <CHESSTTCAMPS> has already made very similar points. Because the Tactics Archive is reserved for premium members, I hope the game score stays as it is with all the kibitzes.
|Aug-25-10|| ||Once: We could be straying into one of those alternative universe / Schrodinger's cat thingies.|
...because we have commented on it, the incorrect score of Lepeshkin-Alekseev 1955 now exists. It may not have been played by the two players OTB, but it has just as much physical form as the real game. It has acquired the status of existence by virtue of our kibitzing in the same way that a plant becomes a weed if we say it is, or an object becomes of a work of art if enough people call it art.
There are two versions of the Beatles "Let it Be" - the original Phil Spector version with wall of sound backing vocals and heavenly choirs, and the much later remastered "Let it Be - Naked". Both have their merits and both can happily co-exist.
This suggests that we need two versions of the game - the real one and this one.
Of course if you believe in the multiple universe theory, in at least one of the infinte number of multiple universes there is one where they did play exactly the same moves as in this version...
|Aug-25-10|| ||samiam7458: Attention has focused on 19 Qd2, but 19. Qd3 Bh4+ (If 19...Qd8, then 20. O-O-O) 20. Rxh4 Qg1+ 21. Ke2 with the idea of 21...Bg4+ then 22. Rxg4 and wins, no?|
|Aug-25-10|| ||scormus: <Is this game real?> There some who subscribed to a way of thinking that affirms that something happened or existed only if it has been observed. If this game had not been posted by CG and kibitzed by us crazies then it would not have happened. Then there are some who think that is nonsense ....|
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
|Aug-25-10|| ||Once: <scormus> Thank you, sir, for cheering me up on what has been a trying day!|
|Aug-25-10|| ||Shams: <scormus> "I do not belong to the world. I am the limits of my world. When I die, the world dies too." -- L.W.|
|Aug-26-10|| ||Xeroxx: White Russia ?|
|Aug-26-10|| ||whiteshark: <Xeroxx: <White Russia?>> aka Belarus, acc. to my local Politburo.|
|Aug-26-10|| ||kellmano: <Scormus> That poem refers to Bishop Berkeley's Idealism, which could summed up as:|
'Q. If a tree falls over in a forest and no-one is there to perceive it?
A. There is no tree.'
|Mar-05-16|| ||sachistu: Apart from the previous issue of the incorrect score, the player of the White pieces was V. Lepikhin (not Lepeshkin). In addition, the venue of 'White Russia' should actually be RSFSR ch semifinal (see Shakhmatny Bulletin, 1955, Issue #7, p.207.) I'll submit a correction slip.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·