|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-25-11 | | newzild: Wow. Reminds me of all the sparkling games we're getting in the candidates' matches at the moment. Not. |
|
| May-25-11 | | The HeavenSmile: 10...0-0 and black is up two pawns |
|
| May-25-11 | | ROO.BOOKAROO: Another absurd game, very much in 19th-century style. No wonder that Steinitz and Lasker wanted to rid chess of such non sensical developments. |
|
| May-25-11 | | hedgeh0g: <10...0-0 and black is up two pawns> 11.Nxe7+ Nxe7 (Kh8 Ng6+) 12.Bxe7 Qe8 13.Bh4 looks unpleasant. |
|
| May-25-11 | | kevin86: Blackburne had a quote for this type of game:"A little bit of Morphy" This sacrifice circus ends in a smothered mate! Beautiful! |
|
| May-25-11 | | Funicular: Im thinking 13... 0-0
what then? Nxe7+ Qxe7 Nxc6 Qc5 and white's out of options. Ne7+ simply Kh8 and it's all over. White's bishop retreats, then Rf7 forces Nxc8 and it's hopeless for black The real question is, would i've seen 0-0 on the board? would i've been greedy and captured a piece instead? who knows |
|
| May-25-11 | | Doctor Aust: The well-known chess player and author Leonard Barden, posting on the English Chess Forum today, suggests this game is almost certainly fictitious the second time (with Atkins as a participant), and possibly fictitious the first time (Young vs Dore): http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic... |
|
| May-25-11 | | Marmot PFL: Black can make his life a lot easier by playing 3...d5. White most of these attacks can <in theory> be refuted, there is still the problem of having enough time left on the clock to actually win the game, without some stupid mistake. |
|
| May-25-11 | | Marmot PFL: 13...0-0 is fine, and the greedy 13...Kf8 might be even better. I might have played 13...Nxe5 14 Rxe5 fe 15 Bxe7 Qxe7 16 Nxe7 Kxe7 with 2 rooks and bishop for the queen, but white might <possibly> get perpetual check with 17 Qd5 Much the same is 13...fe5 14 Nxe7 Nxe7 15 Rxe5 Rf8 with more than enough for the queen. 13...fg5? was almost the only plausible way for black to lose, and he found it. For that to happen in 2 separate games is not too likely. |
|
| May-25-11 | | Doctor Aust: I suppose the argument is that artless acceptance of sacrifices was "the done thing" in chess earlier in the C19th - though probably not in the 1880s, let alone the C20th. In Andersen's time it was arguably considered "not quite sporting" to decline any gambit, or sacrifice. But as Marmot alludes, lots of ways for Black NOT to lose so spectacularly. I'm slightly reminded of online games against the low-strength settings of the computer, where you make it take the move back again and again, until eventually it makes the material-grab move you need for your sacrificial masterpiece. |
|
| May-25-11 | | WhiteRook48: in this game, white qualifies as insane and awesome at the same time. |
|
| May-25-11 | | apexin: I like the final position
a lone knight wins vs 5pieces! |
|
| May-26-11 | | picard: when the smothered mate occurs on the next move, black would be mated while ahead 17 pawns... is that a record for most material ahead while being mated? |
|
May-26-11
 | | NM JRousselle: Black played so poorly, I can hardly stand to play over this game. White's attack was hardly sound. Black missed several wins. For example, 13 Ne5 Ne5 14 Re5 fe5 15 Be7 Qe7 16 Ne7 Ke7 and Black has 2 rooks and a bishop vs the queen. After 17 Qd5 c6 18 Qe5, White gets a few checks, but can resign with a clear conscience. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | codenameZero: My games are discovered on this website as romantic era chessgames. My name is bingjie Liu. Conquertheworld on ICC. If you don't believe me join ICC AND VIEW My games. Quite a?! Coincidence lol. |
|
| Apr-09-14 | | Conrad93: I still have no clue what's wrong with 11...fxg5 12. Rxc4 0-0. I thought maybe white had 13. Rxc6? dxc6 14. Nxe7, but then black just plays 15. Kh8 and I don't see any compensation for white. |
|
| Apr-09-14 | | Conrad93: Not one of Atkin's best games. |
|
| Jul-15-20 | | jith1207: So before Covid-19, C19 referred to 19th Century. |
|
Jan-19-21
 | | MissScarlett: <Brian has also flagged a misattribution: the game Atkins-Jacobs, London 1915, was actually played by a different player, MG Atkins, vs Herbert Jacobs in the 1915/16 City of London Championship, so has been deleted.> https://www.saund.co.uk/britbase/pg... That would be Michael Glover Atkins, but a game source would be nice. |
|
Jan-19-21
| | MissScarlett: I've tried before to find this game in the contemporary press, but armed with the possibility that it could have been played late 1915 or even 1916 in, I soon triumphantly discovered, in the <Illustrated London News> of January 1st 1916: Michael Glover Atkins vs H Jacobs, 1915 Oh, but wait... |
|
May-10-23
 | | Sally Simpson: CHESS April 2023 this game was mentioned in passing in an article on H.E. Atkins. In CHESS May 2023 a follow up article mentioning, as Phony Benoni stated this game first surfaced in 1898 as Young - Dore The article says the game was published in the BCM in August 1915 as Young -Dore here it is. http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums... There is no other mention of this game appearing as Atkins-Jacobs anywhere till J. du Mont's '200 Miniatures' printed in 1941 and it does appear that the names added to this game is an error. In the introduction to the game in '200 Miniatures' Du Mont seems convinced it is H.E. Atkins saying 'When Mr. Atkins goes a gambitting, which is not to often, he gives full measure.'
So in his records (remember this would have been a pen and paper job or a card index.) Du Mont has mixed up this game with another Atkins - Jacobs game. In '200 Miniatures' Du Mont does not give initials, it is just Atkins - Jacobs, London 1915. The article in CHESS hints Atkins might be Michael Glover Atkins (who has a P2. W2 record in simuls v Capablanca.) but we have found an Atkins - Jacobs from London 1915 M G Atkins vs H Jacobs, 1915 and it is not the same game as here. Edward Winter covers this game and more on Young here: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... |
|
May-11-23
 | | FSR: Obviously Henry Ernest Atkins did not play this game. He was a very strong and solid player not given to unsoundly sacrificing pieces like a madman. |
|
May-11-23
 | | Korora: Message from M. Philidor. Something about a legacy. |
|
May-11-23
| | FSR: <Korora> "Philidor's Legacy" is a misnomer. Lucena knew about it in 1497, Game Collection: Philidor's Legacy, and Greco played it, NN vs Greco, 1620. |
|
May-11-23
| | Sally Simpson: Hi FSR,
Although H.E. Atkins had a solid style if this was a skittles game or maybe from a simul it is possible though I agree very unlikely and the given names are an error. R.N. Coles does not use it in his 'Doyen of British Chess Champions' (pub. 1952) which would have made a pleasant inclusion, a cartoon if you like. I think the fact it was published in the August 1915 BCM as Young- Dore F Young vs L Dore, 1892 strongly suggests it was not Atkins - Jacobs of the same year and somehow these two names have been attached to it. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 7.Nxc3
