|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-27-16 | | Conrad93: Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this game all the way to move 15 is based on a 2001 game played between two 2300+ rated players. The only difference really is that Black played 15...exf4 instead of 15...Qf6, but at this point the game is already lost. [Event "Tula2"]
[Site "Tula"]
[Date "2001.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Zakharov, Vladimir"]
[Black "Gusev, Aleksey"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B21"]
[WhiteElo "2376"]
[BlackElo "2383"]
[PlyCount "87"]
[EventDate "2001.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "11"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[EventCategory "5"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2001.11.25"]
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 Nc6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O Nge7 8.
Bg5 f6 9. Be3 b5 10. Bb3 Ng6 11. Nd5 exd5 12. exd5 Nce5 13. d6 Bb7 14. Nxe5
fxe5 15. f4 exf4 16. Re1 fxe3 17. Rxe3+ Be7 18. Qd4 Qb8 19. dxe7 Qa7 20. Bf7+
Kxf7 21. e8=Q+ Rhxe8 22. Rf1+ Kg8 23. Qxa7 Rxe3 24. Qxe3 Bd5 25. Rd1 Be6 26. b3
Ne7 27. Rd6 h6 28. Qb6 Kf7 29. Qb7 Rc8 30. Qxa6 Rc1+ 31. Kf2 Rc2+ 32. Kf3 Bd5+
33. Rxd5 Nxd5 34. Qxb5 Rc3+ 35. Ke2 Nf6 36. Kd1 Ke6 37. a4 Ne4 38. Qb6+ d6 39.
a5 Rd3+ 40. Ke2 Nc5 41. Qxc5 dxc5 42. Kxd3 Kd5 43. a6 Kc6 44. Kc4 1-0 |
|
| May-27-16 | | Conrad93: Vladimir Zakharov should be getting far more praise for actually coming up with this idea first and OTB. |
|
| May-27-16 | | Conrad93: Correction: the position after move 15 is equal with perfect defense. |
|
| May-27-16 | | kevin86: Mate will come soon! |
|
| May-27-16 | | posoo: Dos Lok vunWoaly EVER win?! |
|
| May-27-16 | | Conrad93: <Dos Lok vunWoaly EVER win?!> Don't be an idiot. He's rated over 2600. |
|
| May-27-16 | | Conrad93: Loek van Wely beat Esserman in 24 moves in a game before this one. |
|
| May-27-16 | | posoo: Lol Cunrood, if i were to say
DO DA METS EVER WIN
oviosly i kno da ansur. da old posoo is NO IDIOT. |
|
| May-27-16 | | jith1207: <posoo>: May be, he spectacularly loses more often? |
|
| May-27-16 | | Moszkowski012273: <pedro99> Black is completely lost after 17....Qxg5 18.Qe1+.... |
|
| May-27-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <Conrad93: Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this game all the way to move 15 is based on a 2001 game played between two 2300+ rated players> You are SO right, that is bad news. I was thinking it was based on a 2002 game played between two 2350+ rated players, up to move 17. How can I go on??? |
|
| May-27-16 | | thegoodanarchist: < posoo: Lol Cunrood, if i were to say DO DA METS EVER WIN
oviosly i kno da ansur. da old posoo is NO IDIOT.> <posoo> knows! He knows da score! All you chess playas betta learnit!!! Or you will receive <crushings>. From <posoo>. |
|
| May-27-16 | | ajile: <saintdufus:
GM Simon Williams of England said he thought the best response to 11.Nd5 is 11...Rb8, guarding against the threatened 12.Bb6. Van Wely's choice to accept the gambit subjected him to an impossibly dangerous attack.> Indeed my Rybka is currently saying Black has an equal game after the simple 11..Rb8 denying the sacrifice. |
|
| May-28-16 | | ajile: This attack should be an ideal tournament weapon since 11.Nd5 can be played with no worries and forces Black to find a very narrow path to survival. |
|
| May-28-16 | | Conrad93: << posoo: Lol Cunrood, if i were to say
DO DA METS EVER WIN
oviosly i kno da ansur. da old posoo is NO IDIOT.> <posoo> knows! He knows da score! All you chess playas betta learnit!!! Or you will receive <crushings>. From <posoo>.> You just look like an idiot. Were you attempting to be clever? |
|
| May-28-16 | | Conrad93: <This attack should be an ideal tournament weapon since 11.Nd5 can be played with no worries and forces Black to find a very narrow path to survival.> There is actually a forcing variation that leads to equality. 15...exf4 16. Re1! fxe3 17. Rxe3+ Be7! 18. Qd4 Qc8! 19. Rae1 Qc6 20. Rf3 Kd8 21. dxe7+ Nxe7 22. Rxe7! Kxe7 23. Qxg7+ Kd8 24. Qxh8+ Kc7 
click for larger viewBlack is slightly better. |
|
| May-28-16 | | Conrad93: <You are SO right, that is bad news. I was thinking it was based on a 2002 game played between two 2350+ rated players, up to move 17. How can I go on???>
Your attempt at trolling is rather poor.
People have been praising Esserman for this game, when this isn't even his idea. He stole this from a previous game, which was actually played much better as the opponent offered more resistance. |
|
May-28-16
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Conrad,
"People have been praising Esserman for this game."
"He stole this from a previous game..."
Marc Esserman in his book 'Mayhem in the Morra' (pages 169-170) thought 11.Nd5 was his TN. He says he played it in 2009 and won and kept it unpublished as a secret weapon. He writes:
"I only learned after the Loek van Wely game that the brilliant 11.Nd5 had already been played by Ukrainian IM Zakharov back in 2001." Adding this is not the first time he has played the fool. (I know only too well what that feels like.) So he does give credit to the originator of the sacrifice and with such evidence I do believe that he thought 11.Nd5 was his own TN. he would not have claimed it was his idea if he known about the 2001 game. So others may be crediting Marc with the TN but Marc himself does not. A good cheery book that 'Mayhem in the Morra'. Stacks of attacking ideas and good games. All chess books (especially opening books) should be written in the same style. "(I know only too well what that feels like.)"
Around about 1980 I published 'my' TN in the Lopez. Here with Black to play, White has just played 9.h3. 
click for larger viewInstead of the traditional moves. 9...Na4, ...Nb8, ....Bb7, ....Re8 etc etc... Black can play 9...d5!! (my exclaims)
You then play it as a normal Marshall Gambit with the difference that White has played the weakening 9.h3. The mailbag bulged with previous games played with 9...d5. No databases then of course (that's my excuse.) |
|
May-28-16
 | | perfidious: <saintdufus....GM Patrick Wolff once told me that he himself renounced the Morra because he "was tired of being down a pawn."....> Used to play regularly in tournaments with Wolff and he gave up the Morra after a disastrous loss in the 1982 Mass Open as a borderline 2200 player, then taking up Open Sicilians with success. |
|
| May-28-16 | | posoo: ALMOSTA ROGHT unuchrist. It is SMASHING dat posoo injoyed da most |
|
| Dec-15-17 | | posoo: Still true. |
|
| Sep-11-21 | | Chesgambit: Marc on lichess |
|
| Dec-04-21 | | saintdufus: <<Conrad93: You just look like an idiot. Were you attempting to be clever?>> I notice you throw the word "idiot" around a lot. There's no need to be so negative, nobody here insulted you. These people are just trying to have fun. Thanks Sally! For setting the record straight. |
|
Jul-19-22
 | | PawnSac: < perfidious: > And then he lost to it as black in 2017.
Grant Y Xu vs Patrick Wolff
PRO Chess League (Pacific) (2017) (rapid), chess.com INT, rd 1, Jan-11
Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit. Accepted Classical Formation (B21) ยท 1-0 Of course this was a rapid game, and he was 49 verses some young stud half his age with twice the energy. as per Wolff et al.. yea we used to call it the Morbid gambit, but ya have to admit, Esserman has studied the opening diligently and has a great performance record with it. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... I think the Smith-Morbid is a sound enough opening if it suites your temperament. But isn't that the case? We all chose lines that produce positions we are comfortable with, and understand. It's like Yermo playing the Browne Bd3 h3 modern benoni. It suites him! Yea maybe the Morbid is a bad choice in the super GM class at classical time control, but if Esserman was playing in the world blitz championship it would do well for him! He's in his element with it. And I have been running Stockfish on the Morbid and the positions eval as nearly equal, and white is down a pawn, so SF thinks white has compensation.
The trick is that one has to know how to convert that compensation into at least one pawn! Just sayin' |
|
Jul-19-22
| | PawnSac: < thegoodanarchist: <Conrad93: Hate to be the bearer of bad news, > You are SO right, that is bad news. ... How can I go on??? > LMAO !! ahahahahaahaha |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 11.Nd5