< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jun-30-12|| ||hedgeh0g: This pun made me lol.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Sho: This pun bothers me. Bad form CG.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||vinidivici: <ZeejDonnelly> Actually this not so bad for GOTD. Show good ending though. Black so unfortunate that didnt claim the 3-fold repetition but that just due to the final end.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||JimmyRockHound: Another pun I don't get. Maybe I don't watch enough movies.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||reisanibal: < Phony Benoni: Just to save you the trouble, the position is the same after Black's 39th, 41st, and 45th moves, so he could have claimed a draw before making his 45th move.>|
In addition to this, the positions after White's 41st and 45th moves and Black's 48th move are the same. Black could have claimed a draw before his 48th move as well.
|Jun-30-12|| ||FSR: <reisanibal: ... In addition to this, the positions after White's 41st and 45th moves and Black's 48th move are the same. Black could have claimed a draw before his 48th move as well.>|
That's an invalid claim. In the first two instances, Black is on move. In the third, White is on move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threef...
|Jun-30-12|| ||reisanibal: <FSR: That's an invalid claim. In the first two instances, Black is on move. In the third, White is on move. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threef>...|
Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks.
|Jun-30-12|| ||Annie K.: My pun. :D
Thx, <cg>! :)
|Jun-30-12|| ||kevin86: An interesting addendum (not for this game). If the position is repeated three times and the castling status is changed,the positions are not the same.After 1 e4 e5 2 ♔e2 ♔e7 3 ♔e1 ♔e8. The position after move 1 is NOT the same as after move three.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||apple scruffs: Another addendum (not for this game). If the option to capture en passant was present at the first position, it wouldn't be present at the 2nd and 3rd, which would make a claim invalid.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||apple scruffs: And so the claim for a threefold would be invalid, as FSR tells us. But the pun is godawful horrible...and I just love it!|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Annie K.: The claim would be invalid for moves 41, 45, 48 - <reisanibal>'s suggestion, corrected by <FSR>. The claim <would> have been valid for moves 39, 41, 45, as <Phony Benoni> pointed out. :)|
For those who don't get the pun:
|Jun-30-12|| ||erimiro1: About 40 years ago, that variant was called The Jaenisch gambit (for example in Paul Keres "Spanisch bis Franzosisch" from 1974) . Why the name was changed? No idea. BTW it is not a rare case: The Benko gambit was called "Lundin gambit" during the 50s and the 60s and many called it "Volga gambit" during the 70s. Why Lundin? Because he probably was the father of the general idea; Why Volga? Don't know|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Shams: <Annie.K> And a fine effort it is!|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Edeltalent: <kevin86: An interesting addendum (not for this game). If the position is repeated three times and the castling status is changed,the positions are not the same.>|
Here's a game to illustrate that, with Karpov claming a draw by repetition that was refused by the arbiter. (The game was drawn at this point nevertheless (by agreement)). Karpov vs Miles, 1986
|Jun-30-12|| ||Shams: <erimiro1><Why Volga? Don't know>|
Well, this one is easy: Pal Benko defected, and the Soviets weren't going to have his name on their players' lips after that. I forget his name but a minor Russian master lived near the Volga and did a bit of analysis on the gambit, so that's what they went with, the Volga.
|Jun-30-12|| ||Infohunter: <ajile: 4.d4!?
Never saw this before in this line. Black appears to get an equal game though out of the opening.>
For analysis on this line see e.g. Tibor Florian, _The Schliemann Variation of the Ruy Lopez_ (1970), pp. 33-35. In keeping with your observation, the author does indeed call this "The 'Inferior' Variation".
<erimiro1: About 40 years ago, that variant was called The Jaenisch gambit (for example in Paul Keres "Spanisch bis Franzosisch" from 1974) . Why the name was changed? No idea.>
Well, it's not really a change of name in this case; it just depends on where the commentator is from. Walter Korn explains this in the introduction to the "Ruy Lopez" chapter of _Modern Chess Openings_, eleventh edition (1972), p.25: "The line deservingly attributed to Schliemann as its Western pioneer is on the Continent known as the Jänisch Defence, in just deference to the early Russian's research."
|Jun-30-12|| ||AylerKupp: <Annie K.> An inspired pun. Thank you.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||bischopper: the lasker system with rook and a pawn v.s only a rook what happen|
|Jun-30-12|| ||sorokahdeen: sorokahdeen: @infohunter
Is it really equal? Black might have an extra pawn for a few moves but black's bishop is relegated to a defensive role; more than half his pawns are on the same color squares and his bishop spends the rest of its life chained to the overextended isolated pawn while white piles up everything he has on it to win it back with a superior endgame due to black's pawn weaknesses?"
It was a strange middlegame that asks the question, "why go in for a sharp, gambit line if all you are going to do in it is come up with a long maneuver to effect an exchange of queens?"
|Jun-30-12|| ||Infohunter: <sorokahdeen: @infohunter
Is it really equal?>
Well, as a matter of fact it was not I who expressed that opinion--I was quoting an earlier kibitzer regarding that "equal" issue. Your question should be addressed to User: ajile.
|Jun-30-12|| ||Sneaky: Somebody had to do it ... http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instan...|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Annie K.: Thanks, guys. :)
|Jul-01-12|| ||Check It Out: hah! Good stuff.|
|Sep-06-12|| ||rapidcitychess: A really, really late, LOL!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·