|May-16-13|| ||OBIT: Hmm, no comments for this game despite it being a miniature and, more significantly, a solid refutation of 3...f5? in Owen's Defense. The key move is 8. Nf3!, threatening to free the trapped rook. If Black plays 8...Bxh1 (clearly not 8...Bxf3 9. Qxf3+ winning the rook on a8) 9. Ne5! threatens both Qf7# and Ng6+. Black's only reasonable try is 9...Bxe5, but then 10. dxe5 and White's attack is unstoppable; for example, 10...Qe8 11. Bh6+ Nxh6 12. Qxh6+ Kf7 13. Bc4+! and now 13...e6 14. Qf6# or 13...d5 14. e6#. |
That leaves 8...Nf6 (as played in the game) as the only other try, but the continuation played by Hills is quite convincing. Instead of 9...Bxh1, Black could try 9...Bxf3 10. Rg1 Rxh7, but then 11. Qg3 (threatening Qxf3 and Bxh7) Be4 12. Bxe4 Nxe4 13. Qf3+ is brutal. Instead of 10...Nh5, Black could try 10...Rxh7, but then 11. Ng5! is crushing. Finally, the position in which Carr resigned is a forced mate after 11...Nf6 (11...Ke8 12. Qxh5+ Kf8 13. Bxg7+ Kxg7 14. Qg6+ Kf8 15. Qh6+ Kf7 16. Ne5+ Ke8 17. Bg6#) 12. Bxg7+ Kxg7 13. Qg6+ Kf8 14. Qh6+ Kf7 15. Ng5+ Ke8 16. Bg6#.
|May-26-13|| ||RookFile: This nonsense might work for black in an OTB game but is suicide in correspondence chess.|
|Nov-20-13|| ||FSR: I discuss the two busts to this line in the Wikipedia article on Owen's Defence:|
<Greco vs NN, 1619: 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 f5? (Christian Bauer calls this move "simply suicidal". Black gravely weakens his kingside in an attempt to gain material, but White can win by falling into Black's "trap". Normal is 3...e6 or 3...Nf6. Also possible is 3...g6 ("!" – Andrew D Martin) heading for a Hippopotamus Defense, when Martin considers 4.f4 f5! (as in I Serpik vs Blatny, 2003) strong for Black.) 4.exf5! Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6. fxg6 Nf6?? 7.gxh7+ Nxh5 8.Bg6# 1–0
A better try for Black is 6...Bg7! Howard Staunton wrote in 1847 that White got the advantage with 7.gxh7+ Kf8 8.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 9.Qg4 Bxh1 10.h4 e6 11.h5. Over 120 years later, Black improved on this analysis with both 10...Qf8 ("!" – Andrew Soltis) 11.h5 Qf6 12.h6 Rxh6 13.Bxh6 Qxh6 Hendler–Radchenko, Kiev 1970 and 10...Bd5 ("!" – Thomas Kapitaniak) 11.h5 Be6 12.Qg2 Rxh5 Schmit–Alvis Vitolinsh, Latvia 1969, winning quickly in both games. However, White is winning after 7.Qf5! (instead of 7.hxg8=Q+) Nf6 8.Bh6!! Bxh6 (on 8...Kf8, White wins with 9.Bxg7+ Kxg7 10.gxh7 Bxh1 12.Qg6+ Kf8 13.Qh6+ Kf7 transposing to line b below, or 9.Qg5 Bxh1 10.gxh7) 9.gxh7 and now (a) 9...Kf8 10.Qg6 Bc1 11.Qxg2 Bxb2 12.Ne2 "and Rg1 will prove lethal" or (b) 9...Bxh1 10.Qg6+ Kf8 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Nh3 with a winning attack.
G Den Broeder vs W Wegener, 1982, concluded 12...Qf8 13.Bg6+ Ke6 14.Qf4 d5 15.Bf5+ Kf7 16.Ng5+ Ke8 17.Qxc7 1–0.
According to both Soltis and Kapitaniak, 7.gxh7+ Kf8 8.Nf3! (which Soltis attributes to Frederik Antonius Spinhoven of the Netherlands) is also strong: (a) 8...Bxf3? 9.Qxf3+ Nf6 10.Qxa8; (b) 8...Bxh1 9.Ne5 Bxe5 (9...Qe8 10.Ng6+) 10.dxe5 Bd5 11.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 12.Qg6+ Kf8 13.Bh6+; (c) 8...Nf6 9.Qg6 Bxh1 10.Bh6 Rxh7 (10...Bxh6 11.Qxh6+ Kf7 12.Ng5+) 11.Ng5 Bxh6 12.Nxh7+ Nxh7 13.Qxh6+; or (d) 8...Nf6 9.Qg6 Bxf3 10.Rg1 Rxh7 11.Qg3!! Be4 12.Bxe4 Nxe4 13.Qf3+ Kg8 14.Qxe4 Nc6 (14...d5 15.Qe6+ Kh8 16.Nc3) 15.Bf4 with an extra pawn for White. Boris Avrukh also recommends this line, and notes that 13...Nf6 (instead of 13...Kg8) 14.Qxa8 Rxh2 15.Bf4 Rh4 16.Qg2 Rg4 17.Qh2 leaves White "an exchange up with an easily winning position". John L Watson writes that although 7.Qf5! is the "traditional" refutation and does indeed win, "the analysis is complicated", and Spinhoven's 8.Nf3! "is clearer".> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen'... (footnotes omitted)
|Jul-11-18|| ||whiteshark: <FSR: .. According to both Soltis and Kapitaniak, 7.gxh7+ Kf8 8.Nf3! (which Soltis attributes to Frederik Antonius Spinhoven of the Netherlands)> Most of these lines you've posted have also been 'used' here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-R... ;)|