< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jun-27-13|| ||FSR: <twinlark> Yes, speaking as a quinquagenarian myself, it seems cruel and unusual (albeit perfectly legal) for a 20-year-old to make the poor guy defend for over 200 moves.|
|Jun-28-13|| ||Phony Benoni: Never went over 94 moves myself, due to a tendency to self-destruct early. And that one was a Neverov Moment.|
click for larger view
With White against future IM Vasik G Rajlich, I had deliberately steered for the + vs. ending about 35 moves earlier because I knew how to draw it. Now, after 94.Kf1, Black would be out of tricks.
Instead I played <94.Rh8+??>, and Rajlich replied <94...Kg1>. This was particularly embarrassing because we were in a sudden death time control with no increment, and I had about ten minutes on my clock to one minute on his.
That meant that when I got up and started to bang my head against the wall, I had to do it on my own time.
|Jun-28-13|| ||FSR: <Phony Benoni> Ouch. In my second tournament I had a game that went over 100 moves. I finally won with Q v. bishop pawn on the seventh rank because he didn't know (or find) the drawing/stalemating idea. I can't recall any other game that went 100 moves, let alone 200.|
|Jun-28-13|| ||TheFocus: You guys are lucky then. My 100+ games were in the days of adjournments, so I would have to deal with them for at least three sessions. The next sessions was usually a couple of hours away, so I would grab a nap and a shower. The final session was played out to the end.|
We had to finish before the next round the next day, so midnight would come and go sitting at the board while the other participants were sleeping.
I do not recall ever winning a game following these 100+ers, but usually got draws, although I may have gotten a couple of losses.
|Jul-24-13|| ||capablancakarpov: Indeed a remarkable game... the longest decisive game of all time with classical time controls...|
|Dec-18-13|| ||GrahamClayton: According to Tim Krabbe's website, this is the 7th longest tournament game ever played:|
|Dec-28-13|| ||morfishine: <TheFocus> <Phony Benoni> <FSR> I enjoyed very much reading about your long games from the past|
|Dec-28-13|| ||SeanAzarin: <twinlark>, a small correction. Neverov turns 50 in a few months. But you point is well taken. Losing a 210-move game at his age was physically enervating an mentally demoralizing.|
|Dec-28-13|| ||vanderyacht: What happens after 34...Qh3 ?|
|Dec-28-13|| ||Jausch46: I find this kind of wearing out strategy of black unfair, because he seemed to play for a long time without any real plan. The game did not follow a simple maneuvering pattern, which is acceptable, but a lot of random trying moves, the only aim of which has been to let the opponent getting deadly tired. The ending situation could have reached already 100 moves earlier, and then the result would be morally acceptable, but such protracted maneuvering is apprehendable.|
|Dec-28-13|| ||Jausch46: Sorry, I chose the wrong word, not apprehendable, but reprehensible.|
|Dec-28-13|| ||actinia: <capablancakarpov> the length is the only redeeming quality of this game. it is only interesting for this sake. I wouldn't care to play through it or study it otherwise, without independent human analysis or computer analysis|
|Dec-28-13|| ||Penguincw: < vanderyacht: What happens after 34...Qh3 ? >|
If 34...Qh3 (threatening mate on g2 and h1), then 35.Bxd5 leaves white up a bishop for 2 pawns, instead of just down 2 pawns. It also stops mate. :)
|Dec-28-13|| ||vanderyacht: But then black plays 35...Rh5 threatening mate with Qh2.|
I suppose the continuation would be 36 Re1 Qh2+ 37 Kf1 and the attack peters out.
|Dec-28-13|| ||dhotts: What about the 50 move rule? No pieces were taken from move 59 to 167, that's a 100+ moves, isn't that a draw?|
|Dec-28-13|| ||Jim Bartle: <No pieces were taken from move 59 to 167, that's a 100+ moves, isn't that a draw?>|
But pawns advanced.
|Dec-28-13|| ||perfidious: In the 1979 Tanglewood Open, I lost R+N vs R to John A Curdo by also blundering when in sight of move fifty. The game ended at just over one hundred moves, the first such game of Curdo's career. It was, however, already the second I had had and there would be another between John and myself, in New Hampshire 1983, of 130+ moves.|
|Dec-28-13|| ||kevin86: Wasn't this the most exciting game ever? Yes,it wasn't!|
I liked the pun and really liked the movie.
|Dec-28-13|| ||Domdaniel: <twinlark> I've had a few games over 80 moves ... including a couple where I had a draw in sight for most of the game, but eventually got ground down by a stronger player. But never anything nearly as long as this.
< especially in weekend tournaments when there are two rounds a day>
... try *three* a day sometime. Knackering.|
|Dec-28-13|| ||perfidious: <Dom>: Back when I played those marathon games, the fashion was indeed three rounds on Saturday and two Sunday. There was seldom time for rubbish such as two games per day.|
BTW, my longest game that I recall (by move length, anyway) was with Curdo's opponent in W McGrath vs J Curdo, 1976: a total of 141 moves, after holding R+PPP against BB+PPP, all on the same side.
|Dec-29-13|| ||twinlark: <Domdaniel> <try *three* a day sometime. Knackering.>|
I did in 2008 in the local University weekender which used semi-rapid time controls (1 hour + 15 sec increments). By the third round I was shattered and had to withdraw.
Never again. I'm 20 years too old for that caper.
|Dec-30-13|| ||Domdaniel: <perf, twinlark> The usual weekend tournament schedule here now is six rounds between Friday evening and Sunday afternoon -- one game on Fri, three on Sat, two on Sun.
I think there is some debate as to whether this falls within FIDE's ambit. Players prefer to have their games rated by FIDE, as well as the Irish Chess Union, but I think the three games on Sat (90 mins + 30 sec increment) don't fit with FIDE's regulations.
Apart from ratings, bureaucracy, etc., three games in a day is, as I said, knackering. I'm also 20 years too old for that caper ... but even 20 yrs ago I remember agreeing quick draws in the 3rd Sat game, even when I had good prospects of winning.|
|Dec-30-13|| ||perfidious: <Dom>: Correct-the games played on Saturday are not rated by FIDE, which long ago barred any games from being rated when more than two per day had been played. |
One of the many pointless debates (say it ain't so!) on the So page centred round how young Wesley got robbed of some FIDE points because of his participation in some Swiss over here with multiple sections, in which the protagonist played three or our games the first day, before that section merged with the rest of the event.
|Dec-31-13|| ||Domdaniel: <perf> -- < Correct-the games played on Saturday are not rated by FIDE>
Hmm ... does this mean that the Friday and Sunday games *are* rated by FIDE?
I had the impression that they simply rejected the whole weekender due to the 3 games on Sat.|
|Nov-24-14|| ||Albion 1959: Neverov was doing okay up to move 206 when Kh2?? cost him the game. Bogdanovich can only win by forcing the white king onto the edge of the board, or into a corner. In this case the h-file or h1. After Kh2?? the noose is tightened with 206.Kf2 from which there was no escape. Neverov should have played Ra8 on move 206 to maintain the "rook distance" and also to deliver annoying checks to the black king, thus frustrating winning attempts. The fifty rule would not have applied here until move 222. The fact that black kept pushing for a win was not just bloody-mindedness, as this game shows there are always pitfalls for the player trying to save the position. There are other examples where the Rook & Knight can defeat the Rook, but admittedly it will need an error from the defending player since it virtually impossible to force a win with best play. Finally, a neat little touch at the end is 210. Nd4, black wins with 211.Rf7+ Nf3+
212.Rxf3+ Rxf3 (212.Kh1 Rh3 Mate)
213.Kh1 Rh3 Mate:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·