< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Nov-17-18|| ||Telemus: Thank you very much, <Jean Defuse>!|
So, two of the five games between Charousek and Englander, which I posted above (the first and the last one), are in Charuchin's book and wrongly dated in Budapesti Sakkszemle.
The player index of Charuchin's book lists six games between Charousek and Engländer. Apart of the two games mentioned by <JD> these are:
Game 16: Ch-E 1-0, 33, Evans Gambit (1891-92)
Game 17: Ch-E 1-0, 32, King's Gambit Accepted (1891-92)
Game 41: Ch-E 1-0, 33, King's pawn game (1894)
Game 200: Ch-E 1-0, 31, Ruy Lopez (1898).
Comparing the remaining three games I posted above with this list, it seems that they are not in Charuchin's book. Hence he overlooked these three games?!? Still confusing.
|Nov-17-18|| ||sachistu: Thanks for the additional information <Telemus and Jean Defuse>. Regarding the '3rd game' (C30 1/2 in 59)... this is actually the first game of the match per your feedback. My copy came several years ago from the online database Chesslab. It does not surprise me the colors were reversed. Now that I have sorted the match games with the game number included, it's easy to agree Charousek was White as Exner had White in game 2.|
By the way, as you no doubt saw, Rod Edwards (EDO) site indicated Feenstra Kuiper 100 Jahr Schachzweikampfe gave the location as Budapest.
|Nov-17-18|| ||sachistu: Why do I suddenly sense a can of worms opening? The EDO site shows different reports about the result of the match. EDO (apparently using Di Felice) has it 7.5 - 2.5 (+6-1=3). Feenstra Kuiper had it +6-3=1 (which seems dubious). Di Felice has it this way...|
G2 0-1 (Exner)
G3 1-0 (RRC)
G4 1-0 (RRC)
G5 1-0 (RRC)
G8 1-0 (RRC)
G9 1-0 (RRC)
G10 1-0 (RRC)
note: 1-0 or 0-1 does not indicate color, just who won.
Here is how I have it in my database.
Charousek,R - Exner,G [C30] g1 1/2 59
Exner,G - Charousek,R [C79] g2 1-0 50
Charousek,R - Exner,G [C44] g3 1-0 47
Exner,G - Charousek,R [B40] g4 0-1 23
Charousek,R - Exner,G [C30] g5 1-0 23
Exner,G - Charousek,R [C31] g6 0-1 28
Charousek,R - Exner,G [C25] g7 1/2 34
Exner,G - Charousek,R [C33] g8 0-1 22
Charousek,R - Exner,G [C22] g9 1/2 42
Exner,G - Charousek,R [C50] g10 1-0 24
This cannot right. Game 10, (C50 1-0 in 24) which I changed to Exner-Charousek due to color assignments, is a win for White, but if that was Charousek, it means he had White for both games 9 and 10. <Telemus> you apparently have all the game scores, game numbers and color assignments. What does your source say? I should mention, game 6 (C31 0-1 in 28) was listed elsewhere as a draw, but Black seems to be clearly winning, so I have it as 0-1. Regardless, This still doesn't give a 7.5 - 2.5 result.
Evidently, you were right in your earlier kibitz about the numbers being different.
|Nov-17-18|| ||sachistu: <Telemus> I failed to go back far enough in our thread to recall your earlier response about Charousek-Exner match. It looks like our game numbers do match. However, the colors and results appear to be a different story. Hopefully, the breakdown I sent will provide an answer to the match result discrepancy.|
|Nov-17-18|| ||sachistu: <Telemus> I changed game 10 (C56 1-0 in 24) back to have Charousek as White. This is how it was originally listed in my database. This now gives the 7.5 - 2.5 match result I was expecting. However, if the color assignments, results, and scores are as listed in my recent kibitz, then Charousek had White in both games 9 and 10, which seems odd. Sorry if I am adding to the confusion.|
|Nov-18-18|| ||Telemus: <but if that was Charousek, it means he had White for both games 9 and 10.> That's exactly what I have. Looks suspicious.|
|Nov-18-18|| ||sachistu: Thanks for the information <Jean Dufuse> However, Charuchin's data seems suspicious. First, assuming the game number is what you meant for '1' and '3', they would have had to play more than one game a day e.g. when was game 2 played? Both games 1 and 2 were 50+ moves, so it's hard to believe they would play 3 games in two days. Second, if the '10' means game 10, this is questionable as to the result, as it seems Black is winning. This would also mean the Di Felice (Chess Results) order of the games is wrong.|
|Nov-18-18|| ||Telemus: <JD> And I obviously missed the chapter "Uncommented Games" ...|
For me it's high time to stop with Charousek and do something else.
|Nov-18-18|| ||zanzibar: <<Telemus> For me it's high time to stop with Charousek and do something else.>|
It was good while it lasted!
|Nov-19-18|| ||Jean Defuse: ...
<sachistu> <Game 10> played in the Budapest match befor - <Game 6 is> in reality <Game 10> (result 1/2) & <Game 6> of the match <is unknown>...
(... I can upload my Charousek books - if it is of interest...)
|Nov-21-18|| ||sachistu: Hi <Jean Defuse>. Have been occupied elsewhere the past couple of days. Sorry to see <Telemus> is dropping out. Regarding your message of Nov 19... it would help if you could briefly identify a little more about the games you listed e.g. ECO code, result, and who was White or Black. This would help in trying to resolve the match results. Thanks!|
re: your offer to upload your Charousek books... I'm always interested in new material and locating additional sources. However, that sounds like a lot of volume. To what location were you thinking of uploading the materiel?
|Nov-24-18|| ||Telemus: There is a pawn ending from a game Charousek vs Kosterka (simul, Prague 1897), which for example can be found in Awerbach's "Bauernendspiele":|
click for larger view
The usual solution (due to Dr.Josef Kvicala and Jan Kvicala from Prague, published in "Ceske listy sachove" 1897, pages 49-51) starts with 1.♔e4 ♔e8 2.♔f3 and has as one of its variations 2.. ♔d7 3.♔g3, all with more or less exclamation marks. But tablebases show that these eccentric manoeuvres have less surprising alternatives I understood more easily.
|Nov-25-18|| ||Jean Defuse: ...
This interesting position was saved from oblivion by Dedrle (1950). It was reached in a simultaneous display, and after unsuccessful attempts to win, Charousek agreed to a draw. But analysis by Josef and Johann Kvicala demonstrated the possibility of a win.
<1. Ke4!> With the key squares being c6, d6 and e6, the main file is the d-file. If White's chances lay only in taking the opposition on the main file, he would be unable to achieve anything. He wins only by combining this threat with the appropriate preparation of h3-h4.
<Ke8! 2. Kf3!> Now Black is in dilemma:
after 2... Ke7 he loses the opposition, while if 2... Kf7 or 2... Kd7, White succeeds in playing h3-h4.
2... Kf7 3. h4! (with the threat of 4. h5; with the king at e7 or d7 this does not work due to 3... gh 4. g5 Kd6 and 5... Ke5, but now the king does not have the e6 square) gxh4 4. g5 Ke7 5. Kg4 Kd6 6. Kxh4 Ke5 7. Kg4 Kd6 8. Kf4 and 9. g6
2... Kd7 (the king is now so far away that White has time for a necessary preparatory move) 3. Kg3! Ke7 4. h4 gxh4+ 5. Kxh4 Kf6 (otherwise 6. Kg5) 6. Kh5 and wins.
<2... Ke7 3. Ke3 Kd7 4. Kd3 Ke7 5. Kc4 Kd8 6. Kd4 Ke8 7. Kc5 Kd7 8. Kd5 Ke7 9. Kc6> 9. Ke5 (this is quicker than Kf7) <9... Kf6 10. Kd6 Kf7 11. Kd7 Kf8 12. Ke6 Ke8 13. f6 g6 14.f7+ Kf8 15. Kd6! Kxf7 16. Kd7> winning. A valuable analysis!
|Nov-26-18|| ||Telemus: <JD> English edition?|
|Nov-27-18|| ||Jean Defuse: ...
<Telemus> Averbakh's analysis above is from a digital edition (by Convekta) of 'Comprehensive Chess Endings', with minimal difference to the original book - 'Pawn Endings', p. 171-172(Batsford; First edition, 1974).
Charousek's opponent in the simul on the Prague Chess Club (22.2.1897) was probably the little know Problem composer <Zdeněk Kosterka> ...?
The following miniature is missing in Kalendovsky's book 'The Complete Games of Oldrich Duras':
[Black "Duras, Oldrich"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Qh4+ 5. Kf1 g5 6. Nf3 Qh5 7. h4 Bg7 8.
Nc3 Ne7 9. d4 Nbc6 10. Bxc6+ Nxc6 11. d5 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Ne5 13. Ba3 Bg4 14. Qd4
Nxf3 15. gxf3 Bxf3 16. Qe5+ Kd7 17. Qe7+ Kc8 18. d6 1-0
|Nov-28-18|| ||Jean Defuse: ...
'More from Prague'
(Charousek scored +20 -1 =7)
Charousek vs K Vocasek, 1897 (Source: Ceske listy sachove 1897, p. 38-39.)
[Event "28-board simultaneous display"]
[Site "Prague, CC"]
[White "Charousek, Rudolf Rezso"]
[Black "Popov, A."]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Qf3 $1 Nxc3 6. dxc3 c6 7. Bd3 Qb6 8. Ne2 Be6 9. Nd4 Nd7 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. Qh5+ Kd8 12. Bg5+ Kc7 13. O-O-O Bc5 14. Rhf1 g6 15. Qh3 h6 16. Bf6 Rae8 $2 17. Bxh8 Rxh8 18. Rf7 $1 1-0
Source: Svetozor 5.3.1897
Svejda/Kotrc/Kvicala v Charousek/Moucka/Tuzar
(Kotrc / Kvicala / Svedja vs Charousek, 1897 - <missing Charousek's allies>)
Source: Charuchin - Chess Comet Rudolf Charousek, p. 214.
[White "Kotrc, Jan"]
[Black "Charousek, Rudolf Rezso"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. O-O a6 8. Ba4
O-O 9. a3 b5 10. Bb3 Bg4 11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. Ne2 Bxf3 13. gxf3 Qd7 14. Bd5 Kh8
15. Bxc6 Qxc6 16. Ng3 Rg8 17. Kh1 Rg5 18. d5 Qd7 19. Nf5 Rag8 20. Qd3 Bf8 21.
Rg1 R5g6 22. Rg3 Bh6 23. Nxh6 Rxh6 24. Rag1 Rhg6 25. Qe3 f5 26. Rxg6 Rxg6 27.
Rxg6 f4 28. Qa7 hxg6 29. Kg2 f5 30. Qxa6 fxe4 31. fxe4 Qg4+ 32. Kf1 Qd1+ 33.
Kg2 Qxc2 34. Qxb5 Qxe4+ 35. f3 Qc2+ 36. Kh3 Qf5+ 37. Kg2 Kg7 38. Qe8
Source: Jan Kotrč - Aus meiner Mappe, Arbeiter Schachzeitung - Wien, 1927, No. 3, p. 73.
See: Jan Kalendovsky - Historie achu v Čechách, p. 49-50 (https://www.chess.cz/wp-content/upl...)
|Nov-29-18|| ||Straclonoor: <There is a pawn ending from a game Charousek vs Kosterka (simul, Prague 1897)>|
Lomonosov TB7 gives
1. Ke4 Ke8 2. Ke3 Kd7 3. Kd3 Kc7 4. Ke4 Kd6 5. Kd4 Ke7 6. Kc5 Kd7 7. Kd5 Ke7 8. Kc6 Ke8 9. Kd6 Kf7 10. Kd7 Kf8 11. Ke6 Ke8 12. f6 g6 13. f7+ Kf8 14. Kd6 Kxf7 15. Kd7 Kf6 16. Ke8 Kg7 17. Ke7 Kh7 18. Kf7 Kh6 19. Kf6 Kh7 20. Kxg5 Kg7 21. h4 Kf7 22. Kh6 Kf6 23. g5+ Kf5 24. Kh7 Ke5 25. Kxg6 Kd5 26. h5 Kc5 27. h6 Kb5 28. h7 Ka5 29. h8=Q Kb5 30. Qe5+ Kb4 31. Kf6 Ka4 32. g6 Kb4 33. g7 Ka4 34. g8=Q Kb4 35. Qgb8+ Ka4 36. Qa1#
I don't know is it only one way to win or not, but it looks different that pointed by Averbakh.
|Dec-22-18|| ||sachistu: Regarding the kibitz from Nov-27-18 <Jean Defuse> Was the date in the score (1902) a typo? The text above seems to indicate this was from a simul at Prague chess club 22.2.1897.|
|Dec-23-18|| ||Jean Defuse: ...
<'Rare Charousek stuff'>
A photography with Steinitz - 'Masters analyze the Cologne games':
Source: Magyar Sakkélet, 1951 p. 225
& A chess-problem by Charousek:
|Dec-23-18|| ||Nosnibor: <sachistu> The date referred to is in respect of the Duras game and not Charousek.|
|Dec-23-18|| ||Jean Defuse: ...
sorry <sachistu> I overlook your question - thanks to <Nosnibor>!
|Feb-15-19|| ||Telemus: <Straclonoor: I don't know is it only one way to win or not, but it looks different that pointed by Averbakh.>|
I have hesitated months whether I should comment this. But every time I see you or some other honorable contributor posting some long variations (and that's almost every day), I am reminded of this issue.
Firstly, a single long variation from a table base (or an engine) provides limited information. Here we got confirmation that the position is indeed won, and that the distance to mate is 36. But a single line cannot describe a win, unless it is forced or it shows a winning maneuver, a crucial idea or something like that. In the given example, Black can vary at almost every move, and White has to react with different plans. So, one has to provide more than one line to describe the win.
Secondly, Averbakh is the wrong person to get any credit for the ending. According to <JD>'s quote he mentioned Dedrle and the Kvicalas, but it is unclear whether Dedrle contributed to the analysis. In the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, where Averbakh was one of the editiors, only the Kvicalas are named. So, I assume that Dedrle's merit is just what Averbakh wrote: to save the position from oblivion (by republishing it as I assume).
I intend to return to the position and the winning plans soon.
|Feb-15-19|| ||Straclonoor: <But a single line cannot describe a win, unless it is forced or it shows a winning maneuver, a crucial idea or something like that.>|
Yes, but it's best line from tablebase. Other black's vary moves goes to mate faster. It's principle of TB funcitoning.
Explaining all moves in the line requires too much <long variations>. Dramatically.
<Secondly, Averbakh is the wrong person to get any credit for the ending.>
Definitely not. This position mentioned in 'Chess endings. Volume I - pawn ending' (Russian edition), edited by Averbakh.
Probably you meant Derdle?
|Feb-15-19|| ||Telemus: <Straclonoor> Have you ever tried to solve real endgame studies by an engine or tablebases?! I have and therefore I know that very often the engine or tablebase lines, which minimize the damage or are the longest possible, resp., do not show any of the author's ideas and therefore they are not considered to be solutions to the studies. |
In the given case, your longest line shows one idea, but it is not a complete proof. The analysis of the Kvicalas is complete, I would say, and it consists of three lines. You see, the sensible alternative to 'one line' is not 'all lines', it is 'a complete set of significant lines'.
Engines and tablebases can help to find such a set of lines, but it needs often a lot of work and experience on the human side.
When I posted the position in November, I thought that I could simplify the solution of the Kvicalas. In particular, I thought that no lines with the breakthrough h4 are needed. If you look to the line you posted, you'll see that White's king goes to d3 (while the Kvicalas move it to f3). This also suggests that lines with h4 are not necessary. Can you solve this problem? I have the answer, but the journey is the reward.
PS: <Probably you meant Derdle?> No, I meant Averbakh. I think my text shows clearly that the credit I spoke of is the authorship of the analysis. If one publishes the ending, the Kvicalas have the full credit therefore. Averbakh's presentation differs very slightly from the Czech original, but in my view it is not significantly better or worse.
|Feb-18-19|| ||Straclonoor: <Telemus>
< Have you ever tried to solve real endgame studies by an engine or tablebases?!> Yes, I have.
<Engines and tablebases can help to find such a set of lines>
There is a big difference between engine and endgame tablebases analysis.
Engines give us <set of lines, but it needs often a lot of work and experience on the human side.>
Tablebases gives solution with 100% certainity. Yes, we can search alternative lines in this case for example for training. In other cases it's wasting the time.
<In particular, I thought that no lines with the breakthrough h4 are needed.> Yes
<If you look to the line you posted, you'll see that White's king goes to d3 (while the Kvicalas move it to f3). This also suggests that lines with h4 are not necessary. Can you solve this problem? I have the answer, but the journey is the reward.>
Lomonosov's TB7 gives three winning moves - 1.Ke4 (#36), 1.Kd4 (#36), 1.Kd3 (#37). All the rest goes to draw.
It's free of charge reward-:)))
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·