Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum
Member since Sep-23-04
Scott Thomson

The Perseus Project: The classics in Greek, Latin & English--hyperlinked

A page from the Venetus A, the oldest complete manuscript of the Iliad, courtesy of Harvard's Multitext Library:

A collection of chess links, including tons of tournament crosstables and games:

From Google Books, a link to Tarrasch's book on the 1908 world championship. I've translated his notes on the game pages.

Lasker's book on St. Petersburg 1909

Chess-play is a good and witty exercise of the mind for some kind of men, and fit for such melancholy, Rhasis holds, as are idle, and have extravagant impertinent thoughts, or troubled with cares, nothing better to distract their mind, and alter their meditations; invented (some say) by the general of an army in famine, to keep soldiers from mutiny: but if it proceed from overmuch study, in such case it may do more harm than good; it is a game too troublesome for some men's brains, too full of anxiety, all out as bad as study; besides it is a testy choleric game, and very offensive to him that loseth the mate. William the Conquerer, in his younger years, playing at chess with the Prince of France (Dauphine was not annexed to that crown in those days) losing a mate, knocked the chess-board about his pate, which was a cause afterwards of much enmity between them.

--Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy

"Just because many great chess players were obnoxious jerks, doesn't mean that if you're an obnoxious jerk you're a great chess player."


"You are also a machine, as are Anand, Carlsen, Kasparov, and Fischer. You and the others are just inferior machines. Your idea of beautiful chess is simply faulty chess that is not caught in its faults."


>> Click here to see keypusher's game collections. Full Member

   keypusher has kibitzed 15945 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Oct-24-14 Magnus Carlsen (replies)
keypusher: <Benzol> i bought Magnus Force, which consists of: an examination of all his losses 2010-12; an examination of his games from the London Classic 2012; and his game from Wijk in 2013. It's by Colin Crouch. It's good, and i need to spend more time with it, but I have the ...
   Oct-24-14 Taubenhaus vs Janowski, 1905
keypusher: <ounos: Ah, he should have left Janowski finish it: 21. ...Nh1+ 22. Kg1 Rd1+ 23. Bf1 Rxf1+ 24. Kxf1 Ng3+ 25. Kf2 Re2+ 26. Kg1 Re1+ 27. K(f|h)2 R(f|h)1#> I'd bet Janowski announced the mate. Anyone have access to a contemporary source?
   Oct-23-14 keypusher chessforum
keypusher: <I like the KG, but I still think of the Evans Gambit as the epitome of swashbuckling chess.> I like it a lot, but funnily enough because (to me) it's not so swashbuckling as the KG. Sometimes White's king dies very early in the KG. Much less chance of that early on in the ...
   Oct-22-14 FIDE Grand Prix Tashkent (2014) (replies)
keypusher: <a30seclegend: <dumbqai> Correct! An innaccuracy on my part. I should have asked when was the last time #1 and #2 played in a championship.> Sonas wrote about this in chessbase in 2005 (using his own chessmetrics system of course). It's rare. <As a historical aside,
   Oct-22-14 Carlsen-Anand World Championship (2014) (replies)
keypusher: <whiteshark: <IraqSon> that was 9 years ago, c'mon.> Please do not feed the trolls.
   Oct-22-14 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
keypusher: Thank you, Twinlark. I was supposed to stay away until the Carlsen rematch, but as you can see I didn't succeed. Not sure how much I will actually be around...
   Oct-21-14 Nakamura vs Jobava, 2014 (replies)
keypusher: <belgradegambit: For those critical of Jobava's play take the white pieces and try to beat your computer after 28...Qd4. Yeah you're a rook up but things are dicey with the passed a pawn.> It would be a challenge for me to beat my computer at those odds even if it didn't ...
   Oct-21-14 Steinitz vs Schlechter, 1895
keypusher: <Ke2: funny Lasker didn't follow his own annotations when he played this vs Steinitz next year (although these annotations may be dated post 1896)> Actually he did follow his notes here in game 1 of the Steinitz rematch. Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896 Then he found an ...
   Oct-18-14 Nigel Short (replies)
keypusher: <RookFile: Chemical weapons are being found in Iraq. I wonder what Nigel Short thinks about that?> It's obvious, isn't it? Nigel Short now thinks that all the idiots and maniacs who launched a war of aggression in 2003 against an insignificant threat, and thus -destabilized ...
   Sep-19-14 D Moody vs A Hubbard, 2014 (replies)
keypusher: Wonderful game! Made me happy to see it. 20.Nh7 is such a pretty move, you must have loved playing it. Congratulations!
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Bd2. Ouch. I might have missed that too since I have an amazing capacity to miss long moves.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <OhioChessFan: Bd2. Ouch. I might have missed that too since I have an amazing capacity to miss long moves.>

Botvinnik had the same failing, he said, so we are in good company. And ...Bd2 was so pretty I didn't much mind (as opposed to all the games I've lost to the app from hanging a piece, overlooking a back-rank mate, etc.).

Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <keypusher> Ouch indeed.

In particular, Botvinnik noted that Euwe gave him particular difficulty early on with his 'long moves', and it was only when Euwe had lost a step that Botvinnik was able to even matters between them.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: The age issue from Berlin 28 is shocking. I had never really thought of the 20's as such a desert of young talent.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: MA v. kp

click for larger view

I'll tell you what, losing from here bothers me a lot more than ...Bd2 did.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: kp-MA

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Be2 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Qd3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 0-0 10.Bg5 h6 11.h4 d5 12.e5 hxg5 13.hxg5 a5 14.Qf3 Ba6 15.gxf6 Bxe2 16.Qg3 g6 17.Qg5 Qxf6 18.exf6 Rab8 19.Qh6 Rb1+ 20.Rxb1 1-0

After 15.gxf6.

click for larger view

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: kp-MA

click for larger view

1....Nd4! 2.cxd4 Ke6

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: kp-MA

click for larger view

1.Qh4 h6 2.Bxh6 gxh6 3.Qxh6 Rad8 4.Rd3 Qd7 5.f5 Qxf5 6.exf5 Bf3 7.Rxf3 Nh7 8.Rg3+ Bg5+ 9.Rxg5+ 1-0

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: MA-kp 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb4 6.Bc4 Nd3+ 7.Ke2 Nf4+ 8.Kf1 Ne6 9.Ne5 Bd7 10.Qf3 f6 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Nxg6 Ng7 13.Nxh8 Nxh5 14.Bf7#.

After 12....Ng7

click for larger view

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: MA-kp

click for larger view

1.Rf3 f5 2.Ng5 Qd7 (2....Qe7) 3.Qxc7! 1-0

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: After 19.Ne3??

click for larger view

[Event "Team match"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2014.05.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "verdantgarden"]
[Black "keypusher"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1968"]
[BlackElo "2014"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e5 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 Be7 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 Na6 8. Nge2 Ne8 9. O-O Bd7 10. f4 Bf6 11. Be3 Nac7 12. a3 b6 13. Qd2 g6 14. fxe5 Bxe5 15. Rf2 Nf6 16. Bg5 Nce8 17. Raf1 a6 18. Nd1 b5 19. Ne3 Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Qxg5 21. b3 Nf6 22. Qd3 Nxe4 23. Qxe4 Rae8 0-1

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Willie Keeler (1892-1910)

2932 hits
241 doubles
145 triples
33 HR


Ty Cobb (1905-1928)

4189 hits
724 doubles
295 triples
117 HR


Honus Wagner (1897-1917)

3420 hits
643 doubles
252 triples
101 HR


Sam Crawford (1899-1917)

2961 hits
458 doubles
309 triples
97 HR


Tris Speaker (1907-1928)

3514 hits
792 doubles
222 triples
117 HR


Babe Ruth (1914-1935)

2873 hits
506 doubles
136 triples
714 HR


Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: When did Cobb lose two hits?
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Jim Bartle: When did Cobb lose two hits?>

I'm not sure, but they're definitely gone. And that .367 I've been carrying around in my head all my life is now a .366. Damned revisionists.

Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: How dare they? 'Course, if not for the stat hounds, Hack Wilson's RBI would be a merely insurmountable 190, rather than that Sisyphean 191.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: What if Pete Rose had suffered a career-ending injury when he had 4190 hits?
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <thegoodanarchist: Waiting for <keypusher> to show up and defend <OCF> now that I have quoted <OCF> insulting Dems as "stupid".


You can see it for yourself here:

<OhioChessFan: <JB: They make it tougher for some people to vote, largely Democratic ones.>

Well, yeah, most the really stupid people who can't follow instructions tend to be Democrats.>

Scroll to the second-to-last post on this page:

Kenneth Rogoff

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: of course you will delete that one, and this one, but you... will... still... know... it... HAPPENED!!!
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <thegoodanarchist:> <thegoodanarchist: Waiting for <keypusher> to show up and defend <OCF> now that I have quoted <OCF> insulting Dems as "stupid".>

The word you (still) don't know the meaning of is "hypocrisy."

<Well, yeah, most the really stupid people who can't follow instructions tend to be Democrats.>

OCF is correct about this, although you'd still be in the wrong even if he wasn't.

Also, I thought the issue was that he called the Democratic Party the Democrat Party? There seems to be a disagreement between him and you on that point. But again, he would be fully entitled to object to the pun (which, I must admit, doesn't bother me at all) whether he did that or not.

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <keypusher: ...

OCF is correct about this, although you'd still be in the wrong even if he wasn't>

Well, first of all, no, if you are talking about being factually correct, he wouldn't be. Anymore than he would be right to generalize about all Republicans or all independents tending to be stupider (read the research about red state vs. blue state intelligence).

But that isn't the point! Are you deliberately avoiding the point? Or what's up?

As to your accusation that I don't know the meaning of hypocrisy, I was using it as if it means this:

<a pretense of having principles that one does not really possess. >

Lo and behold, confirms the accuracy of this usage here:

maybe you should contact to explain how wrong they are.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <thegoodanarchist>

OK, pay attention. It is not hypocritical to express an honestly held belief that a person or a group of people is stupid while at the same time saying that we should not use puns that (falsely) identify a chess player as stupid. There is no contradiction between those two positions. Hence, there is no hypocrisy. If OCF said we should never call anyone stupid, ever, you would have a point. But he didn't, and you don't.

<Well, first of all, no, if you are talking about being factually correct, he wouldn't be. >

Oh yes, he would be. It is a well-established fact in the United States that very dull people and very bright people tend to be Democrats, and people in the middle tend to be Republicans. You can verify this for yourself. Incidentally, the inability of lower-IQ Democrats to deal with the cognitive demands of Florida's so-called butterfly ballot probably cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000.

<Anymore than he would be right to generalize about all Republicans or all independents tending to be stupider (read the research about red state vs. blue state intelligence).>

There have been some popular hoaxes on this point, which I hope you didn't fall for. Frankly, you strike me as gullible.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that, e.g., the mean IQ in Massachusetts is certainly higher than the mean IQ of Mississippi. But if you go to Mississippi and test people there, you will find that Democrats in the state will have a lower IQ than Republicans. I'll let you do the research on that point too.

I am going away for two weeks, so this will be my last word for now. I don't promise to clear up any other misconceptions you may have when I come back.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: There have been a few posts about who’s in and who’s out in this tournament. Here is the list with with their fide rating and ranking

Levon Aronian 2830 (#2)
Vladimir Kramnik 2787 (#3)
Veselin Topalov 2785 (#4)
Viswanathan Anand 2770 (#8)
Sergey Karjakin 2766 (#9)
Peter Svidler 2758 (#11)
Shak Mamedyarov 2757 (#13)
Dimitry Andreikin 2759 (#42)

In the top 10 but not participating are Carlsen #1, Caruana, Grischuk, and Nakamura at ##5-7, and Vachier-Lagrave at #10. The only real outlier is Andreikin at #42.

I decided to compare this with old-time candidates tournaments, using chessmetrics ratings. This tournament is weaker than any of them, except maybe the 1959 event. Not absurdly so, though. The most striking difference (from all except Budapest 1950) is that the #1 rated player isn’t participating, because he holds the title! No one as low-ranked as Andreikin was in any of these earlier tournaments.

Budapest 1950

Vassily Smyslov 2760 (#2 on April 1950 list)
David Bronstein 2754 (#3 on April 1950 list)
Alexander Kotov 2753 (#4 on April 1950 list)
Miguel Najdorf 2741 (#5 on April 1950 list)
Gideon Ståhlberg 2732 (#7 on April 1950 list)
Isaak Boleslavsky 2722 (#9 on April 1950 list)
Paul Keres 2722 (#10 on April 1950 list)
László Szabó 2710 (#11 on April 1950 list)
Salo Flohr 2659 (#20 on April 1950 list)

The only masters missing from the top 10 were #1 Botvinnik, #6 Fine and #8 Reshevsky.

Amsterdam 1956

Vassily Smyslov 2793 (#1 on January 1956 list) Paul Keres 2782 (#2 on January 1956 list) David Bronstein 2770 (#3 on January 1956 list)
Tigran Petrosian 2755 (#5 on January 1956 list)
Efim Geller 2720 (#7 on January 1956 list)
Boris Spassky 2714 (#8 on January 1956 list)
László Szabó 2695 (#16 on January 1956 list)
Oscar Panno 2673 (#21 on January 1956 list) Miroslav Filip 2653 (#24 on January 1956 list) Herman Pilnik 2639 (#30 on January 1956 list)

Definitely weaker, top to bottom, than Budapest. The masters missing from the top 10 were #4 Botvinnik, #6 Reshevsky, #9 Taimanov, #10 Kotov.

Zurich 1953 was a quadruple round tournament, a real monster. Each man played 28 games. Too many, I think. Lots of short draws – kibitzers (including me) would be howling if it were broadcast live. But an insanely strong tournament. Out of the top <15>, the only players missing were the world champion and #15 Alexander Tolush.

Samuel Reshevsky 2781 (#1 on August 1953 list)
Vassily Smyslov 2765 (#3 on August 1953 list)
Miguel Najdorf 2753 (#4 on August 1953 list)
Efim Geller 2734 (#5 on August 1953 list)
Alexander Kotov 2727 (#6 on August 1953 list)
David Bronstein 2724 (#7 on August 1953 list)
Isaak Boleslavsky 2722 (#8 on August 1953 list)
Gideon Ståhlberg 2722 (#9 on August 1953 list)
Paul Keres 2721 (#10 on August 1953 list)
Tigran Petrosian 2717 (#11 on August 1953 list) László Szabó 2716 (#12 on August 1953 list) Mark Taimanov 2714 (#13 on August 1953 list)
Svetozar Gligoric 2707 (#14 on August 1953 list) Max Euwe 2688 (#16 on August 1953 list) Yury Averbakh 2645 (#25 on August 1953 list)

1959 Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade

Mikhail Tal 2766 (#1 on September 1959 list)
Vassily Smyslov 2762 (#2 on September 1959 list)
Tigran Petrosian 2753 (#3 on September 1959 list) Paul Keres 2743 (#5 on September 1959 list) Svetozar Gligoric 2736 (#7 on September 1959 list) Bobby Fischer 2700 (#14 on September 1959 list) Fridrik Olafsson 2670 (#20 on September 1959 list) Pal Benko 2650 (#29 on September 1959 list)

Sort of similar to Amsterdam in strength, though a smaller field and a quadruple-round robin. Probably a higher percentage of really exciting games than in any other candidates tournament. Absent from the top 10 were #4 Botvinnik, #6 Spassky, #8 Geller, #9 Taimanov, and #10 Korchnoi.

Curacao 1962
Tigran Petrosian 2782 (#1 on May 1962 list)
Viktor Korchnoi 2769 (#3 on May 1962 list)
Mikhail Tal 2769 (#4 on May 1962 list)
Bobby Fischer 2761 (#5 on May 1962 list)
Paul Keres 2743 (#7 on May 1962 list)
Efim Geller 2741 (#8 on May 1962 list)
Miroslav Filip 2673 (#18 on May 1962 list)
Pal Benko 2620 (#38 on May 1962 list)

A really strong, really disappointing tournament. Top 10 players not present were #2 Botvinnik, #6 Spassky (exact same spot as three years before), #9 Smyslov, and #10 Polugaevsky. Benko at #38 is the only player close to Andreikin in world ranking at the time he participated in a candidates event. Of course, Benko was there only because Leonid Stein (#17) was excluded.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Fischer...we all know about the Spassky game. I didn't realize that Bryant Park's own Asa Hoffman had beaten Bobby in the Evans, albeit in blitz. A Hoffmann vs Fischer, 1963

Karpov -- well, here we are at his only loss to the KG. No Evans.

Kasparov -- there's this one, nearly as bad a blow to Bryan's defense as the Immortal Game.

Short vs Kasparov, 1993

But also this one, which is blitz. Short vs Kasparov, 2011

Evans, just this. Blitz. Kasparov doesn't seem to have liked 1....e5 any more than Fischer did.

Short vs Kasparov, 2011

Kramnik -- nearly 600 games with 1....e5 in the database, including lots of blitz and rapid I assume, and not a single KG or Evans. Sad.

Anand lost a KG to Morozevich and a very famous and beautiful Evans to Kasparov.

Carlsen -- one draw with the KG (which clinched the GM title, way back in 2004). No Evans.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Obviously I am counting games when these men weren't WC....otherwise we would have a very small sample. Alekhine never lost to the KG, it looks like. A couple of losses to the Evans in correspondence games when he was very young.

Botvinnik is the first WC to not rely on 1....e5. He never lost to the KG, it appears, and had that horrible loss to Kan as Petrosianic mentioned in the Evans declined. Kan vs Botvinnik, 1929

Smyslov is interesting. He played 1...e5 regularly, but never faced the Evans and never saw a KG until 1987, if this database is to be trusted.

Tal -- mostly played the Sicilian. Lost this wonderful game to Bronstein Bronstein vs Tal, 1968 in the KG

One Evans, also wonderful, which he won.

J Klovans vs Tal, 1951

Petrosian also didn't play 1...e5 a lot. Had a couple draws with the KG. (Bronstein played it against him, but Spassky didn't.) No Evans.

Spassky -- figured no one would dare play the KG against him, but I was wrong. He faced it five times and...won every time. Not too surprising.

No Evans.

To be continued...

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <I like the KG, but I still think of the Evans Gambit as the epitome of swashbuckling chess.> I like it a lot, but funnily enough because (to me) it's not so swashbuckling as the KG. Sometimes White's king dies very early in the KG. Much less chance of that early on in the Evans.

The real problem with the Evans is that you don't get to play it. Not all that many people play 1...e5 to begin with, and those that do generally prefer 3....Nf6 in my experience.

<I wonder how many World Champions have lost to each one? Steinitz, Lasker, and Botvinnik all lost to the Evans at least once in their careers. How about the KG? We know Fischer and Karpov lost to it. How many others did?>

Well of course Steinitz lost to the KG as well as the Evans.

Charousek beat Lasker with the KG at Nuremberg, you'll remember.

Charousek vs Lasker, 1896

None of Lasker's losses to the Evans look like serious games; of course he helped put the opening out of business in the 1890s.

Corzo beat Capa in an Evans....of course JRC was 13 at the time. Doesn't look like Capablanca ever lost to the KG in serious play.

to be continued...

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 24)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Bobby Fischer Tribute Shirt
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies