|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-19-04 | | masterwojtek: Awesome "rook attack" at move 31! |
|
| Feb-19-04 | | morphynoman2: This is one of the most famous endgames, and appears in many books. It seems a composition but it was played "live". Really amazing.Anyone of us is a genius at least once in his life! |
|
| Feb-19-04 | | Dogzilla: 33...c4! to prevent Nd3
34...a5! to block the rook from stopping the promotion.
All the while resisting tempation to capture pieces. Great! |
|
Feb-19-04
 | | Sneaky: This is what chess is all about. Any one of us can go to a local tournament an play a game that achieves immortality--all we have to do is make the right move at the right time. |
|
| Feb-19-04 | | kevin86: A great series of moves by black!! I once saw a problem where white promoted five knights and black three queens,that had the same artistry. |
|
| Feb-19-04 | | ughaibu: Tim Krabbe has a page about this that might be interesting: http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/r... |
|
| Feb-19-04 | | morphynoman2: Wow!, ughaibu. That's a story for "The Twilight Zone"! |
|
Mar-10-04
 | | Honza Cervenka: The twin of this beautiful combination is Tylkowski vs A Wojciechowski, 1931 |
|
Oct-08-04
 | | Benzol: <Honza> I see you've already been here. :) When looking at
Tylkowski vs A Wojciechowski, 1931 I knew I'd seen something very similar before. |
|
| Oct-08-04 | | Marco65: <Any one of us can go to a local tournament an play a game that achieves immortality> This for sure is not true for me. Jose Sanz Aguado was a very promising player, who became champion of Spain ten years later. Such a talent had to think 45 minutes over Rxb2. I doubt many kibitzers here have the same potential, and would have spotted the combination over the board |
|
| Oct-08-04 | | vonKrolock: The article linked above by <ughaibu> is absolutely essential to understand this case... Krabbé's approach is carefull and objective - maybe something new appeared since, or at least COULD appear?! |
|
| Oct-08-04 | | meloncio: To add some more confusion (just kidding), according to Pablo Moran, the renowned spanish chesswriter, Ortueta resigned after 34.... a5. And the year was 1934, not 1933. |
|
| Oct-08-04 | | vonKrolock: <meloncio> "eu não creio em bruxas, mas que elas existem, existem" :o) Quando vi ambos... <for all> When I saw both endgames diagrammed whithout the previous moves, i drived following: 'What an extraordinary coincidence! Surely a nice combination arriving from some forced line, say, from the QGD!...' (then i believed that something like this could somewhat naturally arises...off course the publication of the first game warned the player of the second that the opening variation would lead to this won endgame) "interessant, aber elementar, mein lieber Watson" <today> Comparing the games, it immediatelly strikes that they are quite different! the possibilities are thus:
a) both games are authentical - so the Cervantes quote above (translated) is eloquent enough...
b) both games are composed - so its a matter to discover who composed the Endgame - its a masterpiece!
c) one is authentical, the other is composed: Well, i have not objective data enough to assert that this game was not actually played: but it was a match game, or casual? Played in 1933 or 34 or ?! (similar doubts persists after reading the available documentation assembled on-line – specifically in Krabbé’s essay) For what i see, the main doubt about the polish game is that the alleged publication in a local newspaper remains disappeared... |
|
| Oct-11-04 | | vonKrolock: Spanish page (in Castillian) here about Sanz Aguado http://hechiceros.ods.org/site/anec... The author, after presenting Sanz profile, assumes that the polish game is authentical, letting to the reader the verdict about Ortueta-Sanz... Something new in the air about the authenticity of the present game and perhaps about the other too? |
|
| Oct-13-04 | | meloncio: <vonKrolock> Very interesting link. I don't know anything more about the story than Moran wrote. I suspect he didn't know the polish game, because in his book he didn't write a word about it. |
|
| Oct-13-04 | | vonKrolock: <meloncio> We can presume that certainlly Moran knew about the other game, even when he don’t mention it: its highly implicit, for instance, in the last paragraph of the article linked in <ughaibu>’s posting above, concerning Ortueta’s obituary…
Coincidences, anticipations – things like this occurs, I know – see for instance the double (reversed) Castelli’s position, presented - again by T. Krabbé - , here http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/... under number 256 "The table near the middle door": but here we have the sort of thing explicable and acceptable as a psichological phenomenon: Same room, same table, same player – adversaries near in time and space…
Just one of the striking features in the present case – the Rxb2 duplication – is that the constellation a7-Bb6-c5-c4 is per se extremelly rare in actual play – so the difficulty of even imagine some kind of defense that could lead, in a coherent order of moves, to that formation! Another: If one of the Kings where in another place, say White’s in ‘f1’, or Black’s in ‘g8’, the combination would fail!
Well, whith speculations, investigations and - for me most important – sheer Chess EXEGESIS in march, I prefer to call this Endgame, unless proof in contrary, “Wojciechowski’s Combination” |
|
| Oct-16-04 | | vonKrolock: Still some remarks: a) Chernev presented in 1974 both positions whithout the complete scores and "Szachy" 1932 (sic); b) When I said "prefer to call", i'm following two little principles: shared benefit of doubt and simple anteriority; c) Whith 'exegesis' i mean the study of the game-scores, the personalities of the players, environment, historical circunstances, etc |
|
| Oct-26-04 | | Apocalypse79: It's a great pawn move to promotion. I'm very shocked at this game. |
|
| Jun-10-05 | | aw1988: A famous study. |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | syracrophy: This is one of the most famous endings of the chess history. This game is exactly the same as the game <Tylkowski vs A Wojciechowski, 1931 >
I wanna notice some points of this game:
After <31...Rxb2!!> there was nothing better than accepting the rook: <32.Nxb2 c3!!> with the following variants: <A)> 33.Nd3 c4+ 33.Rxb6 cxd3 34.Rc6 d2 winning After <33...c4!!>:
<A)> 34.Nxc4 c2
<B)>34.Re6 cxb2 34.Re1 c3 |
|
| Jan-01-06 | | psmith: In contrast to the twin <Tylkowski vs A Wojciechowski, 1931; Fritz has Black clearly winning after 34. Nxc4 c2 35. Rc6 c1Q+ 36. Kh2 because Black now has the possibility of Qf4+. |
|
| Jul-04-06 | | PhilFeeley: Is white obliged to give back the exchange with 20. Rxf6? |
|
Jul-05-06
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: <PhilFeeley>, 20.Rxf6 looks like an attempt at a mating attack on the King side that falls just short (unless a silicon monster can find something that Ortueta missed). But White is in a spot of trouble here. Black threatens a central pawn roller with 20...e6-e5, and if, let's say, 20.Rae1,a6; 21.Na3,Bc7 puts the Knight out of play for a few moves and Black forces through ...e6-e5 anyway. It is possible that White only had a choice of evils here. |
|
Nov-20-08
 | | mjmorri: According to Andy Soltis, this was Petrosian's favorite game. |
|
| Nov-20-08 | | waustad: The nomenclature is a bit confusing calling it a KI attack with no Bg2. Why? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
+ sac: 31...Rxb2