|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-31-12 | | MaczynskiPratten: Lovely and unusual mating pattern, a sort of smothered mate but with Black's King in the middle of the board and with all 8 flight squares instead of 3. However, 4 of those squares are blocked by his own pieces and 3 more by White's Knights, leaving d6 which is covered by White's e pawn. As for Couvee, he seems to be a NN, just a patzer, like A Stephan yesterday (both with only one game in CG DB). Maybe he was a good player who had a mental aberration when playing c6 that d6 was still covered by the "retained image" of the c7 pawn - but I doubt it, it just looks like an inept move by a weak player. |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | MaczynskiPratten: In the interests of gender fairness, maybe we should remember that perhaps the classic computer helpdesk story was the guy (yes, male) who was demanding a refund of his broken computer and threatening to sue. He had put the floppy disk in (yes, the story is that old) and it wouldn't come out. He had tried pulling it with pliers but it wouldn't come, so he poured in fat from the turkey baster and eventually wrenched it out. "Sir, did you press the eject button?" "The what?" .. the overall conversation is too long to repeat in full, but much funnier - google it! |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | ajile: I laughed when I figured it out. Mated by 2 knights for the win! |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | newton296: <Tigranvp: 8. ... c6 is a positional blunder; 7. ... Nb6; followed by 8. ...a6 is better than 7. ...Qd8. By the way Black played the French he couldn't have been very familar with it.> couve just vomits out a french defense! 7...Qd8? 8...c6?? are beginner errors. just awful! event?
site?
rating?
pretty much says it all. |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | BOSTER: <FSR> <What sort of maniac invites white's knight to settle on d6 with check?>. It is always possible to explain move 8...c6.
First reason-common visualization error a "retained image". Second. The rule- <touch-move>. Third. The desire to break our routine chess life.
And sometimes there is no reason to beat the opponent. Last but not least-create the masterpiece.
Can you play only one game and become so popular?
Maybe it was simple a joke.
I guess that if after 12.Nh3 black would play Qf8, to make his king more mobile, not everybody as white win this game. |
|
Jan-31-12
 | | Penguincw: A really nice two knight checkmate (with the help of black's pieces, of course). |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | 1stboard: Another case of removing the guard, in this case the pawn at H7 ..... |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | amaurobius: <Once> My reference to "your best efforts to keep it secret" was as much tongue in cheek as your claim to gender neutrality. I thoroughly enjoyed the humour of your post. |
|
| Jan-31-12 | | TrollKing: 8 ... c6 is horrible. Make that a howler. |
|
Jan-31-12
 | | FSR: <Phony Benoni: I got this instantly simply because I've seen it before, but for the life I me I can't remember where. Chernev's <1000 Best Short Games of Chess> keeps ringing a bell,> Rightly so. The game appears in Chernev's book as game 174 on page 77, <Speyer-Couvee> with no date or place given. <but that was published several years before 1955.> Really? The book's copyright date is 1955, and it was assigned Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-5949. I don't think it actually contains any games played as late as 1955, though. Glancing at it, the latest games I see are from 1953, which are near the end of the book (games 993 and 998). Note that CG.com in the game's caption (as opposed to the "scoresheet") gives its date as "? 1955," suggesting uncertainty on this score. Either CG.com or CG.com's source may well have taken the game from Chernev's book and given its date as "? 1955" based on the date of publication of Chernev's book. <Perhaps it was one of Horowitz's revised editions of <The Golden Treasury of Chess>. He was still doing those in in the 1960s.> It's not in Wellmuth's original (1943) edition. As you note, Horowitz revised that book (and removed Wellmuth's name, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...), but the game is also not in the revised (Horowitz 1978) version that I have. |
|
Feb-01-12
 | | Phony Benoni: <FSR> Thanks for looking that up. I used to have a good book collection, but had to sell it and regret that to this day. I even vaguely remember the diagram being at the top of the second column on the right-hand page. I could have checked the date a little more carefully, but I know what I was thinking of. The book is arranged by length of game, except for the last dozen or so which appear to be last-minute additions. You noticed the later date on a couple of those final games. The last game in the book was Casas vs Piazzini, 1952, so I had the idea the book was published earlier than 1955. The publication date of the book may be where the 1955 date for the game came from, but it was almost surely played earlier than that since it was in the "earlier" section, not the later additions. |
|
Feb-02-12
 | | LIFE Master AJ: <Boster> Good points. |
|
Feb-02-12
| | LIFE Master AJ: <Boster> One you did not cover - nerves. Many times I have played pretty solid players. After the game, they make a poor move and usually the explanation is: "I was a little nervous playing you." Maybe this does not happen in New York, (or Chicago ... or L.A.) where playing masters on Board One is a common experience, but I have heard it many times down here, in my neck of the woods. Sometimes I get nervous, too.
Some more thoughts on this subject:
#1.) I did not sleep well the night before and I am worried that I will make a mistake as a result. #2.) I am trying to play new openings, sometimes playing a new line every time I play. (I have studied opening theory my whole life, I decided to stop playing the same old boring stuff, and start playing more interesting openings instead. Also ---> by constantly varying my openings - it makes you harder to prepare for.) #3.) Sometimes a player will make the pronouncement (before the game), that: "I am going to defeat you." Most of the time, you shrug it off, but every so often your opponent succeeds. #4.) Occasionally, I get the <<hunch>> that I may drop a game. Its NOT rational ... but its real, none-the-less. Call it fututre sight, superstition, bad bio-rhythyms, intuition, whatever ... just a gut feeling that you can't seem to shake. (I had this in the first round of my last tournament ... I have no idea why. I shook it off, and then played pretty well after that.) #5.) I make a lot of people nervous. A lot of that is intentional. If a player likes to attack, I try to go on the offensive as quickly as possible. If a player likes blockaded positions, I make sure that I open up the game as much as possible. (Etc.) A lot of this is psychology in chess ... which I learned from studying the games of Lasker. (Maybe Tal too.) #6.) Chess players do NOT like shocks. Make one surprise move, and you may not win the game. Make five or six of these ... and I can almost guarantee that you will win. Maybe there are others that I did not cover here. |
|
| Mar-04-13 | | whiteshark: ♘mare on the 6th rank. |
|
| Feb-05-14 | | gr8song: I guess the key mistake that black made is to push that c pawn not a pawn to try to drive white's knight? Beautiful game! |
|
| May-27-15 | | morfishine: <FSR> Ditto, Chernev's book, game 174 page 77 no year given This is my 2nd copy, which is a 1987 'Fireside' Edition; originally published 1955. Copyright data noted Selma Chernev (I assume this is his wife Selma Kulik), renewed publication in 1983 & 1987 My brother and I fought over the first copy (1983) I bought. He'd steal it, then I'd reclaim it, then he'd sneak it away again, then I'd retrieve and this back-and-forth went on and on. The poor book disintegrated under the constant attention ***** |
|
| May-27-15 | | TheaN: For any foreigners confused about the pun, it's probably because of the pronounciation of Speijer. the 'eijer' combination is pronounced loosely as 'ire'. Given, the pun refers to the British band the Dire Straits. |
|
| May-27-15 | | kevin86: I've seen this one. The surprise queen sac leads to an elegant mate by the two knights. |
|
| May-27-15 | | thegoodanarchist: Pure garbage. Glad I didn't pay money to renew my chessgames.com premium membership, because dreck such as this game doesn't deserve to be "Game of the Day". And even though I spelled "dreck" correctly, it has the red dots underneath it to indicate a misspelling. It is NOT misspelled! Please fix your spell checker, chessgames. |
|
| May-27-15 | | daveinsatiable: Agreed, <goodanarchist>, it's a poor game with a cute mating pattern, but more importantly, it's not chessgames' spellchecker, it's yours. (More precisely your browser's). You owe CG an apology. ;) |
|
May-27-15
 | | perfidious: <anarchist> is never wrong about <anything>. |
|
| May-27-15 | | thegoodanarchist: <perfidious: <anarchist> is never wrong about <anything>.> I did make one mistake... I took you off of ignore. |
|
May-28-15
| | perfidious: An error I have not committed--no reason to for now, anyway. There are plenty of others. |
|
| May-30-15 | | thegoodanarchist: <<perfidious: An error I have not committed--no reason to for now, anyway. There are plenty of others.> Maybe you mean that you didn't put me on ignore to begin with? If you did not make the error of taking me off of ignore, then we wouldn't be having this exchange |
|
Apr-23-18
 | | Korora: Not falling for the ♕-sac has no impact on the outcome: 14. ...♔f8, 15. ♘g6#. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 14.Qxh7+