|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-07-04 | | Ed Caruthers: I like 32.Qxe6 better than Janowski’s move.
32…fxe6; 33.Ng6#
32…Nc8; 33.Rxh6+, gxh6; 34.Qxh6+
32…Ng6; 33.Nxg6+, fxg6; 34. Qxg6, Rf6; 35.Rxh6+ again.
32…g6; 33.Ng5xf7+, Rxf7; 34.Nxf7+, Kg7 (34…Kh7; 35.Rxh6+, Kg7; 36.Rh8, Qxf7; 37.Rh7+); 35.Qe5+,Kxf7; 36.Rf4# |
|
May-07-04
 | | Gypsy: <I like 32.Qxe6 better than Janowski?s move.
32?fxe6; 33.Ng6# > 33...Nxg6. |
|
May-07-04
 | | Chessical: <EdCaruthers> There is no mate after <32.Qxe6?> 33.fxe6 Ng6 <34.Nxg6> |
|
May-07-04
 | | beenthere240: It's annoying to have put Feeble Bloviator on ignore only to still have to read everyone's continued replies to him! |
|
May-07-04
 | | kevin86: To <Ferocious Beast et al> "Can't we all get along?"-Rodney King-1994 I enjoy the problem set up of black's major pieces on the king side. It's also rather predictable that white would deliver the knockout punch with two knights. |
|
| May-07-04 | | tud: How about 32 Qxe6 fxe6 33 Rxe7 ? |
|
| May-07-04 | | capanegra: <tud> 33...Rxf2+ followed by 34...g6. |
|
| May-07-04 | | crafty: 32. ♕xe6 fxe6 33. ♖xe7 ♖xf2+ 34. ♔h3 ♕f8 35. ♘g6+ ♔g8  (eval -6.27; depth 16 ply; 500M nodes) |
|
| May-07-04 | | myratingstinks: don't know about the rest of you, but I jealously guard my knights for endgames like this. |
|
May-07-04
 | | chessgames.com: 32.Qb2 is just as good as 32.Qc3, but from what we've seen there aren't any other moves which force an immediate result. |
|
| May-07-04 | | chessmantra: I agree with <myratingstinks> Knights for endgames become highly important for a checkmate, specially when everything is stacked up in one corner :-) and nobody has a place to move wildly all over the board ... I tried all the combinations except Qxe6 ... Oh, I should have guessed this !!! ... Thanks <crafty> |
|
| May-07-04 | | mikhs: I see that FerociousBeast received a dose of his own medicine today from Avenger....How does it feel ? |
|
| May-07-04 | | morphyvsfischer: Hey, look! Janowski gave up his Bishop pair! |
|
| May-07-04 | | alphee: What about 32.♕xe6 f7xe6 33♖xe7 ♖xe7 34.♘g9#. It came easily as I thought the mate should be given by a Knight due to the fortress protecting the King. I didn't look to much for an other solution as this one was the first ... too lucky may be. It seems that <crafty> is not very far from that. |
|
| May-07-04 | | Helping Hand: Guys, for those of you looking at 32. Qxe6, look at crafty's line carefully. It shows a huge advantage for Black, not White (as indicated by the minus sign in front of the 6.27). |
|
May-07-04
| | Chessical: <Alphee> Or unfortunately not lucky enough. Your line does not work, due to the weakness of f2: <32.Qxe6> fxe6 33.Rxe7 <Rxf2+> 34.Kh3 Qf8 35.Ng6+ Kg8 36.Nxf8 Bxe7 37.Nfxe6 hxg5 |
|
| May-07-04 | | pawntificator: I must admit I thought for a few moments, and decided 32. Qxe6 must be the move. I am humbled. Still, in a game I may have played it anyway, just to see if I could fluster my opponent. |
|
| May-08-04 | | alphee: <Chessical:> true, Thank you for the lesson! |
|
| Jul-05-04 | | ruylopez900: 32.Nexf7+ looks very nice, it seems that black will have to give up their queen, until I realise that the Rook will capture first. Darn :) |
|
Oct-25-12
| | RayDelColle: Why not 3) ... Q a5 ch; then snag the pawn? |
|
Oct-25-12
 | | Phony Benoni: <RayDelColle: Why not 3) ... Q a5 ch; then snag the pawn?>
click for larger viewIt's not unplayable, but I think it's generally avoided because players mistrust lines where the queen is developed in the center of the board without a definite reason. True, there is no effective way for White to bother the queen, but she is still in the way (for instance, the ♗f8 can't go to b4 or c5) and is not doing anything constructive. Instead, Black generally plays 3...e6. This move will probably be played anyway, and the bishop reaches a good spot on c5 without loss of time. A lot of strategy in the Queen's Gambit revolves around enticing the opponent to play dxc before the bishop is developed so the bishop can recapture without losing a move. There are times when the ...Qa5/...Qxc5 idea is played. For example, there is a common line in the Pirc after <1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd3 Qxc5> 
click for larger viewIn this position, the ♗f8 is already developed to g7, and the ♕c5 has seized a good diagonal and inhibits White's development. So why not fianchetto the ♗f8 after 3...Qa5+ and 4...Qxc5? That's another way to play it, but there might be a problem with the ♙d5. If White can organize some pressure on it, Black might need to play ...e6 at some point, which leaves a lot of holes when coupled with ...g6. In the Pirc line, the d-pawn is not as exposed. In sum, I don't think that your idea is going to lose the game by itself. The reason that it's avoided is that 3...e6 and ...Bxc5 is simply considered a better alternative. |
|
Oct-26-12
| | RayDelColle: David, Thanks for your very thoughtful, insightful and generous analysis! very much appreciated! Be Well! Fair Winds and Smooth Sailing! Namaste! |
|
| Feb-07-16 | | TheFocus: At Carlsbad, Janowski split the third brilliancy prize of 200 crowns for this game. See <American Chess Bulletin>, November 1907, pg. 216. |
|
| Feb-07-16 | | TheFocus: At Carlsbad, Mieses split the third brilliancy prize of 200 crowns for this game. See <American Chess Bulletin>, November 1907, pg. 216. |
|
| Feb-08-16 | | zanzibar: <Focus> What's Mieses got to do with this game? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
