| Jun-26-11 | | JoergWalter: Fritz is insisting that 29.Qxg5 is mate in 6. the others: if 32.Qg6+ instead of Qe5+ then mate in 1. And if 33.Nd6+ is replaced by Qg7+ it is mate in 2.
quite a few oversights for a great attacker like Charousek. |
|
| Jun-26-11 | | parisattack: This is true, good spot - but:
I think what happens is the player sees a combination/continuation pretty much through to the end one way and at each move is mostly just checking his analysis and not looking for something different. Not necessarily wise but I believe that is how it goes. |
|
| Jun-27-11 | | sevenseaman: The checker knows he is locked on to a win and plays it by the ear; not necessarily making optimal clinical moves. I'd rather be a Charousek than a Fritz. |
|
| Jun-27-11 | | JoergWalter: <I'd rather be a Charousek than a Fritz.> I agree, unfortunately I'm none of the two. so I use the computer to check the old games. you will find quite a lot of these "inaccuracies" and sometimes the wrong side wins and sometime you don't know why one side has resigned the game. A good source for the latter are the games of Staunton vs. Cochrane. Cochrane resigns and it is hard to see why. |
|
| Feb-01-14 | | Wulebgr: The pawn storm in this game is quite instructive. White's king is much more secure with his shield bearing down on the Black king while he stands naked and alone. |
|
Nov-23-16
 | | fredthebear: IMHO, any line that clearly, easily forces mate in a few moves is "good enough" to go ahead and play -- a string of consecutive checks that can't be interrupted is a good example. There is no better outcome than checkmate! However, we are wise (not obliged...) to follow Lasker's rule and WAIT! -- Look for a BETTER move, which means find a quicker checkmate in this instance. It's difficult to change course when one has already found a truly winning course. I can most regretfully say that I have lost two rated tournament games by switching course in mid-stream when I found that proverbial "better move" (or so I thought) but did not analyze my opponent's alternate options as clearly, deeply, thoroughly as I had my original planned course of action combinational sequence. Had I stuck with my first well-analyzed plan instead of changing to "an even better move" I would have won instead of lost. Very painful to lose this way with victory at hand -- carefully saw it all the way through in my mind but did not actually play it because I gave in to temptation for a different flash move. (Thus, I support Charousek for staying with his winning plan and not finding a faster route because his plan surely did win -- there was no way to interrupt it.) Quicker does not always turn out better in a practical sense. BTW, I would have played 35.Qg6+ instead with forced mate occupying f7 next move. However, I can find no fault with 35.Rg2+ as it will also force mate and encourages the opponent to resign rather than give up the Black queen for no good reason (she can embarrassingly block check for one move). Technically, my 35.Qg6+ mates one move faster (depending on Black's response), but perhaps Charousek's 35.Rg2+ ended the game sooner via resignation. Bottom line, it's hard to argue against a forced checkmate in any fashion. Chalk up the point, 1-0. |
|
| Jan-19-22 | | Alan McGowan: This game is shown as having been played in January 30, 1897, the information possibly taken from Magyar Sakktörténet, Vol 3 (1896-1921), which does show the game being played January 30, 1897. However, the game was published in the Wiener Schachzeitung of January 1898, pp31-2, where it said it was played September 1897. It was also published in The Field on Saturday, 26 February 1898, p49, where it says it was played during the Berlin tournament. The Berlin tournament referred to was held September 13 to October 4 and was won by Charousek. All three sources show the game ended after 30. g6xf7+, whereas CG has additional moves. If the game was played Jan 1897, why would the WSZ wait a year to publish it and then say it was played September 1897? Further, as mentioned in another Kibitz note, Black was likely the well known local player Berthold Richter. |
|
| Jan-20-22 | | Nosnibor: Sergeant`s book on Charousek gives September 1897 and that the game was played at the Berlin Chess Club. The Berlin Congress of 1897 was held during September and October 1897 at the rooms of the Society of Architects in the Wilhelmstrasse. There was an earlier tournament played at the Berlin Centrum Club in January 1897 in which Charousek finished second in a field of eight players. |
|
| Jan-20-22 | | Nosnibor: The Berlin Centrum Tournament was a field of 7 Players not 8 that I had stated above. |
|
| Jan-26-22 | | login:
Addition:
Meisterturnier des SV Centrum 1897
'Berlin Centrum Tournament', in CG labled as 'Berlin (I) (1897), Berlin GER' https://web.archive.org/web/2007102...
300 Mark first prize tournament organised by Karl Walbrodt [~(Vereins-)vorsitzender]. see Frank Hoppe [Berliner Schachverband e.V.]
A score
http://periodika.lv/periodika2-view... from Austrums, Nr. 8, Partija Nr. 122, Aug 1898
Unrelated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECC...
|
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 29.Qxg5
