|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-18-14 | | RookFile: <tamar: Harrwitz in 1858 was the best player in Europe. He was in practice, clever, and unorthodox, very conscious of taking players out of their known schemes > An excellent insight. In another game tonight, I reflected that Harrwitz showed elements of Lasker in his play. The guy definitely had ideas. |
|
| Dec-29-14 | | sreeskamp: Morphy in this game has been completely outplayed by Harrwitz who develops all his pieces, does not fall in love with dubious 19th century offers and plays just modern positional chess. |
|
Mar-07-15
 | | FSR: Daniel, You're a Star. |
|
| Aug-17-15 | | kishore4u: .
Morphy 8 mistakes:
15.Kb1 0.29 (15.f4 0.74)
18.Ree1 0.22 (18.f4 0.64)
19.Rg1 -0.17 (19.Ne7+ 0.29)
20.Qe3 -0.24 (20.Qh4 0.28)
30.Rh1 -2.47 (30.Rg4 -0.34)
31.Rhg1 -3.61 (31.Qb4 -2.52)
33.Rg5 -6.03 (33.Qc3 -4.38)
36.Qxe8 -7.73 (36.Qe1 -5.68 |
|
| Jun-10-16 | | MorphinTime: It is time |
|
| Mar-08-21 | | g4ndalf: <Vishy but not Anand>
18. Ne7+ Kh1
19. Nf5 Nf6
is actually winning for black according to stockfish.
22. R5e2 is a blunder, as the queen can simply pick up the rook due to backrank mating treath.
Even the final position is still winning for black. Black is under no threat of mate and can start a powerful attack on white's kingside by bringing out the rook. |
|
| Aug-15-21 | | paulmorphy1969: Harrwitz gives the game with 40 moves and deviates from all those published in the books such as the one presented here at Black's 28 move. The same game as presented by Harrwitz was published in New York Clipper, Jan 22, 1859.
https://www.chessarch.com/excavatio... |
|
| Jan-21-22 | | nalinw: FSR - great pun - it took nearly 7 years!! Is that a record? |
|
Jan-21-22
| | FSR: <nalinw> Thanks! No, not a record. Several of mine have taken longer, including Short vs A A Lopez, 2008 - which took over nine years. |
|
| Jan-21-22 | | LoveThatJoker: Congrats, <FSR>, on your latest GOTD pun. :) LTJ |
|
| Jan-21-22 | | Brenin: If you're puzzled by the pun, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f0..., recorded 49 years ago. |
|
Jan-21-22
 | | offramp: <Brenin: If you're puzzled by the pun, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f0..., recorded 49 years ago.> 49 years ago? Do you mean "Ben"? |
|
| Jan-21-22 | | Brenin: <offramp>: "Daniel", Elton John, 1973. |
|
Jan-21-22
 | | fredthebear: Useful background information on page one of kibitzing, but I did not see a link to Edward Winter's notes, so here it is: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter...
The article primarily focuses on "the relationship between (chess author) Frederick Edge and Paul Morphy". There's a bit on Harrwitz, but not much. |
|
Jan-21-22
 | | Check It Out: That black queen sure got around the neighborhood. |
|
Jan-21-22
 | | MissScarlett: <Interesting enough, in Harrwitz's 1862 book, "Lehrbuch des schachspiels: enthaltend die analyse der eröffnungen und Endungen" he presented only two games between himself and Morphy (two of the three he won) and one of them was this game. However, Harrwitz gives the game with this score (in algebraic notation, no less) The score given here at chessgames.com was the one given by Maroczy...> Morphy vs Harrwitz, 1858 (kibitz #38) <28...b6 29. Reg1 Ne8 30. Qc3 f4 31. Rh1 g6 32. Rhg1 Qd5 33. Qe1 Qxh5 34. Rg5 Qxf3 35. Qe6 Rf6 36. Qe7+ Rg7 37. Qxe8 hxg5 38. Qe1 Qc6 39. f3 Re6 40. Qf2 Rge7
0-1>
The longer version appears in Staunton's <Illustrated London News> column of October 2nd 1858, p.317, as well as the <New York Clipper> of January 22nd 1859, (also) p.317. The week before, in presenting two other match games, Staunton thanked 'members of the Paris <Cercle des Echecs>'. <28...Ne8 29.Qc3 f4 30.Rh1 g6 31.Rhg1 Qd5 32.Qe1 Qxh5 33.Rg5 Qxf3 34.Qe6 Rf6 35.Qe7+ Rg7 36.Qxe8 hxg5 37.Qe1 Qc6 0-1> The shorter version appears in the <Era> (Lowenthal) of September 19th 1858, p.5, <Bell's Life in London> (Walker) of September 26th, p.8, and the <Field> (Boden) of October 2nd 1858, p.273.
All of these sources were friendly to Morphy and acknowledge receipt of games from Morphy/Edge. Hence, it's no surprise that the November 1858 <Chess Monthly> (Fiske/Morphy), p.334, also has the 37-move version. It's significant that all these games end <and wins> which suggests that the extra final moves given by Harrwitz/Staunton, <39.f3 Re6 40.Qf2 Rge7>, did occur, but ought to be <38.f3 Re6 39.Qf2 Rge7 0-1>. |
|
| Jan-21-22 | | Jean Defuse: ...
<Nerd!>
... |
|
Jan-21-22
| | MissScarlett: Not helpful. |
|
Jan-23-22
| | FSR: <LoveThatJoker: Congrats, <FSR>, on your latest GOTD pun. :)> Thanks, <LTJ>! I had quite a drought there. After having Chessgames use at least one pun of my puns in every month from October 2020 through October 2021, I had none in November and December 2021. |
|
Jan-23-22
| | offramp: I am always interested when a new Harrwitz swims into my ken. It is a well-known eastern European name. There are plenty of Harrwitzes and Horowitzes, but there are similar names like Gurevich, which are really the same name. |
|
Jan-23-22
 | | perfidious: In an interview granted to <Chess Life> at the 1992 US championship, Dmitry Gurevich alluded to how common his surname was, inasmuch as he was not related to either Ilya (who also played that event) or Mikhail, and noted that Gurevich and Horowitz are indeed the same name. |
|
Jan-23-22
| | FSR: <The prestigious Jewish surname Horowitz comes from Bohemia, which is now part of the Czech Republic. In the Middle Ages, people were often known by only one name. As they began moving closer together, it became necessary to adopt surnames, in order to better distinguish themselves from one another. There are a wide variety of hereditary surnames, and the surname Horowitz is a habitational name. It is taken from the place called Horovice, in Bohemia which is derived from the Slavic element, gora, which means hill.> Winona Ryder was born Winona Horowitz. https://www.houseofnames.com/horowi... |
|
| Jan-23-22 | | LoveThatJoker: <FSR> Well, there you have it: congratulations on having your puns on the site again after a drought. Also, thanks for including information on the last name Horowitz. Most interesting! I wonder if due to the presence of a Jewish community in Holland, hundreds of years ago, Horowitz began to be spelled with a 'G' there, and it stuck as members of the community moved to places like Russia and whatnot. I say this, as the Dutch use the letter like a "Ha"/"Huh" sound in many cases [if not all...I am not sure about the Dutch language rules]. Anyways, good on you.
LTJ |
|
| Feb-07-23 | | generror: This is one fascinating game. Chessmetrics rates Harrwitz as the #1 player for 1853-1856 which I thought was a bit overrated, but at least in this game, he really plays on the highest level -- not the typical Romantic, he plays nicely solid, and it looks like he has a plan apart from ATTACK KING!!! Also, analyzing the game with Stockfish was absolutely fascinating, there are some amazing variations. The opening is solid. Harrwitz' <11.Ne8?> would have given Morphy a solid advantage if he hadn't played <13.e5?> which completely destroys his kingside pawns. But after <15.Kb1?>, the game is dead equal -- <15.f4 dxe5 16.Qxe5 Qh4 17.Nd5> (D) would have given him a very nice compensation for it. 
click for larger viewAs it is, <15.Kb1?> loses a pawn, although after <17...Qxh2?>, Morphy could again have gotten the upper hand with <18.f4>. Morphy tries to build up pressure on the kingside, but Harrwitz defends himself well; after <20...Nf6>, Morphy wouldn't have had anything and just be a pawn down with the worse pawn structure. The position remains a dead draw until it suddenly drops to about -1 -- i.e. the lost pawn -- when Morphy plays the seemingly sensible <27.Qd4?>; instead, Stockfish recommends the absolutely bizarre rook sacrifice <27.Rxg7!!>. What the heck is this again, Stockfish!? Well, turns out that after <27...Rxg7 28.Nf6>, the (again) sensible-looking <28...Kh8?> is actually a mistake because White can totally destroy the kingside with <29.Qh4 Qf7 30.Qxh6+ Rh7 31.Nxh7 Qxh7 32.Qc1!> (D) and, despite being a piece down, has a definite advantage. 
click for larger viewSo Black's better move actually is <28...Kg6>, after which White gets perpetual check after <29.Rg1+! Kxf6 30.Qd4+ Ke6 31.Rxg7 Qb5 32.Qe3+> (D). 
click for larger viewCrazy stuff :D |
|
| Feb-07-23 | | generror: But back to the actual game, from now on Harrwitz has the upper hand, and try as he might, Morphy just can't get at his king. The two different versions of the score are actually very similar; the only real difference is that in the longer version, Black's b-pawn is on b6. I'll stick by the score given on this site, i.e. with <28...Ne8> instead of <28...b6>. After <29.Qc3?! f4!>, White's knight suddenly has nowhere to go to. Morphy attempts to save him with <30.Rh1??>, but this turns out to be the losing move. What was required here was <30.Re5!> (D), because, if Black now plays <30...g6?>, White goes <31.Qc4> and now <31...gxh5??> is bad because <32.Qe4+ Kh8 33.Rxg8+ Kxg8 34.Rxe8+> and White wins. 
click for larger viewIf <31...b5>, <32.Qe2> with the same motif. I won't go into more details because this post is already too long, but even if Black plays <30...Qc1+ 31.Ka2 Nd6> to prevent the white queen going to e4 after <...g6> and <...gxh5>, White constantly finds new tactical ways to ensure that capturing the knight is a bad idea. (Interestingly, in the alternative, longer score, the knight could also have been saved by equally ingenious ways, only there the move is <31.Rh2!>. That's about the only practical difference between the two versions.) Anyways, after <30.Rh1??> White is truly lost an, and his next two moves are also pretty bad; after <32.Qe1>, Stockfish says it's about -8. (Stockfish actually prefers giving his rook than the knight with <32.Rg5!>, and although that variation is also interesting, the game is utterly lost, so not much point, eh.) Morphy's <33.Rg5> is one last flourish -- Black rightly grabs another pawn while protecting h1, but even <33...hxg5 34.Rh1 Qxh1 35.Qxh1+> doesn't change the evaluation. I was quite surprised that Morphy went on playing for so long; which is funny, because in Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 I was surprised about him giving up so quickly. Seems like Morphy gets erratic when he's not winning :) All in all, definitively a very entertaining and fine game. Morphy really doesn't play as badly as in the Paulsen game mentioned above, his mistakes here are understandable (all of Stockfish's suggestions were incredibly deep and convoluted); he just seemed a bit frustrated towards the end which probably made him blunder the knight. The reason he loses mainly is that Harwitz defends absolutely masterfully. He exploits Morphy's mistakes, but doesn't go on romantic adventures -- after grabbing a pawn, he immediately consolidates his position and doesn't create any unnecessary weaknesses. What struck me was how well his pieces are coordinated. At least in this game, he really didn't give Morphy anything. I'm wondering a bit why the rest of the match was so one-sided. Harrwitz also won the first game (this must have been one of the few times Morphy lost twice in a row), so this game must have created a big sensation; but from then on it was five Morphy wins and one draw. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
