Jun-18-04
 | | Chessical: <73.Re7? Rg8?> shows how fatigued both players would have been by this stage of the game: If Eisenberg had played <73...Rxe7> it would have been a cast-iron draw: 74.Kxe7 Kg7 75.Ke6 Kf8 76.g6 hxg6 77.hxg6 Kg7 78.Kf5 Kg8 79.Kf6 Kf8 80.g7+ Kg8 81.Kg6 |
|
| Apr-26-17 | | Straclonoor: In this type of endgame more important to cut off King than block pawn of defense side. 51.Rh6 was mistake, 51.Re5 right move.
Lomonosov TB7 gives - white mating in 47 moves.
Here is the line (1st move = 50th in game)
1...Kd7 2. Re5 Rf8 3. Rh5 Rf7 4. Ke4 Ke6 5. Re5+ Kd6 6. Rb5 Rf2 7. Rb6+ Ke7 8. Rb7+ Kf6 9. Rxh7 Kg6 10. Rh8 Kg7 11. Ke3 Rf6 12. Re8 Rd6 13. h4 Rg6 14. Kf3 Rf6+ 15. Kg2 Rd6 16. g4 Rd3 17. h5 Rc3 18. Rd8 Rb3 19. Rd6 Ra3 20. h6+ Kh7 21. Kf2 Ra2+ 22. Kg3 Ra1 23. Kh4 Rb1 24. Kh5 Rh1+ 25. Kg5 Rc1 26. Rd7+ Kh8 27. Kh5 Rc5+ 28. g5 Kg8 29. Kg6 Rc6+ 30. Kf5 Rc5+ 31. Kf4 Rc4+ 32. Ke5 Rc1 33. g6 Re1+ 34. Kf5 Rf1+ 35. Ke4 Re1+ 36. Kf3 Re8 37. Kf4 Rc8 38. Ke5 Rb8 39. Re7 Ra8 40. Kf6 Rb8 41. h7+ Kh8 42. Re6 Ra8 43. Kg5 Ra5+ 44. Kh6 Rh5+ 45. Kxh5 Kg7 46. h8=Q+ Kxh8 47. Kh6 Kg8 48. Re8# |
|
Dec-18-21
 | | KEG: This sixth round game is almost painful to play over. Janowski, who had finished first at Monte Carlo 1901 (with Lasker, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, and Maroczy not playing), had been burning up the field, having won four of his first five games and only yielding two draws (draws were replayed in thisi tournament) to Maroczy. In the game at hand, Janowski was paired against Eisenberg, who eventually finished in 18th place (out of 20) Eisenberg was far weaker than most of the field here, but he became a great spoiler by beating Pillsbury (causing Pillsbury to finish second to Maroczy) and here drawing with Janowski (who won the replay the following day but--under the rules at Monte Carlo--nonetheless yielding a quarter point). One can almost sense Janowski's exasperation. Eisenberg played the opening horrifically, and was almost certainly theoretically lost by move 18 (if not before). But Janowski seemed too impatient, and missed winning one winning opportunity after another. He missed his final chance on his 51st move, as has been demonstrated on this site by <Straclonoor> The game ultimately reduced to a theoretically drawn Rook and pawn ending that--despite Janowski's extra pawn--was a theoretical draw. Janowski dragged the game on, refusing to abandon his hopeless quest to seek a win. Even when the game was down to a clearly drawn King and pawn ending that even an amateur would be expected to draw with ease, Janowski played on for another useless ten moves. The only good move for Janowski was that even if he had won this game he would still have finished third behind Maroczy and Pillsbury. But that, of course, did not become clear until the end of the tournament. I got the sense when reviewing the game that had Eisenberg played a bit better Janowski would have taken the game more seriously and likely won. From what I know of Janowski, it is my guess that he rolled his eyes at some of Eisenberg's moves and just expected the win to fall into his lap. But even weak players can be tough to beat if you don't give the game the attention it requires. 1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 c6
5. e3 Be7
6. Nf3 Nbd7
7. Rc1
click for larger viewA fairly normal position in the Queen's Gambit Declined. But Eisenberg's next move probably made Janowski sneer: 7... Nf8?!
click for larger viewThis move is almost certainly playable, but hardly to be recommended. The idea of getting the d7 Knight to g6 and thus make room for the c8 Bishop is not entirely without some logic, but Black can unquestionably make better use of his move (e.g., 7...0-0 or 7...h6). 8. Bd3 Ng6
9. 0-0
click for larger view9... Nd7?!
Another not-quite-losing move by Eisenberg, but--if this is good opening strategy, just about everything I think I know about the opening is wrong. The only kind thing I can say about the move is that Eisenberg now gets to trade off a pair of Bishops. The motive was probably based on Janowski's legendary prowess in wielding the two Bishops. But, that said, the ove still reeks. 10. BxB QxB
click for larger viewAs will be seen, Janowski did not play the rest of the game at his true strength and yielded a draw even though Eisenberg's play from here on was pretty bad. From the above-diagrammed position, I would have given Janowski a good chance to beat any of his contemporaries, even Lasker, Pillsbury, or Tarrasch. But playing from here on with what looks like contempt for Eisenberg, Janowski managed not to beat his completely over-matched opponent even from this clearly superior position. |
|
Dec-19-21
 | | perfidious: <KEG>, on a cursory examination of this game, Black played in a stodgy manner then typical of that epoch's handling of the Classical QGD, saddling himself with a spatial disadvantage and the bad light-squared bishop and, therefore, no real prospects of counterplay, the queenside majority being of little use. How did Janowski convert this far superior position into a draw? He had to work at it! |
|
Dec-19-21
| | KEG: Post II
11. Re1
Very slow and of little value. 11. cxd5 is the most natural and vigorous continuation. Alternatively, Janowski could have begun a slow build-up with 11. Qe2 or 11. h3 or 11. b3. 11... dxc4
12. Bxc4 0-0
13. Ne4 Nf6
Of doubtful utility.
14. NxN+ gxN?
Hard to fathom why Eisebberg chose this weakening move instead of the seemingly obvious 14...QxN. He had no reason to think that play on the g-file would outweigh the weakness created by the text. It is hard to disagree with the Tournament Book which said: 14...QxN was more natural. Black soon gets a very doubtful position. Janowski may not have believed his eyes, the position now being: 
click for larger viewJanowski would normally here have been expected to play 15. h4! with (already!) excellent winning chances. But: 15. e4
Now Eisenberg had good prospects of getting back into the game with the indicated 15...e5, but instead he played: 15... Kh8
More much of the early part of this game, Eisenberg seemed to be asking for trouble, the position now being: 
click for larger view16. e5 or 16. Qb3 sure look tempting. But instead Janowski (perhaps wanting to prolong the game--something like a cat playing with a cornered rodent)--chose: 16. Qd2
Now again, Eisenberg had the chance to play 16...e5, but instead he doubled down on his g-file ideas by playing: 16... Rg8
17. d5 now seems to stand out, but the uncharacteristically plodding Janowski preferred: 17. Rc3
Now, surely, Eisenberg would play 17...e5 (accomplishing, among other things, the long-overdue development of his c8 Bishop). But instead, he persisted in his g-file fantasy with: 17... Qf8?
Looks wretched, but it gets worse (for Eisenberg): 18. e5
"!"--(Tournament Book)
e5 is now no longer an option for Black, but he would get at least a fighting chance with 18...f5. But instead Eisenberg continued with his zany plan and chose: 18... Qg7?
click for larger viewStarting here, for at least a while, Janowski began playing like his old self: 19. exf6 Nxf6
20. Ne5
click for larger view20... NxN
21. dxN Qg5
Proposing a trade of Queens.
22. f4
The most vigorous response, but Janowski could also have just called Eisenberg's bluff and reduced to a winning ending: 22. QxQ RxQ 23. f4 (better than the Tournament Book's suggested 23. Rd3). 22... Qe7
23. Rd1
23. Ree3 was also strong.
23... b5
click for larger viewIt all now looked like smooth sailing for Janowski. But, in my next posts on this game, I will be able to address how Janowski went about not winning this game. |
|
Dec-19-21
| | KEG: <perfidious>Janowski did indeed have some work to do in order to blow the win. I will attempt to perform an autopsy in my following posts on this game. |
|
Dec-20-21
| | KEG: Post III
24. Bf1?
"!"--(Tournament Book)
With apologies to the Tournament Book commentators, and the interest in keeping the d-file open notwithstanding and possibly getting the White Bishop on the long disgonal, this move--though it still probably leaves White in a winning position, is simply bizarre. It looks more like a sneer from Janowski to a less talented opponent. 24. Bd3 was clearly better. 24... Bb7
Eisenberg finally got around to developing this Bishop, but only at a time when he had something far stronger available...24...c5 25. Qd7
A reflex move, but 25. Rd3 (bulking up on the d-file he was so anxious to keep open)was better. The position was now:
click for larger view25... Rae8!
A strange but effective means of defense. Black is still almost certainly lost, but Eisenberg refused to panic. 26. g3 Rgf8
27. Bg2 b4
This is only a temporary expedient and robs the Black Queen of access to b4. 28. Rcc1
This left the following very complicated and fascinating position: 
click for larger view28... b3?!
"The need makes for the discovery." (Tournament Book) A very difficult choice. The alternatives were 28...QxQ; 28...a5;28...Ba8. None of these moves likely saves the day. Eisenberg's 28...b3 had the merit of confusing Janowski, the position now being: 
click for larger view29. a3?
"?"--(Tournament Book)
"29. a3 was much better." (Tournament Book)
29. a3 or 29. a4 were indeed much better. The isolated doubled pawn Janowski obtains was hardly worth letting Black's Queen get to b4. 29... Qb4!
All of a sudden, Eisenberg had a glimmer of counterplay: 
click for larger view30. Qd3 Qb6+
31. Kh1?
Another strange choice by Janowski. 31. Qd4 seems obvious. 31... c5
Mis-timed. With 31...Rb8, Eisenberg would have had a fighting chance. 32. BxB QxB+
33. Kg1
click for larger viewBeginning here, play became extremely ragged, with Janowski repeatedly failing to exploit weak play by Eisenberg. I will discuss at least the first phase of this in my next post on this game. |
|
Dec-20-21
| | KEG: Post IV
33... Rd8?
This should have allowed Janowski a simple winning rejoinder. 33...Qb6 or 33...Rb8 would have kept Eisenberg in the game. 34. Qc3?
Hard to believe from Janowski. White gets an almost surely winning edge with the simple 34. QxR RxQ 35. RxR+ Kg7 36. Rd2. With two Rooks for Black's Queen and the weaknesses in Black's pawn structure,White should be able to prevail. 34... Kg8
34...RxR+ also gave Black good drawing chances.
35. Qe3
More sloppy play by Janowski. 35. Rf1 or 35. Rd6 were more promising. The position after 35. Qe3 was:
click for larger view35... c4?
This should have been curtains for Eisenberg. He had to play 35...RxR+ or 35...Rd5 or maybe 35...Rd4 with every reasonable prospect of holding the game. But now the game was lost for Black: 
click for larger viewThe win now is not all that difficult to find: 36.RxR RxR 37. f5! and Black is busted. But instead, Janowski--whether out of contempt or indifference played: 36. bxc4?
Now Eisenberg would have had a fighting chance with 36...RxR+ 37. RxR Qxb2. But instead, he played yet another lemon: 36... Qxb2?
This left:
click for larger view37. c5?
37. Qxa7?? would--as noted in the Tournament Book--be bad (i.e., losing) after 37...Rd2! But 37. Rd6 was the move. Now, Eisenberb again had a sliver of hope: 37... RxR+
38. RxR
click for larger view38... Rc8?
38...h6 offers better practical chances, though Black would still be lost. 39. f5!
click for larger view39... Qc2?
Now Janowski should have been able to finish off the game. The only faint hope was offered by 39...exf5. But now the situation seemed beyond hope for Eisenberg: 
click for larger viewBad as the play had been to this point, the nadir was reached in what immediately followed the above-diagrammed position. I will relate this sad story beginning with my next post on this game. |
|
Dec-21-21
| | KEG: Post V
What followed was not pretty.
After 39...Qc2?, which pretty much abandoned the Black King to its fate, Janowski had a lengthy but fairly easy win which he somehow missed. 40. Rc1?
"?"--(Tournament Book).
The text was indeed feeble. The winning line was given in the Tournament Book as follows (my comments in brackets_: 40. Qg5+ [White could also begin with 40. Rd8+ and then 41 Qg5+ after 40...RxR--KEG] Kf8 [40...Kh8 leads to the same thing--KEG] 41. Rd8+ RxR
42. QxR+ Kf7 43. f6+ Kh6 [43...Kg6 44. Qg8+ does not save the day either--KEG] 45. Qf8+ Kh5 [The Tournament Book gave this a "!", but in truth it is only marginally better than 45...Qg6, which also loses: 46. QxQ+ hxQ 47. c6 and the White c-pawn Queens--KEG] 46. Qxf7+ Kg5 47. Qg7+ Kh5 [The Tournament Book gave this a "!" since 47...Qg6 allows the White c-pawn to Queen--KEG] 48. g4+ Kh4 49. Qh6+ Kxg4 50. h3+ Kf3 [as the Tournament Book notes, 50...Kg3 loses even more rapidly after 52. Qe3+ K4 53. Qf2+ forcing a trade of Queens after which the c-pawn Queens--KEG] 51. Qh5+ Kf4 [another "!" from the Tournament Book, since 51...Ke3 loses to 52. Qg5+ --KEG] 52. Qg4+ [52. Qh4+ wins similarly--KEG] Kxg5 [yet another unwarranted "!" from the Tournament Book--KEG] 53. Qg5+ Kd4 [53...Ke4 loses instantly to 54. Qg2+--KEG] 54. f7 ["!"--Tournament Book] Qb1+ 55. Kf2 Qb2+ 56. Kg3 Qc3+ 57. Kh4 Qe1+ 58. Qg3 [and now the only check available to Black...Qe4+ allows a Queen trade after 59. Qg4--KEG] A very long variation, but every step of it is fairly obvious and I am astonished that Janowski didn't play it. In any case, after 40. Rc1?, the position was:
click for larger view40... Qxf5
Did Janowski really not see this?
41. c6
Nothing else looks any better. The position was now a likely draw, with White having some practical but no theoretical chances to win: 
click for larger viewThere are now a number of ways for Black to draw, most simply were: 41...Rc7 pr 41...Kg7. But here Eisenberg (possibly in time-trouble with the move-45 time control looming) seemed to lose his mind and blundered: 41... f6?
Now it should have been clear sailing for Janowski: 42. exf6 Qxf6
This left:
click for larger view43. Qxa7
This wins a pawn and was sufficient to win, but the crusher was 43. c7! But the text did not look so bad when Eisenberg responded: 43... Qg5?
Seemingly seeking the fastest way to lose. Eisenberg could have offered some resistance with 43...Qe5 or maybe 43...Qd8. This left a position that--if not for possible time-trouble, should not have been difficult for Janowski to wrap up: 
click for larger viewWhile time-trouble may explain why Janowski did not select the best move here, it can not explain how he continued (on multiple occasions) to miss winning lines between moves 46 and 51. I will discuss this upcoming comedy of errors in my next post on this game. |
|
Dec-23-21
| | KEG: Post VI
44. Qc5?
I probably should not give this a "?" since White still has a theoretically winning game after the exchange of Queens it offers. But White had far easier ways to win, specifically: (a) 46. Rc4, which freezes the Black Queen ; or, better still (b) 46. Rf1 Rf8 (not 46...Rxc6 47. Qf7+ and White wins with a long but simple combination) 45. RxR+ KxR 46. Qb8+ Kf7 47. Qc7+ Kg6 48. Qd6 and White wins after Black's checks run out. 44... QxQ+
45. RxQ Kf7
click for larger viewThis is a theoretically won position for White, but it's not easy, and in practice Janowski loused up the winning line. 46. Kf2 Ke7
47. Rh5
This move is not terrible in itself, but as will soon be seen it is part of a badly flawed plan by Janowski. 47... Rh8
48. Ke3
Better were 48. c7 (enabling White to cut off the Black King after exchanging the White c-pawn for the Black e-pawn); or 48. Rh6 (with c7 to follow soon); or 48. g4. But the text was nonetheless sufficient and does not explain Janowski's failure to win the ending. 48... Kd6
49. Rh6 Kxc6
Abandoning the h-pawn with 49...Rc8 50. Rxh7 Rxc6 51. h4 also loses. 50. Rxe6+ Kd7
This left the following crucial position in this Rook ending: 
click for larger view51. Rh6?
As <Straclonoor> demonstrated on this site four years ago, the right procedure is to cut off the Black King with 51. Re5 (51. Re4 also does the trick). As <Straclonoor> aptly points out, it is more important to cut off the Black King than to block Black's h-pawn. After the text, Black had a theoretical draw in hand. Janowski's only hope now was that the comparatively inexperienced Eisenberg's would mess up. 51... Ke7
52. Kf4 Kf7
53. Kg5 Kg7
click for larger viewBlack's King had now made it over to the protection of the Black h-pawn, and Janowski had no real winning chances. But Janowski (who must have been furious with himself by this point) insisted on playing on interminably, hoping for...whatever. 54. Ra6 Rb8
55. Ra7+ Kg8
56. g4
If he wanted to press on, Janowski had to get his King-side pawns rolling and hope for a blunder from Eisenberg: 
click for larger view56... Rc8
57. Kh5 Rb8
All Eisenberg had to do was to sit tight and watch Janowski bang his had against the wall. 58. Ra6
click for larger view |
|
Dec-23-21
| | KEG: Post VII
58... Rc8
This, though not theoretically a losing move, complicated Eisenberg's task from a practical standpoint. Simplest was 58...Kg7. 59. Kh6
click for larger view59... Rb8
60. Rd6
"There now follow a series of indifferent moves. As the result shows, Janowski seeks in vain decisive continuation whilst Black must simply wait." (Tournament Book) 60... Ra8
61. Kg5
Reducing the pressure. Since the g-pawn would have to advance for Janowski to have even practical winning chances, 61. g5 was "best." Theoretically, i.e., for a computer, it didn't matter. 61... Rb8
62. h4
Bringing up the reserves.
62... Ra8
63. h5 Rb8
64. Kf6 Ra8
65. Ke7
Setting up a "trap" into which Eisenberg "fell" head-first: 
click for larger view65... Rb8?
Incredible. With 65...Ra7+ or 65...Ra4 or 65...Ra5 Eisenberg could have held Janowski at bay. But after the text, it suddenly superficially seemed that Janowski had a simple win, the position now being: 
click for larger viewNow, can't Janowski just win by forcing the trade of Rooks: 66. Rd8+ RxR 67. KxR...Nope. This is one of those edge of the board King and pawn endings that cannot be won: e.g., 67...Kf7 68. g5 (the only try) Kg7 and the Black King cannot be driven out of the corner. So Janowski tried another--also useless--approach. 66. g5 Kg7
67. Rd8 Rb7+
Eisenberg could just have traded Rooks here and arrived at a drawn King and pawn ending (again exploiting the edge of the board motif). 68. Kd6 Rb5
click for larger viewPlaying on for White was now clearly futile, but Janowski insisted on continuing: 69. Rd7+ Kg8
70. Ke7 Re6+
The simple 70...Rxg5 was easiest.
71. Kf6 Re8
72. Rg7+ Kh8
73. Re7
click for larger view73... Rg8
Once again, and as <Chessical> pointed out on this site seven years ago, Eisenberg could now have drawn simply with 73...RxR 74. KxR Kg7 after which White would have no way to make progress. The text move allowed Janowski to plough on for a bit yet, though to no avail. 74. Rd7 Rf8+
75. Ke7 Kg8
And now Janowski chose to try his luck in an equally impossible to win King and Pawn ending: 76. Rd8 RxR
77. KxR
click for larger viewBelieve it or not, with Janowski at the helm as White, the game still had ten moves to go. |
|
Dec-23-21
| | KEG: Post VIII
77... Kf8
78. Kd7
click for larger view78... Kf7
This was more than sufficient to draw, but--as the Tournament Book pointed out--more elegant was 78...h6 79. g6 Kg7 80. Kg7 Kg8 81. Kf6 Kf8. 79. Kd6 Kf8
80. Ke6 Kg7
81. Ke7 Kg8
82. Kf6 Kf8
83. Ke6 Ke8
84. Kd6 Kf8
85. Ke5 Ke7
click for larger view86. g6
Setting a final trap:
click for larger view86... Kf8!
Not 86...hxg6??? 87. hxg6 and White wins!
86...h6 also draws, as did Eisenberg's actual move. 87. Kf6 Kg8!
Once again, 87...hxg6?? loses to 88. hxg6.
And once again, h6 draws, just as the text does. Drawn
Janowski finally abandoned his efforts to win this drawn ending, since Eisenberg was clearly not going to err with hxg6?? The game was replayed the following day with Eisenberg playing White. Janowski cleaned up in that game, winning in just 30 moves. But--under the scoring rules in effect at Monte Carlo, Eisenberg picked up a quarter of a point for drawing the first of the two games. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
