Dec-30-04 | | MidnightDuffer: Maroczy let's the a file pawn go for nothing around move # 29; otherwise without this oversight; I wonder what some of the more expert analysts would think of Maroczy's chances on this would have been; a stronger defence against the advancing pawns on the Queenside was needed. Black's c5 move in either the Bogo or Nimzo - Indian is one slick exciting move. |
|
Dec-31-04 | | hintza: Instead of recapturing with the b-pawn on move 12, 12...dxc6 makes black's Q-side easier to defend, e.g. 13.a3 Qd6 14.Qe1 Ba5 15.Rd1 Qe7 with an equal game. |
|
Aug-08-06 | | prinsallan: 35 Qd5 - Very cool finish by the master.
The continuation goes:
35... exd5
36. Rxe7+ Kg8
37. cxd5 and the situation is hopeless.
The pawns on A+B are simply too strong with the Rook on e1 ready to storm e6, forcing a rooktrade or mate. |
|
Sep-26-18
 | | MissScarlett: Loss on time. |
|
Sep-26-18 | | zanzibar: Source please. |
|
Sep-26-18
 | | MissScarlett: <TheGofer> will have the tournament book reference with you shortly. |
|
Sep-26-18 | | zanzibar: <Missy> How hard is it to add <"According to the TB ..."> or do you want to be known as a royal IA? . |
|
Sep-27-18
 | | keypusher: I have the Dover reprint of <The Book of the London International Chess Congress 1922>. It says "Resigns" after 35.Q-Q5. Maroczy was the annotator. Apparently there was a "handsome souvenir" of the tournament produced called <Chess Pie>. Maybe that provides different information. |
|
Sep-27-18
 | | MissScarlett: There's a subtle implication here - either Maroczy is lying, or <MissScarlett> is lying. |
|
Sep-27-18
 | | keypusher: <MissScarlett: There's a subtle implication here - either Maroczy is lying, or <MissScarlett> is lying.> I don't mean to imply that. It's possible that <MissScarlett> is misremembering rather than being deliberately untruthful -- maybe there is a newspaper article the day after the game saying Maroczy lost on time, and you forgot what source you were relying on. It's possible that Maroczy submitted his annotations, didn't mention the loss on time and the publisher stuck in "Resigned" at the end. It's possible that you've looked at <Chess Pie> and it says something different. The Dover reprint is of a printing that took place in 1924, two years after the event -- perhaps there was an earlier printing that said Maroczy lost on time. Or, it's possible that either <MissScarlett> or Maroczy is lying. |
|
Sep-27-18 | | Z truth: royal IA = royal Issuing Authority.
Seemingly conforming with the subtle umbrage on display at being questioned. Anyways, thanks for all the info (where applicable). And yes, the <Chess Pie> material I've seen (what year??) is fulsomely handsome, but leads me to doubt it relevant to the issue at hand. . |
|
Sep-27-18 | | SChesshevsky: Wondering if anything related to the game mentioned that Maroczy felt he had to win this one? I'm surprised he didn't go for the queen exchange at 27. Re3. Figuring he didn't feel he was better or maybe even equal then and the defense might've been easier with queens off. |
|
Sep-27-18 | | zanzibar: Fresh baked pies!
London (1922) (kibitz #10) |
|
Jun-01-22 | | tbontb: Rubinstein plays a "Maroczy" bind against Maroczy. White is obviously pressing before 30....Qe7 loses the a5 pawn. The obvious defence by 30....Qb6 is probably best met by 31.Rxe6 Qxb3 32.Qe2 Qxa4 33.Rdxd6, switching to pressure against the Black K, still with advantage to White. At the end, if 35....Re8 simply 36.Qc6 followed by advancing the a-pawn wins. |
|