Mar-12-08
 | | keypusher: An astounding final combination by Maroczy...it looks good to me, but I haven't got a machine. |
|
Mar-13-08
| | keypusher: <Calli> Pretty adventurous Black opening for 1895, too. Reminds me of this game, which Black had to win to finish among the prizewinners. G Marco vs Von Bardeleben, 1895
Do you know what the tiebreak rules were? If Owen and Maroczy drew, would they have just played another game? |
|
| Mar-13-08 | | Calli: < tiebreak rules>
No idea. In fact, this is the only game from the minor tournament that I have ever seen. |
|
| Aug-02-09 | | myschkin: . . .
here (see link*) the move is given
27... Nxe4?!
click for larger view"Black effects the decisive combination out of order. Because of counter combination which will be possible in the 30th move Black is forced to long struggle. The right order of moves here is: 27… Nxg3! [as shown in the database game] 28.Kxg3. – More unpleasant is 28.Rxf8+ Rxf8 29.Kxg3 Nxe4+. – Rxf1 29.Qxf1 Nxe4+ and later Rf8 with quick winning." Geza Maroczy wrote a book in 1942: „I began in this way…” There he presented this game without analyzing, only he analyzed his bad 27th move, but he reminisced about Owen: „Rev. John Owen fell for my play at once, and he looked for the play with me after the tournament as well. We had played two match-games, I hadn’t have more time. Both of games were in completely irregular outcome, and in those I succeded surpass him…. John Owen declared that since a match with Paul Morphy nobody did defeat him such a manner as Maróczy have done it! It was such apprecation which I could have understand properly after studying of Morphy’s games.” * http://blog.chess.com/cgs/kill-one-... ... as I understand the DB game isn't the real deal, or am I wrong? |
|
Apr-18-10
| | keypusher: <myschkin> Schallop's tournament book (p. 319) also gives 27...Nxe4, though without pointing out that it is a mistake. So it appears that you are right. http://books.google.com/books?id=HS... |
|
Apr-19-10
| | keypusher: One more point: in the game continuation, instead of 30...Rxa1, Black has the wondrous 30...Rf4!! (Shredder) keeping a large advantage. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | zb2cr: Maroczy threw away the win with the deep-looking 38. ... Rd2. If White had played 39. Qb7, Black would not have been able to play ... Kh5--and his mate threat vanishes and he must fight to hold the draw. But instead, White succumbed to temptation by snatching the Pawn ... and all was well for Black again. On such small things do mighty wins sometimes hang ... |
|
Oct-17-14
 | | sachistu: <Calli> This was one of the playoff games as Maroczy and Owen tied during the regular (Section 3) tournament. BCM, 1895 gives the crosstable, and Schallopp's tournament book gives the game (albeit he only lists it as part of the minor (Hauptturnier) tournament). It must be from their playoff match as they drew in the Section 3 tournament (per BCM crosstable). I have not been able to find out how many games they played, but I have 3, with Maroczy winning all three. However, Rod Edwards (EDO) site indicates only 2 were played with the players splitting wins. All references I have found indicate Maroczy won the playoff match. Schallopp's book also gives some other games from the Hauptturnier. I don't have Maroczy's book (I Began This Way) cited by <myschkin> and do not see it offered...too bad. Apparently, the link he posted at the bottom of his post has been removed at chess.com. |
|
Oct-17-14
| | sachistu: <Calli> I want to correct one thing in my previous post. I mis-read Edwards' site about the match. He indicates only 1 game was played (which Maroczy won) so the game above must be that game. Di Felice and BCM just say Maroczy won the playoff. It may be the two other games I have are from the (a different) match that <myschkin> mentions. Without the book, I can't be sure unless I find them cited elsewhere. |
|
Apr-01-18
 | | MissScarlett: <He indicates only 1 game was played (which Maroczy won) so the game above must be that game.> Yes, and I'm dating it to August 23rd on the strength of that day's <Morning Post>, which reported that the games from the qualifying section were completed the day before, except for the playoff between Owen and Maroczy. As the final between the section winners was to begin the same day, this was necessarily played first. All newspaper sightings of this game agree that <27...Nxe4 28.Qxe4 Nxg3 29.Kxg3> was played. One appears with notes by Gunsberg, suggesting this score may have originally appeared in <The Field>. Maroczy was right that 27...Nxg3 was superior, because of <28.Kxg3 Rxf1 29.Qxf1 Nxe4+>, but the translation quoted above, suggests he was still unaware, decades later, that 30...Rf4, as mentioned by <keypusher>, would also have won handily. |
|
| Mar-12-19 | | Retireborn: In "Hundert Schachpartien" Maroczy dates this game as 22 August. For what it's worth, he is conscientous about dating all the games in the book. He calls it the "Siegergruppe" and mentions that this game won it for him. He gives results; Maroczy +2.5, Atkins and Loman +1.5, W.Cohn +0.5. I am uncertain as to what these mean. He gives 27...Nxg3! ("an elegant turn") as being played. I assume his memory was at fault there. He doesn't mention 30...Rf4, just gives 30...Rxa1 a ! without comment. |
|
| Mar-17-19 | | Nosnibor: <Retireborn> The win against Owen was a play off game to qualify Maroczy to play for the final section.This he won with Atkins taking the Open British master title being the sole British player in the top group. The final section results are :-
Maroczy x d 1 1 2.5
Atkins d x 0 1 1.5
Loman 0 1 x d 1.5
W Cohn x x 1 d 0.5 |
|
| Mar-17-19 | | Nosnibor: <Retireborn > There is a mistake regarding Cohn .His score should read as 00dx 1.5 points. |
|
| Mar-17-19 | | Retireborn: <Nosnibor> Many thanks, that clears it up for me. I'm on game 40 of "Hundert Schachpartien", I think. Enjoying it, although it's perhaps a pity that his comments and variations aren't more extensive. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 27...Nxg3
