< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-09-05|| ||FHBradley: What if white plays 15 Qf7+? |
|Jul-11-05|| ||Whitehat1963: Excellent example of the Opening of the Day. Never resign, indeed. I suspect today's players wouldn't have let this go on nearly so long.|
|Jul-11-05|| ||Calli: <FHBradley> 15.Qf7+ Kc8 16.Nd1 Kb7 is an excellent attacking position for Black with e3 coming. However, your idea may work later. |
Pillsbury could have inserted the move before Nxd5. Seems to make all the difference having the Queen on f7 and able to access d5.
23.Qf7+ Kd8 and now 24.Nxd5! Bxd2+ 25.Kxd2 Qf2+ 26.Kd1 Qd4+ 27.Kc1 cxd5 28.Rd1 Qf4+ 29.Kb1 c6 and White is still in the game. What do you think?
|Oct-30-05|| ||Petrocephalon: <Calli> Can't Tarrasch just interpose with the rook in reply to 23.Qf7+?|
|Oct-30-05|| ||Calli: Sure, then 24.Rxd5+! cxd5 25.Qxe7+! Kxe7 26.Nxd5+ k-moves and 27.Nxb6|
|Oct-31-05|| ||Petrocephalon: <Calli> <Sure, then 24.Rxd5+! cxd5 25.Qxe7+! Kxe7 26.Nxd5+ k-moves and 27.Nxb6> I looked this up in Renfield's book of Tarrasch's games, and amzingly enough, Tarrasch evaluates this variation as winning... for Black!|
|Oct-31-05|| ||Calli: Hmm... Rook+6 pawns vs 2 bishops+3 pawns is win?
Opinions on this position anyone? Was Herr Docktor off his diagnosis or is <Calli> in need of a prescription himself?
|Nov-01-05|| ||tamar: <Sure, then 24.Rxd5+! cxd5 25.Qxe7+! Kxe7 26.Nxd5+ k-moves and 27.Nxb6...Tarrasch evaluates this variation as winning... for Black!>|
Does Tarrasch give any more moves? I think it would all depend if Black could deny White King position.
White has resources based on the K-side connected pawns if he can reach f4 with the King. For example,
24.Rxd5+ cxd5 25.Qxe7+ Kxe7 26.Nxd5+
Kf7 27 Nxb6 cxb6 28 g4 Bb7 29 Ke2 Bxh1
30 Kxe3 and with 31 Kf4 White can never lose.
|Nov-01-05|| ||Petrocephalon: <Does Tarrasch give any more moves?> Unfortunately no, not at any rate in Renfield's book. Just up to 26.Nxd5 Kd6 27.Nxb6. An example of the old I'm-Not-Going-to-Spoon-Feed-You,-You-Lazy-Sod School of annotation?|
For what it's worth, from what I can surmise, after 27..Bxb6 it is hard for white to keep the c-pawn, and hard for white to make any progress, but I do not see black winning.
I see this game is in GM Keene's Favorite Games collection -- perhaps he'll weigh in if we're lucky.
|Nov-01-05|| ||Calli: After 27 Nxb6 cxb6, the sly Mr Fritz suggests 28.Kd1! with the idea if Black goes after the f pawn with the king then Re1 pins the Bishop. My feeling is that White may win this, if anybody does.|
I dug up my old Reinfeld book and Petro is correct. Not that I didn't trust him! So either Reinfeld misquoted Dr T or Tarrasch really blew it.
Anyone know where Tarrasch annotated this game?
|Nov-01-05|| ||Petrocephalon: Thanks for looking into this fellas.
<Calli> Yes, from my own feeble wood shuffling I deduced 27.Nxb6 cxb6 28.Kd1, while 27..Bxb6 seemed a little more promising. But, as <tamar> demonstrates, at minimum White can safely drop the exchange after playing g4...
I too suspect a misquotation. I hope somebody can track down Tarrasch's original annotation, or find some more modern analysis.
|Nov-01-05|| ||psmith: From Amazon.com I see that Tarrasch wrote the tournament book. So probably Reinfeld is drawing from annotations there.|
The book is out of print, although it can be bought used through Amazon for $45.00. I'm not springing for that to answer this question.
|Nov-01-05|| ||psmith: A little more googling shows that the game is also annotated in Tarrasch's Die Moderne Schachpartie.|
|Nov-01-05|| ||tamar: <Anyone know where Tarrasch annotated this game?>|
Journal" Vol 1 written from his Berlin home :)
The only danger I see for White is if he allows Black a passed pawn, for example in the ...Kf7 line
23 Qf7 Re7 24 Rxd5 cxd5 25 25.Qxe7+ Kxe7 26.Nxd5+ Kf7 27 Nxb6 cxb6 28 g4 Bc1 29 b3 Bxa3 where Black has a good prospect of getting a passed "a" pawn, which is hard for the Rook and King to stop.
So perhaps 28 Kd1 would be better here too.
|Nov-02-05|| ||Calli: <Tarrasch's Die Moderne Schachpartie> |
We finally got 'Dreihundert Schachpartien' in English. Maybe someone will undertake that one too.
|Nov-03-05|| ||Benzol: Game Collection: Tarrasch's Dreihundert Schachpartien <Honza> put this together but the English version by Hays has differences.|
|May-08-06|| ||beatgiant: <Calli>
Getting back to your original question,
<23.Qf7+ Kd8 and now 24.Nxd5! Bxd2+ 25.Kxd2 Qf2+ 26.Kd1 Qd4+ 27.Kc1 cxd5 28.Rd1 Qf4+ 29.Kb1 c6 and White is still in the game. What do you think?>
After 28. Rd1 in the above, Black has other tries too, like 28...Qe3+ 29. Kb1 Bc4 30. Qxh7 Qe2 etc. Black has strong activity and will probably be able to start picking off the kingside pawns in the near future.
|Jun-16-06|| ||popski: Indeed very interesting game. Could be one of those games played by Karpov as black.|
|Jun-16-06|| ||RookFile: One thing about Pillsbury: his games were never boring.|
|Jun-16-06|| ||Bartleby: He always was a large-scale tactical and strategic operator, and was responsible for paving much of the modern treatment of the Queen's Gambit in the 20th century, followed by Rubinstein.|
|Jun-18-13|| ||Karpova: <Petrocephalon: <Calli> <Sure, then 24.Rxd5+! cxd5 25.Qxe7+! Kxe7 26.Nxd5+ k-moves and 27.Nxb6> I looked this up in Renfield's book of Tarrasch's games, and amzingly enough, Tarrasch evaluates this variation as winning... for Black!>|
Dr. Tarrasch's analysis is given on page 52 of the 1934 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'. Dr. Tarrasch gives this line but merely says that Black had the advantage ('bleibt Schw. ebenfalls im Vorteil), not that Black was winning. He also suggests 23...Kd8 to avoid the queen exchange.
|Jun-18-13|| ||thomastonk: Tarrasch published his comments 1903 in "Berliner Lokalanzeiger", as usual one could say. These comments were reprinted in "Deutsche Schachzeitung" in the same year on pages 276-279. Before, the editors had already published the game with their own comments on pages 170-172.|
It is interesting to note that the comments from WSZ 1934 are not complete. For example, Tarrasch wrote 18 lines about 5.exf5, but these are missing in the WSZ. Moreover, some comments were slightly changed, too, caused by translation, I would say. ;-)
|Jun-18-13|| ||andrewjsacks: Tarrasch playing the Schliemann?! Almost as hard for me to imagine as Karpov playing the King's Gambit.|
|Aug-30-15|| ||nuclear868: Isn`t there a 3-times repetition of the same position on moves 48, 50, 52?|
|Aug-30-15|| ||thomastonk: <nuclear> Tarrasch wrote that the repetitons where made because of time trouble. I assume that another draw by repetition rule was in use. Kemeny reportet in his tournament book that the tournament was opened on 9 February with the discussion of rules and regulations. He mentioned several things, but no draw by repetition rule.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·