|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-26-16 | | Joker2048: Very nice mate by tarrasch.
He absolutely know what he's doing.
Nicely done. |
|
| Jul-18-18 | | Atking: It's hard to imagine Paul Morphy missing 28...Qg3+ 29.Kd2 Qf2+ then mate |
|
| Jul-19-18 | | RookFile: Black had an opportunity in the early opening to play ...dxc4. I would have played it. For example, 6....dxc4 instead of 6....Bd6. What is the point? This: Black reaches an improved version of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. In the normal QGA, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 White will recapture on c4 with a single bishop move. For example, 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4. But in this game, Nimzo played Bd3 first. So, by virtue of playing dxc4 a little later than normal, black would actually be a tempo up on the usual QGA lines. What's interesting is that the QGA is a neutralizing defense. That is black is not attacking, he's set out to equalize. So, the extra tempo doesn't mean black attacks now. Only, the defense would be a little easier. |
|
Jul-19-18
 | | WorstPlayerEver: 19. g3= |
|
| Jul-19-18 | | Atking: 19.g3 !? It's remember me Fischer last approach of Marshall defense. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd Nxd5 10.Nxe5 NxN 11.RxN c6 12.g3!?
Is 19.Rfe1 for 20.Nf1 refuted? 19...Bxh2+ 20.KxB Qh4+ 21.Kg1 Bxg2 22.KxB Qg4+ 23.Kf1 now 23...Rd5? is going nowhere 24.Qe4. Do I miss something? |
|
Jul-19-18
 | | keypusher: <Sneaky: <Conrad93: Is there a point to 12. Nh4?> flip back and read my post from 2003. It's the star move of the game IMO.> Seriously, sneaky? In <this> game, you think 12.Nh4 is the star move? Even in 1914, it was hardly original. In Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894, the last game of the match, Lasker does the same thing on the other side, 23.Na4 b6 24.Nc3. Isidor Gunsberg was decidedly unimpressed. 
click for larger viewOf 23.Na4, Gunsberg writes: <Then came a period where neither player knew what to do, therefore Lasker, probably thinking that a whale has before now been caught with a sprat, amused himself by playing Kt-R4.> After 23....b6, he sneers, <This is a triumph for the modern school, because it weakened the pawns. > |
|
Aug-05-18
 | | mifralu: Black resigned after < 31. ..Re8+. > Notes from Deutsches Wochenschach: < 32. Kd7 Bb5# > https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=... |
|
Aug-05-18
 | | Telemus: I have two books which present the game with Tarrasch's comments from the tournament book, and in both cases 32.♔d2 ♗b5# belong to the gamescore. 1. Kamm's Tarrasch biography.
2. Skjoldager/Nielsen's Nimzowitsch book.
I have a copy of the tb, too, but cannot find it right now. Damn. |
|
Aug-05-18
| | Telemus: The game appeared without the moves 32.♔d2 ♗b5# in "Neue Hamburger Zeitung" already on 9 May 1914. |
|
| Jun-16-19 | | sneaky pete: Dr. med. S. Tarrasch on page 57 of the tournament book: 32.Ke6-d7
oder Kf6 D#
32..... Lf1-b5#
Diese Partie hat die zweite Schönheitspreis erhalten, während der erste der Partie Capablanca-Bernstein zugesprochen wurde. Ich gestatte mir darüber in diesem Buche kein Wort der Kritik, sondern begnüge mich damit, die Namen der Preisrichter der Mit- und Nachwelt preiszugeben: es waren die Herren Burn, Pollner und Snosko-Borowski. Translation of the last part: the good doctor was not amused about missing the first brilliancy prize. |
|
| Sep-14-19 | | alshatranji: Perhaps too well known to be a puzzle. |
|
Sep-14-19
 | | agb2002: Level 3.5: 29... ?
Bird vs Lasker, 1890
click for larger view |
|
Sep-14-19
 | | patzer2: White's decisive error was 19. exd4?, allowing the game move 19...Bxh2+ -+ (-5.44 @ 37 ply, Stockfish 10) or Kasparov's suggestion 19...Bxg2! -+ (-7.52 @ 37 ply, Stockfish 10). Instead, 19. Rfe1 ⩱ (-0.69 @ 33 ply, Stockfish 10) or 19. g3 ⩱ (-0.52 @ 33 ply, Stockfish 10) would have kept White in the game.. In the opening, instead of 4. e3 =, our Opening Explorer indicates White has had significantly better results with 4. cxd5 ⩲. A couple of examples of strong play with 4. cxd5 ⩲ are White's wins in Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984 and Ding Liren vs R Mamedov, 2018. |
|
Sep-14-19
| | WorstPlayerEver: Famous game, I just can dream it:
19... Bxg2 20. Kxg2 Qg5+ 21. Kh1 Qf4 22. Nf3 Qxf3+ 23. Kg1 cxd4 24. Qc6 Bxh2+ 25. Kxh2 Rd5 26. Qxd5 Qxd5 |
|
| Sep-14-19 | | SaitamaSeason2: Well, it's still one of the two games that Tarrasch won against Nimzo, their lifetime encounter match was Nimzo 5 and Tarrasch 2 |
|
| Sep-14-19 | | spazzky: 28...Qxe4+ was easy mate in 4:
29.Kf2 Qg2+ 30.Ke3 Qg3+ 31.Kd2 Qf2+ 32.Kd1 Qe2# |
|
| Sep-14-19 | | Damenlaeuferbauer: Together with G. Rotlevi - A. Rubinstein, Lodz 1907 and L. Aronian - V. Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2013, this immortal encounter between A. Nimzowitsch and S. Tarrasch from St. Petersburg 1914 is one of the three eternal Queen's Gambit Declined-Tarrasch-Semi Slav-structural games from the black side in the history of chess: 19.-,Bxh2+! 20.Kxh2,Dh4+ 21.Kg1,Bxg2! 22.f3 (22.Kxg2,Qg4+ 23.Kh1,Rd5 24.Qxc5,Qh5+ 25.Kg2,Qg5+ 26.Kh1,Rxc5 27.dxc5,Qxd2 -+) 22.-,Rfe8 23.Ne4,Qh1+ 24.Kf2,Bxf1 25.d5,f5 26.Qc3,Qg2+ 27.Ke3,Rxe4+! 28.fxe4,Qg3+! 29.Kd2,Qf2+ 30.Kd1,Qe2# As a German citizen, I have to concede, that Dr Siegbert Tarrasch was really the "Praeceptor Germaniae"! |
|
| Sep-14-19 | | Chesgambit: see it Nxd2 more harder |
|
| Sep-14-19 | | SpamIAm: <spazzky>, 28...Qg3+ (as in the notes), was even faster, eg 29.Kd2 Qf2+ 30.Kd1 Qe2#. |
|
Sep-14-19
 | | perfidious: Reinfeld pointed out the speedier finish in his collection of Tarrasch's best games, long before. |
|
Sep-14-19
 | | gezafan: Possibly Tarrasch saw the faster win but went for the more artistic one. |
|
Dec-06-19
 | | Zephyr10: <gezafan: Possibly Tarrasch saw the faster win but went for the more artistic one.> Went for the more embarrassing one is more like it. Tarrasch hated Nimzo with good reason and here is the come-uppance. |
|
Dec-06-19
 | | MissScarlett: What good reason? Did Nimzo goose his wife? |
|
| Dec-06-19 | | Carrots and Pizza: 18.d4 and Black suddenly takes a flamethrower to whites king side. Reminds me of Byrn vs Fischer |
|
| Jun-16-20 | | C. Auguste Dupin: Despite his alleged arrogance, it was Tarrasch who, in most of his games assessed the positions in a clear, unbiased, objective way. On the contrary, Nimzowitsch, famed for his creativity and original ideas, played in a rather "dogmatic" way, always assuming his ideas to be correct and applying his concepts even in positions where they can't be applied. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 19...Bxh2+