| Jan-06-05 | | azaris: Pretty lackluster play from Spielmann.
8. h4?! is an overly optimistic jab that amounts to nothing more than a loss of tempo. Instead White should castle to safety first. After the exchanges in the center, White's position looks like swiss cheese. Trading off the queens doesn't help but White must have been afraid of getting mated with his king still stuck in the center. Instead of 14. O-O he could have tried 14. ♘d1 ♖b6 but it looks awfully passive. After the knight moves the bishop on g7 becomes deadly. White's last little trick was 16. ♖ad1, when 16...♗xf1? 17. ♘e7+ ♔f8 18. ♘xg6 hxg6 19. ♖xd8+ ♔e7 20. ♖d7+ ♔e6 21. ♔xf1 would give an even game. 17. ♖f2 drops the knight but it's a lost game after 17. ♖fe1 anyway. Who was it that said: "Anyone can lose a miniature with the black pieces, but to lose a miniature with the white pieces takes special talent"? |
|
| Jan-06-05 | | maoam: <azaris>
I suspect that's a quote from John Nunn, but I'm not at all sure. |
|
| Jan-06-05 | | euripides: At the end if 19 Nc3 then 19...Bxc3 20 Rxd6 Rb1+ 21 Kh2 Be5+. |
|
| Jan-06-05 | | azaris: Ah, here it is:
<"If you want to lose a miniature, then here are three helpful tips. First of all, it is a big help if you are Black. losing in under 20 moves requires a special talent which few possess. Secondly, choose a provocative opening, for example an opening in which you try to realise strategic ambitions, but at the cost of backward development and delayed castling. Thirdly, if something goes slightly wrong, don't reconcile yourself to defending a bad position - seek a tactical solution instead! Don't worry about the fact that tactics are bound to favour the better developed side; just go ahead anyway. Follow this advice and at least you will get home early." -- John Nunn> |
|
| Jan-06-05 | | ughaibu: Nunn vs Seewald Piet, 1985 |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | PizzatheHut: <ughaibu> That made me laugh out loud. Nice post. |
|
| Jan-23-06 | | Knight13: Is Black's sacrifice of a pawn really that good or is it a mistake? |
|
| Feb-23-10 | | YoungEd: I don't know the theory of the Cozio defense to the Ruy, so forgive a naive question: is 5. d4 an error? It just seems to me that it makes Black's intended ...♗g7 stronger. I think I would be tempted to try 5. O-O or 5. d3 instead. Anyone? |
|
| Apr-13-17 | | zanzibar: <In the appended game recently played at Munich, Tartakower scores
a noteworthy success by a revised old defence to the Ruy Lopez. Mr. Isidor Gunsberg, commenting on the play, says:— "The saying that there is nothing new under the sun is expressive
of an untruth in its most insidious form. My advice to inventive and
analytical players is not to allow the past to impertinently obtrude itself
by claiming every move as its own. The point which matters is whether
a player can by fresh analytical research carry to a successful issue a
defence which in the past has been abandoned as unsuccessful. If he can
do that, he deserves all the credit, as for a new invention. He conquers
with a move with which his predecessors have failed."> CW v3 (1909) p116
(Black's moves 8,11,17 are all noted !) |
|
Jun-01-22
 | | Honza Cervenka: <YoungEd: I don't know the theory of the Cozio defense to the Ruy, so forgive a naive question: is 5. d4 an error? It just seems to me that it makes Black's intended ...♗g7 stronger. I think I would be tempted to try 5. O-O or 5. d3 instead. Anyone?> 5.d4 is fine but instead of 6.Nxd4 it is much more challenging for black to play 6.Nd5. What I really don't understand is why Spielmann after playing dubious 8.h4 did not continue with 9.h5, which would be not only consistent but also relatively better than the game continuation. |
|
Jan-06-24
 | | GrahamClayton: 17...Kf8 is the key move, eliminating e8 as a safe square for Spielmann's bishop and the threat of Ne7+. |
|
Kibitzing
