< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Feb-23-05|| ||davidleetw: i dont think black is going to lose if he move 23 Kb8 or Kb7. this is my logic, 23 Kb7, 24 Bd5+ Kc8 25 Ra8+ Kd7, most will be a draw, please correct me if i'm wrong. if 23 Kb8, 24 Ra4 as you all said then black should play 25 Be8, so either white play Rfa1 or Bd5 black will play Bxb5. please correct me |
|Feb-23-05|| ||Nakki88: Wasn't this game sunday puzzle? |
|Feb-23-05|| ||aw1988: <tpstar> Or a Torre affair. |
|Feb-23-05|| ||Marco65: <davidleetw> 23...Kb7 24.Bd5+ Kc8 loses to 25.Bc6 and mate the next move. For 23...Kb8 look at cruzian's previous post. It took 3 pages of analysis in a book to prove White is winning there as well. I'm not at the level to question that! |
|Feb-23-05|| ||kevin86: "Checkered past"-to me describle a rogue-someone who isnt quite evil,but tends to bendthe rules a bit. It fits here as a pun,because Mr. Banks was a checkers champ. |
|Feb-23-05|| ||hypermodern: Black's plan eludes me after ...12 exd4 but it looked lost since Ne4 |
|Feb-23-05|| ||MindlessOne: <hypermodern> Im having a hardtime understanding your post, how does any knight get to e4? Anyway, 12...exd4 doesnt seem that realistic to me either, i am not well versed in this opening, but whites black bishop was givin too much influence over the board after bishop captures d4. Is it possible that black considered the d4-d5 pawn advance more dangerous than freeing of the bishop? |
|Feb-23-05|| ||patzer2: I'm adding 22. Qxf4!! to my Queen sacrifice collection. This move is absolutely stunning. It almost defies logic, and even had my computer program initially convinced that White was throwing away his win (for at best a draw). After running for a while, however, Fritz 8 verified the winning line pointed out by <Tartalacreme>. |
Technically, I suppose the move represents a deflection sacrifice intended to prepare a minor piece mating attack against the weak King position. However, for now I'm content just to admire the brilliance and beauty of the sacrifice.
As a practical matter, I think the move
22. g3! is a good OTB winning alternative, with fewer complications than Torre's spectacular Queen sacrifice:
22.g3! Nh5 (22...d5 23.exd5 Bd6 24.f3 Qg5 25.Kh1 Nh5 26.f4 Qf5 27.Qf3 Qh3 28.Ra7 Re8 29.Rfa1 Bxc2 30.Bf1 Nxg3+ 31.Qxg3 Qxg3 32.hxg3 h5 33.Bh3+ f5 34.Nc4 Kd7 35.Nxb6+ Ke7 36.Re1+ Kf7 37.Rxe8 Rxe8 38.Nc4 Kg8 39.Nxd6 cxd6 40.Rxg7+ Kf8 41.b6 ) 23.Bd5 Kd7 (23...f5?? 24.Bc6) 24.Bc6+ Ke6 25.f3 Qg5 26.Qd3 Bd8 (26...f5?? 27.Qd5#) 27.f4 Nxf4 (27...Qg4 28.Nc4 Nxg3 (28...Re8 29.Nxd6 cxd6 30.Ra7 f5 (30...Bc7 31.Rxc7 Nxf4 32.Qd5+ Nxd5 33.Bxd5#) 31.Bd5#) 29.hxg3 Ke7 30.Nxd6 cxd6 31.Ra7+) 28.Rxf4 Ke7 29.Nf3 Qc5+ 30.Bd4 Qb4 31.Qe2
|Feb-23-05|| ||patzer2: Another interesting deflection move alternative was 20. h3!:|
20.h3! Qh5 a) 20...Qg5 21.Qxg5 fxg5 (21...Nxg5 22.f4 Nxe4 (22...Nf7 23.f5 Bh5 24.g4; 22...Ne6 23.f5) 23.Nxe4 d5 24.Nf2) 22.Bc4 Kd7 23.Bxe6+ Kxe6 24.Bxg7; b) 20...Qh4 21.axb6 axb6 22.Bc4 Kd7 23.Bd5 Rb8 24.f4 Bf7 25.Ra7 Qh6 26.Bb4 Rhc8 27.Qc3 Qh4 28.Qc6+ Kd8 29.Qc4 Nxf4 30.Rxf4 Qxf4 31.Bxf7 Bf8 32.Nf3 f5 33.Nd4 Qe3+ 34.Kf1 Qf4+ 35.Ke2 Qxe4+ 36.Kd1 Kd7 37.Bd5 Qe5 38.Bd2 f4 (38...Ke7 39.Bg5+ Ke8 40.Qc6#) 39.Be6+ Ke7 40.Rxc7+ Kf6 41.Rf7+ Kg6 42.Qd3+ Kh5 (42...Kh6 43.Nf5+ Kg6 44.Ne7+ Kh6 45.Ng8+ Kg5 46.Qg3+ Kh5 47.Qg4#) ; 21.axb6 axb6 22.Bc4 Kd7 23.Bd5 Rb8 24.Ra7 Bf7 25.Nc4 (25.Bc6+ Kc8 26.Rfa1 Be8 27.Bd5 Nc5 28.Ra8 Nd7 29.Bd4 Bf7 30.Bxf7 Qxf7 31.Qa3 Qh5 32.Qa6+ Kd8 33.Bxb6 cxb6 34.Qb7) 25...Ke8 26.f4 Rc8 27.Bb4 Nc5 28.Bxc5 dxc5 29.Rfa1 Kf8 (29...Bxd5 30.exd5 Qxd5 31.Nxb6) 30.Ra8 Rd8 31.Rxd8+ Bxd8 32.Ra8 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Ke8 34.f5 Rg8 (34...Qxc2?? 35.Qg3! Kd7 (35...g6 36.Qxc7 Bxd5 37.Rxd8#) 36.Ne5+ fxe5 37.Qxe5 Bxd5 (37...Bf6 38.Bc6#) 38.Qxd5+ Ke7 39.Qe6+ Kf8 40.Rxd8#) 35.Ra7 Ke7 36.Qf4 Bxd5 37.Rxc7+ Bxc7 38.Qxc7+ Kf8 39.Qd8+ Kf7 40.Nd6#
|Feb-23-05|| ||aw1988: Good god! patzer2's analysis makes this look like a Sunday puzzle. |
|Feb-23-05|| ||soberknight: Another opening improvement for black would have been 8...e5. Unless Black thought about ...d5, there was no reason not to push the pawn two squares and leave it there for all eternity. |
|Feb-23-05|| ||catlover: <Willem Wallekers: Isn't there something peculiar about this name Torre-Repetto? Does any Spanish speaking kibitzer know about this?>|
In Spanish, one has two last names -- the last name of one's father and the last name of one's mother. So Torre was undoubtedly his father's last name, and Repetto was his mother's maiden name.
|Feb-23-05|| ||nfazli: why 28 g3? |
|Feb-26-05|| ||Seraphina: Catlover, I had a friend named Mendez-Mendez and he explained the same as you do. SO I asked him, what if he met someone also named Mendez-Mendez, would the child of that union be called Mendez-Mendez-Mendez Mendez, or would it all be shortened to plain Mendez. He couldn't answer that one. But it still puzzles me to this day, 20 years after. |
|Apr-25-05|| ||Angelo Mattiello: Quite impressive queen sac... :) Regarding the "weird last name" post, it does seem weird. Yet, in spanish-speaking countries (like Mexico, for instance) you have two last names: your father's last name and your mother's maiden name. By the way, Torre's last name means "Rook" in spanish. Odd coincidence, I guess...|
|Apr-25-05|| ||Angelo Mattiello: I'll try to answer your question, Seraphina. In spanish-speaking countries you get two last names, like this: [Name] [Father's last name] [Mother's maiden name].
So, let's say your friend's father was called Juan Méndez García and his mother was called María Méndez Flores (it's just an example :). Then your friend would be called Juan Méndez Méndez ('cause he gets his father's last name and also his mother's maiden name). If he had a son with Guadalupe Rosas Martínez, then his son would be called Juan Méndez Rosas (he two would get his father's last name and his mother's maiden name). But if he had a son with Guadalupe Méndez Rosas, then the child would be called Juan Méndez Méndez. You only get two last names and they are separated.
Hope I solved your doubt (instead of making it bigger :S)|
|Apr-25-05|| ||offramp: I think his name was Torre-Torre and the Repetto bit is just the Spanish for 'ditto'.|
|Jan-01-06|| ||syracrophy: <nfazli> The move 28.g3! has an important purpose: if white plays 28.Rfa1 immediately, it would be a mistake, because black has the defensive move 28...d5! and the queen can now avoid the mate: 29.Ra8+ Qb8 winning for Black. That's the cause of the move 28.g3! and the queen is desviated from the b8-h2 diagonal|
|Oct-09-07|| ||Peligroso Patzer: With regard to 22 ♕xf4:
“Capablanca, Smyslov or Karpov would have almost certainly played 22. ♕g3, while Alekhine, Bronstein or Tal might well have chosen the sacrifice. Posterity can only be grateful to Torre that by trusting his intuition he left us such a fascinating position.”
– Gabriel Velasco, “The Life and Games of Carlos Torre”, translated by Taylor Kingston, Russell Enterprises, Inc., ©2000, page 72.
Velasco (at pp. 69-72) thoroughly analyzes the position after 22. “♕xf4!!?” [Velasco’s annotation] and concludes that the sacrifice is very likely sound.
|Feb-17-08|| ||mindkontrolle: SPLENDID TORRE|
|Aug-27-08|| ||Duque Roquero: Marvelous! What a queen sac.|
|Apr-12-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 31. Bxb6+ Ka8 32 Ra8#|
|Jun-15-09|| ||WhiteRook48: want some interest?|
|Aug-12-10|| ||sevenseaman: A thematically solid, beautiful game. Venturing his Q out early Black gained a big prize but got himself into a positional traffic jam he failed to pierce through.|
|Oct-26-12|| ||ForeverYoung: I played through this game yesterday. Black begged for that queen sac with the queenside that looked like swiss cheese! Nevertheless, very beautiful to see.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·