< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Mar-22-08|| ||JG27Pyth: <UdayanOwen: Okay, I just noticed the game was played in 1886.... People were pretty pissweak then, so that explains why this game was so bad.> |
Harrumph... you mean pissweak like Paul Morphy pissweak, or you mean just utterly dreadful like say Emanuel Lasker? ;)
I honestly think you could take either of those guys and teleport them into a tournament today and they'd beat the average IM without looking at a page of 20th century theory. Give them a year or two of study and they'd be playing in the top group at Linares.
I agree this game is not GOTD material. Wonder what led CG to offer it. You could _almost_ justify it on Valentine's Day perhaps, because of the Love name.
Why the heck didn't he at least try 18...Nxf6
You can't blame this game on Romantic Era chess... Some things are timeless -- Love and patzers come to mind!
|Mar-22-08|| ||Jimfromprovidence: So it looks like the new main line should be 11..Qxg5 12 Bxg5 Bxd1 13 Raxd1 Bxc3 14 bxc3 dxe5 15 dxe5 Re8, and black has a nice advantage. |
click for larger view
|Mar-22-08|| ||UdayanOwen: <Ziggurat:> Hi, yeah I was flipping around here quickly and hadn't read those previous posts about 11...Qxg5... Pretty stupid of me anyway to miss this, since it is a standard trick with these types of tactics...|
<JG27Pyth: Harrumph... you mean pissweak like Paul Morphy pissweak, or you mean just utterly dreadful like say Emanuel Lasker? ;)>
No, I didn't say everyone from back then was weak, but apart from the top guys (a much smaller group than the top echelon today), people were pretty average, certainly by todays standards....
<JG27Pyth: I honestly think you could take either of those guys and teleport them into a tournament today and they'd beat the average IM without looking at a page of 20th century theory. Give them a year or two of study and they'd be playing in the top group at Linares>
I have no idea what you are basing this claim on, but if it is based on this game, you are crazy. First a simple miscalculation by white thinking that 10.Bxh7+ worked, then a simple miscalculation by black to miss the refutation 11...Qxg5. Then black leaves a piece en prise (and if someone thinks this is a trap give me the line cos I can't see it). Then, instead of taking the piece, white sacs a piece, but with the best line he can come up with after that, if black plays 18...Nxf6, this is nowhere near as good for white as taking the bishop on move 14, or instead of 18.Nf6, playing 18.Qxe8 Rxe8 19.Nxb4 . And finally, black misses 19.Qh7#.
You don't need theory for any of this, it is basic calculation, and based on the calculation errors in this game, I would be shocked if these guys would beat a modern IM straight up, and would wager the world before the Devil (if he existed) that they wouldn't play in the top group at Linares with 2 years of study....
I don't see how you could rate the performance by either player in this game any higher than 1600.... God, even that might be generous
Anyway that's just my thoughts, good to have a verbal joust with you <JG>
|Mar-22-08|| ||mjk: A little retrograde hypothesizing anyone? <If> move 13 were actually <13...♘c6> developing with an attack on the ♙d4 and relying on the double coverage of the f6 square, then everything else is explained--including why White did not play 18.♘e7+ winning at least the Black ♕ without relying on the helpmate.|
|Mar-22-08|| ||moffjarjar: <UdayanOwen> I believe <JG27pyth> was referring to teleporting Lasker and Morphy. I think they would do rather well against the modern field of IMs. Don't you agree?|
|Mar-22-08|| ||UdayanOwen: <moffjarjar: <UdayanOwen> I believe <JG27pyth> was referring to teleporting Lasker and Morphy. I think they would do rather well against the modern field of IMs. Don't you agree?>|
Holy christ, and here I was thinking <JG> had slid off the sane chair, but yes, this does make more sense....
And yes, Morphy and Lasker would probably win most of the time against IM's although they might come unstuck in the opening on occassion... Of course, spend a while building up a modern opening repetoire, and then they would be pretty untouchable...
As for the top group at Linares, yes I agree they'd get there but how much time it would take to master the requisite theory I'm not sure....
|Mar-22-08|| ||Sneaky: This is Grimshaw the famous problemist. His name will always be remembered for a peculiar kind of interference that's been dubbed with his name.|
Here's an example of a Grimshaw interference:
click for larger view
White to play and mate in two. (Loshinsky, 1930)
I'll post the solution on the Walter Grimshaw page.
|Mar-22-08|| ||playground player: Gee, this looks like one of my games on Pogo. It looks like vintage playground chess.|
I do hate to see the 19th century masters dissed, just because they weren't trying to pad their resumes with draws. In fairness to what chess players have learned over the centuries, though, it does seem that most of the games in the CG database up until the time of Philidor (with Greco the outstanding exception) aren't of a very high quality. Leonardo DiBona was considered one of the great masters of the 16th century, but I do think most of us, if we could travel back in time, could beat him (albeit not every game, to be sure). But I wonder how many games it would take for any of us to score a win against Morphy, Anderssen, or Lasker.
|Mar-22-08|| ||apple pi: <Bad GOTD> Wonderful play though. Two years ago I saw this performed in an outdoor theater, with modern costumes and scenery. Shakespeare's humorous derision of flirting and love's labor in general is timeless, so even with modern costumes the script fit perfectly.|
|Mar-22-08|| ||JG27Pyth: <Holy christ, and here I was thinking <JG> had slid off the sane chair, but yes, this does make more sense....>|
Yes, I meant Morphy and Lasker... I'm fully in agreement with you that the GOTD guys, particularly the loser, were not playing strong chess at all.
I was just giving you a hard time for bashing 19th century chess... they had some players, Pillsbury (or is he early 20th?) was pretty amazing before the syphillis got him.
|Mar-22-08|| ||whiteshark: A true chess whirlwind romance.|
|Mar-22-08|| ||Jason Frost: Wow, lousy game|
|Mar-22-08|| ||UdayanOwen: <playground player:
I do hate to see the 19th century masters dissed, just because they weren't trying to pad their resumes with draws.>
Hi playground player, sorry to upset you with my dissing....
However, my criticism was based not on the lack of drawishness in their play, but on the extremely bad calculation in this game....
|Mar-22-08|| ||Gilmoy: I noticed 11..Qxg5 <mutual threat> -- I've won a few that way. It crops up sporadically in KG-like positions, so I also see it from Danish, Blackmar-Diemer, and KGD (back when I declined with 2..d6 and 3..Bg4). Vienna is King's Nc3 Intermezzo Gambit :)|
Silliness: I won't play KG as White, but I've been goofing off with Rosseau Gambit as Black (3.Bc4 f5), just to avoid the tedium I normally get with d6-Be7-Nf6, etc. Works well against fish -- White blinks first and we get a reversed Vienna. Then the badness of the B(xh2+) sac is a constraint for me! "Can't do that yet -- patience, patience ---"
|Mar-23-08|| ||malvar: The perspectives on perfect play are extremely subjective judgments. It would have definitely been so in the year this game was played, as <UdayanOwen> later mentioned. |
Now a days with the help of computers and the exponential increase of literature, theoreticians and so on, we are getting closer to a consensus on what that perfect play looks like.
I would like to quote from Foucault's " Truth and Judicial forms" as he follows Nietzsche's analysis on knowledge:
- Consequently, for Nietzsche knowledge is not of the same nature as the instincts, it is not like a refinement of the instincts. Knowledge does indeed have instincts as its foundation, basis, and starting point, but its basis is the instincts in their confrontation, of which knowledge is only the surface outcome. Knowledge is like a luminescence, a spreading light, but one that is produced by mechanisms or realities that are of completely different natures. Knowledge is a result of the instincts; it is like a stroke of luck, or like the outcome of a protracted compromise. It is also, Nietzsche says, like "a spark between two swords," but not a thing made of their metal.
Knowledge – a surface effect, something prefigured in human nature – plays its game in the presence of the instincts, above them, among them; it curbs them, it expresses a certain state of tension or appeasement between the instincts. But knowledge cannot be deduced analytically, according to a kind of natural derivation. It cannot be deduced in a necessary way from the instincts themselves. Knowledge doesn't really form part of human nature. Conflict, combat, the outcome of the combat, and, consequently, risk and chance are what gives rise to knowledge. Knowledge is not instinctive, it is counterinstinctive; just as it is not natural, but counternatural. "-
I like to integrate other types of literature and philosophy to my life as well as to my learning of chess; to which I'm sure you will agree, this quote finds its relevance.
|Mar-23-08|| ||playground player: <Udayanowen> Oh, well, THIS game... This game is worthy of Narciso Vinoles.|
|Mar-24-08|| ||kevin86: other famous Love(s)
Bob Love-ex NBA star
Kevin Love-UCLA basketball star
Christie Love-fictional detective
Al Unitis Love-just made that one up...
The game was so bad that white had to turn down a queen gained by fork-to checkmate. I guess love is so blind to resign.
|Apr-18-08|| ||Whitehat1963: Another Lovely combination.|
|Feb-21-09|| ||WhiteRook48: white has no Love for his opponent.
So much for Love winning out in the end
|Mar-28-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Love can't win|
|Apr-15-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Love does not win|
|Jun-19-09|| ||Winter: How Grim shaw his Love?|
|Sep-20-11|| ||GrahamClayton: <kevin86>other famous Love(s)|
A couple more
Martin Love - ex-Australian Test Match cricketer
Courtney Love - Kurt Cobains' ex and leader of Hole
|Jul-04-12|| ||FSR: <Jason Frost: Wow, lousy game>|
Ditto. 3...exf4 is a bad mistake, and should have been answered by 4.e5 Qe7 5.Qe2, forcing the knight back home, instead of the lackluster 4.Nf3. 4...Bc5 was a mistake, provoking White to play 5.d4. 10.Bxh7+?? was a blunder, but Black missed 11...Qxg5!, the refutation of White's "combination." And so on, until Black blunders into mate in one.
|Jul-04-12|| ||Phony Benoni: At least I can clear up The Final Blunder. The game was published in the <British Chess Magazine> for 1886, p. 103. The mistakes are all there, waiting to be played over, until White's 18th move:|
click for larger view
Now the finish is given as <18.Ne7+ Kh8 19.Qh6#>, which I think we can agree is a bit more sensible than the sequence given in our score.
The BCM does note: <"There is something to be said in favour of 11...Qxg5!">
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·