Jun-29-04
 | | jaime gallegos: great miniature ! ( and I know these words together dont match quite well ) |
|
Dec-23-04 | | Whitehat1963: I can't believe this game ever took place. There are two earlier examples that follow same pattern! |
|
Feb-18-05 | | Madjesoomalops: It was really played (by me). See the records page on
http://www.timkrabbe.nl/chess |
|
Feb-18-05
 | | Willem Wallekers: <Madjesoomalops>
Could you be more specific, pls?
I can't find it on that long page.
Or maybe it was the wrong page. |
|
Feb-19-05 | | Lawrence: Way to go, Tim. Wonderful to have you kibitzing here. Welcome from all of us. |
|
Feb-19-05 | | notsodeepthought: <Madjesoomalops> Great to have you on this site, Tim Krabbe! (and, yes, I am a fan of your site too). |
|
Feb-19-05 | | aw1988: *The* Tim Krabbe? Very pleased to have you on this site! |
|
Feb-19-05
 | | alexmagnus: Look Gibaud vs Lazard, 1924, the shorter variation of this game... |
|
Feb-22-05 | | Madjesoomalops: Gibaud - Lazard was *not* shorter; h3/Ne3 was played on move 5, too. It went: 1.d4 d5 2.b3 Nf6 3.Nd2 e5 4.dxe5 Ng4 5.h3 Ne3 0-1 See the records page on http://www.timkrabbe.nl/chess |
|
Feb-22-05
 | | alexmagnus: Was there really 1..d5 2.b3? I´ve seen this game (Gibaud-Lazard) in several books, but everywhere there are only 4 moves: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.h3 Ne3 0-1.... |
|
Feb-22-05
 | | alexmagnus: Hm, Mr. Krabbe, I wonder why you are the only who tells it was not a master game and it was 5 moves. "Amateur" and "around 1922" sound interesting, but who needed to put the real date, take 1 move away and tell it would be the shortest master game ever? there should be smbd who needed it.. |
|
Feb-22-05
 | | alexmagnus: BTW about "friendly": the Immortal Game was also friendly but nobody says it is not to take seriously.. |
|
Feb-22-05 | | Madjesoomalops: All the books copy each other and give the 4-move version. It's true I'm one of the very few to give the correct version, but not the only one - I'm in the company of Gibaud and Lazard. Again, see my 'records' page. |
|
Apr-13-06 | | MorphyMatt: <alexmagnus> you're right. A Gibaud vs F Lazard, 1924 |
|
Feb-15-09 | | WhiteRook48: I would play 2. c4 |
|
Dec-24-10
 | | Domdaniel: Tiny, Tim. |
|
Oct-11-20 | | Granny O Doul: This game is certainly more plausible than the supposed Gibaud-Lazard game. In the latter, 4. h3? means that White has overlooked not just ...Ne3 but also ...Nxe5, and yet we're supposed to take him for a master? Here, 4...Be7 is doubly clever because should White play 5. e4, Black's bishop moves for the second time, out to c5, when he's just about ok. Of course, White does have better ways to play. |
|