|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-16-07 | | syracrophy: 10.a3! <Forcing black to capture the knight before he can defend his pawn with ...f5> 10...♗xd2+ 11.♕xd2 O-O 12.♕c2! f5 <Weakening the dark squares, but there's no option. 12...♘f6 loses the pawn of e4 after 15.♗e5, followed by ♗xf6 and ♕xe4> 13.♗d6 ♖e8 14.O-O-O! ♘f6? <Black plays with no plan in mind. With this move they leave away the break up with ...e5. Better was 14...♕f6 15.c5 e5 16.♗c4+ ♔h8 17.d5 ♘f8>15.♗e5 ♗d7 16.f3! exf3 17.gxf3 b5 18.♖g1 ♖f8 19.♖d2! ♖f7 20.♖dg2 a5 21.♕f2! <Taking the queen to the closest post to the king: h6> 21... ♘e8 <To avoid 22.♕h4 but the next move will alow it> 22.♖g5! ♕e7 <It's insufficient 22...h6 23.♖g6 ♔h7 24.♕g3 ♕e7 25.♖xh6+! ♔g8 26.♕g6 ♕d8 27.♖h8+! ♔xh8 28.♕xf7 and mate's not far away> |
|
| Jun-16-07 | | syracrophy: Siegbert Tarrasch - Theodore Von Scheve
Leipzig, 1894
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.♘c3 ♘f6 4.♘f3 ♗e7 5.♗f4 c6 <Not a mistake, but it's very passive. Usual is to play 5...0-0 6.e3 and now the tematic break 6...c5 to fight the center> 6.e3 ♘bd7 7.h3! <The threat was 7...♘h5, getting rid of the ♗ of f4> 7...♘e4? <A mistake, since now the pawn of e4 will be very esposed. Better was 7...0-0 8.♕c2 ♖e8 9.a3 ♘f8 10.♗d3 dxc4 11.♗xc4 ♘d5! 12.♗g3 ♘xc3 13.♕xc3 ♗d6 with equality> 8.♘xe4 dxe4 9.♘d2 ♗b4? <A positional mistake. Black protects his pawn by this pin, but he'll have to give his "good" bishop. It was necessary 9...f5> |
|
| Jun-17-07 | | spacetimereality: <Had Black foreseen the consequences of my plan (which
could hardly have been expected of him)>
Ow! Apparently Tarrasch didn't like this guy very much. |
|
| Jun-17-07 | | sanyas: <Ow! Apparently Tarrasch didn't like this guy very much.>
No, just expounding his own genius, as usual.
|
|
| Aug-11-07 | | sanyas: Black is strategically lost after 9...Bb4, but even in the case of other moves White gets an excellent attack, so it seems that Tarrasch was right after all! I guess there is a time for dogmatism... |
|
| Aug-11-07 | | sanyas: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Nbd7 7.h3 Ne4 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Nd2 O-O 10.Qc2 f5 11.O-O-O c5 12.f3 Qb6 13.Kb1 a5 14.d5 e5 15.Bh2 exf3 16.gxf3 a4 17.Bd3 a3 18.b3 g6 19.Rdg1 Kf7 20.h4 Bxh4 21.e4 f4 22.Bxf4 Bf2 23.Bh6 Bxg1 24.Rxg1 Rg8 25.f4 g5 26.fxg5 Ra6 27.Nf3 Qa5 28.Rh1 Ke8 29.Nh4 Nf8 30.Nf5 Ng6 31.Be2 Qc7 32.Bh5 Kd8 33.d6 Qd7 34.Qc3 Qc6 35.Re1 Qd7 36.Bxg6 hxg6 37.Qxe5 Qe6 38.Qxe6 Bxe6 39.Ne7 Re8 40.e5 Rxe7 41.dxe7+ Kxe7 42.Bg7 Bf5+ 43.Kc1 Ke6 44.Bf6 Ra8 45.Rd1 Kf7 46.Kd2 Rc8 47.Ke3 Re8 48.Kf4 Ke6 49.Rd5 Bb1 50.Rd2 Bf5 51.b4 cxb4 52.Rd6+ Kf7 53.Rb6 Rb8 54.c5 Bb1 55.c6 Kg8 56.e6 Bxa2 57.Ke5 Bc4 58.cxb7 b3 59.Rc6 Bxe6 60.Kxe6 Re8+ 61.Be7 a2 62.Rc8 a1=Q 63.Rxe8+ Kh7 64.Bd6 1-0 is another illustration of Black's problems. |
|
| Sep-06-07 | | DWINS: In reviewing this game with the help of Junior, it seems that Tarrasch missed an even better 27th move. Although Chernev gives 27.Rxh7+! an exclamation point, 27.c5!! is stronger as it threatens the Queen with 28.cxd6 as well as checkmate with 28.Rxf7+ |
|
| Apr-01-08 | | Amarande: How about 9 ... Qa5?
Plan: 10 ... Bb4 and 11 ... Bxd2+ exchanging the Queens as well, thus significantly blunting any White attacking chances. The only real downside I see is that now White is given two Bishops and Black is left with the somewhat restricted Bc8 but any immediate danger has been stopped. Possible White counters -
10 a3, preventing Bb4 and threatening to win the e-pawn with 11 b4. Here Black would have to play 10 ... f5 and White would be able to try the King-side attack along similar lines, on the other hand Black has not exchanged his dark-square bishop and any attempt to enforce such an exchange, if possible, is likely to exchange off White's own dark squared bishop for it (and this piece as we see is a virtual essential to the attack). Again any advantage will likely ultimately derive more from Black's Bc8 being bad than from an all out assault. Better appears 10 Qb3 (better than Qc2, as after 10 Qc2 Bb4 White's Queen gets exchanged since he can't prevent it with Rd1 or 0-0-0 without dropping the a-pawn) after which 10 ... Bb4 would then appear to be a mistake: (after 9 ... Qa5, instead of von Scheve's 9 ... Bb4)
10 Qb3 Bb4(?) 11 0-0-0! f5 12 c5!
(taking advantage of the fact that not only Pe4, but also Pe6 is a target, to corral Black's Bishop and seize definite control of the hole d6) 12 ... Nf6 13 a3!
(and now Black must exchange the B as in the game)
13 ... Bxd2+ 14 Rxd2 0-0
(he must do this right away or 15 Bd6 will prevent it for quite a long time; as White can still enforce exf3, and can then apply additional blasting-powder with e4, this is likely to be fatal. Now 15 Bd6 would be faulty on account of Rf7 followed by Ne8 kicking the Bishop out) 15 Qc2 Bd7 16 f3
(As per Tarrasch. Now Black must exchange, since otherwise Be5 or Bg5 forces the issue by attacking the guard) 16 ... exf3 17 gxf3 b6
(As in the game I see little chance for Black here outside of a counterattack. However to Black's woe b8 is covered firmly by the White Bishop and there is no real way to drive it off. Still he must try) 18 Rg2 bxc5 19 dxc5 a6
(To bring the Rook to b7 via a7 and drum up some sort of attack) 20 Rhg1 Ne8 21 Bc4!
(Here the Bishop is actually useful! Its development prevents Qe1+ and also Qxc5, since there would follow 22 Bxe6+ and woe to the conquered Queen. Not 21 Be5?? Qe1+! 22 Qd1 Qxe3+ and Black wins!) 21 ... Ra7 22 Be5 Rf7 23 Bc3
(The time has come to drive off the Queen. If now 23 ... Qxc5? 24 Bd4, or perhaps even stronger 24 Bxg7!) 23 ... Qd8 24 Rg3 Rb7 25 Qg2 Bc8
and here I will take leave of my analysis; Black's Bishop is thoroughly bad, his Rooks and Knight are chained to g7 and most of his pawns are weak. Against this White has only the Pc5 as any significant weakness and has a tremendous attack. White should certainly win ... |
|
| Apr-02-08 | | Cibator: For more analysis of this encounter, see Irving Chernev's "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" (1966). He gives the Tarrasch quotes in full in his annotations. |
|
| Apr-05-08 | | Cibator: Having done a bit of checking up, I think Sigi dissed his opponent a bit unjustifiably. Von Scheve was of near (if not actual) master strength and had some respectable results in his time. Unfortunately, arrogance seems to be a trait that's endemic among chess players. I've observed it first-hand at nearly every level, from grandmasters right down to second-string county players in the UK. |
|
| Dec-31-10 | | bengalcat47: Noteworthy is the fact that White's light-squared Bishop never moved from its starting point at f1 the entire game. Regarding this Bishop Tarrasch himself once said, "As Rousseau could not compose without his cat beside him, so I cannot play chess without my King's Bishop. In its absence the game to me is lifeless and void. The vitalizing factor is missing, and I can devise no plan of attack." |
|
| Aug-21-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Tarrasch vs Von Scheve, 1894.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF TARRASCH.
Your score: 58 (par = 49)
LTJ |
|
| Nov-06-15 | | TheFocus: What kind of pissy-ast annotating is this?
Either give all his notes or none at all. |
|
Jan-09-20
 | | keypusher: I had SF look at the position after 9.Nd2. Not too surprisingly, Black isn't lost, though he's certainly worse off. What's interesting is the pawn sacrifice SF comes up with to stay in the game. 9....f5 10.Qc2 e5! 11.dxe5 Nc5 12.Be2 0-0 13. 0-0 a5 14.Rad1 Qe8 15.Nb3 Nxb3 16.Qxb3 Be6 17.Bg3 Bc5 18.Qc3 Qe7 (+0.49 after running for a couple of days) 
click for larger viewBlack's never recovering his pawn, but it's hard for White to get anywhere. Tarrasch (whose shoes I am not fit to shine) presumably never considered this plan (but that could hardly be expected of him). Today even a rank amateur would balk at 9....Bb4? 10.a3 Bxd2+, with terrible weaknesses on the dark squares. By move 10 Black really is lost. |
|
Mar-06-20
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Can someone please explain the game's title? Must be a pun on "Scheve," and don't know how to pronounce the name. Thank you. |
|
Mar-06-20
 | | Phony Benoni: <An Englishman> Good morning. I was afraid this would happen. ""Bringing in the Sheaves" is a metaphor for bringing lost souls to Christ. much as sheaves of grain are gathered from the fields. The idea inspired a hymn, and I should inform you that all versions sound like this. It's a Southern USA thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad5...
I should confess that I was brought up in a conservative evangelical religious settomg., so this sort of thing is embedded in my brain. |
|
| Mar-06-20 | | Honey Blend: <"Had Black foreseen the consequences of my plan (which could hardly have been expected of him) he would have retained this Bishop for the protection of the g pawn." - Tarrasch> He had a plan for attacking the g-pawn as early as move 9? I would understand this idea after 16. ... exf3 17. gxf3 and opening the g-file coupled with the strong ♗e5, but is he Alpha Zero or something? |
|
Mar-06-20
 | | HeMateMe: At first I thought "Bringing in the sheets..."? sounded like something I'd heard as a kid, a washing clothes song or something like that. Then I realized it was a hymn I'd heard in church a couple of times. As a little kid I thought they were saying "sheets" not sheaves. |
|
| Mar-06-20 | | catlover: Good pun, <Phony Benoni>. I love seeing puns based on hymns. Tarrasch surely was rejoicing as wrapped up his kingside attack. |
|
| Mar-06-20 | | paavoh: I have always heard it as "bringing in the sheep". Thanks for the lesson. |
|
Mar-06-20
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: Thanks, <Phony Benoni>. |
|
| Mar-07-20 | | sudoplatov: I usually heard it as "Bringing in the cheese." According to Stockfish, 27.c5 is mate in 14. (I didn't check out each branch.) |
|
| Mar-07-20 | | RandomVisitor: How about 4...dxc4
click for larger viewStockfish_20030407_x64_modern:
<53/26 1:08:17 0.00 4...dxc4> 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bxc4 Nxe4 7.0-0 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Bd6 9.Ng5 h6 10.Qh5 0-0 11.Ne4 Nd7 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qxh6 Re8 14.Qh5 Kg7 15.Qg4+ Kf8 16.Qh3 Kg7 |
|
| Feb-19-23 | | generror: I begin to understand why Lasker disliked Tarrasch, dissing him as early as 1892 (see K Walbrodt vs Tarrasch, 1892), which definitively wasn't characteristic of Lasker. I too just can't stand narcissism, and Tarrasch's comments here are nothing else. Of course that doesn't prevent me to admire his playing in this game, which is nearly flawless -- a model attack on the castled king, even though his opponent helped him along the way. <7...Ne4?!> is clearly an error, but by no means "decisive"; even <9...Bb4?> isn't, although this indeed does give White a strong kingside attack. The nice thing with Stockfish, besides that it is free and open source and arguably the strongest chess playing entity ever, is that it has no respect for authorities (and their mental issues) of any kind, and it has no problems labeling <16.f3?> as a mistake, because Black actually doesn't have to take; <16.g4> would probably have won faster. <16...exf3?> is actually the losing move, and, frankly, even sucky patzer me would rather have abandoned that pawn instead of giving White a nice open file straight into my king's face. <25.Bd6!> is a nice move of course, forcing the queen off the 7th rank, but I wouldn't call it great; I find it's pretty obvious if you have heard about the magic of deflection. Even though I, like <keypusher> and any other mere mortal, am not fit to shine The Great Siegbert's shoes, I'll also be magnanimous by giving him a pass for missing <27.c5> which would have forced mate. So yeah, nice and instructive game, but now I'm *really* looking forward to Lasker disassembling Tarrasch in their 1908 match. |
|
| Aug-03-24 | | tbontb: An impressive (if one-sided) game with a pretty finish. Perhaps the last chance to defend was 21....Ra7, 22.Qh4 Be8, 23.Qh6 and Black seems to hang on grimly. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 25.Bd6