|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-23-11 | | redorc19: 2...f6???????????????? loses by force. |
|
| May-06-11 | | SBarrett449: Some beginner mistakes here for black. At this point...
3.Nxe5 Qe7 seems safer for black.
two possible scenarios if white's not careful and still decides to check with the queen. 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Qf7 6.Nf4 Qxh5 7.Nxh5
4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Kd1 Qxg6
The latter being the best choice for black in the given scenario. Not the best lines but could see either occurring with such wild illogical play. |
|
| Feb-05-13 | | RPdigital: Damiano defense sucks! |
|
| Feb-05-13 | | jakaiden: <RPdigital: Damiano defense sucks!> Once Carlsen plays it, then everyone will jump on the bandwagon. |
|
| Feb-06-13 | | torrefan: Even if Carlsen loses? |
|
| Aug-03-13 | | Sergash: Houdini 1.5a: 5...d5! 6.Bd3! Nd7! 7.exd5! Nxe5 8.Qe2 Bd6! 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Be4! Ne7 11.d4 Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 0-0 = or  black having compensations for the pawn. |
|
| Aug-04-13 | | Sergash: Sorry, previous comment was for the other game of Ruy Lopez where he plays White! The remainder of the here game could have looked like 10.Qxh7+ Bg7 11.Bh6 Qxe4+ 12.Kf1! Qxd4 13.Nd2! Nd7 14.Nf3! Nf8 15.Ng5+! etc. |
|
| Aug-06-13 | | GumboGambit: Even Damiano condemned the Damiano Defense. Its a shame that it is associated with him. He stated in his writings that Nc6 was the best way to go. |
|
| Dec-01-14 | | welhelm1982: I know how roy won because black died byloughting when roy give him bichop |
|
| Dec-30-14 | | stewart mutasa: I think ruy deserves a win just by his openings |
|
Feb-01-16
 | | dernier loup de T: Fourth white move: surprise, surprise!! lol! |
|
| May-12-16 | | dunamisvpm: jakaiden: <RPdigital: Damiano defense sucks!> Once Carlsen plays it, then everyone will jump on the bandwagon.
> Agree |
|
| May-12-16 | | raju17: Thanks CG for bringing a very old game pertaining to thee renouned Ruy Lopez himself!!! |
|
May-24-16
| | dernier loup de T: WhiteRook 48, Lopez could play the Lopez only if 2...Ktc6 ; but little chance, because himself aviced to Black not to play that to avoid the terrible Lopez, LOL!! So, 2..f6 is better (hem hem), and even more 2..Ktf6 or ..d6... or ...d5!! |
|
| Apr-06-17 | | Yigor: 7. d3 is better than 7. d4. Da Cutri should play 7...Qxe4 or 7...Nxe4 instead of 7...Kf7. Well, white is largely winning anyway. |
|
| Jan-21-20 | | GrandMaesterPycelle: I read an article (on chess.com I think) explaining that f6 was an important defence before the rules regarding how the queen moves changed. This is why Damiano devoted time to it and probably the point of such example-games from Greco - to demonstrate why it is a poor move under the new rules. |
|
| Jul-03-20 | | Atking: <GrandMaesterPycelle> Indeed I doubt that the old Chess one would give up such strong piece (In this game 2nd after the Rook) as a Knight. Shatranji tabbiyyaat haved slow development. Yet at Damiano's time, the Queen was already there P Damiano vs NN, 1512
I read that Damiano prefered 2...Nc6 and nearly 50 years latter Ruy Lopez suggested the move was bad because of 3.Bb5... |
|
| Jan-05-23 | | generror: The best refutation of the Damiano "Defense" that I could imagine. As this game shows, 2...f6 virtually does nothing but weaken the kingside; it doesn't even protect e5. |
|
Jan-05-23
 | | Messiah: <generror: The best refutation of the Damiano "Defense" that I could imagine. As this game shows, 2...f6 virtually does nothing but weaken the kingside; it doesn't even protect e5.> Justin should start employing it! |
|
| Jan-10-23 | | generror: Of course! Everybody should start using it! Especially if they play black against me. |
|
| Sep-14-23 | | generror: I've long been dubious about the authenticity of this score. I always suspected the source may have been Salvio's <Il Puttino> (1634), but I never found any mention of it giving any score. Not even Murray mentions the source when he gives the score -- what a bad book ;) But according to a remark in Antonius van der Linde's <Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels, Band I> (1874), Lopez gives this game as a variation in the 6th chapter of his critique of Damiano's book, where he also mentions his 1560 visit to Rome: "y esto estando en Roma al principio del pontificado del papa Pio. 4. en el ano 1560, auendo notado lo sobredicho, boluamos al proposido siguiendo el juego de Damian" (= "and this being in Rome at the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Pius 4 in the year 1560. Having noted the above, we proceed to propose the following game of Damiano"). [I guess he means the opening with "game of Damiano".] He doesn't say explicitly he played it against da Cutri, so I'm still not fully convinced that this game was actually played and is not just his analysis which chess writers across the ages have, for the sake of a good story (which is of course much more important than historical accuracy to most people), just transformed into a game the two actually played. Does anybody here have a better source for this game? |
|
| Sep-15-23 | | Lossmaster: <generror>: here is the primary source for the score (Lopez 1561, book III, chapter vi). Lopez says he played it against an "excellent player, called the boy of Rome": https://cplorg.contentdm.oclc.org/d... |
|
| Sep-17-23 | | generror: Thanks, <Lossmaster>! That "boy of Rome" (muchacho del Roma) quote can indeed be found on folio 102 recto, where it precedes van Linde's quote that I mentioned. So yeah, I guess we can call this one authentic. Nice :) By the way, I'm currently going through van der Linde's <Geschichte und Literatur des XVI. Jahrhunderts> which gives the scores of the games/opening analyses in Polerio's manuscripts and most of the next games we have on file on <chessgames.com> (before all those Greco "games") seem to be coming from there. I still really wish someone would have made an full and authentic translation of all these classic works. It's a bit sad you have to rely on 19th-century sources. I'd love to get my hands on Monte's 2014 <The Classical Era of Modern Chess>, but it totally exceeds my budget. |
|
| Sep-17-23 | | Lossmaster: <generror>: I own Monte’s book and it’s an absolute must for anyone interested in the 1480-1630 period. All the known games, books and manuscripts from the era, like Polerio’s, are discussed in detail. It’s a well-researched and well-sourced reference work that is worth every penny. |
|
| Oct-01-23 | | generror: <Lossmaster> Great nick dude, and thanks for rubbing it in... :) But really I have to watch every penny because I'm on social welfare, so my income is spent for lodging, food and internet and THAT'S IT. But maybe I'll treat myself that book for Christmas or something. Although by now booksellers are really taking fantasy prices like 80€... Until then, I have to make do with the various 19th-century works by van der Linde, von der Lasa and Sarratt, although I found that the latter was quite inaccurate and occasionally inserted modern castling when the original book had a king's leap. Also he does not distinguish between his own annotations and those of the original author. Still kinda funny that until Monte nobody else researched the actual sources of modern chess for more than a century. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 3.Nxe5