| Jan-29-07 | | Shams: on 8...Ke7 I can't make 9.Bg5+ Nf6 work out. does white have anything more convincing than 8.QxQ followed by bxc3? |
|
Jan-31-07
 | | keypusher: <Shams> Not that I can see. I have Tartakower's best games book at home; I'll see if he says anything about it (I think this game is in the notes to one of his tournament games). |
|
| Jan-31-07 | | Shams: after 8.Qxd8 Kxd8 9.bxc3 Be7! (it took Fritz a half an hour to agree with me that this is better than Bc5) Fritz likes white at around +1.1. But I think I prefer black...NN missed his shot at immortality (or at least getting called by his real name). |
|
Jan-31-07
| | keypusher: <Shams> Hmm, I doubt Tartakower is going to trump Fritz in a position like this. How does Fritz feel about Nxc3 over bc? I think I would prefer White after either 9. bc or 9. Nxc3, since Black's king in the center is still going to cause him problems. But it's certainly better for him than taking the bishop! |
|
Feb-02-07
| | keypusher: <Shams> This game is not in Tartakower's best games collection, not even in the notes. But this one is: Tartakower vs Przepiorka, 1929 (The game score is wrong; the correct score, beginning 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. f3, is given in my kibitz there.) I like what Tartakower writes about 3. f3 in his notes to the Przepiorka game: <Designated by several theorists as the 'Tartakower Attack', this variation is <new> and <good>. Only that which is good in it is not new (the eventual sacrifice of a pawn to accelerate the mobilisation of the K side, as for example has already been done in the Staunton Gambit: 1. P-Q4, P-KB4; 2. P-K4, PxP; 3. P-KB3!), and, on the other hand, what is new in it is not good (the possibility for Black to transfer the centre of gravity of the struggle to the Q wing).So then, as in most of my theoretical predilections (or innovations), I reckon above all on the practical chances and not on a scientific basis. The inherent property of such a style is that, according to some critics, it lacks -- style!> |
|
Jan-22-15
 | | sachistu: This game is in The Mammoth Book of Chess by Burgess. The venue and score is as given here. Apparently, the entire game (or almost all of it) has been repeated at least twice. The game Blackall-Bigelow, New York, 1935 is an exact match, whereas in Tatai-Mariotti, Reggio Emilia, 1967/68 Black resigned after 13.Ne6 (in my database). Burgess says Black resigned after 12.Qe8. Burgess also cites Gallagher-Sathe,London, 1985 where Black tried 8...Ke7, but after 9.Qb3 cb2 10.Qb4 Kf7 White had an enormous attack (according to Burgess). Louma, in Ceskoslovensky Sach mentions that same line and suggests 11.Bb2. |
|
| Jan-22-15 | | Nerwal: Tartakower gave this game in his <Bréviaire des Echecs>; it was played during a simultaneous display. He assessed 8... ♔e7 as better than the game, and after 9. ♕b3 cxb2+ 10. ♕xb4+ ♔xf7 11. ♗xb2 he gave the assessment that White has a very strong attack, but Black can still try to defend. |
|
| Jan-22-15 | | schnarre: 6...Bb4+ seems a wasted move to me. |
|
Jan-23-15
| | sachistu: Thanks <Nerwal>. I don't recall Louma crediting Tartakower for the better ...Ke7, but that may, in fact, be the source of his note. Burgess also does not mention Tartakower's suggestion. So far, I have not found the 'several victims' Burgess claims Gallagher has caught with this line. However, in the 28 games I've seen where Black tried ...Ke7 the results were overwhelmingly in White's favor |
|
Mar-15-20
 | | Phony Benoni: This game starts off in the same manner as R T Black vs H R Bigelow, 1923 from the Lake Hopatcong tournament. It varies on move 8, when Bigelow tried 8...Ke7. He still wound up getting mated in a hurry. The confusion really starts with Arnold Dener's column of miniature games in <Chess Review>, June 1935, p. 127. He gives the score of the Tartakower -- NN game, but cites it as "Roy T. Black - Bigelow, New York State Championship Tournament." First of all, Denker cannot be relied upon for citations. In fact, he is probably most accurate when he gives none. I conjecture he simply associated Black and Bigelow with the score of the similar Tartaower -- NN game. It could be asked whether Tartakower - NN is a real game, or just analysis by Tartakower of of the 8...Kxf7 line The line appers to have been played enough to discount that possibility, but it's still out there. As for "Blacall ' Bigelow 1935", the date probably comes from the publication in <Chess Review. There was an American player around this time named Blackall, so that would be a no unusual confusion of names. |
|
Mar-15-20
| | Phony Benoni: After writing the above, I remember Tartakover had written some analytical articles on the Fantasy Variation for <Chess Review>. In the first of the (May 1933, p. 7, Variation F) he covers the line in this game. The main line is 8...Ke7>. In a note:
<"An amusing variation would be 8...Kxf7..."> There follow the moves of Tartakower - NN, down to 14.Bxg5#, with no indication that the variation is from a game. So li looks like this "game" is just analysis. |
|
Jun-20-20
 | | sea7kenp: I can hear White: "I guess it's time to Develop my Queen Bishop". |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
