Emory Tate vs John Hechtlinger (1989)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Emory Tate vs John Hechtlinger
90th US Open (1989), Chicago, IL USA, rd 7, Aug-11
Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen. Modern Variation General (B83) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	244 more games of E Tate
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Dec-01-23		macer75: Mr. Tate's unmatched perspicacity and sheer indefatigability were on full display in this game!

Dec-02-23		fredthebear: Are you related to the Shaw clan by chance?

Dec-02-23		macer75: <fredthebear: Are you related to the Shaw clan by chance?> What is that? No, my last name is not Shaw.

Dec-02-23		fredthebear: It's a lot like dusty old sour vinegar forgotten on a dark shelf. Blah! Why the brackets when we're the only two about? Oh, Tate was quick to trade down. Doesn't seem to fit his reputation, but White was never in trouble, had the better ending.

Dec-02-23		stone free or die: <Black to move after 22.Rgd1> click for larger view

Dec-02-23		perfidious: From the diagram, Black's best chance likely lay in 22....Rxc3+; whatever its consequences, they could hardly have been worse than the actual continuation, which offered Black no succour in what eventually proved a lost ending.

Dec-02-23		stone free or die: <<perf> whatever its consequences> yes best, and gives Black equality at least. Other moves don't lose, of course, but Black is defending much more. (I call these decision points - you have to commit, like here, trading R for B+2P)

Dec-02-23		perfidious: Defending these IQP positions is damnably unpleasant, the more so in an ending which offers only prospects of an arduous draw. The only reason I would not have plumped for the idea I suggested was being able to analyse some variations which proved that it lost by force.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.