| Oct-26-06 | | amtr: The game would of ended with 22...Qg8 23.Qxg8# |
|
| Jan-17-07 | | russep: pretty amazing |
|
| Jul-30-08 | | ravel5184: <amtr> You're kidding! |
|
| Feb-27-09 | | dovif: amtr
yes I think this should be a Sunday puzzle with White to play and mate in 2 moves this is deep |
|
| Jul-26-09 | | just a kid: I would play 21.Bxd5+ just to show off. |
|
| Jun-13-10 | | khisel: Can someone explain 6. ... Nh6?
Is that just a really dumb move or is there a good reason behind it that I am missing? |
|
Jun-14-10
 | | Phony Benoni: <khisel> My guess would be that Black wanted to stop 7.Nf7, winning the exchange. In fact, 6...Nh6 seems to be the most frequently played move in that position. Some players would prefer to just sacrifice the exchange. Morphy once won a game with 6...Bc5, but then he was Morphy. T W Barnes vs Morphy, 1858 |
|
| Jun-16-10 | | khisel: <Phony Benoni> Thank you, I'm going to have to play through it again - I really thought this was just a ridiculous move. Again, many thanks. |
|
| Apr-19-17 | | cwcarlson: 13...b5?; 13...♗g7 14.♕e4 ♗c3+ 15.bc b5=; 13...♖f8 14.O-O ♗f4 15.♕e4 ♖f5=. |
|
Jun-21-21
| | Phony Benoni: The Golden treasury of Chess (1943 edition, Game 26, p. 21) specifies that this game was played on December 29, 1796. No source is given for this He information, and I don't now how far Welmuth can be trusted -- but h appears to have owned a lot of old books. |
|
| Jun-21-21 | | sneaky pete: There is a 19 moves version of this game here, (mis)dated 1801:
G Atwood vs J Wilson, 1801 The Oxford Encyclopedia (Levy & O'Connell) give this 19 moves version with the year 179? (that's an intended question mark, not a Chessgames.com hiccup). Their source is Murray, Collection of European Games, from the Bodleian Oxford library. The Oxford Encyclopedia has 4 more games with the same opening line between these two opponents, taken from the same source, and dated August 4, 1798; 1798; 179? and 179? (question marks intended, meaning we don't know the year). It seems likekly to me that all these games were played in 1798 and that Horowitz and his cronies (with their 23 moves version, not missing the mate) are simply wrong. |
|
Jun-21-21
 | | keypusher: <sneaky pete>
<It seems likekly to me that all these games were played in 1798 and that Horowitz and his cronies (with their 23 moves version, not missing the mate) are simply wrong.> I assume that the difference between the 19 and 23-move scores is that White announced mate, and some editors chose to publish the mate and some chose not to. |
|
Jun-21-21
| | Phony Benoni: <sneaky pete> Thanks for that. Surely Murray is more reliable than Wellmuth. And it's easy enough to mistake "8" for "6"; I've done it enough times myself. But I feel sure Welluth didn't make it up; he didn't go around willy-nilly putting full dates on games. But whatever source he had -- and he does mention a few -- is unknown. By the way, I see no indication that the original 1943 edition was not essentially Wellmuth's work. Certainly later editions were heavily revised by Horowitz, to the point that Wellmuth's name disappeared But I see no indication of this in the 1943 edition. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 8.Ngxe4