|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-13-07 | | FHBradley: <Petrosianic:> Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition! |
|
| Sep-13-07 | | sanyas: 1.e4 e5
2.♘f3 d6
3.♗c4 f5?!
4.d3? (4.d4) ♗e7? (4...♘f6)
5.♕e2?! (5.♘c3) c6
6.h3? (6.♘c3) f4? (6...d5)
7.g3? (7.♘xe5) fxg3
8.fxg3 ♕c7? (8...♘f6)
9.♘c3 (9.♘g5) ♘f6?
10.b4? (10.♘g5)
Now Black should play 10...h6 11.a4! ♘bd7 12.0-0 ♘b6 13.♗b3 ♗d7 14.♗b2 0-0-0; Δ ...♗e8, ...♗g6, ...♖he8 and ...d5. There is, of course, no need to resign just yet. |
|
| Sep-19-07 | | wolfmaster: My guess was that Lopez blundered after 10.b4, and was so ashamed of his loss that he made sure no one found out about his blunder. |
|
| Jan-26-08 | | wolfmaster: Of course, it could have been a long, uneventful struggle which Lopez and da Cutri thought would not be worth saving for posterity. |
|
| Jan-26-08 | | VaselineTopLove: Maybe they were playing correspondence chess, and Lopez ran out of money to buy postage and forfeited as a result... |
|
| May-27-08 | | Halofire: Why 6.h3? It's alittle late if it attempts to block the white bishop. It wastes a tempo and the better move would be Nc3. When black made 6.f4 the easy counter would have been h3 then instead of wasting a tempo before. |
|
| Oct-08-08 | | just a kid: Maybe they couldn't recover the rest of the game. |
|
| Jul-30-09 | | blacksburg: this game was lost by black. |
|
| Sep-11-09 | | Kasparkov: 10. b4
I can't get it.. |
|
| Mar-04-10 | | rich187113: All his games are too short I want to see a game of like 40 moves at least, lol. |
|
| Oct-29-10 | | Skakalec: <just a kid> <Maybe they couldn't recover the rest of the game.> It should be possible with the computer's help :-).
ZX80 in this case. |
|
| Mar-22-11 | | theodor: maybe they analised openings? and the position is losing, that's why they stoped anotating further? |
|
| Mar-23-11 | | hottyboy90: bad game |
|
| May-22-11 | | IRONCASTLEVINAY: its great, even these old games are hard to understand, just like todays GM games! |
|
| Feb-15-12 | | The Finisher: 10...d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.nb5 Attack the Queen and force her to move. Its quite nasty.. if careless it's a family fork, if not, a Queen for both Bishops. White's pieces are well developed. The mistake would have been to keep trading and then comes the inevitable Qc3+ and taking of the White Rook.. but now instead:
12...Qc6 13.Nxe5 Qb6 14.Be3 Black has nowhere to go.
However... 11...Bxb4 12.Qxe5+ Qxe5+ 13.Nxe5 Bxb3+ and it's over, so Black wins if he stays sharp. I think 10.0-0 may have even been a winning move!
Don't meet the Philidor very often. I think it's important for all e4-Nf3 players to be able to convert the Philidor to a point, so this is a timely reminder for me. |
|
| Nov-26-13 | | Sergash: This is supposed to have been the first international tournament, organized by the king of Spain Philip II and with 4 participants. The final results were 1st Leonardo; 2nd Paolo Boi; 3rd Ruy Lopez; 4th Alfonso Ceron. The winner received 1000 scudis (possibly large sum at the time?). I think only two games of that event survived, and only partially, 2 of the 5 games between Leonardo and Ruy Lopez... After his win, Leonardo was invited to Lisbon by the king of Portugal, Sebastian 1st, to play a match against the local champion, El Morro. Leonardo won again and received more money.
Before this tournament, Leonardo had played Ruy Lopez twice in Rome, in 1560 and in 1572, losing both times. In the Madrid tournament, Ruy Lopez had won the first 2 games. Then, he lost the next 3 to Leonardo (was it a 3 points out of 5 against each contenders?). Ruy Lopez was to die in 4 or 5 years, at the age of 49 or 50. So maybe his health was not too good at that time and he suffered from fatigue? Note that Leonardo is supposed to have died in 1587, at 44 or 45, poisonned by a rival... People were dying young at that time! |
|
| Nov-26-13 | | Sergash: The end of the game was lost, but it could have continued like this : 10...d5! 11.exd5! cxd5! 12.Nxd5! Nxd5 (only move) 13.Bxd5 Qc3+! 14.Kf2 Qxa1 15.Kg2! and White seems to have compensations for the rook, according to the Houdini program, but we need to see practical play here! 11.Bb3?! Bxb4 ( threat : d4 winning knight on c3; or 11...d4 12.Nd1 Bxb4+ 13.Bd2 Ba3  ) 12.Bd2 (only move) d4 13.Nb1 (or 13..Nd1 Ba3 which transposes in 11...d4) Bd6! ) cxd5! 12.Nxd5! 0-0 (12.Bb5+?! Nc6! 13.Qxe5! Qd7! 14.Bxc6! bxc6 15. Qd4 0-0  ) (12.Nb5?! Qd8! 13.Bb3 (only move) a6! 14.Nc3 (only move) Bxb4 15.Bd2 (if 15.Qxe5+? Kd7! (threat : Re8, amongst other things!) 16.Kd2 (only move) Nc6! 17.Qg5 Kc7! 18.Qxg7+ Kb8  the move d4 is impossible to counter) 0-0 ) Ruy Lopez must have blundered later on, because Black had the advantage, having won the battle of the opening... |
|
| Nov-26-13 | | Sergash: 10.b4?
10.Ng5 (10.a3!? or 10.Be3 also look good and give White a small advantage, but 10.Ng5 seems more in the spirit of the opening and of the era!) d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.Bxd5! (if 12.Nxd5? Nxd5 and then if 13.Bxd5? Qa5+ wins the bishop on d5) Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 Nc6! 15.0-0  |
|
| Nov-27-13 | | Sergash: 7...fxg3!
Not 7...g5?! 8.Rg1  ;
also not 7...b5?! 8.Bxg8! Rxg8 9.gxf4! exf4 10.Bxf4 |
|
| Nov-27-13 | | Sergash: 7.g3?!
7.d4 is better. |
|
| Nov-27-13 | | Sergash: 6...f4?!
6.Nf6 |
|
| Nov-29-13 | | Sergash: 6.h3
A strange move, but not a mistake as it seems. Maybe in order to play g2-g3 and avoid the later arrival of the black bishop on h3? Still, it is better to develop the pieces:
A- 6.Nc3 fxe4 (or 6...Nf6 7.a3 ) 7.dxe4 Nd7 (or 7...Bg4 8.h3 Bh5! 9.g4 Bg6 10.a4 ) 8.a4 B- 6.0-0 fxe4! 7.dxe4 Bg4 8.a4 |
|
| Nov-30-13 | | Sergash: 5.c6?!
Development! 5...Nc6 6.a3 Bf6 followed with Nge7 |
|
| Apr-06-17 | | Yigor: 4. d4! leads to a spectacular refutation of this Lopez countergambit. |
|
| Jan-05-23 | | generror: 'tis a pity that both 1575 (or 1574) games between da Cutri and Ruy Lopez are only preserved as fragments. But at least they are not completely fantasy like those 1572 games that are frequently mentioned by some chess "journalists" and which have absolutely no historical basis. It's still interesting to see that back in the 16th century, it wasn't the rabid attacking that I thought all chess to be prior to Steinitz. Guess that style came with all that other Romantic crap during that God-forsaken 19th century. I'm also glad to see that these two have updated their opening theory a bit since 1560. At least up to <3...f5?>, from then on it's again all pretty dubious. So, Ruy & Leo, whether you're considered the strongest players or not: It's back to some more opening theory for you! Finally, that last move, <10.b4?> is really weird. It's also really bad, blundering a pawn after the very natural <10...d5 11.Bb3 Bxb4>. Da @#$%, da Cutri! This is one of the games that will make you unofficial world champ 400 years later, you're setting a really bad example here! Even more weirdly, Stockfish actually prefers <11.exd5?! cxd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Qc3+ 14.Kf1 Qxa1> which loses a whole rook. Da @#$%, Stockfish! Although I'm used to weird engine evaluations, and I do admit that black's king looks really endangered and am not sure I'd wouldn't prefer playing White despite being down a rook. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
