< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Sep-15-11|| ||alachabre: Ok, it was seemingly obvious to me this morning, and looking at the puzzle again, I really hate the reply|
13. Bh6 d3+
So I am looking for an alternative.
13. Re8+ Kg7 doesn't seem to lead anywhere, so why not try
13. Qf8+ Kxf8
14. Bh6+ Kg8
Yep, that would seem to be it! Everything is forced, Black has no routes to escape the slaughter. Just to be sure, I rechecked the first move:
12. Nf6+ Kf8
|Sep-15-11|| ||thegoodanarchist: I miss the chess of the 1800s!|
|Sep-15-11|| ||TheFocus: Probably 45 seconds at most to solve this one. Fastest I have done a Thursday puzzle.|
|Sep-15-11|| ||sevenseaman: <alachabre> You got the solution alright. Good; but...<Just to be sure, I rechecked the first move:|
12. Nf6+ Kf8
12...Kf8 is illegal. I do not know what is the penalty for this kind of error OTB?
|Sep-15-11|| ||sevenseaman: <Domadaniel > <I agree with AJ -- 11.Bxd5 is the real brilliancy.> Thats true. But to be fair <sfm> alludes to the clever move.|
<sfm: 4.-,Nxf2??? - it is rare to see so poorly justified sacs. To my surprise the guy was no beginner. - - -
White must have seen it all when he played 11.Qd3(!!), otherwise it is senseless to allow the d5-fork. What a trap!>
I think <FSR> has also obliquely commented on it. Perhaps <AJ> missed these two kibitzes.
|Sep-16-11|| ||sevenseaman: <morfishine> <I'm convinced that not only to improve, but to 'stay sharp' one must 'be at it' every day.> |
You sure got the key move there! We all know to stay in touch is more of a <brilliancy> than to <solve or fail>.
|Sep-16-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <<<sevenseaman> I think <FSR> has also obliquely commented on it. Perhaps <AJ> missed these two kibitzes.>>>|
I did not miss anyting, I read all the kibitzes that were available to me. (I am prevented from seeing certain user's comments - rather than constantly bicker with some individuals - I have deceided to place them on my ignore list ... and simply move on.)
|Sep-16-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: But yes, 9.Qd3!!! is an amazingly deep trap ... (and NxP/f2? was a very poor sacrifice). |
However, one should endeavor to remember - that when this game was played - Steinitz had not yet postulated his theories on positional chess. As far as I know, most sacrifices were played ... just because they were there!! [I remember reading in one source how - in a game between Alexander McDonnell and Louis Charles Mahe De La Bourdonnais - how one writer inferred that it would be somehow wrong to decline a proffered sacrifice! (There is a good book on the games played between these two players, I am mentioned - in some minor footnotes - in the back of the book.)]
|Sep-16-11|| ||TheFocus: <AJ>: <I did not miss anyting, I read all the kibitzes that were available to me. (I am prevented from seeing certain user's comments>|
He reads their posts even though he has them on Ignore.
|Sep-16-11|| ||FSR: 9.Qd3 is clever, but by no means best. As I've said, 9.Bg5! was correct, and crushing. Nothing compelled Black to play 9...d5 in response to 9.Qd3, nor to play 11...Qxd5? (In any event, of course, Black would remain dead lost, as he has been since the ridiculous 4...Nxf2??|
|Sep-16-11|| ||TheFocus: <AJ> <However, one should endeavor to remember - that when this game was played - Steinitz had not yet postulated his theories on positional chess.>|
You don't know history very well.
Steinitz unveiled his new positional style in the Vienna 1873 tournament, which would have been a dozen years before, during which time Steinitz did most of his journalist work in newspapers and <The Field>.
Really, <AJ>, consult a book every now and then instead of just tossing out whatever rattles around in your noggin.
|Sep-16-11|| ||lipschutz: This game was played at the Cafe International in New York in 1871, not 1885. It was an offhand game, which probably explains Delmar's highly speculative 4...Nxf2. (Ref.: "Philip Richardson The Stormy Petrel of Chess" by John S. Hilbert, pp.58-59)|
|Sep-16-11|| ||TheFocus: <lipschutz> Thanks for the info. |
I don't have that book yet, but I collect Hilbert's books.
He is the best historian in the U.S. bar none and very helpful.
|Sep-16-11|| ||alachabre: <sevenseaman:12...Kf8 is illegal. I do not know what is the penalty for this kind of error OTB?>|
D'oh! I was casting around for an alternative reply on the first move, and it appears there is none. The penalty is simply to retract the move and play a legal move.
|Sep-17-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <<Sep-16-11
lipschutz: This game was played at the Cafe International in New York in 1871, not 1885. It was an offhand game, which probably explains Delmar's highly speculative 4...Nxf2. (Ref.: "Philip Richardson The Stormy Petrel of Chess" by John S. Hilbert, pp.58-59) >>|
Thank you!!! (I was wondering what the source of this game was.)
|Sep-17-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <<Really, <AJ>, consult a book every now and then instead of just tossing out whatever rattles around in your noggin.>>|
<hocus pocus> I have read and owned more books than you ever will, troll.
Question: How many people actually knew of Steinitz's theories in the late 1800's, you silly donkey? Why do you think that Lasker felt it was important that the world get to know Steinitz's theories? Do you even know this story?
You know what? I give up! I am talking to an empy trash can here.
|Sep-17-11|| ||TheFocus: <AJ> I have forgotten more chess history than you ever knew.|
<How many people actually knew of Steinitz's theories in the late 1800's, you silly donkey? Why do you think that Lasker felt it was important that the world get to know Steinitz's theories? Do you even know this story?>
I do know the story, but obviously you don't. And many more people knew about his theories than you think. <AJ> you are really showing your ignorance here.
|Sep-17-11|| ||Domdaniel: <srag> After such adventures in English to Potuguese to German translation, you may be interested in "English as she is Spoke" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis... -- supposedly an old English-Portuguese phrasebook full of absurd and incongruous phrases. Among the most famous is "to craunch a marmoset".|
For some strange reason, Portuguese looms large in the history of dodgy translation and unintentionally funny dictionaries. It's always risky to translate from Language A to Language C by going through Language B.
John Cale and Brian Eno wrote a song, Cordoba, with lyrics taken entirely from strange phrases in an old Spanish-English phrasebook: "The lift stops between two floors ... I'll leave the parcel on the top deck..."
They combine to create a narrative of a terrorist bombing in slow motion: http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric....
|Sep-17-11|| ||Domdaniel: <TheFocus> I have to keep reminding myself that you (and I, and many more) are *invisible* to the lifemeister. It partly accounts for the surreal side of his ejaculations -- he's literally not reading from the same page.|
His boast about the number of books owned and read is even more surreal. If the LM has read books, it doesn't show.
I've done some research on the historical spread of chess knowledge. You're quite right about Steinitz and the 1870s, plus the very significant part played by newspaper columns.
My main interest was on the later spread of hypermodern ideas - in events like the 'B' tournaments in Paris 1924 you can see weak masters and non-masters begin to use the new openings and strategies. But the earlier spread of Steinitz's ideas was also important -- and I wouldn't be surprised if Lasker's claim was actually propaganda on his own behalf.
It's not an ideal method, but changes in strategic thinking can be tracked over time with reference to openings. A distinct shift from 1.e4 to 1.d4 was evident from the 1870s on, as seen in players such as Mason, Chigorin, and then Pillsbury. It would be interesting to know just when 'romantic' adherents of the old-style game began to be seen as old-fashioned.
|Sep-17-11|| ||Domdaniel: The Bh6/Rf8 mate pattern has some similarity to a line in the King's Gambit, Double Muzio:|
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.O-O gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.d4 Qxd4+ 10.Be3 Qf6 11.Bxf4 Bg7 12.Nc3 Ne7 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5+ Qe6 15.Bd2+ Kg8 16.Rae1 Qxd5 17.Re8+ Bf8 18.Bh6 Qd4+ 19.Kh1 Qg7 20.Rexf8+ Qxf8 21.Rxf8# 1-0
This has been played at least three times in tournaments, perhaps with tiny variations at the end if Black resigns on move 18 or 19.
Smirnov-Tikhonov, Moscow 1954, ended after 17...Bf8, before White could play 18.Bh6. But the whole thing had already been played in 19th century England. And Renault (Cincinnati 1974) played all the way to mate. No doubt there are others.
It can be confusing trying to talk of historical eras in chess, when a High Romantic gambit emerges from the USSR in the 1950s. And surfaces again in Fischer-era USA. Wasn't everyone meant to be a Neo-pragmatic by then, with a 'universal' style? And wasn't the King's Gambit 'busted' by RJF?
Sigh. Yes, I know ...
|Sep-17-11|| ||Domdaniel: One of these *is* in the database: B Renaut vs NN, 1974. I had Renaut's name slightly wrong.|
As for Smirnov-vs-Tikhonov, there may be some doubts about authenticity, though it features in several databases and books. It was posted in a kibitz in 2006, but never got into the database. And I can't find the supposed 19th century version at all.
|Sep-17-11|| ||rogge: Thanks <Dom>, most instructive.|
|May-14-12|| ||Llawdogg: Beautiful finishing combination.|
|Nov-26-14|| ||sachistu: Thanks for the clarification of the date <lipschutz>. It's interesting the Amercan Chess Bulletin, June,1919 published a letter from Richardson (March 12th) where he indicates the game was played at the Chess Cafe Europa (which I believe is a different cafe than the International). However, I've read the Europa ceased function in 1872. In addition, Richardson says the game was played about 45 years ago, which would put it closer to 1874. I don't yet have Hilbert's book, but it is likely correct, and Richarson's memory is probably a little off.|
|Mar-27-19|| ||Phony Benoni: The game appears in <The Era> (London), August 6, 1871, in a regular section called "Chess In New York". There is a note atter r 12.Nf6+ gxf6:|
click for larger view
<"According to the record, Mr. Richardson gave checkmate in four moves. He could have won, however, in three by...">
and you know the rest.
I would dearly love to find that "record". It's probably a New York newspaper, but I haven't come across it as yet. I would also like to know how Richardson mated in four moves. There's not one available unless Delmar blundred.
By the way here's one interesting possibility: 13.Bh6?! d3+ 14.Kf1? Qxf3+! 15.gxf3 Bh3#
In any event, I think there is now enough evidence to change the date to 1871 for now. We still need to find the originl publication to verify that date and the score.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·