You wrote: "neither opponent is a name player". This smacks of the kind of elitism more often found in Classical Music circles. Thank the Stars above for all the great music that has been created/produced and continues to be played by those who may not be known - given the mediocrity/ inconsequential self-actualization of a great deal of music produced by those who are.

Recall Tarrasch's more gentle reflection: that "Chess, like love, like music has the power to make 'us' (sic) happy." There is an instrinic objective value to this position that merits its inclusion for the following reasons:

1. without the clue that it is a >puzzle< / problem position one might overlook it as moves are so often played mechanically.

2. it is a gentle reminder that this kind of piece loss probably occurs world-wide millions of times a year, and that even strong players are not necessarily immune.

3. Furthermore who is to say if some great player could one day find a way to convert this very position into a kind of trap where winning the piece leads to a dead lost position only a few moves later? BTW if I were such a genius- I'd make it my mission to do so:)

3. Also millions of times a year brilliant combinations are conceived (although perhaps not always perfectly executed) by club players or in Swiss weekend tournaments. There are many variables which determine whether one becomes "known" or not.

4. <newzild: A really embarrassing blunder for a 2100 player> But how sweet it is to be reminded that in fact Chess is a game wherein error is the deciding factor - and just as often part of its inherent synergy.

16.f4

16....Ng6 17.f5
16....Nd7 17.f5!
16....Bxh3? 17.fxe4

I guess I should have made myself more clear. We all know that the games of certain player (Fischer, Morphy, etc) are all collectible (even those against weak players in simuls) because of the "name" of the famous player.

I wasn't trying to disparage either of the players of this game, only to point out that their games were not to be automatically included because of their name.

It seems to me that if you are going to put together a collection of chess games (like this database), there should be some criteria other than one player had a master's rating.

I think the game should introduce a novelty, display an interesting sacrifice or combination, some sort of inspired endgame play or have some notable historic attribute (it was played in a world championship, etc). Otherwise your collection could quickly fill up with mediocre games that dilute the value of the collection overall.

I had to go down my list of tactical weaknesses, and when I got down to "restricted mobility", I noticed that black's knight had just one escape square (on d7) if attacked by the pawn (16. f4). A moment later, I noticed that if the knight DOES go to d7, the bishop has NO escape squares if attacked by that same pawn (17. f5).

Here is a variation of the theme after f4 the knight must retreat but to where? Ng6 allows a fork at f5,while Nd7 blocks the bishop's escape after f5.

however you initially wrote: <"neither opponent is a name player">....and I would still protest your notion of <"mediocre games"> ...it is far too subjective. An argument could be made that almost all modern Chess is mediocre - particularly given the inordinate number of draws at the highest levels of play ....

Continuing my music analogy - how long will the world have to listen to Beethoven, Mozart or any of the masters - at the expense of the potential genius of each musician who plays their music?

A Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov would not have excelled were it not for their lesser successful contemporaries, Rubenstein, Lasker, Fine, Spassky, Larsen, Korchnoi etc. The snooze masters Nimzovitch, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Karpov, Krammik could easily be called mediocre - depending upon your criteria since mediocrity could be just as easily defined as being a lack of originality. Give me Morozevich or Carlsen anyday.

Indeed, once we're into musical analogies, why doesn't this performance get as much airplay as the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy5K... ?

BTW, what is commonly considered the original of the above, was not really that original ...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/clip...