| Sep-17-17 | | ughaibu: 32 moves is pretty late,
to play both castles and checkmate.
Blame Offramp,
that well known scamp,
for me wasting your time,
with unneeded rhyme. |
|
| Sep-17-17 | | morfishine: <ughaibu> lol |
|
| Jan-29-19 | | areknames: This is a very silly game and it shouldn't really be in the database, you only have to play it through to realize that at best it is a drunken blitz extravaganza, at worst a sheer fabrication. I knew both players a couple of lifetimes ago, at the alleged time of this game Lanzani was the freshly crowned Italian champion (he is still an active IM) and Fomez just your average woodpusher, this is quite ridiculous. |
|
May-27-20
 | | ChessCoachClark: Yes, it is valid to criticize the quality of this game. Stockfish analysis makes that plain and FSR points out that '30. Qe2# is quicker.' Yet, it does belong in this database as a trivia piece-- castling mates are rare enough. Students can be motivated by the point of seeing a chess rule as a tactic in this case and grow into the analysis of the content later on in their development. Thanks CG, for having this game available to us, coaches and students! |
|
May-27-20
 | | fredthebear: The details are in question.
<areknames> The Italian champion got walked over by a woodpusher, who then missed mate on the move?! The double knight sacrifices 12.Ncb5 and 15.Nxe6 suggest some degree of sophistication by White. Woodpushers just don't know this much Sicilian theory, much less the concept of willing sacrifices before castling. It does look like a possible blitz game. My experience is that most drunks struggle to do anything to completion. Drunks are unable to keep accurate score for 32 moves (some sober people cannot do that), and remember that neither K nor R have moved yet. Whatever the case may be, I enjoyed this tarnished game. Perhaps the Italian champion had the WHITE pieces, and opted to play for a rare castle mate against his weaker opponent? (Meaning, he might have seen both finishes and opted to play the longer, more memorable mate.) |
|
Nov-05-20
| | ChessCoachClark: This game has been included in Castling to Win! (1997) by Robert Timmer, on page 122. It is also probably given in the later version of that book, Startling Castling! (2003), as well. |
|
| Nov-05-20 | | areknames: < The double knight sacrifices 12.Ncb5 and 15.Nxe6 suggest some degree of sophistication by White. Woodpushers just don't know this much Sicilian theory> Sicilian theory?? 9...h6 isn't playable in this position (9...Qc7 is of course the only move) so we're really out of book at move 9! I am glad that <ftb> and <CCC> enjoyed this game and I appreciate their reasons for doing so, for myself I stand by the content of my earlier post; this game is rubbish, albeit with a tinge of nostalgia on a personal level. |
|
Nov-05-20
 | | perfidious: <fred....Woodpushers just don't know this much Sicilian theory....> When I was a 1600 player, I started to play the Najdorf, and had to know a fair amount of theory in such lines as 6.Bg5, simply to survive! <....My experience is that most drunks struggle to do anything to completion....> In my observations, while never being much of a drinker myself, polishing off a bottle has never proven what one would call a deficiency for them. (laughs) |
|
Nov-06-20
| | fredthebear: The Najdorf requires a lot of preparation. I've heard GMs caution amateurs against playing it. White was prepared for it, and played well. Antonio Fomez drew Karpov and Spassky in short, friendly games not to be taken seriously by the public. Much like golf, chess can be a hobby that helps drum up business and build social contacts. Black might have underestimated White's ability above. Surely many an Italian in Milan has indulged in spirits with a game of chess. If one is well accustomed to both, there may be no apparent hinderance at all. It's all for one's enjoyment! |
|
Nov-06-20
| | perfidious: <fred>, a pendant to the above: in fall 1977, Edmar Mednis came to our club, gave a simultaneous display and I got a lesson from him, during which he advised me to give up the Najdorf. It was only during the following summer that I took his advice, and started to play 1....c6 instead of 1....c5. |
|
Nov-07-20
| | fredthebear: <perfidious> Edmar Mednis gave good advice - no sugar coating, rather dry. He wrote much the same thing in "How to Play Good Opening Moves." His book is still relevant, available in English descriptive notation and algebraic notation. I liked Raymond Keene's opening books better at the time, but Mednis made an impression. Back then, I was usually reading Fred Reinfeld, I.A. Horowitz, and trying to be Botvinnik with the complimentary French and Dutch Stonewall Defenses, which I still play amongst others. IMHO, most players never completely abandon reasonable openings they invested time in. It's comforting trotting out 1...e6 against all and not having to worry about the Bc4-f7 blitzkrieg. Mednis shook my confidence w/his chapter "Stonewall or Prison". All of us followed Bobby Fischer (super giant of the Najdorf), but I never tried to play like Bobby Fischer (except the King's Indian Attack). I loved studying romantic chess and the old masters of attack (and BF "refuted" my King's Gambit?!). Truth be told, over time I've come to enjoy Boris Spassky's style/games more than Bobby Fischer's approach, but of course I go to bat for the G.O.A.T. There was/is no player quite like BF. I play chess because Fischer was our American hero during the Cold War. Yet, today I also admire Spassky and Karpov for being gentlemen (Korchnoi aside). I often teach Petrov's Defense (or Berlin/Four Knights) to youngsters, another recommendation of Edmar Mednis from his opening book. The c6, d5 complex is certainly a solid, proven choice as well. |
|
| Nov-07-20 | | SChesshevsky: <Edmar Mednis came to our club...during which he advised me to give up the Najdorf...> I don't buy this take at all. The problem with the Najdorf is that it's basically an anti-principled hypermodern type opening. As much as it's viewed as an aggressive response to 1.e4, seems very passive for quite a time. A basic idea looks for black to accept a tenuous hold on the center, allow white to gain space and get the seedlings of a strong attack, while defending in a relatively cramped fashion. All in the hopes of getting some queen side counter play while holding on in the center and king side. With a chance that white can get over extended in his assault. The plusses being blacks counter play is quick and threatening enough while white is stifled. Or black can pick apart white's over extension if the initial attack is halted. The downside is black gets overrun by the white onslaught. The success or failure of this strategy seems highly dependent on timing and move order. Being in such a delicate position, a bad move is usually always punished. But even a good principled defensive move like ...O-O at the wrong time can be punished as well. This typically means the Najdorf is difficult, if not impossible, to teach adequately. Seems two main ways to see if the Najdorf is a good fit. Play it a lot and see if you have the knack and foresight for when and what to defend and when and what to counter attack. Or play it all the time and hopefully, by experienced trial and error, will eventually understand all the subtleties to be faced. Of course the Najdorf isn't going to be for everybody. I don't like it because it's too situational. General plans can be too ambiguous and dependent on opponent direction. Lots of times purely tactical calculation. Rather prefer Dragon or even Kalashnikov and Sveshnikov. Might be worse but have good idea what I've got. But still don't go for recommending that someone stop playing Najdorf. Once understanding the basic concepts, think anybody can play a decent game if they like it and have a knack for it or get enough experience. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 15.Nxe6