5...Bf5 is the mistake - well exploited - after 7. Nd5 Black is toast

and I need to get some sleep as we speak...

Btw kingscrusher questions the rook recapture in your YouTube vid and suggests dxe but that doesn't work

You FAMOUS GIRL!!!

zzzzzzzzz for me again...

See you tomorrow!

I posted a few links at my house involving Knight endings - very instructive... Added to that it is the perfect type of chess-fo-tainment following a hard day's work. (personally I like to set up the old wooden board - and "examine/verify" what the guy is telling me..)

The played 6...Qe7 (which you showed fails miserably) was of course a way to protect the Ne4 - and ...d5 would have been another one, but it fails after < 7.d3 > and a 7...d4 will be met by the easy dxe4 and the Bishop is en prise with discovered check as well...

The alternative 6...Be7 loses the N on e4 immediately, without compensation, seemingly, but you'll have to play precise after 7. Nxe4 0-0 and your King is still in the center -- Best plan would be to prepare castling q-side (d4 then Be3 and 0-0-0 idea) and then Black should resign soon after... In the given time control you should be able to calculate through all three possibilities.

I liked your b3 and the clinical finishing. My engine favours c4, but I prefer b3, too.

AROOO!!

(An OSTRICH will come your way within the next few days, including my Korea experience)

Re: <b3> from the Petrov position.

Meanwhile, I recommend <The Killing Floor>...

Plus, I just saw today that a Thriller starring <Winona Ryder>, which will not be released till <February>, is NOW AVAILABLE on streaming video.

I use VEOH beta player-- the quality is EXACTLY as good as if you shove a DVD into your computer.

Thank goodness for the Net.

I won't bore you with theory, but it can get very wild, very fast. A couple of examples:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Be7 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6 (or 8...Nc5 9.Rxe7!) 9.Bg5 d6 10.Qd2 Ne5? 11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.Bxf6 gxf6? 13.Qh6 Be6 14.Nxf6+! Bxf6 15.Bd3 1-0 [Roman-Lasota, corr ch, Poland 1992]

[same first 6 moves... then:]
7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nf5 Bb4+ 9.c3 Nd6 10.Nh6+! Kh8 (10...gxh6 11.Bxh6) 11.Bd3 Re8+ 12.Kf1 Bc5 13.Qh5 gxh6? 14.Bxh6 f5 15.Bg5 Bb6? 16.Bxd8 Rxd8 1-0 [Jungmann-Mephisto, RISC, 1993]

And finally [same 1st six moves again]:
7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nb5?! Bb4+ 9.c3 Nxf2! 10.Qh5! Nxh1 11.cxb4 Nxb4 12.Bg5 Re8+ 13.Kf1 Re5 14.Re1 Rxe1+ 15.Kxe1 Qe8+ 16.Ne7+! Kf8 17.Nxc7 1-0 [Van de Sterren-Kurzschulz, corr, 1991]

(Keeps you sharp - train the "all seeing eye")

White to play

click for larger view

Note: the Black King is indeed on < H-1 >

... <(or 8...Nc5 9.Rxe7!)> That is brilliant and brutal -- a FIVE piece attack and every conceivable tactic can arise from there... Black reduced to rubble in no-time... (My engine didn't see the danger until well PAST 40 secs - I was smelling danger after a few secs...)

But in the main line <8. Bg5 d6??> -- doesn't Nf6xd5 (in stead of d6) just win a piece? In other words is the score correct? Am I (uberhaupt) correct?

These are my queries!?

[Event "POL-ch35 sf05 corr"]
[Site "Poland"]
[Date "1991.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Roman,Marek"]
[Black "Lasota,Zygmunt"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C47"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Bg5 d6 10.Qd2 Ne5 11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qh6 Be6 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bd3 1-0

This is from the Chessbase online database. I'd scribbled the game down in the back of a Russian book on gambits (!), which is where I lifted it from: I've only just now confirmed its existence in the database.

You're quite correct: 9.Bg5 is a blunder which should lose a piece to 9...Nxd5.

Also, the final position in which Black presumably resigned is actually a draw. After 15.Bd3 Re8 16.Bxh7+ Kh8 17.Bg6+ Kg8, the standard mating method in such positions (Qh7+ and Qxf7#) obviously doesn't work, as the Be6 covers f7. White seems to have nothing better than a draw by repetition/perpetual. Fritz certainly can't find anything, and given the number of errors in the game I suspect that the players aren't tactically stronger than Fritz 10.

So while the game itself was quite a *terrible* model to present to Her Majesty (sorry, Jess), it still exemplifies my point that wild stuff happens in this gambit line.

I also had two (minor?) transpositional errors. Black's 2nd and 3rd moves were the wrong way round - it actually did start as a Petroff, with 2...Nf6 and 3...Nc6.

Ditto for Black's 5th and 6th: it was 5.Nd5 Nxe4 6.Bc4 Be7, but I had ...Be7 first. Both, I think, are playable.

On move 9, btw, theory suggests three options for White (*not* 9.Bg5??: 9.Ng5, 9.Nxe7+ and 9.Rxe7. Some lines go:

9.Ng5 Nxd5 10.Nxf7 Rxf7 11.Bxd5 Qf8 and black is doing well.

9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.Bg5(?) d5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Qxd4 and white probably doesn't have enough compensation for the material.

9.Rxe7 Nxe7 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Qxd4 d5 12.Bd3, ditto.

I can't explain the errors in the original game. It seems unlikely to be a notation error, though: I don't see any plausible alternative sequence of moves, with either some omission or change of move order, that can reach the game position.

So it seems that this is what was played, mistakes and all. Obviously not a master game. Probably not the 'real' Polish corr championship (unless it was our old friends, the under-10s?!). Can anyone decode "ch35 sf05"? I'd have thought it meant something like "35th championship, semi-final, game 5" but I could be wrong.

[*Note to Net-sniffing machines: the above reference to 'our old friends' does not in any sense either imply or condone any form of special friendship with children under the age of ten (although my niece is one, and she's quite human, really). The reference is to chess games that prove on closer examination to have been played by under-10s. This explains moves that would be mildly insane in other contexts. Now go sniff some real bad guys, okay?*]

Brilliant!! It's those U10 year olds that keep proving our points time and again....

(I am in fact rolling on the floor laughing here - Brilliantly constructed post, brutally honest- and a fine finish...)

Back later

*it still exemplifies my point that wild stuff happens in this gambit line.*

The Polish Correspondence Championship for four-year-olds? It's possible... and the fact that it's correspondence means they're unlikely to be horses.

Though you never know with the internet. (I've heard rumours that certain kibitzers are actually <wiener dogs>, for example -- and others are clearly members of the vegetable family).

Aha. Is it perchance 1.Qb2 ...?

if 1...f1(Q) or (R) or (B), then
2.Ng3#

if 1...f1(N) then 2.Qg2#

if 1...Kh2 then 2.Qh8#

and if 1...Bh2 then 2.Nxf2#

Check and mate, my dear Watson.

Incidentally, among problemistas, a mate-in-2 with 8 pieces (or fewer) on the board is, I believe, known as a <Meredith>.

For example:

<Dom> <Aha. Is it perchance 1.Qb2 ...?>

How many seconds/minutes of thought preceded the "Aha" ? (This is crucial - I "used" over 5 minutes... Did you *gulp* do a U5?)

In case anyone is dying to know if <Dominus>' answer is correct... Yes 100%! As expected.

"Well dooooone!", we scream at the top of our lungs, although I doubt the sound will reach Ireland's shores. Hence this message from Her Majesty's Castle.

PS. Coincidentally, a "zipper" (e.g. in a pair of jeans) - is equivalent to "gulp", in Dutch.

I get YET ANOTHER DAY OFF <Thursday> and guess what I'm spending the whole time walking in the beautiful November sun and playing two games of chess on <Yahoo>.

I' CAN'T HELP IT!!!

Ah, you just told me... SUE ME!

Could you post something smart and/or sexy at my house?

I'm almost dropping off the face of the <forum activity page> earth!!!

It's "back to Bled 1959" for me for the next few hours.

yrs

Allow me (sorry Joe) one more:

AROOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!