| Jun-03-04 | | misguidedaggression: Don't get me wrong, the protected passed pawn on f6 looks good; but for some odd reason, every time I see a player with all their pieces on the back rank by move 10, that player seems to always lose the game. Must just be an odd coincidence. Blackburne is usually a strong player but here he just looks like a patzer. :P~ |
|
| Oct-23-07 | | Chess Carnival: I think that black's e4 pawn is even better than white's f6. Ok, white's is a passed one but its doesnt seem to be going anywhere, further black's control central e3 and f3. |
|
| Oct-23-07 | | Chess Carnival: Simply there is no good squares available for the White queen. |
|
Oct-25-08
 | | GrahamClayton: The victor in this game was John Robey (1826-1885). He was the first Australian to compete in an English or European tournament. He finished last at London in the 14-player field with a score of +2, =0, -11. Source: Anthony Wright "Australian Chess to 1914" Melbourne 1995. |
|
May-27-12
 | | FSR: 5.Ng1? is a surprisingly weak move from "The Black Death." Much better is 5.Nd4! Nxd4? 6.Qh5+! g6 7.fxg6 Nf6 8.g7+! Nxh5 9.gxh8=Q Nc2+ 10.Kd1 Nf6 11.Kxc2 d5 12.Be2 Be6 13.g4 d4 14.d3 Bc4 15.Rd1 1-0 Finegold-Moody, Detroit 1983. |
|
| May-27-12 | | Shams: <FSR> Is that *our* Moody? |
|
May-27-12
 | | Phony Benoni: Guilty as charged. That was my seventh game against Ben, at which point I still had an even score (+3 -3 =1). Should have quit while I wasn't behind, but tournament directors were not understanding. Since then, Ben has 13 wins and I have one draw. So tell me, who has been scouring the dung pits of chess history to find that game? |
|
May-27-12
| | FSR: <Phony Benoni: ... So tell me, who has been scouring the dung pits of chess history to find that game?> Taylor and Hayward's book on the Ponziani was on sale for $5 at the local chess emporium, so I bought it. It had the aforesaid game. |
|
| May-27-12 | | Shams: <That was my seventh game against Ben, at which point I still had an even score (+3 -3 =1).> Good grief, you have three wins against Fineman and none of them are in the database. You are charged to produce a game score, sir. |
|
May-27-12
| | Phony Benoni: <FSR> They probably got the game from the Michigan Games Database I compiled. This was a collection of games from Michigan tournaments of all levels from about 1980-2000. Fred Lindsay asked for a copy so he could submit it somewhere, and it has undoubtedly been polluting the Internet ever since. <Shams> Unfortunately, none of the wins technically qualify for the database. You need to know that we are both from Michigan and I am a good deal older than Ben, so I got chances to play him when he was very young, not even yet an Expert. The first game, he was aged 10 and rated 1544; the second was soon after his 11th birthday, when he was rated 1804. Both games are lousy. The third is the best of the bunch, but not all that good. He had turned twelve the day before: Ben Finegold (1995) - David Moody (1907)
Michigan Open (6). East Lansing, 9.7.1981
<1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.g3 0-0 7.Rb1 a5 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.a3 d6 10.Bg2 Qe8 11.Nd5 Qf7 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4 e4 14.Ng1> Unforuntely 14.Nd4 is not available, which probably explains why he switched to the Ponziani. <12...Be6 15.f3 Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nxb4> Shower of gold. Shower of gold.
<17.Nh3 Bc3+ 18.Kf1 Nxd5 19.Qc1 exd3 20.exd3 Qe6 21.Ng5 Qe5 22.f4 Ne3+ 23.Ke2 Qd4 24.Qxe3 Ra2+ 25.Kf3 Qd5+ 26.Ne4 Bd4 27.Qe1 fxe4+ 28.Qxe4 Rf2+ 29.Kg4 
click for larger view29...Qf7>
Might actually be a good move.
<30.f5 Rxf5 0-1>
At least I got him before he got good. I also have wins over future IMs Josh Manion and Marc Esserman, but both were long before they became Masters. |
|
| May-27-12 | | Shams: <Phony Benoni> I played through it-- a fine win. I never had much luck with the early ...f5 against the English. You should upload it anyway. Isn't there an exception for games against future GMs? |
|
May-28-12
| | FSR: <Phony Benoni: ... Unfortunately, none of the wins technically qualify for the database. ... he was very young, not even yet an Expert.> Guideline 3 just says:
<We want to focus on the most instructive and interesting chess games. It is strongly preferred that one or both of the players be at least master-strength (2200 Elo).> If the game's instructive/interesting, it's not <mandatory> that one of the players be rated 2200. Besides, as <Shams> suggests, I think that the game's more interesting by virtue of one of the players being a future GM. |
|
May-28-12
| | Phony Benoni: Well, maybe later. That means I'll have to find another loss to submit (which I feel obligated to do to keep things in perspective), and that is always a downer. Besides, I've got a couple of hundred other games in the pipeline and don't want to jam things any further. (The Abraham Kupchik page is going to be looking a lot different!) |
|
| May-29-12 | | optimal play: <Phony Benoni><I've got a couple of hundred other games in the pipeline and don't want to jam things any further. (The Abraham Kupchik page is going to be looking a lot different!)> That reminds me...Abraham Kupchik - Anthony Santasiere, New York. March 1926 still hasn't been uploaded? How long does that normally take? The one and only game I've ever submitted only took a couple of days! |
|
| May-29-12 | | RandomVisitor: 31.bxa5! |
|
May-29-12
| | FSR: <Phony Benoni: Well, maybe later. That means I'll have to find another loss to submit (which I feel obligated to do to keep things in perspective), and that is always a downer.> Not to worry! I already submitted your Ponziani loss to Finegold, which I think is of some theoretical significance since his 5.Nd4! obviously improves on Blackburne's 5.Ng1? |
|
May-29-12
| | Phony Benoni: <FSR> OK, I sent it in, but I don't feel all that good about it. My personal belief is that this database does not exist to to showcase the efforts of amateurs such as myself, especially when there are uncounted games with real historical significance just rotting away unnoticed. <optimal play> I think I mentioned that you happened to submit your game at just the right moment, when they were being pushed through. Of late, my experience has been more toward two months than two days, but I tend to submit bunches of games which I'm sure slows things down. Nor am I particularly upset about the delay. In the first place, every game I'm submitted has gotten in eventually. Also, this site does do some vetting and checking of the games rather than just adding them pell mell with all the errors intact. Those of us (such as myself) who are of a more historical bent need to recognize that otherwise obscure games from the 1920s will always be a lower priority. The great majority of members here are interested in current events or special features, not historical games, and chessgames.com should concentrate its efforts on the more popular features. |
|
Kibitzing
