Rudolf Spielmann vs Oldrich Duras (1907)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Rudolf Spielmann vs Oldrich Duras
Karlsbad (1907), Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary) AUH, rd 19, Sep-14
Italian Game: Classical Variation. Greco Gambit Moeller-Therkatz Attack (C54) · 0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	19 more Spielmann/Duras games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: Premium members can see a list of all games that they have seen recently at their Game History Page.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]

Dec-11-03		Chessical: This may be 99 moves long, but don't let that put you off playing thorough this terrific clash of two uncompromising grandmasters battling from opening to middlegame to ending. Enjoy!

Dec-11-03		Master of Sacrifice: 99 Rc4 was a mistake. Under the circumstances, however, he should have resigned around move 90.

Dec-12-03		Chessical: No! Apart from a mutual blunder on move 65, the endgame was only lost on move 99! The game illustrates a very practical and useful R v R+2 P's endgame, after we have also enjoyed the initial fireworks. Here are other quoted text book examples: Bondarevsky vs Keres, 1939 Keres vs Sokolsky, 1947 Gligoric vs Smyslov, 1947 Kotov vs Flohr, 1951 Tartakover and du Mont in their "500 Master Games of Chess" give a 21 move version. This appears to be someone's analysis of a possible combination. This is the full game. Spielmann plays the Moller attack which was only some 9 years old at the time. Duras, gets a worse position but then fight s back into the ending. 12...0-0?!, the book move is 12...Bxg5. Duras is too daring, he allows his K-side pawns to be disrupted for complications, that do not turn out to be in his favour. 11...0-0 12.d6 cxd6 13.Bf4 d5 14.Bxd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 d6 16.Rae1 Be6 17.Qxb7 Bxa2 18.Ra4 Be6 19.Rxa7 Rxa7 20.Qxa7 Bxb2 21.Ng5 Qf6 0-1 is Salwe-Rubinstein, Vienna 1908. 20....Rd8 20...h6! 21.g3 (21.Bb5 Nf4) creates a much more secure position. 22.Re8 Rxe8 23.Bxe8 Kf8 24.Bxf7 Ne7 25.Be6 Bxe6 26.dxe6 is a strong alternative. 22...Nh8?!. Instead 22...Nf4!? would keep Black in the game 23.Ree7 Rf8= (23...Nxd5? 24.Rxf7+! Kh8 25.Rh7+ Kg8 26.Rcg7+ Kf8 27.Nh4 24.Bd3!? would have better maintained the initiative, now Duras is back in the game. Not 26...fxe6 27.Rh7 f4 28.Rxh6+ Kf5 29.Rxb7 winning 27...Rad8?, 27...a6!? would have avoided the game continuation after which the advantage swings back to Spielmann. 41...fxg2 42.Nf3+ Kh5 43.Rd8-+ Nh4 44.a7 Nxf3 45.Rd1 Ra2 46.Kxf3 Rxa7 47.Kxg2 with thge same type of ending (disconnected f and h pawns). This may be theoretically drawn, but is very hard to play for the defender. Duras would use one of his pawns as a decoy to Q the other to try to create a Lucena position. 51...Rxf3 52.gxf3 Nd4 53.Rb6 Nxf3+ 54.Kg3 is not enough to win. 65.Rb4?? is a tired fingerslip of a blunder. Both players miss the loss of the R by 65.Rh4+. Speilmann has defended the ending well so far. 99.Rf4?? Spielmann makes a fatal blunder after achieving a draw. Any legal K move would have been sufficient. For the record the winning process is: 99...Kg5 100.Rxf5+ Kxf5 101.Ke3 Kg4 102.Kf2 Kf4 103.Ke2 Kg3 104.Kd3 f5 105.Ke2 f4 106.Kf1 Kf3 107.Ke1 Kg2 108.Kd2 f3

Jul-26-04		notyetagm: 99 Rf4?? is featured in one of the Tragicomedies section of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Spielmann was obviously expecting 99 ... RxR+ 100 KxR and the resulting pawn endgame is drawn. Duras, instead, piles on the pinned rook with 99 ... Kg5!, forcing the exchange 100 RxR KxR and now the pawn endgame is trivial win. So Spielmann goes from a drawn R+P endgame to a lost K+P ending in one careless move. A great advertisement for really learning the endgame.

Feb-22-06		waddayaplay: I don't trust 65.Rb4. More probable is that he played 65.Rb3.

Mar-24-06		Resignation Trap: I am currently going through <The Chess Career of Rudolf Spielmann> Volume One by Jack Spence, 1961. A different game and result is in this book! It follows the www.chessgames.com version up to and including 13.Bxf6 gxf6. But there it takes a diversion: 14.Nh4 Ng6 15.Qh5 Kh8 16.Rae1 Bd7 17.Bd3 Rg8 18.Re7 Rg7 19.Bxg6 fxg6 20.Nxg6+ Kg8 21.Rxg7+ 1-0 All available crosstables to this tournament show a win for Duras over Spielmann, so the cg score is probably correct, and the score in the Spence book was most likely opening analysis by somebody who carelessly thought it was the actual Spielmann-Duras game.

Mar-24-06		Gypsy: <Resignation Trap> Kalendovsky's compendium of known Duras' games gives the game as presented here. Jiri Vesely (Psychological guide ...) gives the same closing moves.

May-12-07		Chessmensch: Silman discusses this ending in his Complete Endgame Course, page 87. His commentary is very similar to Chessical's (above). Is Chessical Silman?

Jan-06-08		Phony Benoni: Tartakower and duMont in <500 Master Games> give the 21-move version, which was recently added to the database: Spielmann vs Duras, 1907. It may have been an offhand game, though <Resignation Trap>'s suggestion of opening analysis seems even more likely. I wonder if the line is mentioned in the tournament book?

Feb-11-08		suenteus po 147: <Phony Benoni> Uhhhh...that would be my bad. I submitted the PGN for the alternate score since this game didn't match the score in the Tartakower/duMont book.

Feb-11-08		sneaky pete: <suenteus po 147> Thank you anyway for submitting that game. Tartakower/Dumont has been a fertile something for my love baby Game Collection: The dirty dozen.

May-04-12		Edeltalent: I would never have thought Black could get out of the position after move 23 alive, let alone win it! In the end Spielmann doubtless knew it was a theoretical draw (Philidor position), but carelessness and/or tiredness did him in. What a brutal loss!

Apr-13-20		Peligroso Patzer: The key blunder by Spielmann in this game, of course, was 99. Rf4, allowing Duras to force an exchange of rooks with Black obtaining the opposition one rank in front of his pawn, thus transposing to a winning pawn ending, but there may have been a second “blunder” not previously mentioned in this thread. As he played 66. Rb8, Spielmann could have claimed a draw by threefold repetition of <position>. (Although the moves were not repeated, the same position was repeated after White’s 62nd, 64th and 66th moves.) Perhaps this tournament was following Bilguer’s <Handbuch des Schachspiels> (1874) pursuant to which a threefold repetition of <moves> was required before a draw could be claimed.

Apr-19-21		K Any: Chessical's comment that 65. Rb4 is a blunder in that it allows 65...Rh4+ winning is strange in that Black's rook is on a5.

Dec-14-24		Gus Leffers: Another old grandmaster draw... But in all seriousness, great game. Duras is on his back the entire first like 30 moves, but then somehow untangles and is able to press. Devastating loss for Spielmann, I'm sure.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.