|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-15-09 | | whiteshark: NN played a bit fatalistic towards the end. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | newzild: <Amarande> When I first clicked through this game I thought white had a defense at move 13 with 13.Qd1. I still think it's a defense, because after your suggestion of 13...Bc5, white doesn't have to play 14., 14.h3 or 14.g3 at all, as black no longer threatens mate (white's queen covers h5). Maybe he could play something like 14.c3, intending 15.Nc3. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | arnaud1959: 10.b4 controls c5 but doesn't solve white's problems. Maybe he should have tried 11.d4 exd3 12.Rd1 Bc5+ 13.Kf1 and white threatens Rxd3. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | arnaud1959: Correction: 10.d4 and not 11.d4 |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | lzromeu: Pour NN, lose again. |
|
Sep-15-09
 | | Peligroso Patzer: The concluding combination is reminiscent of this famous game: Karpov vs Taimanov, 1977. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | Once: For fun I put this through Fritz. He reckons that the losing move was here... Position after 9...Nf5
click for larger viewFrom this position, Fritz likes the scary-looking 10. d4 ed 11. Rd1 Bc5+ Kf1 
click for larger viewI don't like the look of white's position - too many black pieces around the centre and a naked looking white king - but Fritzie has cojones of silicon and reckons it's about level. Instead, 10. b4 sends the eval from level to -1.7. After 10...a5, white is struggling to defend against three threats - losing the Bb5, letting black open the a file for his Ra8 and allowing the Bc5+/ Ng3+/ Qh5# tactic. But let's be fair to NN. It's not easy to see how quickly 10. b4 loses OTB and without the benefit of Terminator-grade assistance. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | theodor: delightful!
ps: what the abbreviation NN does means? |
|
Sep-15-09
 | | playground player: NN needs to find a different hobby. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | Once: <theodor: ps: what the abbreviation NN does means?> The Oxford Companion to Chess gives this explanation: "NN, an abbreviation of the latin nomina (names) used when the names of players are not known, the chess player's counterpart of the poet Anon. The most plausible alternative explanation is that the letters should be written N.N. for nescio nomen, a latin phrase meaning "name unknown". Or in simpler terms - "no name". In other words, we either don't know the player's name or the master decided to hide the loser's blushes by not revealing who he was. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | solskytz: ...and a simpler, easier to remember (if not entirely, linguistically precise) version is simply NN = Not (k)Nown |
|
Sep-15-09
 | | Phony Benoni: I thought NN stood for <Not Nakamura>. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | whiteshark: One N is for nude, most certainly. Can't say which one. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | WhiteRook48: NN bashing |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | screwdriver: Nice game. I seem to remember playing over this game many years ago. The unique feature is where the queen comes down and gobbles up both rooks but still loses. |
|
| Sep-16-09 | | AnalyzeThis: I wonder if they game is in "The Art of the Checkmate". It does seem familiar. |
|
| Sep-16-09 | | kevin86: An Anastesia (lol) mate with a bishop instead of a knight. I bet that the pipe was blazin' this night. |
|
| Nov-23-09 | | theodor: <Once: <theodor: ps: what the abbreviation NN does means?>
The Oxford Companion to Chess gives this explanation:....> thanks for answering! |
|
| Nov-23-09 | | theodor: <whiteshark: One N is for nude, most certainly. Can't say which one.> Nolli me tangere, Sig. Pescecane. |
|
Dec-31-10
 | | Penguincw: Another good pun for this game would be " Burn's Immortal". |
|
| Jan-07-14 | | TheTamale: NN is for Nathan Norris. As good as his brother Chuck is at everything, Nathan is as bad. |
|
| Jan-07-14 | | john barleycorn: <TheTamale: NN is for Nathan Norris. As good as his brother Chuck is at everything, Nathan is as bad.> :-)
When there is light there is shadow. When there is a lot of light... |
|
Feb-09-14
 | | GrahamClayton: <newzild>When I first clicked through this game I thought white had a defense at move 13 with 13.♕d1 <newzild>,
13. ♕d1 ♖xa2 14. ♖xa2 ♕xa2 and the White knight is trapped and will be lost. |
|
| Dec-19-18 | | jphamlore: <An Englishman: One odd aspect of this game--it could have also arisen from the Ponziani: 3.c3,d5; 4.Bb5,Ne7.> Emanuel Lasker in his Commonsense in Chess actually does present this game with initial moves changed to be a transposition from the Ponziani, pages 96-97: 1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.c3 d5 4.♕a4 dxe4 5.♘xe5 ♕d5 6.♗b5 ♘e7 7.f4. Instead of calling Amos Burn by name, Lasker refers to him as a "fine Liverpool player." After 7. f4, Lasker writes:
<A fine Liverpool player, looking at the position with the instinct of a true chess player, thought that there must be, against such precipitate attack as White has undertaken, a better reply. And this is how he defeated one of his opponents in a match game.> Back in those days, Burn could learn how to play chess when 16, and about 2 years later be playing a match game such as this. NN therefore might have been a player of some local note. The answer could possibly be in the pages of Richard Forster's Amos Burn: A Chess Biography. |
|
Dec-01-24
 | | MissScarlett: < The answer could possibly be in the pages of Richard Forster's Amos Burn: A Chess Biography.> From Appendix A, Loose Ends, p.903:
<Lasker gave this game in <Common Sense in Chess> (London, 1895), p. 96. He only indicated that it was played by a "fine Liverpool player." R.N. Coles conjectured that this must have been Burn (<Amos Burn, The Quiet Chessmaster> [Brighton, 1983], p. 12). However, in the later German version of <Common Sense> Lasker specifically noted that Black had been [W. W.?] Rutherford (Emanuel Lasker, <Gesunder Menschenverstand in Schach> [Berlin, 1925], p. 107).> It has to be William Rutherford. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
