|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-11-04 | | thesonicvision: impressive |
|
| Jan-11-04 | | Catfriend: I really liked 1..e5!!! Amasing move! Really original! Giving black plenty of choice between different strategies |
|
| Jan-15-04 | | Whitehat1963: NN apparently didn't have any curiousity at all about Burn's willingness to sac his rooks. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: A very instructive game on how to checkmate. |
|
| Nov-29-05 | | dakgootje: very nice game. White made many moves with his/her queenside pieces ;-) |
|
| Mar-01-07 | | Melonhead: At first 11. ... axb4 seems like suicide, but the intention plays out clearly. |
|
| Dec-10-07 | | tatarch: It looks like White clearly understood Black's threat with 10.b4, and then he played right into it anyway... NN, you can be one goofy bastard sometimes. |
|
| Jun-25-08 | | PinnedPiece: Game of the day suggested title:
My, Amos, True! |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | Amarande: <tatarch> I think it's a matter of letting something pretty happen in a lost game. 11 ... axb4 seems to be winning in all cases. 12 Bxc6+ is pretty much forced, as a Queen's retreat will lose a piece. (White could play 12 Qxa8 at once, but after 12 ... Bc5, he is pretty much in the same soup as in the game.) After 12 ... bxc6, White has three choices: * 13 Qxa8 as played in the game, which loses in all variations after Bc5. 14 Qxc6+ (best, as the Queen is captured anyway in any other defense to the mate) Kxc6 and now: 15 h3 Ng3+ and the Rook is lost.
15 g3 succumbs to a pretty excelsior mate, 15 ... e3+ 16 Kg1 e2+ 17 Rf2 e1Q mate.
15 d4 exd3ep 16 Rf3 (16 g3 or h3 still fail as above) Re8 17 Bd2 Re2 and White has only a Rook for Queen and can barely move a piece. Mate should come soon. * 13 Qc2 (but not 13 Qb3? Qxb3 winning a Rook) Bc5! threatens the same mate as played, and it seems it can only be avoided by heavy material loss. (Here 14 h3 still loses the Rook, 14 g3 still loses to the excelsior mate noted in the previous variation notes, and if 14 d4 exd3ep, mate is threatened again and White's Queen is attacked as well.) * 13 Qd1 Bc5 14 d4 (14 h3 still loses to Ng3+; if 14 g3 e3+ is still the specific! 15 Kg1 loses to the Excelsior mate again, and if 15 Rf3 e2! 16 Qxe2 Rhe8 17 Qf1 Re1!!) exd3ep 15 Rf3 Rhe8 followed by such maneuvers as Re2, Nh4 etc.; this variation is the mildest for White, but the attack on his King continues unmitigated, his pieces are undeveloped and he has precious little in the way of being able to do so (e.g. 16 cxb4? Bd4 winning a piece, or 16 Nd2? bxc3 and the passed pawns crash through, or 16 Bd2 Re2 and there is no good defense to Nh4, etc.) and therefore he is bound to lose in due course. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | johnson peter ng sh: nothing special on e5 |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | shakespeare: amazing - how could a guy in 1866 train on tactical servers? |
|
Sep-15-09
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: White should have been worried about Burn's willingness to sacrifice anything. People joked about how Burn-E. Cohn, Breslau 1913 was the only time he ever gave up material (and it was unsound!). One odd aspect of this game--it could have also arisen from the Ponziani: 3.c3,d5; 4.Bb5,Ne7. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | apple pi: Burn's opponent wasn't a tough cookie here. |
|
| Sep-15-09 | | lostgalaxy: Great! |
|
| 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 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
