Sep-04-05
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Impressive game from the namesake of our Opening of the Day. The threat of 34...b3 is surprisingly tough to meet, e.g., 34.Nd2,bxc3; 35.bxc3,Qa3 threatens 36...Rb2. Still I wonder if there's some way for White to stagger on in the final position. |
|
Sep-04-05
 | | beatgiant: <An Englishman>
<34.Nd2,bxc3; 35.bxc3,Qa3 threatens 36...Rb2. Still I wonder if there's some way for White to stagger on>Not in the line you posted, because 34. Nd2?! bxc3 35. bxc3 Qa3 36. Nxc4 Qa1+ 37. Kd2 Qxf1 38. Qxd3 Rb1 39. Qc2 Bxc3+! looks good enough for White (40. Kxc3 Rc1 or 40. Qxc3 Qd1#). |
|
Sep-04-05
| | beatgiant: <An Englishman>
Against sometthing passive such as 34. Rg2, Black still looks to have a winning attack with ...a4, for example 34. Rg2 a4 35. Qxa4 bxc3 36. Nxc3 Bxc3 37. bxc3 Rb1+, etc. or if not 35. Qxa4, then Black plays ...a3 and continues the breakthrough. |
|
Sep-05-05
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: beatgiant, I saw a couple of ways to beat 34.Rg2 (or h2). Doesn't 34...bxc3 also work? I did see that the line I gave was probably decisive for Black. I was wondering if there was something else, but perhaps not. |
|
Sep-05-05
| | beatgiant: <An Englishman>
<I saw a couple of ways to beat 34.Rg2 (or h2). Doesn't 34...bxc3 also work?> Agreed, White is still getting roughed up badly after something like 34. Rg2 bxc3 35. bxc3 Rb3 36. Qa2 Qb6 37. Na3 Rxa3 38. Qxa3 Qb1+, etc. Maybe your idea is more direct. |
|
Sep-08-05
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: The big question is this--if Samisch didn't exist, would there have been so many brilliancies in the Twenties? |
|
| Nov-27-07 | | Coleman: For a moment I was getting frustrated witth blacks queenside push, but it ended with a beautiful knight position. |
|
Dec-08-08
 | | whiteshark: <An Englishman>
Did you find an answer to your <big question>? |
|
Aug-24-11
 | | Domdaniel: <The big question is this--if Samisch didn't exist, would there have been so many brilliancies in the Twenties?> History does not depend on individuals for its twists and turns. The 'great men' (or women) theory can be undermined - if not completely refuted - by pointing to the many cases of simultaneous discovery in the sciences: Newton and Leibniz, Darwin and Wallace, Bolyai and Lobachevsky, and so on. The same is true of chess. Without Friedrich, Nimzo would just have inflicted his immortal Zugzwang on somebody else. Things would have worked out much the same. Or same-ish. |
|
| Aug-24-11 | | BobCrisp: <The 'great men' (or women) theory can be undermined - if not completely refuted - by pointing to the many cases of simultaneous discovery in the sciences: Newton and Leibniz, Darwin and Wallace, Bolyai and Lobachevsky, and so on.> Hardly, it just expands the category of great men. The theory cannot be refuted. |
|
Aug-24-11
| | Domdaniel: You forgot the women, Bob. That's rather ungreatful. The theory, of course, isn't even wrong. Just lacking in context, perception, imagination and pattern visualization. Bit like one's chess. |
|
Aug-24-11
| | Domdaniel: It steam engines when it comes steam engine time. |
|
| Aug-25-11 | | JoergWalter: <Domdaniel>
There was a bitter dispute whether Leibniz or Newton first discovered the calculus. Bolyai and Lobachevski simultaneous (3 years difference) re-discovered non-euclidean geometry 30 years after Gauss. About Darwin and Wallace I don't know.
of course, the probability of simultaneous discovery (or invention) is big when a topic of general interest is surveyed by many scientists. But probability is small that Nimzowitsch would have played the immortal zugzwang with somebody else. |
|
Aug-27-11
| | Domdaniel: <JoergWalter> -- <But probability is small that Nimzowitsch would have played the immortal zugzwang with somebody else.> Literally, in its entirety, yes, of course - mainly because chess games are so rarely replicated and the possibility space is vast. But I don't think the loser necessarily had to have some quality that only Saemisch possessed. It's been one of my favorite games for decades, but I have to admit it's a little overrated -- Nimzowitsch did a fine propaganda job in turning it into a classic. As for simultaneity, I think games won in that style - hypermodern restraint, if not exactly Zugzwang - were hardly possible before 1920 or so. But a game won in that manner would probably have been played sooner or later, even without Saemisch. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 27...Rxb5