|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-07-04
 | | tpstar: <stuck> Hello! Welcome to the group! That's an interesting suggestion, but note 27. Rxg7+!? Kxg7 28. Rg1+ Qg6 giving up the Queen for 2 Rooks with a double-edged position. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | stuck: Thanks <tpstar> I admit concrete variations aren't my forte, but after
29. RxQ fxR 30. Ba3! the e pawn is well defended, blacks only break on the c file is prevented, and the black bishop is locked out of the game. I see a break for white on the f-file, but no corresponding break for black. My plan would be to place pawns on e5, f4, h4, march the white king to the center to bolster d4, then break on f-file and penetrate with my queen. I am having a difficult time seeing how black holds the position. I think I'll slip on down to BestBuy, buy ChessMaster, and play it out. Hopefully I get Fritz8 for Christmas :) |
|
Nov-08-04
| | tpstar: <stuck> I believe you have found a major improvement over the game continuation starting with 27. Rxg7+! Kxg7 28. Rg1+ Qg6 29. Rxg6+ fxg6 30. Ba3! and Black is in a severe bind. Note 30 ... de? 31. Qxe4 Re8 (31 ... Rxd4? 32. Bb2 is simplest) 32. Qxc6 wins the exchange (32 ... Rdxe7 33. Bxe7 Rxe7), and on 30 ... Re8 31. e5 & 32. Qc3 picking up the Pc6 (33. Qxc6), then infiltrating with the Queen (34. Qf6+ & 35. Qe6) winning quickly. Nice job! |
|
| Nov-09-04 | | sneaky pete: The improvement 27.Rxg7+ .. was first published in the British Chess Magazine, 1934, a discovery of F.N.Jameson afer studying the game in the 1933 English translation of Reti's "Masters of the Chessboard". After 27... Kxg7 28.Rg1+ .. Kotov ("Train like a grandmaster") suggests 28... Qg5 is superior to Aitken's 28... Qg6. This puzzles me a bit. After 28... Qg5 29.Qe3 Rxe7 30.Rxg5+ hxg5 31.Qxg5+ Kf8 32.Qh6+ Ke8 33.Qxc6+ .. (line given by Kotov) white should win. After 28... Qg6 in tpstars's line 29.Rxg6+ fxg6 30.Ba3 Re8 31.e5 .. black can still offer resistance with 31... Rdxe7 32.Bxe7 Rxe7 etc. White missed another opportunity (unnoticed by Reti) to save the game. He should have played 31.Ba3 .., mentioned by Harding in "Evans Gambit and a system vs Two Knights Defense" (Chess Digest, 1991).
Harding gives no analyses or evaluation of this move however. Black should play 31... Qe3 when 32.Rxf7+ Rxf7 33.Qxg6+ Kh8 34.Qxf7 Bxd4 35.Rg3 cxd5 36.Bc5 .. with a probable draw might follow. |
|
| Mar-27-11 | | Lovuschka: As Jakov Neistadt notes in his Buch "Damenopfer", 34.Rh4 is a brillant trap. After the "obvious" move 34...Qe2
click for larger viewwhite can sacrifice his queen with 35.Bf8!! (or the less spectacular 35.Bc1) and has a perpetual check. 35...Qxd3 36.Rxh6+ Kg8 37. Rgxg6+ Kxf8 38.Rf6+ Ke7 39.Re6+ draws. Steinitz however avoided the trap, played 34...h5 and won. Neistadt also recommends 34...Qf6 similarly here, and computers show that 34...Qf6 would even have been a bit stronger. |
|
Jun-05-16
 | | dernier loup de T: Bird (not the young Blackburne, to avoid sad tears) should have studied the game and discovered 27.Rxg7+!!  ; then he could claim Steinitz was really a patzer compared to Morphy, who would of course have seen the winning sacrifice!! LOL... |
|
| Feb-05-17 | | Big Pawn: <27. Rxg7+! Kxg7 28. Rg1+ Qg6 29. Rxg6+ fxg6 30. Ba3! and Black is in a severe bind. Note 30 ... de? 31. Qxe4 Re8 (31 ... Rxd4? 32. Bb2 is simplest) 32. Qxc6 wins the exchange (32 ... Rdxe7 33. Bxe7 Rxe7), and on 30 ... Re8 31. e5 & 32. Qc3 picking up the Pc6 (33. Qxc6), then infiltrating with the Queen (34. Qf6+ & 35. Qe6) winning quickly. Nice job!> I'm not seeing something I suppose. After 27. Rxg7+ Kxg7 28. Rg1+ why not just ...Kh7? If 29. Rxg8 then Rxe7. |
|
Aug-25-18
 | | MissScarlett: <Now compare this game with Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1862 (10th game from the match played in London, January 1863, not 1862) and discover that NN or "L" is none other than The Black Death himself!> Harding's Blackburne biography disputes this is the tenth and final game of the match (Game Collection: Steinitz - Blackburne (1862-63)), played on January 5th 1863. <Many books and chess magazines have followed <Bachmann> #53, in saying that the following were the moves, or at least that it was a Blackburne-Steinitz game of this period. Its authenticity is now being questioned, perhaps for the first time. Steinitz was definitely Black but the identity of his opponent, the date and the occasion are unclear. [...]When the game was first published, Blackburne was not named. It appeared in the <I.L.N>, 9 October 1863: "Chess in London. A very instructive Game, played lately at the Grand Cigar Divan between Steinitz and an Amateur of Manchester." The Blackburne-Steinitz match took place at the London Chess Club, not the Divan, and much earlier in the year. Moreover, in the game header, Staunton identified the first player as "Mr. L" but there was at this time no strong amateur in Manchester with that initial, though there were some rather weak ones (Leresche, La Fontaine, Lewis) who are unlikely to have played as strongly as White does for much of this game. Bachmann repeated the score in his fourth volume (#961 on page 377) and, clearly taking it from the <I.L.N>, now said it was played at the Cigar Divan in 1864 naming White as "L. aus Manchester." [...]
To conclude, although White eventually lost, it was through miscalculating difficult tactics and not because of failed strategy as Reti alleged. The general quality of White's play was high for that period and Steinitz had a much tougher fight than provincial amateurs usually gave him. Given that the loser was stated to be from Manchester, White indeed probably was Blackburne but the game was probably played later in 1863, around the same time as Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1863. What actually happened in the tenth match game will probably remain forever a mystery.> |
|
| Jun-03-20 | | Petrosianic: Reti's Masters of the Chessboard thinks the game is decided by Move 38, and describes 39. f4 as a last trap. (if 39...Bxd4, Rxh5+ gxh5 41. Qg3 Bxg1 42. Qg7 mate). However, it looks like 39. f4 is in fact THE losing move, and that White was still okay before it. Same motif as the last note. If 39. Qc1 Qxb2 40. Qg5 Re6 41. Rxh5+, and White can hardly lose. 
click for larger view 41...Kg8 42. Rh8+ Kxh8 43. Qh6+ Kg8 44. Rxg6+ draws. |
|
Feb-15-22
 | | GrahamClayton: <Big Pawn>
I'm not seeing something I suppose. After 27. Rxg7+ Kxg7 28. Rg1+ why not just ...Kh7?<Big Pawn>
28...Kh7 29. e5+, eg 29...Kh8 30. Rg8+ Kg8 31. e8Q, or 29...Rg6 30. e8Q, or 29...Qg6 30. Qg6+ & 31. e8Q. |
|
| Mar-18-22 | | SonnyGIII: Steinitz should be every chess player's grandfather. |
|
Jul-11-25
 | | jnpope: <It appeared in the <I.L.N>, 9 October 1863> There was no <Illustrated London News> issue for 9 October 1863. The game was published in the <Illustrated London News>, 1863.08.15, p178. The other information appears to correctly come from the <Illustrated London News>. Not sure why Harding would give the wrong date. Source added, Grand Cigar Divan venue added, opponent changed to NN. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: <[White "NN (Mr. L., an amateur of Manchester)"> - thumbs up, though a source note mentioning the common identification of White as Blackburne, with a ref to Harding, might be useful. |
|
Jul-11-25
| | jnpope: I added additional sources and noted the incorrect data given each time Bachmann used it. Not sure what Harding has to do with things, other than giving the wrong date of publication in his book. Probably best to leave him out of it. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: Ah, I see, it was Bachman who first made the identification of Blackburne. I wasn't sure who did so first, given <sneaky pete>'s <Who is this NN? Bachmann, in Volume I of his "Schachmeister Steinitz", states it's "L. from Manchester" and has the game played in the Cigar Divan in 1864.> NN vs Steinitz, 1863 (kibitz #1) It seemed to me that Harding clearly identified White as Blackburne, and so that would be a good as place as any to reference. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: In the PGN, <WhiteNote "Mr. L., an amateur of Manchester> is unclear to me - I think you should make explicit where the attribution comes from (i.e. ILN I believe, but also Bachmann(?)) |
|
Jul-11-25
| | jnpope: Harding seems to think that the only person from Manchester strong enough to play this game would have been Blackburne. Which seems like an faulty line of reasoning to me. Even a lower class player is capable of playing a great game on occasion (otherwise upsets would never occur!). Again, best to leave Harding's speculation in his own book. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: <jn> I'm not arguing for Harding's inclusion (though I admit it might appear so). What I'm confused about it the lack of crystal clear clarity as to what info comes from what source. Typical for me, I get confused in a quick reading - so I'll try to dig out the various Bachmann editions. I think the PGN <Source Notes> could, and should, also make it clear and explicit on a glance. Having a <WhiteNote> verbatim repeating info in the <White> tag isn't adding any info, I'll note in passing. |
|
Jul-11-25
| | jnpope: Harding, in his Blackburne book has this game given as <Blackburne(?)-Steinitz>. In his Steinitz book he moved the game out from the Steinitz-Blackburne match section and now gives it as <"L. of Manchester" (probably Blackburne)>. Again, his only "evidence" for it being Blackburne is that White played too good for too long during the game. |
|
Jul-11-25
| | jnpope: <WhiteNote> was added due to <CG> overwriting the White/Black tags occasionally when they run their "standardizing" script to clean up the names. I didn't want to lose the vital info. I've renamed it to <SourceNote>, which should still preserve that data. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: For clarity - if I might ask, <jn>, do you have both editions of Bachmann? |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: OK, we're simul-posting, but I think I'm following. I'm also wondering how prevalent the identification of White as Blackburne is. E.g. is it used in <ChessBase>, etc.? (I know a <Wayback> search on <CG> shows White as Blackburne for a long time) |
|
Jul-11-25
| | jnpope: I'm nearly certain all of the mistaken identifications originate with Bachmann (and yes, I have multiple editions of Bachmann). If anyone uses Bachmann, v1, 1910, then they will identify the game as being played by Blackburne. Of course Bachmann didn't bother giving his sources, so I can't trace it any further back in time at the moment. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: Got it. PGN looks good. Thanks. |
|
| Jul-11-25 | | stone free or die: Here is a Hathitrust link to Bachmann (1910)'s version of the game - which (as noted above) he erroneously puts as G-10 of the 1863 <Steinitz//Blackburne> match in London: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt... * * * * *
Here is an excerpt of Bachmann's introduction to the match games (google translated): <Next chess exploits in England.The brilliant play Steinitz had displayed in the London tournament and his stated intention to stay in England to devote himself entirely to chess soon led to a series of interesting matches in which the aspiring local chess students sought to test the strength of their newly emerged rival. The first to face him was James Harry Blackburne (born December 10, 1842, in Manchester), renowned as a blindfold player, whom Steinitz decisively defeated in January 1863, winning 7 games to 1 and drawing two games. ... These successes naturally cemented [Steinitz'] quickly acquired reputation, even if they were only the weak beginning of a long career of unusual brilliance, and soon made Steinitz an opponent who was both sought after and feared in all chess circles in London. Unfortunately , despite all efforts , it was not possible to find all the games of the match with Blackburne , as the reporting in the English chess magazines of that time was rather sketchy .> |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
