| Aug-27-07 | | wolfmaster: Koblents was Tal's trainer for almost 25 years. |
|
| Oct-06-08 | | Sem: Horribly short. |
|
Mar-07-12
 | | FSR: It's amazing how stupid Black can be made to look in the King's Gambit if he doesn't know what he's doing. |
|
Jun-29-12
 | | fm avari viraf: In 1946, I must be sucking my thumb in the craddle of chess while this game was being played! |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | King Death: < FSR: It's amazing how stupid Black can be made to look in the King's Gambit if he doesn't know what he's doing.> Playing 3...Nf6 is a good start on the road to looking stupid for sure, there are a lot of good ways to play it. |
|
Mar-25-14
| | FSR: For those who don't know, Zagorovsky won the World Correspondence Championship in 1965. My original thought was that he must not have been too strong yet in 1946. But I see that the following year he played in the USSR Championship, and also drew this game: Bronstein vs V Zagorovsky, 1947. So, notwithstanding this disaster, he was likely pretty strong at the time of this game. The denouement reminds me of Fischer vs R Chalker, 1964, another game where the combination of a pawn on e5, queen on e2, and Black's wayward KB and KN, allowed Bg5! with murderous effect. |
|
| Mar-25-14 | | ughaibu: 3...Nf6 is, of course, a reasonable move. A couple of well known examples: Efimov vs Bronstein, 1941 and Rubinstein vs Yates, 1922 |
|
Mar-25-14
| | FSR: 3...Nf6 is certainly playable, albeit the worst-scoring of Black's principal replies to the King's Knight's Gambit. Opening Explorer |
|
| Mar-25-14 | | ughaibu: A surprise to see 3...g6 scored best. I don't remember ever seeing it. |
|
Mar-25-14
| | FSR: <ughaibu> Yes, that's a weird one. The sample size is only seven games. All were decisive, and Black scored 4-3. An IM named Dolezal played and won two of the games for Black. Apart from him, 3...g6 just appears to have been played by no-name players who lose miniatures to each other. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| Mar-25-14 | | ughaibu: Dolezal followed up with Bh6, which I think is interesting. The other games are quite unconvincing as far as the theory of 3...g6 goes. This one concludes with an amusing (mis)combination: K Osterberg vs Fadmel Zyde, 1998 |
|
Mar-25-14
| | FSR: <ughaibu> Yes, ...Bh6 is the only way to give 3...g6 much of a point. |
|
| Sep-03-15 | | Abdel Irada: <FSR: <ughaibu> Yes, that's a weird one. The sample size is only seven games.> This, I think, is an important point to remember when using the Opening Explorer. Not infrequently, sample size is a more important variable than the statistics themselves. It often happens that a minor line appears to do well, based on a very limited sample. But further investigation sometimes reveals that one particular game demonstrates a fatal weakness in the line, and that is why it is more of a footnote than an actual variation. ∞ |
|
Kibitzing
