|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-06-18
 | | ajk68: 16. dxe4 |
|
| Mar-06-18 | | schnarre: ...A nice odds game! |
|
Mar-06-18
| | ajk68: That should be move 17.
Also, bishop takes d5 works as well. |
|
Mar-06-18
 | | offramp: Mandolfo no castell. |
|
| Mar-06-18 | | TheTamale: Seems that Black had lots of areas to improve here. One would've been 6)... Ne2 instead of burying the knight on a2 as he did. Another would have been to decline the obviously dangerous offer of the bishop on move 14. Perhaps Stockfish or Rybka will reveal me to be a fool. But I stand by my limited and feeble prognosis. |
|
| Mar-06-18 | | goodevans: <ajk68: 16. dxe4> I think you mean <17.dxe4> as there's nothing on e4 to take on move 16. ;) I too have been considering if the <16...Ne4> Q-sac is still winning if black declines it. <17.dxe4> seems one of the more promising ways to decline but then <17...Qxg5> threatens both <18...Qxe5> and <18...Qh5> either of which looks devastating. I for one can't see how white would defend this. Having spent a bit of time looking at this I think white is lost whatever he does after <16...Ne4> but the complications are just a bit too much for me to be sure. |
|
| Mar-06-18 | | morfishine: Amusing is simple-minded <john barleycorn> asking if this was a smothered mate LMAO, what a dunce, questions like that require a special type of genius ***** |
|
| Mar-06-18 | | ajile: <morfishine:>
A bit harsh isn't it?
?? |
|
| Mar-06-18 | | RookFile: Terrific story, I remember reading it. That was a great book and Horowitz was a great writer. |
|
| Mar-07-18 | | ughaibu: RookFile: Do you know a Horowitz story about illegally moving a knight? I think it was Horowitz, in any case some master was giving a simul and his opponent attacked a knight, but taking the knight would allow mate. On the other hand, leaving the knight en prise would be suspicious, so the master moved it two squares diagonally, as if it were a bishop. Of course the opponent pointed out the illegality, insisted on the master making a king move, took the knight and was mated. I'd like to see the game, if it's on record. |
|
| Mar-07-18 | | schnarre: ...I think White lost it with 7. Na2? |
|
| Mar-07-18 | | morfishine: <ajile> Not really, this miscreant <john barleycorn> has been trolling me and others at <CG> for years His SOP here at <CG> is to blind attack unknown posters with a condescending manner. He's driven off a number of premium members over the years. I have him on ignore but saw his post inside another's post so couldn't resist. I thought he had quit <CG> for good recently, but unfortunately, this turned out to be someone else :( ***** |
|
| Mar-07-18 | | john barleycorn: <morfishine: <ajile> Not really, this miscreant <john barleycorn> has been trolling me and others at <CG> for years ...> "trolling" you for years? boy, stop lying. |
|
Sep-03-18
| | offramp: A really good game. Almost like magic. |
|
| Sep-03-18 | | lentil: <john barleycorn> 2-1/2 years later, here's a counterexample! Samsonov vs Nezhmetdinov, 1929 |
|
Sep-03-18
 | | casaschi: The PGN of the game has a small imperfection.
The castling rights section of the FEN string should have a uppercase Q instead of lowercase q; uppercase letters refer to White while lowercase letters refer to Black. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsy... |
|
| Sep-03-18 | | thegoodanarchist: I don't like having "odds games" for GOTD.
That's of course my personal opinion. I don't see anyone else criticizing this practice. Of course, this is only the 4th comment today - give it time! |
|
| Sep-03-18 | | sfm: There is unfortunately no authorized definition of a smothered mate. Consensus would certainly be, that the check must be given with a knight. Also, hardly anyone would think of calling it "smothered" if only one escape square were blocked by the king's own man, the others by the winning party. But from there? "All-but-one"? "More than 50%"?
To avoid using unclear terms I would recommend not using the expression about anything else than the 'classic' version we all know, where there is an unfortunate traitor on every square the king could go to. Also not "semi-smothered", as it equally will lack a plausible clear definition. I will immediately call my contacts in FIDE to lobby for getting this matter accepted on the agenda for the next General Assembly so my views on this important issue can be made officially endorsed. <thegoodanarchist: I don't like having "odds games" for GOTD.> Well, I liked this one. But needless to say the quality of the moves is unlikely to be great on both sides. As Kurt Richter once said: "The player who is given the advantage of the odds is obliged to play poorly." This obligation is well respected in the overwhelming majority of games we see. |
|
Sep-03-18
 | | Sally Simpson: As a previous poster mentioned this is close to being an 'Anastasia's Mate.'
click for larger viewBut as you can see the pattern is similar but it is not an Anastasia. 
click for larger viewA Smothered Mate is generally accepted as a Knight Check where all flight squares are blocked by the King's own pieces...he is being smothered by them. This type of mate where a Knight checks and some of the flight squares are covered by a single friendly piece (in this case the h8 Rook) the term 'Suffocation Mate' can be applied. Usual examples of a 'Suffocation Mate' are given with a Bishop covering the flight squares as in Steinitz vs J B Brockenbrough, 1885 but I think we can safely use the term in this game. ---
GOTD and odds games.
If you click on c8 and copy just the moves, then paste the moves into any PGN player the a8 Rook appears as if by magic. So the Rook is really there...we just cannot see it. |
|
Jan-20-22
 | | FSR: Staggeringly brilliant play by Kolisch, although his opponent played like . . . well, a guy to whom you can give odds of rook and move. Remarkably, Black is winning by force after 16...Ne4!!, but it takes the engine some time to realize that. Of course White responded in a stupid way. More interesting is 17.dxe4 Qxg5 18.exd5 Qh5!! 19.Ng6+ Kd7 20.Nxh8 g3! and wins, e.g. 21.fxg3 Nf3# or Ne2#. The alternative, also hopeless, is to throw away the queen with 21.Qe8+ Kxe8 22.Rfe1+ just to make a flight square. 19.Nxf7+ Kxf7 20.d6+ Kg6! also wins for Black. Then there's 17.Bxd5. Stockfish 12 running on my computer thinks for about a minute(!) that this wins for White, until it changes its mind and spits out 17...Ng3!! 18.Bxf7+ (the move that staves off mate the longest) Kf8 19.Ng6+ Kxf7 20.Nxh8+ Qxh8 and now White has to hang his queen with 21.Qe8+ ("best") or 21.Qe7+ (to which the best response is 21...Kg6!! rather than taking the queen immediately) to drag the game out further. Note the gorgeous line 21.fxg3+ Nf3#: Black answers a discovered check with double check and mate! |
|
Jan-20-22
| | FSR: The notes by Stockfish on this site are erroneous because they're based on <black having his queen rook>. This is immediately apparent from the notes at the beginning of the game. Stockfish says that White could have had a +0.36 advantage at move 4, and that Black is better by move 6. Obviously these assessments make no sense unless Black has <not> given rook odds. |
|
Jan-20-22
 | | Williebob: <FSR> I noticed this when attempting to use built-in Stockfish on a Morphy knight-odds game; CG's installation apparently isn't set up for any non-standard starting positions (not sure if it even can be set up for this.)
|
|
| Oct-03-23 | | chessgecko: This game was in Fred Reinfeld's Great Short Games of the Chess Masters. However, Reinfeld did not mention that it was an odds game. It could be a mistake or Kolisch did not really play an odds game this time. |
|
Oct-03-23
 | | MissScarlett: <The PGN of the game has a small imperfection. The castling rights section of the FEN string should have a uppercase Q instead of lowercase q; uppercase letters refer to White while lowercase letters refer to Black.> Belatedly corrected. |
|
Oct-03-23
| | MissScarlett: < It could be a mistake or Kolisch did not really play an odds game this time.> There's an involved discussion of this game in Zavatarelli's book on Kolisch. All early sources agree that it was played at QR odds. They also concur that <18.Ng6+>, not <18.Nc6+>, was the move. The date is uncertain but if it was played in Trieste it occurred during the winter of 1857/58. Zavatarelli conjectures that the game may have been a fabrication to raise Kolisch's profile. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 13...h5