Georg Marco vs Isidor Gunsberg (1902)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Georg Marco vs Isidor Gunsberg
Monte Carlo (1902), Monte Carlo MNC, rd 5, Feb-10
Scandinavian Defense: Marshall Variation (B01) · 0-1

White to move.

ANALYSIS [x]

0-1

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	6 more G Marco/Gunsberg games
sac: 21...Nxd1	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You should register a free account to activate some of Chessgames.com's coolest and most powerful features.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Oct-09-21		KEG: During 1895-1904, Marco and Gunsberg squared off seven times. Marco dominated their rivalry, winning four of their games and drawing two others. This was the only game in which Gunsberg prevailed. He should have lost this game as well, but on move 21 Marco blundered, turning a win into a quick loss. Such is chess. 1. e4 d5 Gunsberg, according to the Tournament Book, consistently condemned the Center Counter Game. He may have played it here to surprise the Marco, whose opening knowledge far surpassed that of Gunsberg--or so Gunsberg himself said. 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Nxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 click for larger view 5... e6 Passive play by Gunsberg. 5...c5 offered better counterplay. 6. Nf3 b6 7. Bf4 Bd6 click for larger view 8. Bg3 Tentative play by Marco as well. 8. Ne5 was the best way to exploit what advantage White had. 8... Bb7 9. Bd3 Tangling up his own forces. 9. Be2 or 9. Qd2 or maybe 9. Ne5 were more promising. 9... BxB 10. nxB Nc6 Gunsberg in his commentary on this game claimed 10...Nbd7 was stronger. This seems doubtful. 11. Qa4 "The beginning of an admirably conceived attacking manoeuvre." (Gunsberg) click for larger view 11... Qd7 The beginning of an ill-conceived plan by Gunsberg that succeeded only because of some poor play by Marco. 12. 0-0-0 click for larger view White (Marco) was better at this point, but Black was not without resources. Beginning here, however, both sides erred badly until Gunsberg's position became indefensible. 12... 0-0-0?! 12...a6 or 12...a5 were more prudent. After the text, Marco could have obtained a powerful--if not entirely winning--attack. 13. Bc2 13. c5! was the way for Marco to press his edge. 13... Kb8 Further compromising his game. 13...a6 or 13...Qe7 were sounder play. After the text, Black was on the edge of disaster: click for larger view

Oct-09-21		KEG: Post II 14. Rhe1? Missing the very strong 14. d5 after which White would have strong pressure and excellent play (e.g., 14...exd5 15. cxd5 Na5 16. QxQ RxQ 17. Ne5 Re7 18. f4). After 14. Rhe1, the position was: click for larger view In his commentary on the game, Gunsberg spoke of his "great difficulties at this stage. But with 14...Qe7 or 14...a6 , his position would not be that bad. But here he blundered--a fact overlooked in his commentary: 14... Rhe8? After this lemon, Black was simply lost. click for larger view White to move and win. 15. Qb5? Missing the winning 15. Ne5! (e.g., 15...NxN [best] 16. dxN). Not all that hard to find over the board. But both players missed it, as did Gunsberg in his later commentary on the game. 15... h6 "Black did not care to play a6 [yet--KEG]...for then Qg5 would threaten the king's side pawns." (Gunsberg) 16. Ba4 "Again well played." (Gunsberg) Agreed, but White had no significant edge even after this good move: click for larger view 16... a6 An unnecessary weakening. Black would be entirely fine after 16...Qe7. 17. Qb3 click for larger view 17... Ng4? "It was a question of how to meet the coming rush." (Gunsberg) Whatever it was that Gunsberg meant by the "coming rush," this move was bad. Also doubtful would have been 17...Na5, but not because of Gunsberg's proposed 18. Qb4 but rather because of 18. Qc2 (or maybe 18. Qa3). After the text, Black was almost certainly lost. 18. d5! A powerful advance that seems to leave Black without adequate resource: click for larger view 18... exd5 19. RxR QxR 20. cxd5 Nxf2 Best but insufficient. The position was now: click for larger view White to play and win. Instead of finding the winning line here, Marco instead blundered away the game, as I will discuss in my next post on this game.

Oct-09-21		KEG: Post III 21. dxN? Turning a win into a loss. The Tournament Book said that 21. Rd2 was the right move for White here, but that only leads to a draw, 21...b5! (the saving move) 22. dxN RxR 23. KxR Qxc6 24. Bxb5 axB 25. Qxf7 Ne4+ 26. NxN QxN. 21... NxR click for larger view 22. cxB? Marco was almost certainly lost anyway, but after the text all hope was gone. The only way even to prolong the game lay in 22. NxN Bxc6 23. BxB QxB+ leaving White with two Knights against Black's Rook and two pawns. This is very likely a win for Black, especially since White has an isolated doubled g-pawn. After the text, the game was over, as Gunsberg quickly demonstrated. 22... Qe3+ 23. Kb1 NxN+ click for larger view 24. QxN? Marco perhaps thought this would enable him to retain Bishop and Knight for Gunsberg's Rook and two pawns (once the advanced b-pawn was taken. But Marco apparently missed Gunsberg's crushing reply: 24... Qe4+ click for larger view The fork is lethal since if Marco now tried to save his a4 Bishop by 25. Bc2 or 25. Qc2, the game ends instantly via 25...Rd1 mate. So... 0-1

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.