| Jul-04-04 | | refutor: (Santasiere) "I had White in against Weaver W. Adams in the U.S. Open Championship in 1946. Weaver had given a lifetime analyzing, perfecting and selling (with his heart) the Vienna Opening; and his preaching had fallen, in my case,on ears which were not deaf (one is); and on a rare occasion I loved to try that opening. So there we were in Pittsburgh, and I played 1.e4 and he played at once confidently 1. ...e5, expecting some such silly thing as the Ruy Lopez (which he had analyzed as a win for *Black*) or (God forbid) the King's Gambit. But, on a sudden impulse, it seemed to me that I would never again have an opportunity to find out the best defense to the Vienna, for surely the arch-priest would know! So I played 2.Nc3. Weaver rose from his chair a bit, turned it around to face the window, sat, and looked out of the window for a half hour. When he resumed the game, his defense was inferior, and by the ninth move he resigned, and said to me with a smile 'You know, San, I can't play against the Vienna!'" Does anyone else feel that way when they get "their" defense played against them? ;) |
|
| Jan-31-05 | | ArturoRivera: its kind of common, i hate when someone starts playing me queen opening setup, like Nc2, Bg5 and then e4 breaking in the e line, sometimes i even resign, or when someone is enough confident to play 1.-a3, i come to a shock beacause sometimes i like to open that way, however i normally answer 1.-...a6! |
|
| Feb-01-05 | | dafish298: um...why did black resign this position? ..KxBf7 RxNf2+ ...Ke8
i know black is under developed and will have a small uphill battle but still |
|
Jul-02-13
 | | FSR: Looks like Adams was right - the Vienna wins by force! |
|
Jul-02-13
| | FSR: White to Play and Win. |
|
Oct-10-24
| | FSR: Hoist on His Own Petard. |
|
Oct-10-24
 | | beatgiant: Is there anything wrong with the obvious 9. Bb3 Bc5 10. Qe1 to win material? And as <dafish298> asks above, why resign so early? On 10...Kxf7 11. Rxf2+ Kg6, seems like it will still take a while for White to put Black out of his misery. |
|
Oct-11-24
| | FSR: This is a sad excuse for a game between two of the country's leading masters. Adams, of course, was the eccentric famous for claiming that White wins by force. (He doesn't. Not even close. See my award-winning article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First... Or just look at the results of my ICCF correspondence games. Many, many draws.) After 1.e4 e5, Adams first claimed that 2.Bc4! was the sockdolager, as Horowitz would say. Adams later decided that the improbable 2.Nc3!! was the killer move. He made the switch well before this game. In chessgames' database, Adams played 2.Bc4 from 1936-41 Repertoire Explorer: Weaver Adams (white) and 2.Nc3 from 1940-51. Repertoire Explorer: Weaver Adams (white). This game was played in 1946. You'd think that an advocate of 2.Nc3 would have some idea how to combat the move, and would be able to play far more than eight more moves before resigning. Nope! Adams' 3...Bb4, the Reversed Ruy Lopez, is offbeat but quite playable. But after 4.Nge2, either 4...O-O or 4...Nxe4 is best. 4...c6 is inferior, since Black is not well placed to meet 5.d4! But 6...d5! still would have left White with only a small advantage. Instead, Adams' 6...Qh4? was terrible. Stockfish 17 already gives White a winning advantage after 7.Qd4! c5 8.Qd5, not fearing 8...Qxf2+ 9.Kd1. The natural 7.O-O, as Santasiere played, also gave a big advantage. Adams should have tried 7...Nxc3 8.bxc3 Qxc4 9.cxb4 O-O. Instead he made matters worse with 7...Nxf2? 8.Bxf7+! After 8...Kf8, Santasiere's 9.Qd4? was weak since, as <dafish298> and <beatgiant> pointed out, after 9...Qxd4 10.Nxd4, Adams still could have staggered on with 10...Kxf7 rather than resigning. With Black's king in the center and Black lagging terribly in development, White should keep queens on rather than trade them. <beatgiant>'s suggestion 9.Bb3! Bc5 10.Qe1 (10.Ng3 is also good) would indeed have been <much> stronger than 9.Qd4? Stockfish says that the bizarre computer move 9.Bh5! is even slightly stronger than 9.Bb3!, though both are extremely winning (around +5). |
|
Oct-11-24
| | beatgiant: Not sure I should spend a lot of time analyzing this, but <9. Bh5> is strong? That just shows how bad Black's position is here. What are the points in favor of 9. Bh5? Here's all I can think of. - The Rxf2 threat is now with check.
- From h5, the bishop covers e8 so Black no longer has ...Ke8 as an unpinning king move. - If Black does move his king away (eg ...Kg8), white still threatens 10. Rxf2 Bc5 11. Ng3, winning material because the knight defends the bishop. - If Black takes it with 9...Qxh5, White gets a lot of attacking momentum chasing Black's king and queen around while developing pieces. But Black's position is so bad, even probably 9. Rxf2 (offering an exchange sac) might also be good enough. After 9. Rxf2 Bc5 10. Ng3 Bxf2+ 11. Kxf2 Kxf7 12. Nce4, it looks like a Morphy vs. NN scenario and it's hard to see a defense. |
|
| Oct-11-24 | | FM David H. Levin: <<beatgiant>: Is there anything wrong with the obvious 9. Bb3 Bc5 10. Qe1 to win material?> On 9. Bb3 Bc5 10. Qe1, best for Black seems 10...Ke7 11. Rxf2 Rf8. 
click for larger viewWhite might then countersacrifice by 12. Nf4 (Threatening 13. Be3.) 12...Bxf2+ 13. Qxf2 Qxf2+ 14. Kxf2 g5 15. Kg3 gxf4+ 16. Bxf4. 
click for larger viewAs compensation for the exchange, White would have a pawn, a big lead in development, dark-square control, and the prospect of posting his knight at d6. I think I'd be quite happy to be White after 16. Bxf4. |
|
Oct-11-24
| | beatgiant: <FM David H. Levin> Thanks for that line. I was talking about <to win material> so 9. Bb3 Bc5 10. Qe1 Ke7 11. Rxf2 Rf8 <12. Nd1> Bxf2+ 13. Nxf2 when, on top of everything else, White is also up two pieces for a rook. But as we've seen, White has many ways to bust Black here. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
