| Dec-10-03 | | ksadler: Games like this make me wonder about the strength of play back in the 1880s. What is Black threatening to force White to play 12. ♗b2 ♕xd2 13. ♗c1 ? |
|
| Dec-11-03 | | Cyphelium: Nothing that I see, though white is a little awkward. Maybe white thought that he would have some bishop sac against g7 or h7 after 12.- Qxd2, but at move 13 realised that this doesn't work. |
|
| Dec-12-03 | | aragorn69: Somebody can explain why the six-fold (!!) repetition (white's moves 21 through 31) was not considered a draw ?
What was the rule then (if any) ?? |
|
| Dec-13-03 | | ughaibu: In chess repetition is not a draw it merely allows either player to claim a draw, if neither makes the claim the game continues. |
|
| Dec-15-03 | | aragorn69: Thx ughaibu, I knew that... ;-)
But do you know for a fact that the three-fold repetition rule was in effect in 1886 ? And that both declined to ask for a draw for TEN moves ?? |
|
| Dec-15-03 | | Spitecheck: They were both playing chicken hoping the other would vary no doubt. To claim the draw may have been seen as an act of cowardice? Spitecheck |
|
| Mar-06-04 | | Checkmate123: White's bishop sacrifice was not sound after all, is it? |
|
| Mar-07-04 | | Calli: It is sound in that White has a pin on the Bishop at c5 if he wants it: 20.Bxd6 cxd6 21.c4 Bxg2 22.Qxa5 Bxh3 23.Re1=
Zuckertort apparently thought he had a win and rejected this line. |
|
| Apr-29-06 | | Dionyseus: What's interesting about the six-fold repitition is that Steinitz failed to see the simple but strong Bb8 which would render white's queen completely useless. |
|
| May-25-07 | | sneaky pete: Minor Rules and Regulations of the Match between Messrs. Steinitz and Zukertort: 13. The games of the match shall be governed by the code of laws published in the last edition of the <German Handbuch>, with this exception, that, if both players repeat the same series of moves six times in succession, then either party may claim a draw. Zukertort could have claimed a draw only after 31... Kf8, but Steinitz
deviated. The first time control was at move 30, Steinitz repeated the moves to gain time. The exception agreed upon for this match also explains the threefold repetition of moves in game 6. |
|
| Feb-26-08 | | Knight13: Took a while for Steinitz to find <31...Ke7!> |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | just a kid: <Sneaky Pete>Thanks.That is useful info. |
|
| Apr-27-09 | | Fanacas: Its a common used chess tactic to replay some moves but not enough to let it draw so you get some more time to look for a proper solution. |
|
Apr-27-09
 | | Gypsy: <ksadler: Games like this make me wonder about the strength of play back in the 1880s. What is Black threatening to force White to play 12. Bb2 Qxd2 13. Bc1 ? > All in all, Zukertort's maneuver seems fairly clever to me: White needs to develop and giving up the problem d2 pawn is the only way that looks rapid enough. The pawn deficit should not be too critical because Black Q-side pawns are hobbled on the c-file. As for why the 13.Bc1, note that something like 13.Rad1 Qf5 allows simplifications in Black favor. |
|
| Mar-24-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Zukertort vs Steinitz, 1886.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF STEINITZ.
Your score: 76 (par = 64)
LTJ |
|
| Dec-31-13 | | MarkFinan: <Dec-10-03:ksadler: Games like this make me wonder about the strength of play back in the 1880s.> I just flicked through this game and thought *exactly* the same as you Mr ksadler! And why isn't the game drawn by rep after whites 3rd check on h8 and h5? Piss poor play by both sides. If this was the standard of play in the 1880's then I agree with what someone said on the Carlsen page the other day. He could Steinitz odds and move and still win! Probably in under 25 moves! This will probably get deleted because some saddo with nothing better to do will blow the whistle because I said the word 'piss' on a precious game page. Tough, because the interfering historians aren't exactly perfect themselves. As I will shortly prove! No doubt to threats to leave. Good |
|
Dec-31-13
 | | jessicafischerqueen: <Mark Finan>
<And why isn't the game drawn by rep after whites 3rd check on h8 and h5?> That's a good question.
If you look above, <Sneaky Pete> has provided the answer: <sneaky pete: Minor Rules and Regulations of the Match between Messrs. Steinitz and Zukertort:
13. The games of the match shall be governed by the code of laws published in the last edition of the <German Handbuch>, with this exception, that, if both players repeat the same series of moves six times in succession, then either party may claim a draw.Zukertort could have claimed a draw only after 31... Kf8, but Steinitz deviated. The first time control was at move 30, Steinitz repeated the moves to gain time. The exception agreed upon for this match also explains the threefold repetition of moves in game 6. > <Sneaky Pete> did not provide the actual source for his information, but here is a contemporaneous source confirming his claim- from the "New York Daily Tribune" Jan. 11, 1886- you can see the information at the end of the first paragraph: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... |
|
| Feb-01-14 | | Bidik29AllStar: Steinitz made some mistake. Zukertort too. Zukertort repeated same position.
Steinitz 3 Mistakes:
-10...Bd6? It's waiting move but bad waiting move i think.
-36...Qf5 It should be 36...Be5! Because Be5 is better than Qf5.
-40...a5?? He always making some... bad moves. He has much bishop! Zukertort ? Mistakes:
-17.Bxh7!? Zukertort wanted to make draw. Zukertort wanted to checkmate but his attack has like canceled by Steinitz and he losed his bishop!!
-10.Bd3?! Zukertort and Steinitz made same mistakes! Zukertort had to make 10.Be2! Because it will be better analysis machine and i say "It is better than 10.Bd3?!". I think my kibitzing is good and like my kibitz! |
|
Kibitzing
