| Apr-11-09 | | Andrijadj: Tarrash was drunk... |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | whiteshark: <Andrijadj> No, that has been Alyochin. :D |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | whiteshark: In such cases Tarrasch had always non-specific Health Problems. |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | whiteshark: <11.Qd3!> was the only proper move here.
click for larger view |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | Andrijadj: Yes whiteshark,but Alekhine made a habit of it,so he could still play decent chess while drunk...Tarrash was badly affected and this was the outcome:))) |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | Pawn and Two: In the 3rd round at Hamburg 1885, Minckwitz played this same variation against W. Paulsen, W Paulsen vs J Minckwitz, 1885. Paulsen played the correct 11.Qd3, with the game ending in a draw. In "Three Hundred Chess Games", Tarrasch tells of his preparations for his 10th round game with Minckwitz. During lunch, Zukertort recommended to Tarrasch the move 11.Qd2. Tarrasch said he then did no additional analysis, and when given the opportunity against Minckwitz, he played the move 11.Qd2. Fritz confirms that Tarrasch should not have accepted advice without doing some analysis. The game was about even after: (.13) (21 ply) 11.Qd3 Bb7 12.0-0-0. Or, if Minckwitz continued as he did against W. Paulsen, 11.Qd3 dxe5 12.fxe4 Qxe4+ 13.Qxe4 Nxe4, then (1.25) (22 ply) 14.0-0-0! as played by Paulsen, or (1.04) (22 ply) 14.Bc6, are very strong continuations for White. It seems to me Tarrasch should have had lunch with W. Paulsen, not Zukertort! After 11.Qd2, Fritz indicates that either 11...d4 or 11...Rb8, will give Black some advantage. After 11.Qd2 d4 12.0-0-0 h6, White should not have played 13.h4?. Tarrasch made no note of this serious error, indicating only that 12...h6 wins the game. Instead of 13.h4?, Tarrasch should have tried: (-.46) (21 ply) 13.Bxf6! gxf6 14.a3 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Be6 16.Bc6 Rb8 17.cxd4 cxd4 18.Qxd4 Qxa3+ 19.Kd2, (-.55) (20 ply) 19...Rg8, or (-.53) (20 ply) 19...Kg7, with some chances for a draw. |
|
| May-04-17 | | gars: How could Tarrasch lose so badly after only one mistake, namely <11.Qd2> ? I did not understando why his move is so bad. |
|
| May-04-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <gars: How could Tarrasch lose so badly after only one mistake, namely <11.Qd2> ? I did not understand why his move is so bad.> If you want to see why 11. Qd2 is so bad, all you have to is continue playing through the game (unless you think you've found a refutation for white). People lose because of one bad move all the time, that's all it takes. It's not obvious to me why 11. Bxf6 isn't possible. If 11..cxd4 then 12. Bxe7+ Or if 11...gxf6 then 12. Qxd4 hitting the rook. or 11..Qxf6 12. Qxf6 gxf6 13. exd5 or castle (either side). That said I'm probably missing something because nobody mentioned that option in the computer or traditional analyses. |
|
May-04-17
 | | beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat>
11. Bxf6 cxd4 12. Bxe7+ Kxe7 13. a3 cxb2 14. axb4 <Rb8> followed by ...Rxb4 and Black ends up with the very dangerous passed a- and b-pawns and is probably winning. |
|
| May-04-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <beatgiant> okay, thanks. |
|
May-04-17
| | beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat>
Except the line I posted was full of misprints. Trying it again:
11. Bxf6 cxd4 12. Bxe7+ Kxe7 13. a3 dxc3 14. axb4 cxb2 15. Rb1 Rb8 |
|
| May-05-17 | | ChessHigherCat: beatgiant> I have no sympathy with sloppy notation. 100 lashes with a wet noodle! I saw that in all the lines with cxd white could kick the bishop with a3/b4 at the cost of cxb2, which I figured wasn't a big threat because of Rb1, as you say, and if Rb8 then Ba4-Bb3 and castles. That all seems quite elementary compared with the impossible task of making my neighbors understand that it's not cool to blab your head off under my window sill at night. |
|
May-05-17
| | beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat>
<Ba4-Bb3 and castles>
The problem, as you no doubt now see, is that Black has ...a5 and ...a4 driving off the Bishop. 11. Bxf6 cxd4 12. Bxe7+ Kxe7 13. a3 dxc3 14. axb4 cxb2 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. Ba4 Rxb4 17. Bb3 <a5> so 18. Rxb2 a4 wins the Bishop for a couple of pawns, which looks good enough for Black to win. |
|
| May-05-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <beatgiant> Doesn't it get monotonous finding the winning variations all the time? You should try to find losing variations for a change. |
|
May-05-17
| | beatgiant: <ChessHigherCat>
<try to find losing variations>
You obviously haven't yet checked out my "beatgiant's bloopers" game collection - which is in need of an update with the more recent examples. |
|
| Sep-03-17 | | ughaibu: But Zukertort wasn't playing in this tournament, was living in the UK and has no continental games listed from this year, so the story of Tarrasch having lunch with him sounds thin. |
|
| Sep-07-17 | | Paint My Dragon: <so the story of Tarrasch having lunch with him sounds thin.> Not really. We know Zukertort went to Hamburg in 1885 for a simul/blindfold exhibition. I could imagine the two events might coincide. |
|
| Sep-07-17 | | ughaibu: But I don't know that, why are there no games from the event in the database? |
|
Kibitzing
