|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-25-04 | | nutsaboutchess: This game should be declared as a draw because of 3-fold repetition from moves 13-18 |
|
| May-25-04 | | Calculoso: <nutsaboutchess>I think that when this game was played, the 3-move repetition rule was not yet in place. About the game, why the heck did white not even bother holding on to the knight? That just gave black a huge advantage... |
|
| May-25-04 | | nutsaboutchess: <Calculoso> I see, thats very interesting. you're right.That knight on g5 is/was very powerful. |
|
May-25-04
 | | chessgames.com: <This game should be declared as a draw because of 3-fold repetition from moves 13-18> The three-fold repetition rule started much earlier than this game; around 1883. If you understand the rule then you know that nothing can declare the game as being drawn other than the players themselves. |
|
| May-25-04 | | nutsaboutchess: <chessgames.com> Thanks! Either i am very ignorant or very stupid or both |
|
May-25-04
| | chessgames.com: Don't be so hard on yourself--many people interpret the threefold rule like you did. I see it as the fault of computer software manufacturers which design chess games that short-circuit instantly when the 3rd repetition is reached. |
|
| May-25-04 | | misguidedaggression: <chessgames.com> actually a Stalemate position is automatically drawn whether the players like it or not :)
I played a game against a patzer once where I gave him odds of all my pawns and pieces and let him set up his pieces however he wanted. I think I was in check by about 6 different pieces in the starting position. He was really mad when I pulled off a draw by stalemate. |
|
| May-25-04 | | acirce: <I see it as the fault of computer software manufacturers which design chess games that short-circuit instantly when the 3rd repetition is reached.> Very good point. |
|
| May-25-04 | | capanegra: I read in Chernev's "Wonders and Curiosities of Chess" that when Tarrasch sacrificed his Bishop with 71…♗xc2 (the first Pawn gets out of the board after 70 moves!), many kibitzers around the board considered it suicidal. The real question is: after that, is White inevitably lost, in spite of his extra piece? |
|
| May-25-04 | | panigma: After a three-fold repetition, do both players need to declare a draw, or just one? |
|
| May-25-04 | | acirce: One. |
|
| May-25-04 | | panigma: Yeah, that was stupid of me. Otherwise they'd just agree to it before the repetition. |
|
| May-25-04 | | kevin86: I changed my mind about this:I thought that it was very boring at first,but it had a nice ending-and something of note:16 pawns on the board through 70 moves! A draw can be claimed on the third repetition of the position-WITH-the same player on the move. This can happen at any time during the game (say on moves 65,73,and 101). Either player can claim a draw! I think that a tournament can have a "local rule" that the COMMITTEE can claim a draw. One exception:neither player can castle between the repeats. Just my own humble knowledge. |
|
| May-25-04 | | Calli: Brilliant conception by Tarrasch. A true sacrifice and better than many other highly rated combinations. <capanegra> "is White inevitably lost, in spite of his extra piece?" Certainly it is lost after 80.Qa3. I would say that it also looks lost at 78.Rxa2. White should avoid the rook exchange and perhaps put the knight at e3. Possibly with threats like Nxd5 or Nxf5 or maybe even g4. Perhaps something like 75.Nf1 b5 76.Qd2 Qa1 77.Ne3
The queen and rook prevent the exchange and White can play Rb2 to hinder the pawn advance. What do you think? |
|
| May-25-04 | | capanegra: <<Calli> Perhaps something like 75.Nf1 b5 76.Qd2 Qa1 77.Ne3>
Yes, that seems to be a better defence. Maybe Black could continue with 77…♖a3 (threatening a5 and b4) 78.♖b2 ♖b3 79.♖a2 ♕xc3 80.♕xc3 ♖xc3 81.♔f3 b4 82.♖xa7 b3 83.♖a1 (better than 83.♖b7 ♖c2) b2 84.♖b1 ♖b3 85.♔e2 and White apparently saves the game. But reviewing a little more, what do you think about 73.♖ca2? The pin seems to be interesting. For instance, 73…b5 74.♘b1 b4 75.♕e2 followed by ♕b2 |
|
| May-25-04 | | acirce: <kevin86> The castling thing is no exception since a position where you can castle is never identical with a position where you can't. Also one should mention that if the en passant capture is allowed in one position and the "same" position is reached later it is also not the same. |
|
| May-25-04 | | Calli: <capanegra> Herr Docktor would probably continue with 73.♖ca2 ♘c2! 74.♖xc2 ♖xa1 75.♗b2 ♖1a2 I like this for Black because of White's bad Bishop. |
|
| May-25-04 | | capanegra: Of course, <Calli>. I overlooked the threat 74…♘xe3. Very clear analysis, as always. By the way, check this pretty variation that could have happened: 76.♕b1 ♕a4 77.♕b4 ♕xb4 78.cxb4 ♖a4, and the Pawn cannot be protected because of the fork, leaving Black with three passed Pawns. I also noticed in Chernev’s book that 79…♔g7! was a good move, precisely to prevent the maneuver ♕a3-♕f8+ with perpetual check. If instead Black played 79…a5 80.♕a3 ♕xa3 (not ♕xb1 because of ♕f8+) 81.♘xa3 b4 82.♘c2 b3 83.♘a3 and the Pawns are controlled. |
|
| May-25-04 | | Calli: Very nice. Kind of exciting to figure out when the pawns can be stopped. When there are only pawns and knights, the moves must be very precise. |
|
| May-26-04 | | kevin86: <acirce> very fine point! In other words if the last move before repitition was a pawn move that would allow en-passant on the first repitition and obvious not future ones-then the position is repeated but NOT the same---just like the castling example that I mentioned. Thanks. |
|
May-27-04
 | | Gypsy: Here is a real conundrum: What if two rooks, say, switch places; is that the same or different position? Do the rules deal with such a case? |
|
| May-27-04 | | kevin86: I would say ,yes-because the possible moves are all the same. There is no special value of one rook over another. I have two humorous ways that the position is really not the same. 1 a ceramic chess piece is dropped and broken-and replaced. 2 the position IS NEVER really the same,as there is movement in the fourth dimension-ie time has passed. HA HA!!! |
|
| May-27-04 | | acirce: The rules seem to interpret that situation just like <kevin86> does, <Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.> -- http://www.fide.com/official/handbo... article 9. |
|
May-27-04
| | Gypsy: Thank you guys. Comes to think of it, position is never the same also with respect to the 50-move clock. |
|
| May-27-04 | | acirce: Good point, the number of moves remaining to the 50 move draw is quite significant in some positions and it is not too difficult to imagine a case where that influences the evaluation. So "logically" they shouldn't be considered the same position but then of course no position can ever be repeated. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 71...Bxc2