|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-20-11
 | | Phony Benoni: <roastedrook> After <14.Bb5+>:
click for larger viewBlack can escape the immediate mate by <14...Nc6>. In fact, does White even win then? |
|
Mar-20-11
| | Phony Benoni: <rilkefan> After <8...Qxd5>:
click for larger view
White can just get the pawn back by 9.Qxd5 cxd5 10.Nf4, and looks to have a good game afterward. However, this being 1842, he would probably play something like 9.Qc3 and keep the Nf4 move in reserve. |
|
Mar-20-11
 | | HeMateMe: The "Lionel" portion of his name triggers the pun "Easy like Sunday Morning", one of Lionel Ritchie's fine songs. [Lionel_____________Kieseritsky].
Most creative, by these folks! |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | weary willy: <WannaBe: You never seen the name of the female chess player (I can't recall the name) and she was married 7 or is it 8 times, and kept all the names...
I am sure someone here at CG will know what's her name. =) - Sneaky: <WannaBe> Dr. Jana Malypetrova Hartston Miles Bellin> Only she didn't keep all the names, of course. It's just CG's (helpful) way of enabling us to track a single person who played under different names, thanks to our idea that a woman should take her husband's surname on marriage. We don't find a similar requirement when a male player teams up with different females (in series or in parallel) because men made up the surname rules and found it easier to keep their original name. |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | Llawdogg: Phony Benoni: Excellent analysis of the Bagration. That always tickles my funny bone too. But what do you make of Adalbert? |
|
Mar-20-11
 | | scormus: Another great, multi-pun. I think we should all be grateful to Mr Kieseritsky for the memorable
brilliancies played to beat him. This is a beauty. Lovely 2R-sac - I guess it is sound all the way through |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | mucher1: Another road to victory seems to be 14.Ne6 (Nd7 15.Bb5). |
|
Mar-20-11
 | | FSR: Kieseritzky was actually a strong player - not that you would ever guess that from this game. Anderssen only scored +7=2-6 against him. http://tinyurl.com/49vk92y That included, most famously, the Immortal Game - which was only an offhand game at London 1851, played during the Great Tournament. Soltis wrote about how no one could lose with as much panache as Kieseritzky - when he lost, he didn't just get ground down in inferior endings; no, his opponents won coruscating brilliancies where they sacked every piece in sight. |
|
Mar-20-11
| | FSR: Here's a nice endgame crush by the K-Man: Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851 |
|
Mar-20-11
| | FSR: In J Schulten vs Kieseritzky, 1844, K mated White off the board with the same ridiculous gambit later played, less successfully, by K in the Immortal Game and in Short vs Kasparov, 1993 (though ChessGames' database actually shows Black scoring extremely well with it). |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | newzild: <weary willy> <Only she didn't keep all the names, of course. It's just CG's (helpful) way of enabling us to track a single person who played under different names, thanks to our idea that a woman should take her husband's surname on marriage.> Really? It's my understanding that she did, in fact, keep the names of her former husbands. That was her choice - not forced on her by "our idea". |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | Ratt Boy: <newzild> <It's my understanding that she did, in fact, keep the names of her former husbands...> Well, Wiki calls her "Jana Bellin," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_B... . Googling "Jana Bellin" yields 222K hits; "Jana Malypetrova" gives 1530. By the BTW, if Wanda Sykes had married Howard Hughes, and then Henry Kissinger, she'd be Wanda Hughes Kissinger now. |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | goodevans: <Phony Benoni: <rilkefan> After <8...Qxd5> White can just get the pawn back by 9.Qxd5 cxd5 10.Nf4, and looks to have a good game afterward. However, this being 1842, he would probably play something like 9.Qc3 and keep the Nf4 move in reserve.> I guess I'm just old fashioned because before I'd even looked at your post I'd decided I liked <8 ... Qxd5 9 Qc3> for white. It's surprisingly complicated, but as far as I can see if black tries too hard to hold onto his extra pawn he ends up being mashed. In many lines, if he plays < ... Qe4+> he ends up with his Q trapped. It seems the whole idea behind <7 ... Bd5> is that after <8 Nxd5 cxd5> black has straightened out his pawns. "Bagration" at least shows some positional understanding with this although he clearly underestimated the importance of the <e6> weakness. |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | Chessmensch: What if Kathleen Battle married Emanuel Ax? |
|
Mar-20-11
 | | Penguincw: Nice mate. :) |
|
| Mar-20-11 | | WhiteRook48: dang... Kieseritsky keeps losing the brilliances |
|
| Mar-21-11 | | kevin86: Is Schwartz another name for Anderssen? |
|
Oct-12-12
| | FSR: Despite this fine example, 3...f5 has never taken off. Opening Explorer Kieseritsky also originated the Smith-Morra Gambit, which languished for a century before becoming (somewhat) popular. Opening Explorer Maybe 3...f5 will have to wait two centuries. |
|
| Oct-13-12 | | Abdel Irada: I think White actually did have a marginally faster mate starting with 15. Be6†. Here Black would have three options: <(1) 15. ...Kd8
16. Qxf8†, Kc7
17. Nd5†, Kc6
18. Qe8†, Nd7
19. Qxd7#.>
<<>(2) 15. ...Kc7
16. Nd5†, Kc6>
(if 16. ...Kd8; 17. Qxf8#)
<<>17. Qe8†, Nd7
18. Qxd7#.>
<<<>>(3) 15. ...Kc6 16. Qe8† and one of(3.1) 16. ...Nd7
17. Qxd7†, Kb6
18. Nd5†, Ka6
19. Qa4#,
(3.2) 16. ...Kc7
17. Nd5#, or
(3.3) 16. ...Kb6
17. Nd5†, Ka6
18. Qa4#.>
Of course, this is mere Monday-morning quarterbacking. A mate is a mate. :-) |
|
| Apr-20-13 | | TheTamale: The motto of the first half of the 19th century: "Win if you can, lose if you must... but always play P-KB4." |
|
Apr-19-14
 | | keypusher: I came upon this game via Kieseritzsky's <Fifty Games Played in the Chess Circle at the Cafe de la Regence (> http://books.google.com/books?id=aK... A lot of the games don't seem to be in the cg database. That may not be an altogether bad thing.... Anyway, here Kieseritzky shows the same stalwart defensive technique that Anderssen later Immortalized. Still, nice of K. to publish both games. |
|
| Jul-29-23 | | generror: Kieseritzky is the Greatest Loser Of All Times, aka the GLOAT! As <FSR> pointed out, he was one of the strongest players of his time. Edochess ranks him at #3 from 1845 to 1847, ChessMetrics even at #1 from 1849 to 1851. He was also one of the most original ones, tried a lot of openings (most of them misguided). And he even invented 3D chess and of course got ridiculed for it by his his contemporaries. But when he lost, he really lost in style -- and that's all that people remember of him now. He died penniless in Paris 1853. By the way, lichess's opening DB lists <3...f5> as Schwartz Defense. Man, Kieseritzky was even cheated to have this opening named after him. Although, frankly, in this case maybe that's a good thing :) |
|
Jul-31-23
 | | fredthebear: The "Greatest Loser" is an oxymoron. Kenny's kids come to mind; losers, yes, but great certainly doesn't apply. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” -- Theordore Roosevelt |
|
| Aug-02-23 | | generror: I have no idea what Kenny's Kids are, but ole Teddy (despite his overblown prose) seems to say pretty why I think Kieseritzky is the GLOAT. In my opinion, greatness has nothing to do with success or failure. But of course that depends on your definitions of "great" and of "loser". If your definition of "great" is coupled with success, then yeah, no loser can be great. I think the distinction between "great" and "ungreat", "winner" and "loser" is a highly toxic one anyway, so I'm using the term GLOAT as an axe for the frozen seas within us. |
|
Aug-02-23
 | | perfidious: <generror>, the 'Kenny's Kids' is just another passive-aggressive swipe which has nothing to do with the game at hand; not sure why that shtick even made it here. In my view also, winning and losing are not zero-sum games; that, ah, poster's view of it is, as so often, unnecessarily reductive in nature and easier to post than actually using critical thinking skills. In his words, it is:
<lazy and rather effortless> |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
