|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-11-09 | | vonKrolock: Right, nothing like the human touch in chess: the computer way is not the only way... Well, the alternatives to 16.♘e6 were also sacrifices, so it was in fact with <13.♕d3> (that will allow to the black ♘ a tempo-winning jump to e5) the moment when the character of the sixteenth move was determinated... With 13.♕e2!? instead a maze of tactics would still be possible, though - Really a good game to be analysed |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | Richard Taylor: <Once 18.Bxd5 dxe6?? hands over the advantage to the opponent. [18...fxe6 19.Bxa8 Qb8–+]> After 19. ... Qxb8 20. f4 Qxa8 21. fxe5
and Black has to be careful e.g.
21. ... Bb7 (Bg7 looks best) 22. Qf2 Bxe4
23. Rhf1 and Black is in trouble.
Of course after 20. f4 Nf7 is stronger.
But in OTB pressure it is still possible for White to generate a counter attack - as long as one keeps in mind that it is illegal to use Fritz or any other computer during an OTB tournament chess game. |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | whiteshark: After <16.Ne6!!> I'd have fallen off the chair. :D |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | arnaud1959: <Once> And what does F say for 16.-fxe6 17.♗xe6+ dxe6 18.♖xd8 ♖xd8 ?
White gives up ♖+♗+♘ for ♕+♙ and I don't see any clear continuation for both sides. |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | Benzol: <All> Just a few things about this game. It was played in the third round of a five round weekender, late on the Saturday evening and I don't know about Brett but I was pretty tired at that stage. I did consider 12.♗e2 but felt the bishop was more active if it was on the a2-g8 diagonal. I was also worried about possible tactics against the queen if I'd played 13.♕e2 (b5 followed by ♘f5) but I inwardly cursed when just after playing 13.♕d3 I saw the knight could go to e5 with gain of tempo and the subsequent trapping of the b3 bishop. Hence I decided to sac the knight on e6 as a desperado.
After 16...fxe6 17.♗xe6+ ♘f7 I intented ♖d6 followed by e5 and ♖hd1. I think White's still busted but Black is on the defensive and must untangle himself. I don't like my opening play really but I did like the ending which was forseen at 34.♕f3. That's what I like about chess, you only can blame yourself and having gotten into trouble you try to find the best way out.
I've always enjoyed my games with Brett because he has original ideas. We have played three games in total and all have been interesting. This one, however, is probably the "murkiest". There are certainly better games than this one to be the GOTD and I was suprised to see it as such but no doubt there could be worse ones too.
I enjoyed playing this game, "warts and all" and I think that's what chess should be, enjoyed. The silicon monsters pull your play apart ruthlessly but if I can paraphase Mikhail Tal, "Seconds through the microchip and minutes at the board are not quite the same thing". :) |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | WhiteRook48: when I found that White was Paul Morten, I'm like WHAT? THAT'S FAMILIAR and then I remember he's <Benzol> |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | newzild: Well, whatever the microchips say, it was still fun to click through the game. Without knowing the moves were flawed, it was interesting to see white's desperado moves save his pieces and then overcome black. I think I played you once, Paul, in a North Island championship. Long time ago, though! |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | kevin86: A funny finish. Here are a large group of pawns of both colors-and black is mated! The only other help the pawns get is the rook acting as a sentry along the back row. |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | Once: Well now I feel awful. I post a computer analysis, only to find that one of the players is a member on this site. Apologies <Benzol>! If I had known I would not have done that. Fully agree with your sentiment about computers - they have such an advantage over us that it can reduce the game to who has the most powerful computer or most up to date database. Not what I signed up for when I first learned the moves about 35 years ago. For all Fritz's merciless judgement, congratulations on having the cojones to play 16. Ne6. A fine psychological move. |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | Antonius Blok: It's so great when you have such rich positions, and the talent to exploit them, by a simple move (with deep tought)everything seems to run in a marvelous crescendo! What a beauty! Make you wanna scream:"God, thanks for putting in me this brain that made me love chess, so I could see such marvelous games" |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | AniamL: Thank you, <Once>, for the Fritz analysis. |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | c o r e: "Piety requires that we honor truth above our friends."- Aristotle But there's no sensible conflict possible when analyzing chess. Everything is there, to be seen by whoever has eyes to see it. It's commonly accepted that Fritz has a mighty good eye for chess. The game of chess is usually played between two thinking minds in just a few minutes. What Fritz labels as a relatively weak move can be an excellent move OTB. Even given great time and resources, some questionable moves are hard to refute, either by human or assisted analysis. Just consider how much brilliant chess we might have lost if, 300 years ago, Fritz' great grandaddy had written a ? after 2.f4. I really enjoyed this artfully played game, as well as the commentary and analysis. Thanks for sharing it. |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | alexmagnus: Why is Brett Rider referred to as "R. Rider" on the recent kibitzing page? |
|
Apr-11-09
| | alexmagnus: And not only there. Also in a "message posted" page. |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | Amarande: <WhiteRook48: when I found that White was Paul Morten, I'm like WHAT? THAT'S FAMILIAR and then I remember he's <Benzol>> I was more like ... "wait a minute, this game seems an awful lot like someone else whose name started with 'Paul Mor' ..." Morphy, did you just sleep for a few decades and then change the last three letters of your last name and come back to chess? :) |
|
Apr-11-09
 | | GrahamClayton: <benzol>There are certainly better games than this one to be the GOTD and I was suprised to see it as such but no doubt there could be worse ones too. I enjoyed playing this game, "warts and all" and I think that's what chess should be, enjoyed. Benzol,
I agree totally with your comments. The majority of chess games are not brilliancies with no errors. They are games where both players make mistakes.
Thus they should be considered for GOTD as well. |
|
| Apr-11-09 | | zanshin: <Benzol> Good for you that you played <16.Ne6> and got a GOTD. I sympathize with <Once> .. don't beat yourself up too much, you meant well. As for 16.Ne6!?, one silicon monster wants to play it, but chickens out ;-) Rybka 3 analysis:
click for larger view [-0.95] d=16 16.f4 Nc4 17.Nf3 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qa5 19.Bxc4 bxc4 20.Qxc4 d5 21.Rxd5 Nxd5 22.exd5 Bf5 23.Ne5 Qa3 24.Kd2 Rad8 25.Bg5 Be6 26.Bxd8 Rxd8 27.Ke2 Rxd5 28.Qe4 Qxc3 29.Rd1 Rxd1 30.Kxd1 a5 31.Nd3 (0:06.18) 18218kN ...
[-1.24] d=12 16.Ne6 fxe6 17.Bxe6 Nf7 18.Qe3 c4 19.Qf4 dxe6 20.Rxd8 Rxd8 21.Bg5 Nxg5 22.Qxg5 Nc6 23.Rd1 Bb7 (0:00.11) 503kN |
|
Apr-11-09
| | Benzol: <newzild> <I think I played you once, Paul, in a North Island championship. Long time ago, though!> <newzild> As I posted on the L Darling vs R Wood, 1983 game I can't but feel that you actually have a games file here somewhere. It's possible that you and I have played each other but I've never played in a North Island Ch so it must have been somewhere else. If you wish to remain anonymous that's OK but it might help if I knew your real name. |
|
Apr-11-09
| | Richard Taylor: <Once> Dennis Monokroussos advises people to use computers but only AFTER they have done their own analysis - I presume you do - and I know you were trying to be objective - I use Fritz but only on certain games... If you don't use Fritz for analysis (at first at least) - in that stage - one often sees the kind of position that could more realistically arise from "normal" chess play (not Super GM play) although even S GMs are capable of very non computer - or noncomputer accurate moves... |
|
Apr-11-09
| | Richard Taylor: <zanshin> also makes some wise comments - we need to use computers carefully... They are great... but... !!
"In Chess, as in Life, we re all duffers [fools]." (Emnanuel Lasker in his Manual (!) of Chess ) |
|
Apr-11-09
| | Richard Taylor: Here's possible line following <Benzol>'s tacticalpaln... albeit it is "computer dubious" but remember the reality of OTB play!! 16. Ne6 fxe6 17. Bxe6+ Nf7 18. Rd6 dxe6 19. Rxd8 Rxd8
20. h4 Bb7 21. g4 Ne5 22. h5 Rd7 23. f4 Nc4 24. f5 b4 25. hxg6 bxc3 26.
gxh7+ Kf7 27. fxe6+ Kxe6 28. Qxc4+ Ke5 29. Rh5+ Kd6 30. Qxc5+ Ke6 31. Qc4+
Kf6 32. e5+ Kg6 33. Qe6+ Kxh7 34. Qf7+ Bg7 35. Qxg7#
White mates 1-0
Hope springs eternal !! |
|
Apr-11-09
| | Richard Taylor: Her's what might have happened if Black had got into bad time trouble! 16. Ne6 fxe6 17. Bxe6+ Nf7 18. Rd6 dxe6 19. Rxd8 Rxd8 20. h4 b4 21. Nd1 a5 22. Ne3 a4 23. g4 a3 24. b3 Ba6 25. Qh2 Bc3 26. h5 Rd2
27. Qh4 Nc6 28. hxg6 Rad8 29. gxh7+ Kh8 30. Qh5 Bb2+ 31. Kb1 R8d7 32. Nd5
exd5 33. Bxd2 dxe4 34. Qg6 Bg7 35. Bf4 Bb5 36. fxe4 Nd4 37. e5 Re7 38. e6
Nxe6 39. Bg3 Nf8 40. Qb6 Be8 41. Qxc5 Rd7 42. Qxb4 Ra7 43. g5 Nxg5 44. Be5
Nge6 45. Qb8 Re7 46. Qd6 Rf7 47. c4 Rf2 48. Qd5 Bd7 49. Bxg7+ Nxg7 50. Qg8#
White mates 1-0 |
|
| Sep-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: the pawns on e5 and g5 are crucial in the final |
|
| Aug-01-19 | | Chesgambit: fawn pawn |
|
| Aug-01-19 | | Chesgambit: 16.fxe6 no problem |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
