| Mar-12-13 | | SuperPatzer77: 
click for larger viewAfter 15. Rg3+, Black resigns in lieu of as below:
15...Kh6, 16. Bc1+ Qg5, 17. Rxg5! Nxe5, 18. Rg8+! Kh5, 19. Be2+ Ng4 (19...Kh4, 20. Bg5#), 20. Bxg4+ Kh4, 21. g3# 1-0 SuperPatzer77 |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | sofouuk: slightly surprising that white's agricultural approach to the opening is more-or-less sound - 8...Bxa1 would have cost black his queen after 9.Qxg7 Rf8 10.Bg5, tho rybka thinks the resulting position is about equal. 13...g6! would have given black some advantage, but nothing terminal |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | morfishine: <sofouuk> Its hard to comprehend why Black didn't play <13...g6> which is more or less standard once Black has committed to <8...Kf8> Nonetheless, nice Q-sac by White |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Jamboree: Since USCF Elo ratings were first established in 1960, and FIDE Elo ratings not until 1970, then how did a guy in 1947 get a 2077 rating? Was he a time traveler? If someone at Chessgames has the time, energy and patience, I recommended fixing the following two systemic glitches in how ratings are displayed in each game in the archives: a. Currently, if a player's rating is known, it is displayed, but if it is not known, it is shown as "?". That's fine, except for the fact that NO ONE had a rating before 1960 (and that was only in the U.S.) nor before 1970 (in the rest of the world). Consequently in the chessgames archive EVERY SINGLE game by all the great masters of chess history up until 1970 have the ratings of both players shown as "?" unnecessarily. The point behind the "?" indicator is to show that the player's rating is unknown for now, but eventually may be uncovered and the missing data filled in. Since that is impossible for any game prior to 1960/1970, it would be much better and less visually annoying to either leave the "rating" field blank in all games prior to 1960, or fill it with some symbol (like a dash: — ) to indicate that these players simply did not have ratings. b. A related but much smaller problem is the one that crops up in this game: A few pre-1960 games in the archive show players as having Elo ratings, information which necessarily must be wrong, since no Elo ratings existed back then. Thus, you should delete any rating given for a player in any game that pre-dated 1960 (USCF games only) or 1970 (rest of the world). (Side note: Yes, there were a few oddball rating systems floating around prior to 1960, but they were not Elo-based, used different scales of measurement, and were incompatible and irreconcilable with the modern system which later came into use.) I realize this would probably entail a lot of work, but if this is to be THE official archive of all chess games, then it's best to get it as "right" as possible! |
|
Mar-12-13
 | | FSR: Oh, man! This guy sacs a ton! |
|
Mar-12-13
 | | Once: I think that the database uses an alternative ELO for a player (if available) for games without a precise ELO. For early games (eg before the ELO system was introduced), this is a later ELO. Not sure whether the database uses the next ELO to be published, the highest ELO achieved or the most recent. This can be quite useful for annotating off-hand casual games where the exact ELO at the time of the game isn't known, but we can estimate it from known grades. I suppose it's a trade-off. For some games, this is a reasonable approximation. For others it's not very accurate. But at least it gives us an idea whether we are looking at a master or an eejit. The grading system isn't perfect. My personal bugbear is when you sit down opposite a tiny tot with a grade down in the weeds but who plays like a monster. They ought to be banned. Not children, per se, just banned from playing their olders and betters. Or at the very least they must be forced to lose. Out of deference. Not that I'm in the least bit bitter or twisted... |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Nerwal: Nice and thematic. It also happens in the french Winawer, for instance see C Toerber vs G Menke, 1950 |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Ratt Boy: Move 14, White to move, would make a good Tuesday puzzle. Fun game to view. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | sofouuk: <Move 14, White to move, would make a good Tuesday puzzle>tuesday? lol |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Abdel Irada: <FSR: Oh, man! This guy sacs a ton!> Oh, man! This guy puns a ton!
(In fact, I think Fred Rhine felled the record for puns on this site.) |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | newzild: Nobody has pointed out all the winning lines yet, so I'll have a crack at it. <SuperPatzer77> shows a win after 15. Rg3+ Kh6 16. Bc1+ Qg5 but the queen interposition is not forced because Black also has 16...Kh4. What then?
White can play 17. Rg7, and Black is defenseless against 18. g3+ and 19. Bf1 mate. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Abdel Irada: <newzild>: A quicker mate against 16. ...Kh5 is 17. Be2†, Kh4 18. Rh3#. |
|
Mar-12-13
| | FSR: <Abdel Irada: ... Fred Rhine felled ...> Don't think that I missed that pun, nor that it hadn't occurred to me before. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Abdel Irada: It is something of a natural, so I'd be surprised if you hadn't. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | kevin86: This game is similar to today's puzzle:a major piece is sacrificed to bring the enemy king into the open,where he is left along to be savaged by multiple forces. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | howlwolf: I am saying 14 white to move is more of a Friday puzzle. I wouldn't expect the move in the position but knowing it was a puzzle, I think I'd solve it. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | master of defence: Hmm. 8...Bxa1 9.Qxg7 Rf8 10.Bg5 Qxg5 11.Qxg5 Bxd4 doesn´t looks so bad for black. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | King Sacrificer: < howlwolf: I am saying 14 white to move is more of a Friday puzzle. I wouldn't expect the move in the position but knowing it was a puzzle, I think I'd solve it.> There is something i learned here at CG; check all checks when the king is stalemated. Wednesday is a good choice for this puzzle. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 14.Qxg7+