Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 4th 11, 09:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2011
Posts: 1,329
Default Double mistake: Euwe-Geller, 1953

In this position from a game between two all-time greats

1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55

Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 6th 11, 01:07 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Double mistake: Euwe-Geller, 1953

On Nov 5, 5:25*am, Taylor Kingston wrote:
In this position from a game between two all-time greats

1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55

Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?


What does Fritz say?

Lonely now that I'm not posting here as much? I see you're trying to
take up the slack.

RL
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 7th 11, 08:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,035
Default Double mistake: Euwe-Geller, 1953

Taylor Kingston wrote:

In this position from a game between two all-time greats

1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55

Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?


I remember looking @ this & deciding this is too hard, & that without an
'engine' (yep, some of us get by without them) this could take an awful
long time..

..
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 8th 11, 06:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2011
Posts: 1,329
Default Double mistake: Euwe-Geller, 1953

On Nov 7, 12:47*pm, micky wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

In this position from a game between two all-time greats


1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55


Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?


I remember looking @ this & deciding this is too hard, & that without an
'engine' (yep, some of us get by without them) this could take an awful
long time..


Best for Black was probably 55...Qd2, which preserves his winning
edge. After 55...Be3? White could have forced a draw with 56.Rf7!. The
threat of a quick mate starting with 57.Rxb7+ cannot be defended
against, so White has to settle for perpetual check with 56...Qg1+
57.Kf3 Qf1+ 58.Kg3 Bf4+ 59.Kh4 Qf2+ 60.Kg4 h5+ 61.Kxh5 Qxe2+ 62.Kh4
Qe1+ 63.Kh5 Qe2+ etc.
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 9th 11, 11:18 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,015
Default Double mistake: Euwe-Geller, 1953

On 07/11/2011 20:47, micky wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

In this position from a game between two all-time greats

1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55

Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?


I favoured Qd2 or Re8 for black both are sound. Shredder and Fritz both
agree on h5 as best of all! Also they think Ka7 is better than Re8 and
that there are seven moves better than the one played in the game.

After 55. ... Be3 56. Rf7 (mainline) or 56. Rf8 Ka7 57. Rf7 would
appear to force black to accept a draw.

I remember looking @ this& deciding this is too hard,& that without an
'engine' (yep, some of us get by without them) this could take an awful
long time..

.



--
Regards,
Martin Brown


  #6   Report Post  
Old November 9th 11, 05:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2011
Posts: 1,329
Default Double mistake: Euwe-Geller, 1953

On Nov 9, 3:18*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 07/11/2011 20:47, micky wrote:

Taylor Kingston wrote:


In this position from a game between two all-time greats


1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55


Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?


I favoured Qd2 or Re8 for black both are sound. Shredder and Fritz both
agree on h5 as best of all! Also they think Ka7 is better than Re8 and
that there are seven moves better than the one played in the game.

After 55. ... Be3 *56. Rf7 (mainline) or 56. Rf8 Ka7 57. Rf7 would
appear to force black to accept a draw.


I just noticed another possibility. After 56...Qg1+ 57.Kf3, rather
than force perpetual check, Black can try 57...Qxg7 58.Rxg7 Bd2
59.Rxh7 Bxb4 60.h4 Bxa5 (not 60...Bxc5? 61.Nd7+) and after, say, 61.h5
I wonder if Black can stop White's h-pawn and eventually win with his
own a-pawn?
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 11th 11, 09:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,146
Default On the Fine Art of Losing without Much Fight

On Nov 4, 4:25*pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

In this position from a game between two all-time greats

1k1r4/1p4Qp/pNp5/P1P5/1P1p1b2/5R1P/4P1K1/2q5 b - - 0 55

Black played 55...Be3, to which White replied 56.Rf1. Both moves were
errors. What would you do?



Well, if I were playing another all-time great and I somehow reached
this position as Black, I would instantly play ...Ka7 and start my
opponent's clock a-ticking, then deftly exploit whatever minute
weakness arose from his anguished reply. {shrug}


Serously though, these 'double errors' are quite common in complex
middlegame positions --even between great chessplayers. What is not
quite so common is the double error in *relatively* simple endgames,
such as in the game Fischer--Euwe, Leipzig Olympiad, 1960, in this
position: 1B6/6bp/PR2p3/3k1pp1/8/2r2P2/5P1P/3K4 w - - 0 32

Fischer, who had been clearly on top right out of the opening,
whipped off the blunder (by which is meant simply a large drop in the
position score, as determined objectively by any decent chess engine)
32.Rb5+?, instead of Rd6+! Kc5, 33.Rd7 and the black bishop bites
the dust (or so says Rybka, a triple black belt-- in Karate, Judo, and
tactical chess).

Not to be outdone, his opponent --a former world champion-- replied
32. ... Kc4?! (another significant drop in the score), just one of
several inferior moves in this, a bad endgame, which he had obtained
from misplaying the late opening or if you prefer, the early
middlegame. But Euwe's biggest error --in terms of sudden numerical
score drop-- came at move 34, when the former champ apparently
overlooked a tactic so simple that even I was astonished, in this
position: 1B6/2R4p/P3p3/5pp1/3b4/2rk1P2/5P1P/3K4 w - - 0 35
Here Black played 34. ... Kd3?, and after 35.Rxc3+ Kxc3 there came
the incredibly obvious pin-and-win, 36.Be5.

Obviously, this entire endgame was very bad for Black, so his many
errors did not exactly turn tenable positions into lost ones, but
nevertheless it must be said that the former world champion was
'unrecognizable' in this game. Instead of swindling the youngster and
miraculously holding a draw (see the current issue of Chess Life
magazine for an example in which Sammy Reshevsky, characteristically,
did precisely that), he went down effortlessly, like a pint of
expensive vodka mixed with orange juice ---ahh, shaken, not stirred.


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 12th 11, 11:42 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default On the Fine Art of Losing without Much Fight

On Nov 12, 5:30*am, The Master wrote:

* Obviously, this entire endgame was very bad for Black, so his many
errors did not exactly turn tenable positions into lost ones, but
nevertheless it must be said that the former world champion was
'unrecognizable' in this game. *Instead of swindling the youngster and
miraculously holding a draw (see the current issue of Chess Life
magazine for an example in which Sammy Reshevsky, characteristically,
did precisely that), he went down effortlessly, like a pint of
expensive vodka mixed with orange juice ---ahh, shaken, not stirred.


Back in the early 1990s when chess computer programs became cheap and
ubiquitous is when I realized, playing through famous games, how much
chess is like fine wine--a lot of subjectivity involved. I found a
lot of supposed brilliant games that could have been defended better,
as well as outright blunders.

Using a Mephisto Polgar dedicated PC with wooden board I believe--or
was it a NOVAG VIP handheld?--I think it was the latter.

Still, chess is a worthy pastime notwithstanding that HAL see all
mistakes.

RL
  #9   Report Post  
Old November 13th 11, 02:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,146
Default On the Fine Art of Losing without Much Fight

On Nov 12, 6:42*am, raylopez99 wrote:

On Nov 12, 5:30*am, The Master wrote:

* Obviously, this entire endgame was very bad for Black, so his many
errors did not exactly turn tenable positions into lost ones, but
nevertheless it must be said that the former world champion was
'unrecognizable' in this game. *Instead of swindling the youngster and
miraculously holding a draw (see the current issue of Chess Life
magazine for an example in which Sammy Reshevsky, characteristically,
did precisely that), he went down effortlessly, like a pint of
expensive vodka mixed with orange juice ---ahh, shaken, not stirred.


Back in the early 1990s when chess computer programs became cheap and


ubiquitous



That's twenty-five cents to you. {scribbles IOU}


is when I realized, playing through famous games, how much
chess is like fine wine--a lot of subjectivity involved. *I found a
lot of supposed brilliant games that could have been defended better,
as well as outright blunders.

Using a Mephisto Polgar dedicated PC with wooden board I believe--or
was it a NOVAG VIP handheld?--I think it was the latter.

Still, chess is a worthy pastime notwithstanding that HAL see all
mistakes.

PI



When I was a much younger pawnpusher I was wowed by the many exclams
appended to the moves of such greats as Andersson (sp?) and
Keiseritsky (sp?) in numerous chess books. Phrases like 'game of the
century' or 'match of the century' were tossed about recklessly, and
as a mere beginner I seemed to have no other course than to believe
what the 'experts' published.

But when put through a careful --and objective-- analysis by any of
the top chess engines today, many of these alleged brilliancies come
up well short of all the hype. In fact, if you enable text commentary
the engines will blast some of these oldtimer's games to smithereens,
and if you instead opt for purely numerical critiques the result is
often non-stop interruption to point out significant errors by both
sides with parenthetical improvements. In short, it is easy to get
the impression that like many beginners today, the battling oldtimers
basically ignored what their opponents were doing and just went about
their business, each doing his own thing until one or the other of
them was checkmated. Amazingly, this sort of recklessness was richly
rewarded with extra prizes, the soundness of the often wild attacks
not seeming to matter so much as the energy with which they were
executed-- and the flashier the sacrifices, the better.

More recently (although still a good while back), a game of
Fischer's was called the game of the century, and indeed the young
fellow had played superbly. Trouble is, his opponent had made a
Reinfeldian blunder in the opening, moving the same piece twice and
thereby losing valuable time, just as can often be seen at scholastic
tounaments, in games between beginners. I am reminded of how weak a
chessplayer I was after reading my first or second chess book by --who
else?-- Fred Reindfeld, in which beginners were always instructed to
NEVER move the same piece twice in the opening, without a very good
reason. 'Knights before Bishops,' we were informed, sternly. 'Don't
make unnecessary pawn moves,' and 'Rooks belong on open files.' But
somehow Donald Byrne had managed to avoid the plethora of Reinfeld
books completely, apparently learning the game entirely on his own.

Supposedly, when measured against the preferences of some old
version of Crafty, Jose Capablanca's moves came out on top, more
frequently matching up neatly with Craty's top choice of moves. That
is to say, he rarely blundered. And it so happens that in the history
of the world championships, it was Jose Capablanca alone --correct me
if I'm wrong-- who defeated his predecessor in a match without the
loss of even a single game. I wonder if the same test were done using
one of today's 3200+ chess engines, would it yield a similar result?
That would be even more impressive than garnering the approval of
Crafty. In my opinion, the use of an old version of Crafty to
evaluate the quality of play of world chess champions was, well,
an ...egregious... {That makes us even, by my tally. Tears up IOU}
error.





  #10   Report Post  
Old November 14th 11, 07:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default On the Fine Art of Losing without Much Fight

On Nov 13, 10:07*am, The Master wrote:

{trite garbage deleted}

Reinfeld could wipe your ass off the board, so don't diss him, hoe.

RL

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Double Howler: Smyslov-Petrosian, Zurich 1953 Taylor Kingston[_3_] rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 23 November 11th 11 03:09 PM
Double Howler: Smyslov-Petrosian, Zurich 1953 Taylor Kingston[_3_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 31st 11 05:12 PM
Gagra 1953 again krammi1 rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 4 March 5th 10 03:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017