|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Mar-12-08
 |
| PinnedPiece: If I could comment like <aazqa>, I'm sure I would also have some past games I could show everybody where I nailed some opponent's silly move and sac'd everything but the kithen sink to mate in 9. But I don't have. Which is why I can't make comments like <aazqa>. |
 |
Mar-12-08
 |
| MrSpock: I would like to take up the gauntlet against every earthling and play as White: 10. Kxh2 (If you are interested please post your moves in my forum.) greatings from planet vulcan -- Spock |
|
Mar-12-08
 |
| TheBB: <DarthStapler: This is a very famous game. I'm surprised it was never GOTD before.> Being GOTD today doesn't mean it hasn't been before. |
|
| Mar-12-08 |
| gmgomes: About <endgame> cooments, my oppinion is that 9. Ng5 should be considered "?", instead of "!?" - as it seems to lose by force. |
|
Mar-12-08
 |
| Dr. Funkenstein: I would like to second Udayan Owen's comments. I think that it is very easy to say "well that's all forced so what's the big deal?" without realizing that black had to visualize the entire sequence from move 10 including all the subvariations. Black has to commit to giving up everything in the attack before commencing it (by playing 10. Ng4) which might be easy to second guess but is ridiculously difficult to do over the board. |
|
Mar-12-08
 |
| ajk68: I think the brilliance begins with the move 15...e5! Without seeing that move and its continuation the whole attack doesn't work. This is not a move many of us would see (a pawn move 7 moves deep that allows the attack to continue if one is content to sacrifice 3 more pieces). |
|
| Mar-12-08 |
| drnooo: Odd that barely a week ago I commented on this game all by my lonesome, saying simply that this is one of those no computer would ever make some of the sacs here (run them off and see for yourself, let the thing buzz and click out the moves as long as it likes, hours if need be, you will see) yet they are correct. For that reason that it moves it into a fairly rare level: whipping the finest computer mercilessly with a fantastic sac that is absolutely sound. Not many of those around and too bad there is not a book on said same, it would be a neat collection |
|
Mar-12-08
|
| Jimfromprovidence: I have mixed feelings about this match. On the one hand, as a chess
aficionado, you can’t help but admire a spectacular mating combination to win a match. On the other, once you put on your analyst's hat, you can’t close your eyes to the numerous unforced errors by white that set up the winning combination in this contest. It’s particularly hard to ignore white’s appalling 11th move, f4 instead of either Nh3 or Nf3, (Nf3 shown below).
click for larger viewAs an aside, <Dr. Funkenstein> I love the Europe '72 avatar. |
|
| Mar-12-08 |
| ounos: Here is an interesting line.
20. Bxg6 fxg3+
21. Bf7+ Kh8
22. e4 dxe4+
23. Kxe4, and I think White should be winning.
What do I miss? |
|
Mar-12-08
|
| UdayanOwen: <ounos: Here is an interesting line.
20. Bxg6 fxg3+
21. Bf7+ Kh8
22. e4 dxe4+
23. Kxe4, and I think White should be winning.
What do I miss?>
<Endgame's> analysis of the game demonstrates the win for black after 20.Bxg6: 20...Bxg4! 21.Kxg4 Qxg3+ 22.Kh5 hxg6+ 23.Kxg6 Rxf6+ 24.Kh5 Rh6# |
|
Mar-12-08
|
| UdayanOwen: <johnlspouge: <<JG27Pyth> wrote: God. So true. [snip]> LOL!!!
<JG27Pyth>, you are now on my favorites list - a dubious honor perhaps, but very obviously overdue :)> I also felt that was top class humour by <JG> <ajk68: I think the brilliance begins with the move 15...e5!Without seeing that move and its continuation the whole attack doesn't work. This is not a move many of us would see (a pawn move 7 moves deep that allows the attack to continue if one is content to sacrifice 3 more pieces).> I agree, this is where the attack gets really creative. What adds to the brilliance is that Najdorf had to have move 15 - 22 worked out before he played move 10. <Jimfromprovidence: once you put on your analyst's hat, you can’t close your eyes to the numerous unforced errors by white that set up the winning combination in this contest.It’s particularly hard to ignore white’s appalling 11th move, f4 instead of either Nh3 or Nf3, (Nf3 shown below).> The game as a whole wouldn't get into my top games list because as you say, the attack was made possible by pissweak play by white. When selecting the top games from history, I would only choose games where both players fully tested eachother and one player's brilliance triumphed. It is bizzarre that a player good enough to get a geurnsey against Najdorf could play 9.Ng5??. However, I disagree that 11.f4 is appalling. Sure, after 11.Nf3 or 11.Nh3 white will not get smashed up the way he did. But after retreating the bishop, black has a pawn and retains a (slower) attack, so it is completely lost. 11.f4 instead gives white some practical chances, since black's bishop is trapped and will die. Then the onus is on black to demonstrate the super creative sequence of moves to prove the point of 10...Ng4. As a whole this game is not one of the greats.... But in my opinion, as a specimen of sheer creativity in attack from move 10, this is genuinely stunning. |
|
Mar-12-08
 |
| johnlspouge: <UdayanOwen>, it is really a pleasure to have you here again, enjoying what you do best. Specifically in support of you, I set up a part of my chessforum: <HE MUST HAVE PEEKED...<<>>>. Take a look, and you will see its point very fast. Cheers, pal! :>) |
|
| Mar-12-08 |
| MaxxLange: I used to have a lot of friends who played Stonewall Dutch, and one of the first things I learned was that the scheme with g3 and Bg2 makes Black's Kingside attacks harder to pull off. This game seems to support that idea. |
|
| Apr-21-08 |
| MaczynskiPratten: I would speculate that some of Najdorf's moves in the middle were made on general principles and pattern recognition, rather than working out tactical lines to the end - especially if this was an offhand game. After 11 f4, OK Black may be losing the Bishop, but White has so opened up his kingside that Black must have sufficient compensation. I think on playing the Qe8-h5 manoeuvre he would have seen Bg1! as this prevents White's Rh1 which is otherwise awkward. He could visualise the position at move 15 with White's King trapped on f3 and think, "on principle, there must be a win here". He must smash the Kingside open and get his QB and QN into play, so moves like e5 would appear, again on principle. And once he foresaw the position at move 18, he may have worked it all out to the mate, or he may have instinctively felt, like Micawber, "something must turn up here". Either way, whether precisely calculated or done through a deep intuitive understanding of the position, it's great play. |
|
| Apr-29-08 |
| JimmyVermeer: I'm confused as to the year this game took place. Chessgames.com says 1929, I.A. Horowitz says 1933, and Chessmaster says 1935. Anyone know which is correct? |
|
| Apr-29-08 |
| Retireborn: Jimmy,
According to Kasparov's book it was played Warsaw 1928, and White's name was actually I.Glinksburg. Kasparov claims to have been told this by Najdorf and/or Najdorf's daughter. The date of the game has caused much confusion. Apparently Najdorf showed the game to Tartakower in 1935 and the latter published it under the impression it had been played recently. |
|
| Apr-30-08 |
| JimmyVermeer: Thanks for the info, Retireborn.
Kasparov wasn't born yet in 1928, so is there an authoritative source for 1928, 1929, or 1933? |
|
| Apr-30-08 |
| Retireborn: Jimmy,
I thought that Kasparov had been personally given the information by Najdorf, but looking more closely at what he wrote, he may have simply read it in a book written by Najdorf's daughter, Liliana (sorry, can't tell you anything about the book). In "Kings, Commoners and Knaves" Edward Winter notes that the game was first published in a Polish newspaper in August 1930 and speculates that it may have been played in a minor Warsaw tournament in January of that year. All we can say with authority is that the game was NOT played in 1935; that was just Tartakower's misunderstanding. |
|
| Apr-30-08 |
| JimmyVermeer: Then Horowitz was also wrong - it couldn't have been played in 1933. |
|
Apr-30-08
 |
| Calli: The game has puzzled historians. The short version:
The earliest publication discovered so far was in August 1930. The date and event was not mentioned but another discovery was that Glucksberg lost to Najdorf in a tournament that ended in January 1930. It therefore seems likely that this game was played Jan 1930 or Dec 1929. It is still not certain however. We can be sure that any dates after 1930 are wrong. |
|
Jul-23-08
 |
| kingscrusher: Fantastic game - I video annotated this with my friend Costas Karayiannis yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Zz... |
|
Aug-02-08
 |
| ketchuplover: 7 moves? (chess viewer deluxe) |
|
Sep-02-08
 |
| Check It Out: <aazqua: This is white playing some ugly moves in the open and black exploiting white's lack of development and stumbling his way into a multi-piece sacrifice leading to a pretty pawn mate.> <JG27Pyth: God. So true. I mean I hate that when I'm playing a nice game of chess and I think I'm just going to win a pawn or something, and wham bam, all of a sudden I've just stumbled into a multi-piece sacrifice ending with an elegant pawn mate... I mean how annoying is that!? When I was a lad I was impressed by such things too... but now that I'm 9 years old, I divide my time between running my 7 trillion Euro hedge fund and DNA sequencing my cat, by hand (I want to see if I can figure out how to make her sing the Neil Diamond catalog in Celtic...haha that's impossible, I'm really just trying to make her grow batwings). I certainly don't have time to be impressed by the odd random multi-piece 9 move mating combination sacrifice. OHHH crap... I just bent a spoon with my mind!!! Dammit that is sooo annoying.> That's the funniest thing I've ever read at chessgames.com. I think I'm convulsing with laughter. |
|
| Sep-14-08 |
| pom nasayao: A lot of fireworks in a miniature 22-move game. For sure this game must have gladened the heart of an equally strong player--Mikhail Tal. |
|
| Oct-06-08 |
| ArturoRivera: After Kxh2 simply Ng4+ and Qxg5, no analisis needed, simply a healty pawn up, initiative and some matting netts on the air. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 13...Bg1
