Just to interrupt.
A long way back you did a post on Blackburne doing a f5 in response to Evans Gambit.
Anyways I tried it out f5 after 4. c3 and played one of my best games of chess.
I was hoping the do it in 3 would throw you.
I was ready with a "I said 4 moves not 3." It's good one.
That is an entertaing game the7tidlys.
The last thing I expected was it to go all the way to an ending with
both sides promoting, The game was on edge all the way through.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 You have solved it TVchess.
I was hoping the do it in 3 would throw you.
I was ready with a "I said 4 moves not 3." It's good one.
That is an entertaing game the7tidlys.
The last thing I expected was it to go all the way to an ending with
both sides promoting, The game was on edge all the way through.
I am sure there were places in there that a quality player (better than me and the opp), would have found a way.
I just wish I knew someone who likes to anlayse slightly unusual chess positions...
Anyway thanks for the response, it is a pleasure to read your (and Russ, who the hell is he?) blog.
One big "stand up and applaud" for me was that the blog shows how studies such as Reti's have tremendous learning value, as the concept/idea can be applied to our own games.
The idea that, in chess, the shortest distance between two points for a king is not always a straight line is not an intuitive one, and worth remembering.
Originally posted by Paul Leggett One big "stand up and applaud" for me was that the blog shows how studies such as Reti's have tremendous learning value, as the concept/idea can be applied to our own games.
The idea that, in chess, the shortest distance between two points for a king is not always a straight line is not an intuitive one, and worth remembering.
Em. Lasker said that he learned from Reti's endgame studies. High praise indeed.