i was reading a chess book today about chess styles and how the top players play over the years (good cover too MR) anyway, they were talking about breyer and his death in 1921.. it said this was a devastating blow to chess, as he wouldve had the next "stienitz school" so basically the author was saying he wouldve contributed to chess as much as the 1st world champion..
just wondering, what was this style and how good was this guy? i only know of his line in the ruy lopez, so im a bit ignorant on the topic but this area of the timeline of chess interests me
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Breyer was a brilliant openings analyst and quite ahead of his time. I'm not sure how good he was. I suspect he was like Nimzovich - brilliant, but with enough weaknesses not to be world champion.
My favorite Breyer creation is the Breyer Kings gambit:
1 e4 e5 2 f2 exf4 3 Qf3, with the idea of 3 ... Qh4+ 4 g3 fxg3 5 hxg3 and black has to play Qe7 or Qf6, either one of which gives white good play.
Originally posted by irontigranI never heard of him before. Couldn't find much about him online, except that he was Hungarian, one of the hypermodernists, and did well in some tournaments. And he died of a heart attack at 28!. Not many entries about him on Edward Winter's site, either.
i was reading a chess book today about chess styles and how the top players play over the years (good cover too MR) anyway, they were talking about breyer and his death in 1921.. it said this was a devastating blow to chess, as he wouldve had the next "stienitz school" so basically the author was saying he wouldve contributed to chess as much as the 1st w ...[text shortened]... y lopez, so im a bit ignorant on the topic but this area of the timeline of chess interests me
You are correct. For a player often cited as being one of the founding
members of the Hypermodern School, very little is known about him.
This is because he was a young man when he passed away. (28).
He is famous for his quote: "After 1.e4 White's is in it's last throes."
Wether or not this was a joke is still being discussed to this day.
He was a good blindfold player, submitted puzzles to a Sports Magazine,
had a plus scroe v Euwe (before Euwe became...Euwe) and he is credited
with a brilliant retro-analysis problem.
I know what what retro analysis is but it's not my field.
Swiss Gambit is the lad to take over from me here.
I'll PM him and see if he can show us this retro problem and talk us though it.
Watch this space.
(just PM'd him - he's not on line - give him a day or two).
Originally posted by ErekoseI think his line in the Ruy Lopez is rather more sound.
Breyer was a brilliant openings analyst and quite ahead of his time. I'm not sure how good he was. I suspect he was like Nimzovich - brilliant, but with enough weaknesses not to be world champion.
My favorite Breyer creation is the Breyer Kings gambit:
1 e4 e5 2 f2 exf4 3 Qf3, with the idea of 3 ... Qh4+ 4 g3 fxg3 5 hxg3 and black has to play Qe7 or Qf6, either one of which gives white good play.
Originally posted by greenpawn34The main goal of retros like this is to take back moves until a King is free. Taking back moves seems weird at first. The 3 weirdest things to watch for are:
It's 2pm. this is taking me longer than I thought it would.
SG: looks like you will have to show us (and then show us an easy retro).
1) Checks. You're allowed to walk a King into a check (!), so long as you remove the check with the next retraction. You're NOT allowed to expose the enemy King to check with a retracted move [because that would mean, going forward, that the King could have simply been captured].
2) Special moves. Castling, promotion, and en passant look really weird when played in reverse. Composers love to use them to fool solvers. Be on the lookout for these three things.
3) Un-captures. Don't forget that you can place pieces back on the board by un-capturing them.
Now, to the actual solving. The first thing to do is figure out the pawn captures.
Black is missing 3 units [NNP] and White pawns must have captured 3 units [to reach c3 and c4].
White is missing 3 units [PPP] and Black pawns must have captured 2 units [two sets of doubled pawns showing].
The missing pawns are on the Kingside, and thus could not have been directly captured by other pawns. Instead, many promotions must have taken place, with the promoted pieces either a) sacrificing themselves to pawns or b) replacing other pieces that did.
White is missing Pf2/g2/h2 and Black is missing Pg7. Black must have played ...gxh to get his promotion in. White promoted the f- and g-pawns on f8 and g8 respectively. This supplies the necessary captures.
Promotion paths are important. Note that Black cannot immediately take back the move ...f6xe5, because then wPf2 never could have promoted.
The other pawns cannot immediately uncapture either. Pc4 came from a2, not e2 [because White already has an e-pawn on e6]. Pc3 cannot step back to d2 until Bc1 is home [or else how did he get out?].
So, this is a maddening type of sliding-block problem, like Loyd's 14-15 puzzle. The only way to solve it is to figure out how to shift the pieces around until something frees up [maybe a piece leaves the block].
Next, I'll work on getting a PGN of the solution....
Originally posted by SwissGambitRHP isn't clever enough to handle PGN's that do not start from the initial chess position. Paste this PGN into an application like WinBoard to view it:
The main goal of retros like this is to take back moves until a King is free. Taking back moves seems weird at first. The 3 weirdest things to watch for are:
1) Checks. You're allowed to walk a King into a check (!), so long as you remove the check with the next retraction. You're NOT allowed to expose the enemy King to check with a retracted move [be ...[text shortened]... p [maybe a piece leaves the block].
Next, I'll work on getting a PGN of the solution....
[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date ""]
[Round "-"]
[White "-"]
[Black "-"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "KB6/bpN1p2p/rRpkP3/prp1p3/bQP5/RNP5/qPP5/1B6 b - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
{--------------
K B . . . . . .
b p N . p . . p
r R p k P . . .
p r p . p . . .
b Q P . . . . .
R N P . . . . .
q P P . . . . .
. B . . . . . .
black to play
--------------}
1.Nb3a1 Qa2b3
2.Ra3a2 Qb3a3
3.Qb4b3 Qa3b4
4.Qb3a3 Ba4b3
5.Qa3a4 Qb4a3
6.Qa4b4 Qa3a4
7.Ra2a3 Bb3a2
8.Ra3b3 Qa4a3
9.Qb4a4 Rb5b4
10.Qa4b5 Qa3a4
11.Rb3a3 Rb4b3
12.Qb5b4 Qa4b5
13.Qb4a4 Rb3b4
14.Qa4b3 Rb4a4
15.Qb3b4 Ba2b3
16.Ra3a2 Ra4a3
17.Qb4a4 Qb5b4
18.Qa4b5 Ra3a4
19.Ra2a3 Bb3a2
20.Ra3b3 Ra4a3
21.Qb5a4 Qb4b5
22.Rb3b4 Ra3b3
23.Qa4a3 Qb5a4
24.Rb4b5 Rb3b4
25.Qa3b3 Qa4a3
26.Qb3a4 Qa3b3
27.Qa4a3 a5a4
28.Rb5a5 Rb4b5
29.Qa3b4 Qb3a3
30.Qb4b3 Qa3b4
31.Qb3a3 Ba2b3
32.Qa3a2 a4a3
33.Ra5a4 Qb4a5
34.Ra4b4 Bb3a4
35.Qa2b3 Ba3a2
36.Qb3a3 Ba4b3
37.Rb4a4 Rb5b4
38.Rb6b5 Qa5b6
39.Ra4a5 Rb4a4
40.Qa3b4 Ra4a3
41.Ra5a4 Qb6a5
42.Rb5b6 Qa5b5
43.Qb4a5 Qb5b4
44.Rb6b5 Ra6b6
45.Qa5a6 Qb4a5
46.Ra4b4 Bb3a4
47.Rb4b3 Qa5b4
48.Qa6a5 Rb6a6
49.Qa5b6 Qb4a5
50.Rb5b4 Ba4b5
51.Rb4a4 Qa5b4
52.Ra4a5 Qb4a4
53.Rb3b4 Qa4b3
54.Ra5a4 Ra6a5
55.Qb6a6 Ba7b6
56.Qa6a7 Ra5a6
57.Ra4a5 Bb5a4
58.Ra5b5 Bb6a5
59.Rb5b6 Ba4b5
60.Rb4a4 Ba5b4
61.Ra4a5 Bb5a4
62.Rb6b5 Ra6b6
63.Ra5a6 Bb4a5
64.Rb5b4 Ba4b5
65.Rb4a4 Ba5b4
66.Ra6a5 Bb5a6
67.Ra5b5 Bb4a5
68.Ra4b4 Qb3a4
69.Rb4b3 Ba5b4
70.Rb5a5 Qa4b5
71.Ra5a4 Bb4a5
72.Rb3b4 Ra3b3
73.Ra4a3 Qb5a4
74.Rb4b5 Ba5b4
75.Rb5a5 Ba6b5
76.Ra5a6 Qa4a5
77.Ra3a4 Bb4a3
78.Ra4b4 Bb5a4
79.Rb4b5 Qa5b4
80.Ra6a5 Rb6a6
81.Rb5b6 Ba4b5
82.Ra5a4 Qb4a5
83.Ra4b4 Bb5a4
84.Rb6b5 Qa5b6
85.Rb5a5 Qb6b5
That's the 'book' solution. 50 moves elapse before a3-a2 is retracted, so the game is drawn. The remaining retractions are just to show that the position was actually legal before that.
Edit: Something's funky with the stip. Obviously, there are more than 96 single moves in the solution, but less than 96 full moves. Maybe they meant 86 full moves instead of 96.
Originally posted by heinzkatThe process of converting a solution given in german, retraction notation to workable PGN is quite tedious, and thus I'm not surprised that some errors crept in. Also, the 'b' was a relic from going the other direction first - Black is the one who starts retracting.
I think there are a few notation mistakes:
In the FEN you put the 'b' for Black to move - should be w for White to move.
Further:
35. ... Ba3a2
Should be a3a2
Now it works (at least in Chesspad)
Some more information is given too:
"The wonderful No. 180, certainly the most glorious retro I have had the privilege of yet printing, is sent me by the Budapest Circle. Composed during the war, its dedication shows that chess could rise supremely over all the turmoil. Its talented composers's death was announced only a few days ago, at a tragically early age. So that no solver shall miss the idea, I state distinctly that the retro analysis proves the game is DRAWN by virtue of the 50-move Rule! ... This beautiful application of the well-known zig-zag puzzles to a retro study has played havoc with the solving list." (TRD)"
Where TRD probably means T.R. Dawson and No. 180 the number of the diagram in the magazine?
The problem with the problem seems to rise with the placement of the White Rooks (perhaps they can "change places" and "cook" the solution?) as there is also another version given by Garaza, that is cooked as well, in some way or another: