Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 24 Aug '12 14:47
    well, patzerish at least from one side

  2. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    24 Aug '12 20:05
    I loved white's play in the beginning, especially the way the knights danced. It was a shame the way white's play devolved in the endgame.
  3. 25 Aug '12 10:08 / 1 edit
    Yes, I made a couple of good moves at the beginning (and three patzersih moves in the ending).

    I could have played 16. Nf6+ and take a Queen!!

    The Rook ending was a draw however - I had to move 51. a3 - and I can comfort myself with the fact it was "only" Blitz 5+0, I was thinking of time in that ending.

    Anyway, I ordered a computer analysis and it turned out that I had made 11 blunders and my opponent 7 (plus bunch of inaccuracies), which clears him/her of my paranoid feelings during the game.

    Not bad, actually, for a blitz 5+0.


    Here is the game with computer (for vagabonds in public library) analysis

  4. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    25 Aug '12 11:53
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    Yes, I made a couple of good moves at the beginning (and three patzersih moves in the ending).

    I could have played [b]16. Nf6+
    and take a Queen!!

    The Rook ending was a draw however - I had to move 51. a3 - and I can comfort myself with the fact it was "only" Blitz 5+0, I was thinking of time in that ending.

    Anyway, I ordered a comput ...[text shortened]... Ke3 Ka3 66. Rd2 Re4+ 67. Kf3 Re5 68. Kf4 Rh5 69. Kg4 Rh1 70. Rxd5 Kxa2 71. Rb5 b3 0-1[/pgn][/b]
    LOL a blitz time control explains the ending quite easily. At the same time, it makes the earlier part of the game even more impressive, as the dancing knights were as much intuition as calculation!
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    25 Aug '12 19:22 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    Yes, I made a couple of good moves at the beginning (and three patzersih moves in the ending).

    I could have played [b]16. Nf6+
    and take a Queen!!

    The Rook ending was a draw however - I had to move 51. a3 - and I can comfort myself with the fact it was "only" Blitz 5+0, I was thinking of time in that ending.

    Anyway, I ordered a comput Ke3 Ka3 66. Rd2 Re4+ 67. Kf3 Re5 68. Kf4 Rh5 69. Kg4 Rh1 70. Rxd5 Kxa2 71. Rb5 b3 0-1[/pgn][/b]
    This game follows a 1996 game: Igor Brunski vs Drazen Sermek through move 12. Brunski plays 13. Nc2 to transfer this Knight to e3.

    P.S. I think your move is better because you give him 3 isolated pawns even the way you played it after missing the forking check.
  6. 26 Aug '12 16:35
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    well, patzerish at least from one side

    [pgn]1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nge2 Nf6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 Be6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 9. Nd5 Rc8 10. c3 a6 11. Na3 f5 12. exf5 Bxf5 13. Bd3 e4 14. Qe2 Qh4 15. g3 Qg4 16. Qxg4 Bxg4 17. Bxe4 f5 18. Nf6+ Kf7 19. Nxg4 fxe4 20. O-O h5 21. Ne3 h4 22. Nac4 b5 23. Nb6 Re8 24. Nbd5 Ne5 25. g4 h3 26. f4 exf3 27. Nf ...[text shortened]... 65. Ke3 Ka3 66. Rd2 Re4+ 67. Kf3 Re5 68. Kf4 Rh5 69. Kg4 Rh1 70. Rxd5 Kxa2 71. Rb5 b3 0-1[/pgn]
    Ohhh... for a second I thought this was a game between Lasker and Sveshnikov, which was strange because I didn't think they were contemporaries, and it seems bizarre to call either of them "patzers". Not to mention "Lasker" missed a one move queen fork!