Originally posted by Romanticus I looked at that during the game.I had:
22.Qg7,Kc8 White still needs to pick up a piece so he'll most likely play 23.gxh3 then 23.....,Be4+ regains the exchange for Black.I don't see a problem with that.In fact,I think Black might be slightly better in that line.
Originally posted by tomtom232 Oh I was also wondering if 6...dxe4 was book?
Don't know,I don't have a Latvian book.I've been trying this opening basing my play on a chessville article which stated:
The Mlotkowski variation:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nc3
Named after Mlotkowski, the American master who introduced it in 1916. 3..fxe4 4.Nxe5 (Not 4.Nxe4 d5 and now 5.Nxe5?? drops a piece after 5… Qe7). Also bad for White is 5. Nc3 e4.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie you Latvian guys are not happy unless you are throwing rooks and pawns and knights and kitchen sinks into the sacrificial melee, have you no decency, no sense of decorum, no fear??
That was no sacrificial melee.I traded my rook,2 pawns and king safety for 2 knights.A fair trade by any standard 😉
In the 21st game of the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match, Karpov's 17th move Bxd5 attacked Korchnoi's R on h1. If he moved the Rook that allowed Nf3+ winning the Q (as would recapturing the B).
Korchnoi asked the arbiter if it was legal to castle with the Rook under attack. It was, and he won quickly with 18.O-O!
Originally posted by DawgHaus In the 21st game of the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match, Karpov's 17th move Bxd5 attacked Korchnoi's R on h1. If he moved the Rook that allowed Nf3+ winning the Q (as would recapturing the B).
Korchnoi asked the arbiter if it was legal to castle with the Rook under attack. It was, and he won quickly with 18.O-O!
Originally posted by whiteknight26 Korchnoi had to ask if castling was legal with Rook under attack??
Every amateur I know can answer that question. This is one of the first things I learned when starting to play chess.
It is a funny story - world championship candidate asking about the rules. You can't blame Korchnoi for being careful given that he was unsure.
There was a Karpov-Miles game where Karpov incorrectly claimed a draw by repetition. The pieces were all on the same squares three different times with the same player to move - only the first time Black had the right to castle and in the other two he didn't. So the claim was denied. The game was drawn anyway.
Originally posted by whiteknight26 Korchnoi had to ask if castling was legal with Rook under attack??
Every amateur I know can answer that question. This is one of the first things I learned when starting to play chess.
I didn't know it until I read this topic I thought you couldn't castle if any of the fiels/pieces involved in the process are attacked by an enemy piece...
Originally posted by orion25 I didn't know it until I read this topic I thought you couldn't castle if any of the fiels/pieces involved in the process are attacked by an enemy piece...
And so this thread has served a worthwhile purpose 🙂
Originally posted by Romanticus That was no sacrificial melee.I traded my rook,2 pawns and king safety for 2 knights.A fair trade by any standard 😉
In what 'standard' is that a fair trade, material wise you have lost 7 points and white has lost 6, and in some cirumstances king safety is priceless. 😀
Originally posted by Blackson In what 'standard' is that a fair trade, material wise you have lost 7 points and white has lost 6, and in some cirumstances king safety is priceless. 😀
26 Jun '09 03:121 edit
them nasty surprises
Back to Top