Originally posted by greenpawn34Napoleon went 22 moves without developing a queenside piece. Not surprising he only lasted for 24...
A ggod find Geo,here is the game.
Napoleon v The Turk, 1809.
[pgn]
[Event "Schoenbrunn"]
[Site "Schoenbrunn"]
[Date "1809.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Napoleon Bonaparte"]
[Black "The Turk (Automaton)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "0"]
[BlackElo "0"]
[EventDate "?"]
[ECO "C20"]
[PlyCount "48"]
1. e4 e5 2. Qf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ne2 Bc5 5. ...[text shortened]... 20. Kd1 Qxh1+ 21. Kd2 Qg2+ 22. Ke1 Ng1 23. Nc3 Bxc3+ 24. bxc3 Qe2[/pgn]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHi Robbie, thanks for your input.
Its an idea that i learnt from one of Silmans books that its often a good idea to get
good doubled pawns, in this instance playing 7...Be6, if white takes Bxe6 we play
...fxe6 and we have great central control, the f file is opened and whites queen move is
looking rather more dubious than before
I am not convinced that the way I played the opening was that bad. When I was a teenager (early 70s) I worked through Fischer's 60 memorable games. The one against Smyslov, Havanna 1965 Smyslov played 12...Be6 in a closed Ruy Lopez and Fischer said "I was surprised he was prepared to allow doubled King Pawns but surmised it must be OK because he doesn't do such things lightly." I haven't forgotten reading that and try not to do such things lightly myself.
Frankly I think it takes years and years of high level competitive play to know when "it is OK." At my level (1800 ish OTB) such moves seem fine against weaker players as they are less good against stronger players whose methods of exploitation are altogether more effective.
As GP said ...d5 doesn't always guarantee equality and didn't in this game. Perhaps I would have done better with 11...b5, expanding on the Q-side and opening lines that might discourage the plan of 0-0-0 for white. In that event Pawn Riot would likely have found other means to outplay me that may or may not have been as instructive as the game. As it was I later opened the f file against his Queen and had doubled e pawns and he just seized the 7th rank!
That is the Fischer Kh1 game.
When I saw it I read the note.
Wish I had not I would liked to have figured out why for myself if I could.
Fischer played 19 Kh1.
Funny how some games and a certain moves with a note stick.
Here is the whole game.
I like Smyslov double pawns it keeps the g3 off f5.
Maybe that is the idea.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't see why he did. I see why one would: either to keep the king off the bishop's squares, or to make room for another piece. But neither applies here, AFAICS. The bishop is not (yet) able to attack g1, and in fact never does; and Fischer soon moves his king to h2 anyway, back on the black squares. In fact, no piece ever moves to g1 after this move, and only the rook threatens it briefly.
That is the Fischer Kh1 game.
[fen]5rk1/2p1b1pp/R1nrpn2/1p2p3/4P3/2P2NN1/1P3PPP/2B2RK1 w - - 0 19[/fen]
Fischer played 19 Kh1.
The only reason I can see for this move is that he played it as a waiting move; but the position at that move doesn't seem to call for one. So, why?
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAt a guess (because my copy of the book is in the loft) I think
I don't see why he did. I see why one would: either to keep the king off the bishop's squares, or to make room for another piece. But neither applies here, AFAICS. The bishop is not (yet) able to attack g1, and in fact never does; and Fischer soon moves his king to h2 anyway, back on the black squares. In fact, no piece ever moves to g1 after thi ...[text shortened]... waiting move; but the position at that move doesn't seem to call for one. So, why?
Richard
19...Nd4 20.Rxd6 Nxf3 check exchanges two more sets of pieces whereas after Kg1 the combination does not work.
The other line I remember from the notes "Of course, with the Queens off it is that much harder to strike at black's weaknesses. I don't remember the Kh1 note though. . .
19. Kh1!
Fischer's note:
"The threat was 19...Nd4 forcing a favourable series of exchanges."
And that is all he says.
In the diagram Black can play Nd4 exposing the unprotected Rook
and if say Rxd6 Black can slip in Nxf3+ (CHECK!) before capturing back.
Suspect that is why note stuck, because I had been given a clue
and worked it out for myself.
Would have liked no clue as the reason is not too clear right away.
There was a time when I would spend hours on a noteless move
trying to figure what was going on and why it was played.
Perhaps Fischer's reckoning is that if you cannot see why after
I have given you a clue. Close the book.
Have to say though there is a lot in this game that went
right over my head.
Even today and even with Fischer's notes and clues.
Does "....favourable exchanges.' Mean Black now has the pull
or has he just relieved the pressure."
OK Bobby, I've closed the book.
Hi Shallow.
Has happened loads of times in chess.
The player who played and it in the most famous circumstances gets the credit.
The Alekhine Defence.
Edinburgh played a correspondence match with Newcastle in the 1880's
that featured 1.e4 Nf6 reaching known positions today.
And staying with Edinburgh. The Scotch Game/Gambit.
It was London who first played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4.
Edinburgh copied the idea a few games later.
They won the match. They get the name.
The Ruy Lopez.
He said 2...d6 was the best defence v to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3.
Don't play 2.Nc6 because 3.Bb5 is good.
So he got this named after him because he never rec'd it.
Worse case is Daminio.
He strongly advised against 2...f6. And yet it bears his name and everyone
thinks he was a duffer.
Edit:
The Edinburgh and Scotch Game is even more odd when you consider
the position Edinburgh were looking at.
In them days (1822) the rules did not have White going first.
Edinburgh had the Black pieces but 'the move' in games 1, 3 & 5. So the position
the boys were looking at in game 5 that became known as the Scotch Games was:
Thanks for posting this, the winning combination, especially the rook manouvre d1-c3 via d7 and c7, is a treat to play through and hard to anticipate.
One possible improvement is to play 17...Qe7 instead of 17...Qa5. That way black still threatens to check on a3 while defending b7 at the same time.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34No, that's just it. Among (pseudo-)serious chess players, everybody knows that other people played the Alekhine before Alekhine, he only popularised it, and that Damiano proved the Damiano is erroneous. AFAICT it's only about Napoleon that this myth remains widely accepted. Since he wasn't even that good a player, there is no earthly reason why.
Has happened loads of times in chess.
The player who played and it in the most famous circumstances gets the credit.
The Alekhine Defence.
Edinburgh played a correspondence match with Newcastle in the 1880's that featured 1.e4 Nf6 reaching known positions today.
Worse case is Daminio.
He strongly advised against 2...f6. And yet it bears his name and everyone thinks he was a duffer.
Perhaps it's because you Limeys still get trouser-filling moments when you think of him? 😛
Richard