Only Chess
05 Aug 06
05 Aug 06
1 edit
I got slaughtered in this game as black.
Game 2277047
I followed a line suggested by Korchnoi in his book on the Kings Gambit which I left at move 14 because the suggested move 14 ... Qe6 lost.
i.e. 14 ... Qe6.
15. Bd2+ .. Kg8.
16. Rae1 .. h6.
17. RXe6 .. dXe6.
18. Qd8+ .. Kh7.
19. Qd3+ .. Kg8.
20. Qg6 .. Nd7.
21. Rf7 .. Rh7.
22. BXh6 .. Kh8.
23. BXg7+ .. Kg8.
24. Be5+ .. Rg7.
25. Qxg7++
This analysis followed a Smirnov - Tikhonov game to move 16 where black played QXQ and resigned 2 moves later. 16 .. h6 was found by Fritz but is still a forced loss for black.
The matter that needs to be addressed is was this game lost after 5 .. gXf3 and if not where did I go wrong? I couldn't find where and my book was no help, so I have set Fritz the task. No luck yet but if Fritz finds an improvement and I play it in my next game is this a fair use of Fritz or am I still cheating?
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireOf course it's ok.You're creating your own theory improvement with the aid of Fritz.How do you think GM's check their lines?If this isn't allowed there's a lot of theory in the books we're not supposed to use.
I got slaughtered in this game as black.
Game 2277047
I followed a line suggested by Korchnoi in his book on the Kings Gambit which I left at move 14 because the suggested move 14 ... Qe6 lost.
i.e. 14 ... Qe6.
15. Bd2+ .. Kg8.
16. Rae1 .. h6.
17. RXe6 .. dXe6.
18. Qd8+ .. Kh7.
19. Qd3+ .. Kg8.
20. Qg6 .. Nd7.
21. Rf7 .. R ...[text shortened]... n improvement and I play it in my next game is this a fair use of Fritz or am I still cheating?
05 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireI have looked at this variation in the past. It is called the Double Muzio. Although White throws the kitchen sink at Black he should still fail to break through against best defence. All but one of the 14 wins for Black in my database have Black playing 11...Ne7 rather than 11...Bg7. You might also consider 10...Qg7 rather than 10...Qf6. So, to answer your question, after 5...gxf3 White has good practical chances (especially at blitz) but Black should prevail with careful play. Another interesting way to commit suicide is the Halloween Attack in the Four Knights:
The matter that needs to be addressed is was this game lost after 5 .. gXf3 and if not where did I go wrong? I couldn't find where and my book was no help, so I have set Fritz the task. No luck yet but if Fritz finds an improvement and I play it in my next game is this a fair use of Fritz or am I still cheating?
1, e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nxe5?!?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/tour/breeze.htm
.
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Patrik Kahari8. Re1 is merely met by 8 .... QXR+. The piece sacrifice 8. BXf7+ is (probably) the move that kills off black. I am not sure there are any saving moved after this!
Nice game. I was wondering; why w8 - Bf7x instead of w8 Re1 was played. That way the black queen could have been captured early. Or am I missing something?
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireOnce the game is over you can analyse it to death and use that analysis in future games. However, say you did not analyse 3...d5 and then you got another similar game but this time black played 3...d5. You can't go back to your old game which you had analysed already and analyses 3...d5. That would be cheating.
I got slaughtered in this game as black.
Game 2277047
I followed a line suggested by Korchnoi in his book on the Kings Gambit which I left at move 14 because the suggested move 14 ... Qe6 lost.
i.e. 14 ... Qe6.
15. Bd2+ .. Kg8.
16. Rae1 .. h6.
17. RXe6 .. dXe6.
18. Qd8+ .. Kh7.
19. Qd3+ .. Kg8.
20. Qg6 .. Nd7.
21. Rf7 .. R ...[text shortened]... n improvement and I play it in my next game is this a fair use of Fritz or am I still cheating?
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderI've looked at both those lines.
I have looked at this variation in the past. It is called the Double Muzio. Although White throws the kitchen sink at Black he should still fail to break through against best defence. All but one of the 14 wins for Black in my database have Black playing 11...Ne7 rather than 11...Bg7. You might also consider 10...Qg7 rather than 10...Qf6. So, to answer ...[text shortened]... ite has good practical chances (especially at blitz) but Black should prevail with careful play.
10 .. Qg7.
11. QXf4+ .. Nf6.
12. Nc3 .. Be7.
13. Ng5 .. Rg8.
14. Rf2 .. Nc6.
15. Raf1 .. d6
gives white an awesome attack but nothing decisive. After 16. NXc7 .. Be6 17. NXe6 .. KXe6 18 Qf5+ .. Kf7 the black king seems safe and white seems to run out of pieces to throw at it.
After
11. .. Ne7
12. Nc3 .. d6.
13. Nd5 .. NXd5.
14. QXd5+ .. Kg6!!
15. Bd2 .. Bf5.
16. g4 .. Nc6.
17. Bc3
and white wins back his material with interest.
Maybe my analysis is flawed but if not it seems the best move to save this game is 10(b) .. Qg7
05 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKWhats the difference between refering to you old games and the analysis thereof and using a book?
Once the game is over you can analyse it to death and use that analysis in future games. However, say you did not analyse 3...d5 and then you got another similar game but this time black played 3...d5. You can't go back to your old game which you had analysed already and analyses 3...d5. That would be cheating.
Edit - Ah I've got it. Misunderstood. It is okay IF I have analysed it already but not okay if I have not. Using an engine on an old game to find an improvement in my current game is tantamount to using an engine on my current game. Of course if I had used the engine BEFORE starting my game and found an improvement which I then used this is okay!
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireHehe, yeah i was having one of my stupid moments there. Thanks for showing me.
8. Re1 is merely met by 8 .... QXR+. The piece sacrifice 8. BXf7+ is (probably) the move that kills off black. I am not sure there are any saving moved after this!
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireAnalyses from old games is fine and books are always okay, but analyses afterwards for a different purpose is wrong. Let say these are the move:
Whats the difference between refering to you old games and the analysis thereof and using a book?
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 _____
Suppose this was your first game then when it ended you analyese it and then put the game away.
1 month later you get a similar game but this time white playes 4.Bxc6
You think to yourself hey I had a similar game with a different 4th move, so you get your old game out and start analysing 4.Bxc6 using a chess program.
Then in the real game after 4...dxc6 5.0-0 you analyse 4...dxc6 5.0-0 etc using a program for your previous game and so on till the whole game is over.
This is wrong. I can't explain it any clearer then that. I have been in this situation before also. Someone was following a Capablanca game against me and I wanted to analyse the Capablanca game but it wasn't ethical since I was playing a similar game against someone on Rhp at that moment.
05 Aug 06
4 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireAfter 9. d4 Black has 9...Qf5 and, as I have already posted, 10...Qg7 and 11...Ne7
The piece sacrifice 8. BXf7+ is (probably) the move that kills off black. I am not sure there are any saving moved after this!
IMO, 7. Bxf7+ loses against best play.
After 9...Qf5 the best White seems to have is the rather forced line
10. g4 Qg6
11. Bxf4 Nf6
12. Be5 Be7
13, Nc3 d6
14. Bxf6 Bxg4
15, Qxd5+ Be6
16. Qg5 Bxf6
17. Rxf6+ Qxf6
18. Rf1 Nd7
by which Black sells his queen for 2 rooks and a bishop.
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireYes that's basically it. It's hard to explain sometimes but thats what I was getting at.
Whats the difference between refering to you old games and the analysis thereof and using a book?
Edit - Ah I've got it. Misunderstood. It is okay IF I have analysed it already but not okay if I have not. Using an engine on an old game to find an improvement in my current game is tantamount to using an engine on my current game. Of course if I had used the engine BEFORE starting my game and found an improvement which I then used this is okay!
05 Aug 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireHmm, the Muzio gambit's very sharp and balck has to know what he's doing. I don't, but the position looks dire once white sacrifices the bishop. My gut feeling is that 5. ... gxf3 is a bridge too far. As can be seen at the end, black is punished for a lack of development with three pieces languishing on the back rank.
I got slaughtered in this game as black.
Game 2277047
The matter that needs to be addressed is was this game lost after 5 .. gXf3 and if not where did I go wrong? I couldn't find where and my book was no help, so I have set Fritz the task. No luck yet but if Fritz finds an improvement and I play it in my next game is this a fair use of Fritz or am I still cheating?
In fact, I don't like 4. ... g4 and would prefer the important development move 4. ... Bg7 and if 5. 0-0 then ... g4. The gambit doesn't look on, so 6. Ne1 and then 6. ... Bd4+ or 6. ... f3.
My personal choice against the KG is the Cunningham defence 3...Be7 4.Bc4 Bh4+ 5.Kf1