Author: Charles Milton Ling
Date: 08:40:03 12/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2000 at 07:42:28, Ferdinand S. Mosca wrote: >On December 21, 2000 at 18:03:08, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On December 21, 2000 at 12:45:17, Bertil Eklund wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2000 at 07:11:47, Ferdinand S. Mosca wrote: >>> >>>>On December 21, 2000 at 02:03:12, Jim Monaghan wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D]r1b3k1/pp1n3p/2pbpq1r/3p4/2PPp1p1/PP2P1P1/1BQN1P1P/3RRBK1 b - - 0 17 >>>>> >>>>>Maroczy-Tartakower, 1922 bm 17...Rxh2!! >>>>>A human GM would consider this first and only if it didn't >>>>>work would alternatives be examined. The engines don't even >>>>>consider it briefly in their candidates ... Interesting. Not that >>>>>difficult to "see", tough to verify though ... >>>>> >>>>>Crafty 17.14 >>>>>12-> 8:12 -0.47 1. ... Qf5 2. Bg2 Rf6 3. Re2 e5 4. >>>>> Nf1 exd4 5. exd4 b6 6. cxd5 cxd5 7. >>>>> Ne3 Qh5 <HT> >>>>> >>>>>LG2000v2.9a >>>>> >>>>>12 58 34388 51749022 f6f5 f1g2 d6e7 e1e2 h6f6 g1h1 f6f7 a3a4 b7b6 c4d5 c6d5 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This position has probably been posted before. Sorry in advance if it was:-) >>>>>Anybody's program see this? >>>>> >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>I think the move 17...Rxh2 is still premature. The bishop on c8, the rook in a8 >>>>and the knight in d7 have to be improved first. >>>> >>>>one variation is: >>>>1...Rxh2?! 2.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 3.Kh1 Qxg3 4.Re2 and black cannot sustain his attack, >>>>its undeveloped pieces can not easily support a pawn storm on white's king >>>>position. Besides by eliminating white's pawns in f, g and h, black's king >>>>position is also in trouble because of white's rooks that is not difficult to >>>>develop. >>>> >>>>Dinan >>> >>>Hi! >>> >>>I believe it's winning (with the help of Gambit) instead 3.-Nf6 4.Rc1-Qxg3 >>>5.Nb1-Qh4+ 6.Kg1-g3 7.Qg2-Ng4 8.Qh3-Qg5 9.Rc2-Bd7! 10.Rg2-Rf8 11.Rxg3-Bxg3 >>>12.Qxg3-Rf3 13.Qg2-Qh4 14.Re2-Rg3 15.Qxg3-Qxg3+ and game over. >>> >>>No I don't think any program finds 17.-Rxh2, at least not in reasonable time. >> >>Here is the game score. I believe also that black will win this, even if better >>defensive moves are found. Tartakower in the game has many threats >> >>1. positioning the Knight on h5 via f6 >>2. playing e5 to activate the bishop >>3. Bringing the Rook into play >>4. Having the g and h pawns advance if necessary >> >>In the meantime, white's pieces are difficult to coordinate. They >>are cramped and are getting in the way of each other. >> >>All speculative stuff, as detailed analysis would be lengthy. >>Computers will assist in finding better defensive moves, but they may also come >>up with better attacking moves for Black. >> >>[Event "Teplitz-Schoenau"] >>[Site "Teplitz-Schoenau"] >>[Date "1922.??.??"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "Maroczy, G."] >>[Black "Tartakower, S."] >>[Result "0-1"] >>[WhiteElo "?"] >>[BlackElo "?"] >>[ECO "A40"] >> >>1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3 d5 7. Nf3 c6 8. >>O-O Ne4 9. Qc2 Bd6 10. b3 Nd7 11. Bb2 Rf6 12. Rfe1 Rh6 13. g3 Qf6 14. Bf1 >>g5 15. Rad1 g4 16. Nxe4 fxe4 17. Nd2 Rxh2 18. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19. Kh1 Nf6 20. >>Re2 Qxg3 21. Nb1 Nh5 22. Qd2 Bd7 23. Rf2 Qh4+ 24. Kg1 Bg3 25. Bc3 Bxf2+ >>26. Qxf2 g3 27. Qg2 Rf8 28. Be1 Rxf1+ 29. Kxf1 e5 30. Kg1 Bg4 31. Bxg3 >>Nxg3 32. Re1 Nf5 33. Qf2 Qg5 34. dxe5 Bf3+ 35. Kf1 Ng3+ 0-1 > >You are right, black here has some plans and threats, but because of its >development, white also has the time to regroup. > >Some alternative move to the actual game: >21. Nb1?! [21. Qc3!] >22. Qd2? [22. Bc1!] >25. Bc3?? [25. Rg2] > >Dinan That is precisely the beauty of this game. Black (presumably undeveloped) sacrifices a Rook, and miraculously finds time to get all his pieces into play with threats. That was part of the reason Tartakower did *not* get a brilliancy prize for this game. The judges thought nobody could ever have calculated the sacrifice to a win. And he didn't, of course, which makes his achievement greater, I find. I greatly doubt that White can survive. Generations of analysts have spent many, many hours on this position... Of course, I am aware that computers have changed many assessments of historic games. But this one simply "feels" right, if I may say so. Charley
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.