| |
Main
Date: 22 Aug 2005 02:20:11
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Damiano's Defense Declined
Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. I played it
twice in the Viking 4 County Open in Hackettstown NJ yesterday and
both of my opponents declined to take the pawn. I won the first game
easily. In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
However, he came up with a fantastic queen sacrifice followed by a
bishop sacrifice which worked because my pieces happened to be in
exactly the right spot for a knight fork winning the game.
I cannot take any credit away from my opponent. He came up with
something really good. This should go in one of those White to play
and win problem collections.
After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
better not take that pawn.
He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
I actually play the game too!
Here is the game: The first point of the game is that after 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6 3. Nc3 Bc5 he can no longer take the pawn because when he
checks with the queen I have the f8 square for my king. So, if he
wants to take the pawn he must do it on move three. Otherwise, the
opportunity will be lost forever.
Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
move however.
For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
!!
Sam Sloan
[Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
[Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
[Date "2005.08.20"]
[Round "04"]
[White "West, James R."]
[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "2206"]
[BlackElo "1941"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 06:24:30
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:25:52 GMT
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:32:07 -0700, Mike Murray
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:47 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
>wrote:
>
>>On 22 Aug 2005 06:37:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
>>>black has some advantage.
>>
>>>Antonio Torrecillas
>>>FIDE Master (rated 2396)
>>
>>You are certainly correct that I completely missed the move 37. ....
>>Qc1+. However, this move leads to more than just "some advantage". It
>>completely wins the game.
>>
>>White must reply with 38. Bf1. Otherwise it is mate.
>>
>>Then, after 38. ... Nf3+ if White moves his king Black wins the queen.
>>For example 39. Kg2 Nd7+ 40. Kh2 Nf1+ 41. Kg2 Nxg3+or 40. f3 Qxf1+ 41.
>>Kh2 Nxf3+.
>>
>>Therefore, White must sacrifice his queen with 39. Qxf3 but then Black
>>will win with 39. ... Bxf3 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nxd4 Bd5. White tries to
>>set up a fortress to hold a draw but I believe that Black can
>>eventually penetrate and win.
>
>After 40 Rb3, Fritz gives you only a small edge. After 40 ... Bc6, 41
>Nxd4, material is equal and all on the same side of the board. After
>41 ... Be4 Re3, how are you ever going to break through?
I think you are right. The game is a draw. Neither side will be able
to pentrate the other side.
I think I have a slight advantage in that is is easier and more likely
for White to blunder than for Black to blunder, but with best pklay
the position is drawn.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 17:11:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
In article <[email protected] >,
<[email protected] > wrote:
> From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
> [snip]
Somebody's posted the URL to the thread on google groups. There's no
need to repost all the articles.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Edible Addictive Pants (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a well-tailored pair of trousers but
you can never put it down and you can
eat it!
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 02:39:11
From: Yaggie
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Damiano isn't really that bad opening. Actually I have strong opinion
that white should play something else (3.Bc4 or 3.d4) instead of taking
the pawn with 3.Nxe5. My reasoning is that I haven't found advantage
for white in 3.-Qe7 variation.
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:29:26
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:47 GMT
On 22 Aug 2005 06:37:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
>black has some advantage.
>Antonio Torrecillas
>FIDE Master (rated 2396)
You are certainly correct that I completely missed the move 37. ....
Qc1+. However, this move leads to more than just "some advantage". It
completely wins the game.
White must reply with 38. Bf1. Otherwise it is mate.
Then, after 38. ... Nf3+ if White moves his king Black wins the queen.
For example 39. Kg2 Nd7+ 40. Kh2 Nf1+ 41. Kg2 Nxg3+or 40. f3 Qxf1+ 41.
Kh2 Nxf3+.
Therefore, White must sacrifice his queen with 39. Qxf3 but then Black
will win with 39. ... Bxf3 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nxd4 Bd5. White tries to
set up a fortress to hold a draw but I believe that Black can
eventually penetrate and win.
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:24:04
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Damiano's Defense Declined
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:20:11 GMT
Damiano's Defense Declined
Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. I played it
twice in the Viking 4 County Open in Hackettstown NJ yesterday and
both of my opponents declined to take the pawn. I won the first game
easily. In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
However, he came up with a fantastic queen sacrifice followed by a
bishop sacrifice which worked because my pieces happened to be in
exactly the right spot for a knight fork winning the game.
I cannot take any credit away from my opponent. He came up with
something really good. This should go in one of those White to play
and win problem collections.
After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
better not take that pawn.
He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
I actually play the game too!
Here is the game: The first point of the game is that after 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6 3. Nc3 Bc5 he can no longer take the pawn because when he
checks with the queen I have the f8 square for my king. So, if he
wants to take the pawn he must do it on move three. Otherwise, the
opportunity will be lost forever.
Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
move however.
For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
!!
Sam Sloan
[Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
[Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
[Date "2005.08.20"]
[Round "04"]
[White "West, James R."]
[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[WhiteElo "2206"]
[BlackElo "1941"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:20:33
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:11:12 GMT
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:31:02 +0200,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?= <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> On 5 Aug 2005 08:08:15 -0700, "Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
>>>>>7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4
>>> The only remotely playable move is 8...h5, after which Fritz gives
>>>best play as 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nh6 11.Bg6 Kg8,
>
>I'm a bit late in the discussion but I wonder what happens when White
>plays the obvious moves. I think 12. 0-0 is a perfectly good move. It
>gets the king into safety and activates the rook for a advance of the
>f-pawn. If Black continues developing, like 12...Nc6 13. Qb5 Qd4+ 14.
>Kh1 Bd6 15. d3 White has covered all and begins to threaten the black
>king (Qb3+/Bxh6). I think Black has a hard time already, for instance
>15...Kf8 16. Nc3 with the plan Bf4 and Qb3. White is harmonically
>developed and the black king position is poor.
>
>Probably the best Black can do is to seek the queen trade and defend the
>endgame.
>
>Also good looks 12. Nc3 which develops and protects the center. The idea
>is to counter Qh4+ with g3. If for example 12...Nc6 13. Qb5 Bd6 14. 0-0
>White is safe because 14...Qh4 15. h3 Qg3 16. Ne2 Qh2+ 17. Kf2 isn't
>dangerous for White. White plans d4 with perfect control and after
>17...Ng4+ 18. hxg4 Qh4+ 19. Ke3 Qg5+ 20. Nf4 the attack is essentially
>over and White has the upper hand. Insufficient is 12...Nd4 because of
>13. Qc4+ Be6 14. fxe6 Nxc2+ 15. Ke2 Be7. Here White already can go for
>it in Grand Style with 16. Nd5 Nxa1 17. d4 with the idea Nxe7+/Bg5/e7+.
>If 17...b5 18. Qc6 and White threatens 19. Bg5 Bxg5 20. e7 Bxe7
>(20...Qd6 21. e8Q+) 21. Qe6+ winning.
>Finally 12...Bb4 13. Qc4+ Kf8 14. Nd5 Bd6 15. g3 Ne5 16. Qc3. White
>plans to castle queenside and attack on the f-file which is hard to counter.
>
>Claus-Juergen
I must admit that you have a lot of good moves and good ideas here. I
am not sure what I would do if I was faced with this. I cannot find
any obvious flaws.
However, I would like to point out that in none of these variations is
Black completely lost. Black has extra material whereas White has a
strong attack. Also, I doubt that anybody below the grandmaster level
would find some of these moves over the board.
I must also point out that in none of your final positions is Black
completely lost. For example, in your last variation, Black can
continue after 17. Qc3 (By the way, your moves are numbered wrong)
with c6 18. Nf4 Qb6. Now, White cannot play either 19. d4 or 19. d3
because Bb4 wins the Queen. White can no longer threaten mate along
the b3-f7 diagonal and Black might even generate mate threats with
Nhg4 followed by Qf2+.
I think that this position is playable for Black. Black might even be
winning here.
I am sure that you are aware that I am not a seeker of the truth. I
just want to be able to win a few chess games, by whatever trick
possible. If it is good enough to beat Randy Bauer, it is good enough
for me.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:18:12
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 10:15:01 GMT
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 10:01:32 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>For example, starting from the first move, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6
>3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4 9.f5+
>Kh7 10.Bf7 Nh6 11.Bg6 Kg8 12.Qc3 Qh4+ 13. Qf4+ 14.Kg1 Bd6 now Black
>has several mate threats including Na6 followed by Bc5+ or Ng4
>followed by Qf2#. Here is a cute mate: 15. Na3 Qxe4 16. d3 Bc5+ 17.
>Qxc5 Qe1#
Sorry. I left two moves out. I meant to write:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+
Kg6 8.f4 h5 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nh6 11.Bg6 Kg8 12.Qc3 Qh4+ 13. Kf1 Qf4+
14.Kg1 Bd6 and now I think Black is winning.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:16:15
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 10:01:32 GMT
On 5 Aug 2005 10:20:25 -0700, "Niemand" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> Thank you for your prompt analysis. I accept and appreciate it, except
>> for your last point.
>> I believe that in the final position you give where you say that White
>> is winning, White is actually lost.
>
> Fritz8 rated it about +1.5. However, I think that may have been
>premature, at least in the 12.d3 line.
>
>> If White plays the move you recommend, 12. d3, Black responds with
>> Nc6. White cannot play 13. Qc3 because Bb4 wins the queen!!
>
> True, but 13.Qc3 is not at all forced. Still, the position that
>results when Fritz runs further does not look as good for White as it
>first seemed. Fritz gives best play as an intriguingly complicated but
>more or less forced line: 13.Qb5 Nd4! (better than Fritz's earlier
>13...Nf7) 14.Qc4+ Be6! 15.fxe6 b5! 16.e7+ bxc4 17.exd8(Q) Rxd8 18.Kd1
>cxd3 19.cxd3 Ng4 20.Rf1 Ne5 and White at best will be only a pawn ahead
>while Black has the initiative. There may be improvements somewhere in
>there, but I don't have all day to spend on this.
>
>> On the other hand, 12. Qc3 loses immediately to Qh4+ 13. g3 Qxe4+
>
> Again, you give a bad move which is not at all forced. Instead of
>13.g3??, White should play 13.Kf1, after which Fritz seems to think
>Black has a choice between
> A) a bad pawn-down endgame by 13...Qf4+ 14.Kg1 Bc5+ 15.Qxc5 Qxe4
>16.Qe3 Qxe3 17.dxe3 Bxf5 18.Bxf5 Nxf5 (+1.25), or
> B) an inferior middle game with 13...Qe7 (not 13...Qd8?? 14.Qb3+)
>14.d4 (+1.5).
>
> So it looks like with 12.Qc3 White still retains a tangible
>advantage, though nothing like what he could have had with 8.h4!+-
>instead of 8.f4?!.
>
Thank you for your analysis but, in addition to having Fritz, it also
helps to be able to play chess too!
Two of the positions you give as winning for White are actually
virtually won for Black.
DFor example, starting from the first move, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6
3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4 9.f5+
Kh7 10.Bf7 Nh6 11.Bg6 Kg8 12.Qc3 Qh4+ 13. Qf4+ 14.Kg1 Bd6 now Black
has sdeveral mate threats including Na6 followed by Bc5+ or Ng4
followed by Qf2#. Here is a cute mate: 15. Na3 Qxe4 16. d3 Bc5+ 17.
Qxc5 Qe1#
The other line you give also probably wins for Black. 12. d3 Nc6
13.Qb5 Nd4! 14.Qc4+ Be6! 15.fxe6 b5! 16.e7+ bxc4 17.exd8(Q) Rxd8
18.Kd1 cxd3 19.cxd3 Ng4 20.Rf1 Ne5 21. Bf5 g6 22. Bh3 Nxd3 23. Nc3 Nb4
and now while it is true that White is still a pawn up, White has no
development, Black is swarming all around the white king and Black is
threatening the immediate win of a rook with Nc2+.
Also, I suspect that Black had even better than this a few moves back.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:14:09
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:29:34 GMT
On 5 Aug 2005 08:08:15 -0700, "Niemand" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>Sam Sloan wrote:
>> >1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
>> >7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4
>>
>> Will somebody kindly run this position through Fritz? I do not have
>> Fritz or any other chess program and this position is too complicated
>> for me to figure out.
>>
>> I believe that in this position Black probably has a win immediately.
>> There are several candidate moves for Black. These include 8..... Bd6,
>> Qh4+, Nc6, Nh6, Qf6 and h5.
>
> Fritz8 indicates no win for Black in this position at all. On the
>contrary, White has a clear win in most lines, viz.:
>
> 8...Bd6?? 9.f5+ Kh5 10.Bf7+ Kh4 (10...g6 11.Bxg6+) 11.Qc3 etc +-.
> 8...Qh4+?? 9.g3 Qe7 10.f5+ Kh5 11.g4+ Kxg4 12.Qg3+ Kh5 13.Qf3+ Kg5
>14.f6!+-.
> 8...Nc6?? 9.f5+ Kh5 10.g4+ Kxg4 11.Rg1 Kh5 12.Bf7+ etc +-.
> 8...Nh6?? 9.h4+-.
> 8...Qf6?? 9.Qe8+ Kh6 10.Qxc8+-.
>
>> The move I actually played in the game was 8. .... h6. This is not
>> best.
>
> True. 8...h6?? loses immediately to 9.Bxb7!, leading to a position
>that Fritz rates about +3.2, i.e. White is the equivalent of a minor
>piece up.
> The only remotely playable move is 8...h5, after which Fritz gives
>best play as 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nh6 11.Bg6 Kg8, when either 12.Qc3
>(threatening 12.Qb3+ and mate soon) or 12.d3 lead to positions rated
>about +1.5, i.e. White is considered to be the equivalent of 1=BD pawns
>up.
> Personally I would prefer the 12.d3 line. White has 3 pawns for the
>piece, a lead in development that will only increase, and Black is so
>cramped and awkward that against reasonably good play he should be
>tactically and/or positionally lost soon.
Thank you for your prompt analysis. I accept and appreciate it, except
for your last point.
I believe that in the final position you give where you say that White
is winning, White is actually lost.
If White plays the move you recommend, 12. d3, Black responds with
Nc6. White cannot play 13. Qc3 because Bb4 wins the queen!!
On the other hand, 12. Qc3 loses immediately to Qh4+ 13. g3 Qxe4+
Has your Fritz fitzed up???
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:11:59
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:54:39 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 07:09:21 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>I really cannot understand what went wrong. I played such a good
>opening. Soon I was a rook up. Yet I lost.
>
>Can somebody please tell me where I made my mistake?
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>
>[Event "World Open Championship"]
>[Site "Philadelphia, PA"]
>[Date "2005.07.02"]
>[Round "03"]
>[White "Magarshak, Gregory"]
>[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "C40"]
>
>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
>7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4
Will somebody kindly run this position through Fritz? I do not have
Fritz or any other chess program and this position is too complicated
for me to figure out.
I believe that in this position Black probably has a win immediately.
There are several candidate moves for Black. These include 8..... Bd6,
Qh4+, Nc6, Nh6, Qf6 and h5.
The move I actually played in the game was 8. .... h6. This is not
best. Nevertheless, I should still have won the game but I made
several errors later on.
I realize of course that White's 8. f4 is a mistake. 8. h4 is much
better. Nevertheless, most of my opponents have played 8. f4.
Therefore, if I can find a convincing refutation to 8. f4, I will win
a lot of games with this.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:09:23
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:30:31 GMT
At 08:11 AM 7/11/2005 -0600, Max Burkett wrote:
>
>> My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails.
>
>It certainly does. Replace 10. Qa5? with 10.Qb5! in your main line
>
>> The defense is playable.
>
>Only against patzers
>
>> The main line is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 5. Qxe5+ Kf7 6. Bc4+ d5
>> 7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8. h4 h6. Now, if 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Nc6 11. Bxc6 Rb8
Wrong Max. 10. Qb5 loses imediately to 10. . . . c6 and the queen must
move off the fifth rank.
Missed that one, didn't you.
By the way, in my previous posting I left out the moves 5. Qxe5+ Kf7.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 16:07:04
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:20:31 GMT
My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails.
I want to thank everybody who contributed analysis to my Damiano's
Defense Game from the 2005 World Open, both those who contributed
their own analysis and those who contributed Fritz Analysis.
Here are my conclusions:
The defense is playable. Nobody yet has found the supposed bust over
the board. If White does not find the right moves he can lose quickly.
In my game against Magarshak from the World Open, I missed several
wins or improvements.
Many analysts assume that White wins with Bxb7+. Not true. Black does
not take the bishop right away, thereby avoiding White's Qf5 mate.
The main line is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4. Qh5+ Ke7 6. Bc4+ d5
7. Bxd5+ Kg6 8. h4 h6. Now, if 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Nc6 11. Bxc6 Rb8
and Black has compensation for the four pawns. Published analysis
stops here. Everybody assumes that because White is four pawns ahead,
he has an easy win. I think ithe win is not so easy. Where will White
castle. Surely not on the king-side because the pawn on h4 exposes him
to mate. Nor is the Queenside safe either because of the attack on the
b-file.
In any event nobody has ever found this over-the-board so we turn to
other possibilities.
In the game, White played 8. f4. I replied with 8. . . . h6. I now
believe that this was not best and that 8. . . . h5 was correct. My
reasoning is that after 8. h4, 8. . . . h5 is not playable. Black must
play 8. . . . h6. This is because of 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Nc6 11. Bxc6
Rb8 12. Qg5+ Qxg5 13. hxg5 Kxg5 d4+ and with three pawn down in the
endgame, Black really is lost.
However, after 8. f4 h5 the situation is different. The white pawn on
f4 blocks the bishop on c1 and therefore the king can escape in some
variations by moving to h6. For example, after 8. f4 h5 9. Bxb7 Bxb7
10. Qf5+ Kh6 and Black wins. Or 8. f4 h5 9. f5+ Kh7 10. Bf7 Nh6 and
Black has a good position.
The move I actually played is possible, I believe. 8. f4 h6 9. f5+ Kh7
10. Bf7 and now Black should play 10. . . . Ne7 which defends against
the queen or bishop mate on g6. If now 11. Qg3 Qd4 and Black survives.
In the actual game, I think White missed the best move. He should play
11. Bg6+ Kg8 12. Qc3 threatening mate. Black gives back the material
with 12. . . . Nd5 13. exd5 Qh4+ 14. Kd1 Bd6 and Black is three pawns
down but the game is still not over.
As the game actually went, I missed several good moves. I should have
played 14. . . . Nh5. After 15. Qe3 Nd4 16. Qf2 Bc5 Black is winning.
Also, instead of 17. . . . Nd4, 17. . . Nh5 18. Qf3 Nxf4 19. Qxf4 Bd6
20. Qh4 Qd4+ and Black wins.
I missed a fairly easy win with 19. . . . Qb6+ 20. d4 Nxg3 21. Bf6+
Qxf6 22. Rxf6 Kxf6 23. h3.
I also had chances with 21. . . . Ngh5.
A cute mate for White the analysts missed was 23. Re7 Rf8 24. Bb3+ Kh8
25. Rh7#. This surprising mate comes up in several variations and
everybody seems to have missed it.
If you see any mistakes in this analysis, please let me know, as I
plan to play this opening again.
Sam Sloan
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 07:09:21 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>I really cannot understand what went wrong. I played such a good
>opening. Soon I was a rook up. Yet I lost.
>
>Can somebody please tell me where I made my mistake?
>
>Sam Sloan
>
>
>[Event "World Open Championship"]
>[Site "Philadelphia, PA"]
>[Date "2005.07.02"]
>[Round "03"]
>[White "Magarshak, Gregory"]
>[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "C40"]
>
>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
>7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.f4 h6 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nf6 11.Qg3 g5 12.fxg6+ Kg7
>13.d3 Nc6 14.e5 Qe7 15.O-O Qxe5 16.Bf4 Qxb2 17.Nd2 Nd4 18.Rae1
>Nf5 19.Be5 Bc5+ 20.Rf2 Nxg3 21.Bxb2 Bxf2+ 22.Kxf2 Ngh5 23.h3 Rd8
>24.g4 Nf4 25.Ne4 N4d5 26.c4 Kf8 27.Nxf6 Nxf6 28.Bxf6 Bd7 29.Bd5
>Be6 30.Bxe6 Rxd3 31.g7+ 1-0
>
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2006 20:57:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Dearest Angelo,
> >
> > Yes. The Manhattan Chess Club would be willing to allow us to play in
> > their club.
> >
> > However, the Manhattan Chess Club is out of business at the moment and
> > we might have to wait for a while before they go back into business so
> > we can play there.
> >
> > I hope that you can arrange something soon. I really need to pick up
> > some easy money quick. I think you must be a masochist or something.
> > It is obvious that after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5 I am a cold
> > knight up plus I am higher rated than you so you really have no
> > chance, but if you want to give me your money I am willing to take it.
> > Just be sure to bring cash. No checks.
> >
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I meant the shall.
You will have to ask the shall. That would be ideal, as they have
the facilities to broadcast on ICC, plus one person could take over
when another gets tired of doing it.
However, you will have to ask the shall. I had a little spat with a
manager there one and a half years ago (I did not know she was the
manager) so I cannot ask. You will have to ask.
Sam
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 08:13:46
From: Say No To g4
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> However, you will have to ask the shall. I had a little spat with a
> manager there one and a half years ago
Sam Sloan, Mr. Congeniality himself, admits to getting into a spat. My,
what a surprise!
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2006 12:41:14
From: James
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Could anybody be kind enough to repost the article of Mr Sloan (that was
posted aroung August) regarding his line in the Damiano defense. I would
like to analyze it a little bit.
Thanks
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 02:46:49
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
James wrote:
> Could anybody be kind enough to repost the article of Mr Sloan (that was
> posted aroung August) regarding his line in the Damiano defense. I would
> like to analyze it a little bit.
Perhaps you would be interested in the thread "My trusty damiano defense
fails" of this group. There is a some analysis of this line by several
authors.
http://groups.google.de/group/rec.games.chess.analysis/browse_frm/thread/2bbbeeb2b6f0ab7/5610a9eaf7a5ce7a?q=my+trusty+damiano&rnum=1#5610a9eaf7a5ce7a
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2006 03:12:50
From: James
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Thank you very much to both of you.
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2006 16:53:40
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
> ... pick up an easy $150.
_
Wasn't there someone collecting donations for the
prize fund in the last match of this sort?
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 15:32:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> Sam,
>
> If that is really you you can call me (google me for my website) to arrange
> the match. I would prefer G/90 but we could never finish in one day. G/60 is
> disastrous for me usually, but since we'll be playing the first 10 moves in
> less than a minute it might work. Would you agree to an increment? Say, G/60
> + 20 seconds? That's about 11 hours of play. Or we can play it over a couple
> of days, or several evenings.
>
> Unfortunately the Hoboken club has folded so we can't play there. I'm sure
> Ken Thomas would be happy to host, but that's a schlepp for you. He's some
> sort of arbiter, I think. He or his son can transmit the games to ICC.
>
> I had originally said you would not win 2 games out of 5, but I accept your
> draw odds offer. :)
>
> How about $150?
>
> Angelo
OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
for the spectators.
Vince Hart reported that I had played O-O-O, whereas I had actually
played Rd8. Much later in the game he realized his error and had to go
back and figure it out.
It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
easy $150.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 21:25:30
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote
> OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
> and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
I agree about Brad, plus it's asking a lot of him to sit around for 1.5
hours while I win three games in a row from you. We might be able to get
someone else from the Hackettstown club to transmit the moves, even Ken if
you don't object.
> Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
> it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
> games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
> for the spectators.
> It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
> but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
> easy $150.
I would not mind playing in Manhattan. It's about an hour for me and
probably close to that for you by subway. Would the Manhattan CC go along
with something like that? Do they own a computer yet? :)I'm not a member and
we're both patzers, relatively speaking, so they may not be interested. If
you know of any venue in the city, friendly or not, I'd be willing to drive
in as long as it is quiet and doesn't smell too much.
adp
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2006 04:37:09
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Sun, 12 2006 21:25:30 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>"samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
>> and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
>
>I agree about Brad, plus it's asking a lot of him to sit around for 1.5
>hours while I win three games in a row from you. We might be able to get
>someone else from the Hackettstown club to transmit the moves, even Ken if
>you don't object.
>
>> Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
>> it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
>> games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
>> for the spectators.
>
>> It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
>> but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
>> easy $150.
>
>I would not mind playing in Manhattan. It's about an hour for me and
>probably close to that for you by subway. Would the Manhattan CC go along
>with something like that? Do they own a computer yet? :)I'm not a member and
>we're both patzers, relatively speaking, so they may not be interested. If
>you know of any venue in the city, friendly or not, I'd be willing to drive
>in as long as it is quiet and doesn't smell too much.
>
>adp
Dearest Angelo,
Yes. The Manhattan Chess Club would be willing to allow us to play in
their club.
However, the Manhattan Chess Club is out of business at the moment and
we might have to wait for a while before they go back into business so
we can play there.
I hope that you can arrange something soon. I really need to pick up
some easy money quick. I think you must be a masochist or something.
It is obvious that after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5 I am a cold
knight up plus I am higher rated than you so you really have no
chance, but if you want to give me your money I am willing to take it.
Just be sure to bring cash. No checks.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2006 20:22:14
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote
> Dearest Angelo,
>
> Yes. The Manhattan Chess Club would be willing to allow us to play in
> their club.
>
> However, the Manhattan Chess Club is out of business at the moment and
> we might have to wait for a while before they go back into business so
> we can play there.
>
> I hope that you can arrange something soon. I really need to pick up
> some easy money quick. I think you must be a masochist or something.
> It is obvious that after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5 I am a cold
> knight up plus I am higher rated than you so you really have no
> chance, but if you want to give me your money I am willing to take it.
> Just be sure to bring cash. No checks.
>
> Sam Sloan
I meant the shall.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2006 01:52:59
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
I am anxious to see what you're going to play. In all my databases I could
only find a handfull of games where Black won with the Damiano Defence.
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>> Sam,
>>
>> If that is really you you can call me (google me for my website) to
>> arrange
>> the match. I would prefer G/90 but we could never finish in one day. G/60
>> is
>> disastrous for me usually, but since we'll be playing the first 10 moves
>> in
>> less than a minute it might work. Would you agree to an increment? Say,
>> G/60
>> + 20 seconds? That's about 11 hours of play. Or we can play it over a
>> couple
>> of days, or several evenings.
>>
>> Unfortunately the Hoboken club has folded so we can't play there. I'm
>> sure
>> Ken Thomas would be happy to host, but that's a schlepp for you. He's
>> some
>> sort of arbiter, I think. He or his son can transmit the games to ICC.
>>
>> I had originally said you would not win 2 games out of 5, but I accept
>> your
>> draw odds offer. :)
>>
>> How about $150?
>>
>> Angelo
>
> OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
> and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
>
> Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
> it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
> games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
> for the spectators.
>
> Vince Hart reported that I had played O-O-O, whereas I had actually
> played Rd8. Much later in the game he realized his error and had to go
> back and figure it out.
>
> It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
> but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
> easy $150.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 18:35:37
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
sam will lose 0-5, it's a dead loss for black. i'll even play sam on FICS
for $150 if he wants to play this opening.
- cf
"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>I am anxious to see what you're going to play. In all my databases I could
>only find a handfull of games where Black won with the Damiano Defence.
>
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> If that is really you you can call me (google me for my website) to
>>> arrange
>>> the match. I would prefer G/90 but we could never finish in one day.
>>> G/60 is
>>> disastrous for me usually, but since we'll be playing the first 10 moves
>>> in
>>> less than a minute it might work. Would you agree to an increment? Say,
>>> G/60
>>> + 20 seconds? That's about 11 hours of play. Or we can play it over a
>>> couple
>>> of days, or several evenings.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the Hoboken club has folded so we can't play there. I'm
>>> sure
>>> Ken Thomas would be happy to host, but that's a schlepp for you. He's
>>> some
>>> sort of arbiter, I think. He or his son can transmit the games to ICC.
>>>
>>> I had originally said you would not win 2 games out of 5, but I accept
>>> your
>>> draw odds offer. :)
>>>
>>> How about $150?
>>>
>>> Angelo
>>
>> OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
>> and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
>>
>> Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
>> it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
>> games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
>> for the spectators.
>>
>> Vince Hart reported that I had played O-O-O, whereas I had actually
>> played Rd8. Much later in the game he realized his error and had to go
>> back and figure it out.
>>
>> It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
>> but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
>> easy $150.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2006 11:09:52
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Unless Sam changes his mind you'll have to get him on the rebound.
adp
"Chess Freak" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> sam will lose 0-5, it's a dead loss for black. i'll even play sam on FICS
> for $150 if he wants to play this opening.
>
> - cf
>
>
> "John J." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>>I am anxious to see what you're going to play. In all my databases I could
>>only find a handfull of games where Black won with the Damiano Defence.
>>
>>
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>>>> Sam,
>>>>
>>>> If that is really you you can call me (google me for my website) to
>>>> arrange
>>>> the match. I would prefer G/90 but we could never finish in one day.
>>>> G/60 is
>>>> disastrous for me usually, but since we'll be playing the first 10
>>>> moves in
>>>> less than a minute it might work. Would you agree to an increment? Say,
>>>> G/60
>>>> + 20 seconds? That's about 11 hours of play. Or we can play it over a
>>>> couple
>>>> of days, or several evenings.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the Hoboken club has folded so we can't play there. I'm
>>>> sure
>>>> Ken Thomas would be happy to host, but that's a schlepp for you. He's
>>>> some
>>>> sort of arbiter, I think. He or his son can transmit the games to ICC.
>>>>
>>>> I had originally said you would not win 2 games out of 5, but I accept
>>>> your
>>>> draw odds offer. :)
>>>>
>>>> How about $150?
>>>>
>>>> Angelo
>>>
>>> OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
>>> and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
>>>
>>> Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
>>> it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
>>> games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
>>> for the spectators.
>>>
>>> Vince Hart reported that I had played O-O-O, whereas I had actually
>>> played Rd8. Much later in the game he realized his error and had to go
>>> back and figure it out.
>>>
>>> It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
>>> but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
>>> easy $150.
>>>
>>> Sam Sloan
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 21:29:43
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
The move sequence Sam indicated leads to a won game for White. There are
many branches, some quite messy. From my research there are no forcing
continuations where the queens and a bunch of other pieces come off and
White feels like he's died and gone to heaven by move 15. Plus in the G/60
format almost anything can happen. But Black is definitely busted and I'm
willing to bet $150 on that fact. Whether I win or lose this match, that
much will be obvious.
Angelo
"John J." <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>I am anxious to see what you're going to play. In all my databases I could
>only find a handfull of games where Black won with the Damiano Defence.
>
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> If that is really you you can call me (google me for my website) to
>>> arrange
>>> the match. I would prefer G/90 but we could never finish in one day.
>>> G/60 is
>>> disastrous for me usually, but since we'll be playing the first 10 moves
>>> in
>>> less than a minute it might work. Would you agree to an increment? Say,
>>> G/60
>>> + 20 seconds? That's about 11 hours of play. Or we can play it over a
>>> couple
>>> of days, or several evenings.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the Hoboken club has folded so we can't play there. I'm
>>> sure
>>> Ken Thomas would be happy to host, but that's a schlepp for you. He's
>>> some
>>> sort of arbiter, I think. He or his son can transmit the games to ICC.
>>>
>>> I had originally said you would not win 2 games out of 5, but I accept
>>> your
>>> draw odds offer. :)
>>>
>>> How about $150?
>>>
>>> Angelo
>>
>> OK. I agree to everything. Check with Ken Thomas to see if he can do it
>> and if his son is really capable of broadcasting the games on ICC.
>>
>> Ken's son is not very strong at chess, so I wonder if he can really do
>> it. Remember that Vince Hart made a serious error in broadcasting the
>> games of my Grudge Match against Bill Brock and so messed up the game
>> for the spectators.
>>
>> Vince Hart reported that I had played O-O-O, whereas I had actually
>> played Rd8. Much later in the game he realized his error and had to go
>> back and figure it out.
>>
>> It is a trip of more than two hours from where I live to Ken's house
>> but I guess if I get an early start I can do it so as to pick up an
>> easy $150.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 12:28:53
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam Sloan ([email protected])
wrote (Sat, 11 2006 03:37:36 GMT):
> OK. Angelo.I now have a little free time which I have
> not had for a while, so I agree to play you a match
> with the Damiano's Defense under the following
> conditions:
>_
> 1. The time limit will be at least 30 minutes per side.
> 2. The match will be USCF rated.
> 3. The match will be broadcast live on ICC.
> 4. There will be a USCF certified arbiter present to settle any
> disputes and also to send in the final result for rating.
> 5. In every game of the match, you will be White. I will be Black.
> The first moves of every game will be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5
> fxe5
>_
> We will be playing for at least $100 cash under the table.
>_
> You pick the time and place.
>_
> Agreed?
_
I wrote (11 2006 18:08:14 -0800):
> Is it still part of the plan that "all [Sam Sloan
> ([email protected]) has] to do is score 2
> out of 5 to win the match"?
_
Sam Sloan ([email protected])
wrote (12 2006 04:09:37 -0800):
> I do not recall that as a condition.
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.moat.net!129.250.35.103.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net!129.250.35.102.MISMATCH!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!8b18be56!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
Organization: Ishi Press
Reply-To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 43
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:13:59 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1124716443 68.199.110.255
(Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:14:03 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:14:03 GMT
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every variation. The
>fact that neither player took the pawn doesn't mean anything. I'll take it
>from you and win 3.5 out of 5 at G/20. Bet you $50.
OK. I will take that bet. As I understand it, all I have to do is
score 2 out of 5 to win the match. Correct? Let's make it $100.
Where will we play this match? I would prefer game in 30 giving us
time to write down the moves so that we can publish them here.
>Who was the other player?
>
The other player was very weak, the game not worth posting or looking
at. The only thing of note is that after I played 2. .... f6 he
commented, "That is the worst move on the board", but then he did not
take the pawn.
Anyway here is the game, but please do not bother to play it over.
Sam Sloan
[Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
[Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
[Date "2005.08.20"]
[Round "03"]
[White "Mitchell, Calvin"]
[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Be2 Bc5 5.c3 d5 6.O-O Nge7 7.b4 Bb6
8.a4 a6 9.Na3 Be6 10.Bb2 Qd7 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.b5 axb5 13.axb5 Nce7
14.c4 Nf4 15.Bxe5 fxe5 16.Nxe5 Qd6 17.Nf3 Rxa3 18.Rxa3 Qxa3
19.Qd2 O-O 20.Re1 Ba5 21.Qe3 Bxe1 22.Nxe1 Qa1 23.Kf1 Neg6 24.Bf3
Bf5 25.Bd5+ Nxd5 26.cxd5 Bd7 27.f3 Re8 28.Qd2 Bxb5 29.Kf2 Qd4+
30.Kg3 Qh4# 0-1
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 04:09:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Sam Sloan ([email protected])
> wrote (Sat, 11 2006 03:37:36 GMT):
>
> > OK. Angelo.I now have a little free time which I have
> > not had for a while, so I agree to play you a match
> > with the Damiano's Defense under the following
> > conditions:
> >_
> > 1. The time limit will be at least 30 minutes per side.
> > 2. The match will be USCF rated.
> > 3. The match will be broadcast live on ICC.
> > 4. There will be a USCF certified arbiter present to settle any
> > disputes and also to send in the final result for rating.
> > 5. In every game of the match, you will be White. I will be Black.
> > The first moves of every game will be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5
> > fxe5
> >_
> > We will be playing for at least $100 cash under the table.
> >_
> > You pick the time and place.
> >_
> > Agreed?
>
> _
> Is it still part of the plan that "all [Sam Sloan
> ([email protected]) has] to do is score 2
> out of 5 to win the match"?
I do not recall that as a condition. However, I do want draw odds.
Therefore if I score 2 1/2 out of 5 I win the match.
I am slightly higher rated than Angelo. However, he has a compensating
advantage which is that he will know what I am going to play. When I
play Damiano's Defense I count on the fact that my opponent will think
I have blundered on move two or that I simply do not know that 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6 is refuted by 3. Nxe5 .
In my game against rated master James West, he declined my pawn because
he was able to figure out that I had some tricks up my sleeve. A weaker
player might not realize that and grab the pawn.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 04:53:42
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
james west may have understood that the best way to counter an ignorant
looking move is with the fundamentals??
|
| |
Date: 11 Mar 2006 18:08:14
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam Sloan ([email protected])
wrote (Sat, 11 2006 03:37:36 GMT):
> OK. Angelo.I now have a little free time which I have
> not had for a while, so I agree to play you a match
> with the Damiano's Defense under the following
> conditions:
>_
> 1. The time limit will be at least 30 minutes per side.
> 2. The match will be USCF rated.
> 3. The match will be broadcast live on ICC.
> 4. There will be a USCF certified arbiter present to settle any
> disputes and also to send in the final result for rating.
> 5. In every game of the match, you will be White. I will be Black.
> The first moves of every game will be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5
> fxe5
>_
> We will be playing for at least $100 cash under the table.
>_
> You pick the time and place.
>_
> Agreed?
_
Is it still part of the plan that "all [Sam Sloan
([email protected]) has] to do is score 2
out of 5 to win the match"?
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 16:35:26
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam,
I would love to try you and I will take the pawn. I do not know how it
would turn out. Most likely you would win as I have no tournament
experience at all. I am not afraid to "slug it out" and take wild
chances. SHould you find yourself in Tennessee, let me know. I will
have plenty of coffee for you.
Rob
Sam Sloan wrote:
> Damiano's Defense Declined
>
> Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. I played it
> twice in the Viking 4 County Open in Hackettstown NJ yesterday and
> both of my opponents declined to take the pawn. I won the first game
> easily. In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
> achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
> score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
> However, he came up with a fantastic queen sacrifice followed by a
> bishop sacrifice which worked because my pieces happened to be in
> exactly the right spot for a knight fork winning the game.
>
> I cannot take any credit away from my opponent. He came up with
> something really good. This should go in one of those White to play
> and win problem collections.
>
> After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
> Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
> Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
> doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
> He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
> better not take that pawn.
>
> He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
> had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
> I actually play the game too!
>
> Here is the game: The first point of the game is that after 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nc3 Bc5 he can no longer take the pawn because when he
> checks with the queen I have the f8 square for my king. So, if he
> wants to take the pawn he must do it on move three. Otherwise, the
> opportunity will be lost forever.
>
> Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
> position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
> this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
>
> I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
> forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
> move however.
>
> For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
> possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
> material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
> against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
>
> During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
> Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
> instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
> !!
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
> [Date "2005.08.20"]
> [Round "04"]
> [White "West, James R."]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "2206"]
> [BlackElo "1941"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
> 8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
> 14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
> 20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
> Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
> 31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
> Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
> 39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
> ... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2005 02:39:23
From: lightarrow
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
It is a good idea play an opening if it gives you good results, even i
it isn't sound. I'm wondering how do your results with the Damiano'
defense compare with your results against 1 D4 or some other whit
opening? If they are significantly worse, maybe it's because you'r
playing a crappy opening.
I play some openings that aren't good theoretically, but at least ther
isn't a forcing variaton that leaves me down four pawns with an expose
king in those openings
--
lightarrow
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2005 23:20:42
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
I take Sam's silence to mean he's chicken to accept the Damiano Knight from
someone who's studied the opening for 10 minutes.
Cluck.
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Damiano's Defense Declined
>
> Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. I played it
> twice in the Viking 4 County Open in Hackettstown NJ yesterday and
> both of my opponents declined to take the pawn. I won the first game
> easily. In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
> achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
> score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
> However, he came up with a fantastic queen sacrifice followed by a
> bishop sacrifice which worked because my pieces happened to be in
> exactly the right spot for a knight fork winning the game.
>
> I cannot take any credit away from my opponent. He came up with
> something really good. This should go in one of those White to play
> and win problem collections.
>
> After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
> Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
> Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
> doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
> He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
> better not take that pawn.
>
> He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
> had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
> I actually play the game too!
>
> Here is the game: The first point of the game is that after 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nc3 Bc5 he can no longer take the pawn because when he
> checks with the queen I have the f8 square for my king. So, if he
> wants to take the pawn he must do it on move three. Otherwise, the
> opportunity will be lost forever.
>
> Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
> position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
> this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
>
> I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
> forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
> move however.
>
> For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
> possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
> material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
> against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
>
> During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
> Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
> instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
> !!
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
> [Date "2005.08.20"]
> [Round "04"]
> [White "West, James R."]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "2206"]
> [BlackElo "1941"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
> 8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
> 14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
> 20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
> Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
> 31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
> Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
> 39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
> ... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
>
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 14:06:39
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:20:42 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>I take Sam's silence to mean he's chicken to accept the Damiano Knight from
>someone who's studied the opening for 10 minutes.
I admit that part of the idea of playing Damoano's Defense is the
element of surprise. I often pretend like I intended to play 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f5 and the pawn accidentally slipped out of my hand and landed
on f6 instead of f5 by mistake.
Obviously, if you have had time to run it through Fritz and know
exactly what I am going to play, as I have posted it on this group, I
have lost a large part of my advantage.
Still, I am willing to play although I admit that I am less confident
of victory than I was against a really, really weak player like Bill
Brock or against an absolute beginner like Taylor Kingston.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 06:27:35
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
My guess is surprise is 80% of it. Jim West played the White side sort of
the same way I'd play it against someone rated 300 points lower than me. I'd
play 3. Bc4 but the idea is not to get into a tactical melee against a
prepared (and possibly dangerous) opponent. Calvin, as you pointed out, is
just a bad player. Clearly the "worst move on the board" is Qh4.
Back when I was rated in the 1500s (probably a tad under-rated) I played a
100-game blitz match against a guy in my graduate program whose rating at
the time was in the 1800s. I won the match with many games to spare. He lost
because he was rusty, and had played a lot of open stuff. In the rematch he
played conservatively and whooped me.
At least you admit that the opening is unsound, which it most certainly is!
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:20:42 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I take Sam's silence to mean he's chicken to accept the Damiano Knight
>>from
>>someone who's studied the opening for 10 minutes.
>
> I admit that part of the idea of playing Damoano's Defense is the
> element of surprise. I often pretend like I intended to play 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 f5 and the pawn accidentally slipped out of my hand and landed
> on f6 instead of f5 by mistake.
>
> Obviously, if you have had time to run it through Fritz and know
> exactly what I am going to play, as I have posted it on this group, I
> have lost a large part of my advantage.
>
> Still, I am willing to play although I admit that I am less confident
> of victory than I was against a really, really weak player like Bill
> Brock or against an absolute beginner like Taylor Kingston.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 18:45:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:20:42 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I take Sam's silence to mean he's chicken to accept the Damiano Knight
>>from
>>someone who's studied the opening for 10 minutes.
>
> I admit that part of the idea of playing Damoano's Defense is the
> element of surprise. I often pretend like I intended to play 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 f5 and the pawn accidentally slipped out of my hand and landed
> on f6 instead of f5 by mistake.
LOL! Spoke like a real hustler.
> Obviously, if you have had time to run it through Fritz and know
> exactly what I am going to play, as I have posted it on this group, I
> have lost a large part of my advantage.
But will they remember it OTB if they had only 5 minutes? There are so many
chess theoreticians and so few actual players...
> Still, I am willing to play although I admit that I am less confident
> of victory than I was against a really, really weak player like Bill
> Brock or against an absolute beginner like Taylor Kingston.
...so many theoreticians and so few players!
Maybe we should all promote Sam aged 60 [about] into a star! I already
talked with someone about him as being a 'character' for TV and since other
people here are so pale in their enthusiasms, or non-players when it
actually comes down to it, or don't really have a real existence and are
personas only who we should accept at their own recommendation [lol!] -
then why not?
It would make him some money, and some fame, and dammit! Establish Tal's
idea by a demonstration that OTB chess is a game for gladiators, and any old
patzer can be wise armed with Fritz and 48 hours to be ster-than-thou -
but those people are not chess players, they are kibbitzers who only attempt
to borrow a little glory.
I have read various people who say Tal was the greatest player of the past
age, and of course everyone also mentions Fischer, like him or not for his
personal charms, but in reasonable health and mostly sober Tal slaughtered
'em all in the late sixties. And he didn't do so by being theoretically
sound, and neither should anyone here think that their proposals of sound
play are evidence of their own worth as chess players when the clock is
ticking.
This is what seperates the great ones from the rest of us, and indeed,
players from the fantacists.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 06:20:57
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Yes, the world's nerdiest reality TV show. "The Sloans."
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:frJPe.45$fP.1@trndny08...
>
> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:20:42 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I take Sam's silence to mean he's chicken to accept the Damiano Knight
>>>from
>>>someone who's studied the opening for 10 minutes.
>>
>> I admit that part of the idea of playing Damoano's Defense is the
>> element of surprise. I often pretend like I intended to play 1. e4 e5
>> 2. Nf3 f5 and the pawn accidentally slipped out of my hand and landed
>> on f6 instead of f5 by mistake.
>
> LOL! Spoke like a real hustler.
>
>> Obviously, if you have had time to run it through Fritz and know
>> exactly what I am going to play, as I have posted it on this group, I
>> have lost a large part of my advantage.
>
> But will they remember it OTB if they had only 5 minutes? There are so
> many chess theoreticians and so few actual players...
>
>> Still, I am willing to play although I admit that I am less confident
>> of victory than I was against a really, really weak player like Bill
>> Brock or against an absolute beginner like Taylor Kingston.
>
> ...so many theoreticians and so few players!
>
> Maybe we should all promote Sam aged 60 [about] into a star! I already
> talked with someone about him as being a 'character' for TV and since
> other people here are so pale in their enthusiasms, or non-players when it
> actually comes down to it, or don't really have a real existence and are
> personas only who we should accept at their own recommendation [lol!] -
> then why not?
>
> It would make him some money, and some fame, and dammit! Establish Tal's
> idea by a demonstration that OTB chess is a game for gladiators, and any
> old patzer can be wise armed with Fritz and 48 hours to be
> ster-than-thou - but those people are not chess players, they are
> kibbitzers who only attempt to borrow a little glory.
>
> I have read various people who say Tal was the greatest player of the past
> age, and of course everyone also mentions Fischer, like him or not for his
> personal charms, but in reasonable health and mostly sober Tal slaughtered
> 'em all in the late sixties. And he didn't do so by being theoretically
> sound, and neither should anyone here think that their proposals of sound
> play are evidence of their own worth as chess players when the clock is
> ticking.
>
> This is what seperates the great ones from the rest of us, and indeed,
> players from the fantacists.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2005 19:34:09
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
> >Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well. There's
> >even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this than
> >our $100.
Well as a Latvian Gambit (or Greco's Counter Gambit IIRC) "junkie", all
this
is mildly amusing. Since the relevant moves involve themes
exhaustively checked by the Latvians, look at transposing into lines of
this.
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 (not sure this old move is the best, maybe try Bc4 (this is a
joke!))
2... f5?! (or !? according to some)
Now white has Nxe5, ef, and other fun things to try.
Cheers!
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 06:45:34
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam Sloan ha escrito:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every variation. The
> >fact that neither player took the pawn doesn't mean anything. I'll take it
> >from you and win 3.5 out of 5 at G/20. Bet you $50.
>
> OK. I will take that bet. As I understand it, all I have to do is
> score 2 out of 5 to win the match. Correct? Let's make it $100.
>
> Where will we play this match? I would prefer game in 30 giving us
> time to write down the moves so that we can publish them here.
...why noy 200?
please Sam, be serious and do not waste your money in challenges like
this one.
AT
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 06:37:16
From:
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Hello again Sam,
I may waste my time because I have experience knowing how you do not
take seriously correct analysis sent for another people to you, but I
will try....
And I can not understand why you do not waste a little amount of time
checking your games and analysis with some engine (there are some for
free who work well) and you waste large amounts of time writing about
your games and analysis with many mistakes of making strange challenges
to some masters like the one you made to Mr Randy Bauer recently.
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> Damiano's Defense Declined
>
> Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. (...)
> In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
> achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
> score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
> (...)
>
> After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
> Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
> Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
> doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
> He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
> better not take that pawn.
>
> He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
> had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
> I actually play the game too!
>
>
I have not see that photo but I have read you "analysis" of Damiano ad
the refutations people has sent to you here and in RGCA. You did not
improve never that refutations sending the same wrong line several
times. Maybe if that master have read all the analysis publised here He
would have win without thinking any move.
In that case I think it's more the question He wanted to play from the
begining and avoid susprises feeling superior that any fear of the
opening. Sure that with another master He would have entered in main
lines without fear.
> (...)
> Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
> position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
> this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
>
More than "passive play", He simply made a mistake 11.Na4? and after
some inacuracies from both players in following moves white finally
lost a pawn in move16.
But after many many inacuracies and mistakes Black managed to convert a
won position into a lost one.
- 35.Qa5 is a forced win:
for example: 35.Qa5! Nh3 36.Kh2! Qf2 37.Kh3 Qf3 38.Ng3 Qd3 39.Qa8 and
wins
- 35...d4 is a mistake (it was better to defend an inferior ending with
35...Qxe3)
after 35...d4? white wins with 36.Qe2 main line being:
36.Qe2 Bc6 37.Qa2 d5 38.Qa8 Kf7 39.Rb7 Bb7 40.Qb7 Qb7 41 Nd6 and wins
- Queen sacrifce was not best move neither,
37.Bc4 Qc4 38.Qb8 was an ending with advantage for white
but 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
black has some advantage.
Conclusion, white treatment of the opening lead to an unclear position
but some mistakes conceded Black a won position in move 17. Later many
mistakes from black leaded to a won position for white.
The last moves annotated could be:35.Qe3?? d4?? 36.Qg3?? Bc6 37.Rxb7?
Nf3+?? 38.Qxf3! Bxf3 39.Bc4+! 1-0
I hope this time you will answer to that analysis or simply you do not
send more messages about Daminao before answering this one.
Antonio Torrecillas
FIDE Master (rated 2396)
> I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
> forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
> move however.
>
> For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
> possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
> material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
> against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
>
> During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
> Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
> instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
> !!
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
> [Date "2005.08.20"]
> [Round "04"]
> [White "West, James R."]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "2206"]
> [BlackElo "1941"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
> 8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
> 14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
> 20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
> Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
> 31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
> Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
> 39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
> ... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2005 04:17:47
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On 22 Aug 2005 06:37:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
>black has some advantage.
>Antonio Torrecillas
>FIDE Master (rated 2396)
You are certainly correct that I completely missed the move 37. ....
Qc1+. However, this move leads to more than just "some advantage". It
completely wins the game.
White must reply with 38. Bf1. Otherwise it is mate.
Then, after 38. ... Nf3+ if White moves his king Black wins the queen.
For example 39. Kg2 Nd7+ 40. Kh2 Nf1+ 41. Kg2 Nxg3+or 40. f3 Qxf1+ 41.
Kh2 Nxf3+.
Therefore, White must sacrifice his queen with 39. Qxf3 but then Black
will win with 39. ... Bxf3 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nxd4 Bd5. White tries to
set up a fortress to hold a draw but I believe that Black can
eventually penetrate and win.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 21:32:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:47 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>On 22 Aug 2005 06:37:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
>>black has some advantage.
>
>>Antonio Torrecillas
>>FIDE Master (rated 2396)
>
>You are certainly correct that I completely missed the move 37. ....
>Qc1+. However, this move leads to more than just "some advantage". It
>completely wins the game.
>
>White must reply with 38. Bf1. Otherwise it is mate.
>
>Then, after 38. ... Nf3+ if White moves his king Black wins the queen.
>For example 39. Kg2 Nd7+ 40. Kh2 Nf1+ 41. Kg2 Nxg3+or 40. f3 Qxf1+ 41.
>Kh2 Nxf3+.
>
>Therefore, White must sacrifice his queen with 39. Qxf3 but then Black
>will win with 39. ... Bxf3 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nxd4 Bd5. White tries to
>set up a fortress to hold a draw but I believe that Black can
>eventually penetrate and win.
After 40 Rb3, Fritz gives you only a small edge. After 40 ... Bc6, 41
Nxd4, material is equal and all on the same side of the board. After
41 ... Be4 Re3, how are you ever going to break through?
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2005 11:25:52
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:32:07 -0700, Mike Murray
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:47 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
>wrote:
>
>>On 22 Aug 2005 06:37:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
>>>black has some advantage.
>>
>>>Antonio Torrecillas
>>>FIDE Master (rated 2396)
>>
>>You are certainly correct that I completely missed the move 37. ....
>>Qc1+. However, this move leads to more than just "some advantage". It
>>completely wins the game.
>>
>>White must reply with 38. Bf1. Otherwise it is mate.
>>
>>Then, after 38. ... Nf3+ if White moves his king Black wins the queen.
>>For example 39. Kg2 Nd7+ 40. Kh2 Nf1+ 41. Kg2 Nxg3+or 40. f3 Qxf1+ 41.
>>Kh2 Nxf3+.
>>
>>Therefore, White must sacrifice his queen with 39. Qxf3 but then Black
>>will win with 39. ... Bxf3 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nxd4 Bd5. White tries to
>>set up a fortress to hold a draw but I believe that Black can
>>eventually penetrate and win.
>
>After 40 Rb3, Fritz gives you only a small edge. After 40 ... Bc6, 41
>Nxd4, material is equal and all on the same side of the board. After
>41 ... Be4 Re3, how are you ever going to break through?
I think you are right. The game is a draw. Neither side will be able
to pentrate the other side.
I think I have a slight advantage in that is is easier and more likely
for White to blunder than for Black to blunder, but with best pklay
the position is drawn.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 18:46:30
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Por favor, Tony, no reality check until I have Sam's $100 in my pocket.
Angelo
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello again Sam,
>
> I may waste my time because I have experience knowing how you do not
> take seriously correct analysis sent for another people to you, but I
> will try....
>
> And I can not understand why you do not waste a little amount of time
> checking your games and analysis with some engine (there are some for
> free who work well) and you waste large amounts of time writing about
> your games and analysis with many mistakes of making strange challenges
> to some masters like the one you made to Mr Randy Bauer recently.
>
> En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
>
>> Damiano's Defense Declined
>>
>> Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. (...)
>> In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
>> achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
>> score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
>> (...)
>>
>> After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
>> Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
>> Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
>> doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
>> He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
>> better not take that pawn.
>>
>> He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
>> had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
>> I actually play the game too!
>>
>>
> I have not see that photo but I have read you "analysis" of Damiano ad
> the refutations people has sent to you here and in RGCA. You did not
> improve never that refutations sending the same wrong line several
> times. Maybe if that master have read all the analysis publised here He
> would have win without thinking any move.
>
> In that case I think it's more the question He wanted to play from the
> begining and avoid susprises feeling superior that any fear of the
> opening. Sure that with another master He would have entered in main
> lines without fear.
>
>> (...)
>> Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
>> position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
>> this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
>>
> More than "passive play", He simply made a mistake 11.Na4? and after
> some inacuracies from both players in following moves white finally
> lost a pawn in move16.
> But after many many inacuracies and mistakes Black managed to convert a
> won position into a lost one.
> - 35.Qa5 is a forced win:
> for example: 35.Qa5! Nh3 36.Kh2! Qf2 37.Kh3 Qf3 38.Ng3 Qd3 39.Qa8 and
> wins
> - 35...d4 is a mistake (it was better to defend an inferior ending with
> 35...Qxe3)
> after 35...d4? white wins with 36.Qe2 main line being:
> 36.Qe2 Bc6 37.Qa2 d5 38.Qa8 Kf7 39.Rb7 Bb7 40.Qb7 Qb7 41 Nd6 and wins
> - Queen sacrifce was not best move neither,
> 37.Bc4 Qc4 38.Qb8 was an ending with advantage for white
> but 37.Rxb7? allowed Qc1! (the move you did not see) 38.Bf1 Nf3 and
> black has some advantage.
>
> Conclusion, white treatment of the opening lead to an unclear position
> but some mistakes conceded Black a won position in move 17. Later many
> mistakes from black leaded to a won position for white.
>
> The last moves annotated could be:35.Qe3?? d4?? 36.Qg3?? Bc6 37.Rxb7?
> Nf3+?? 38.Qxf3! Bxf3 39.Bc4+! 1-0
>
> I hope this time you will answer to that analysis or simply you do not
> send more messages about Daminao before answering this one.
> Antonio Torrecillas
> FIDE Master (rated 2396)
>
>> I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
>> forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
>> move however.
>>
>> For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
>> possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
>> material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
>> against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
>>
>> During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
>> Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
>> instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
>> !!
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>>
>> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
>> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
>> [Date "2005.08.20"]
>> [Round "04"]
>> [White "West, James R."]
>> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
>> [Result "1-0"]
>> [ECO "C40"]
>> [WhiteElo "2206"]
>> [BlackElo "1941"]
>>
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
>> 8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
>> 14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
>> 20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
>> Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
>> 31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
>> Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
>> 39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
>> ... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
>
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 00:15:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
<<The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every
variation. >>
I'd take that bet with the Black pieces. If you made me play 3...fxe5,
it'd be a different story.
Analysis is ChessBase, except for analysis of 9...Qf5 (TN), which is me
noodling around with Fritz. 9...Qe6 has been played more than once,
but IMO it's less logical. Chigorin's 9...Qg6? just loses to 10.Ne5!
[Event "St Petersburg m"]
[Site "St Petersburg"]
[Date "1897.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Schiffers, Emanuel Stepanovich"]
[Black "Chigorin, Mikhail"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C40"]
[Annotator "ChessBase"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[EventDate "1897.??.??"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 $2 3. Nxe5 (3. Bc4 $1) 3... Qe7 (3... fxe5 $2 4.
Qh5+ $18)
4. Nf3 d5 5. d3 dxe4 6. dxe4 Qxe4+ 7. Be2 Nc6 8. O-O Bd7 9. Nc3 Qg6 $2
({Brock
} 9... Qf5 $1 10. Bd3 Qh5 $1 (10... Qa5 $6 11. Re1+ Nge7 12. Nd2 $1
O-O-O 13.
Nc4 Qc5 (13... Qb4 14. a3) 14. Be3 $18) 11. Re1+ Nge7 {Brock}) 10. Ne5
Nxe5 11.
Bh5 O-O-O 12. Bxg6 hxg6 13. Qe2 (13. Qe1 {Hierauf geht die 2 verloren,
j})
13... Bd6 14. Ne4 (14. Bf4 $1) 14... Nf3+ 15. gxf3 (15. Qxf3 Bxh2+ 16.
Kh1 Bg3+
17. Kg1 Bh2+ 18. Kh1 Bg3+) 15... Bxh2+ 16. Kg2 Bh3+ 17. Kh1 Be5 18. Kg1
Bh2+
19. Kh1 Be5 20. Qe1 Bg4+ 21. Kg1 Bxf3 22. Ng3 Ne7 23. Qe3 Bc6 24. Qxa7
$2 b6 (
24... Rh1+ $15 25. Nxh1 Bh2+ 26. Kxh2 Rh8+ 27. Kg3 Nf5+ 28. Kf4 Rh4#
$2) 25.
Be3 Nf5 (25... Rh1+ $3 26. Nxh1 Bh2+ 27. Kxh2 Rh8+ 28. Kg3 Nf5+ 29. Kf4
Rh4#)
26. f4 Nxg3 27. fxe5 Rh1+ 28. Kf2 Rh2+ 29. Kxg3 Rdh8 30. Qa6+ Kb8 31.
Bxb6 Rg2+
32. Kf4 Rh4+ 33. Ke3 Rh3+ 34. Kf4 (34. Kd4 Rd2+ (34... Rh4+ 35. Kc3
Rg3+ 36.
Qd3 Rxd3+ 37. Kxd3 cxb6 38. exf6 gxf6 39. Rxf6) 35. Qd3 Rdxd3+ 36. cxd3
cxb6
37. exf6 gxf6 38. Rxf6 {#}) 34... Rh4+ (34... Rh4+ 35. Ke3 Rh3+ 36. Kd4
Rd2+
37. Qd3 fxe5+ 38. Kxe5 Rhxd3 39. cxd3 cxb6) 1/2-1/2
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2005 23:09:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 02:20:11 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>[Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
>[Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
>[Date "2005.08.20"]
>[Round "04"]
>[White "West, James R."]
>[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "C40"]
>[WhiteElo "2206"]
>[BlackElo "1941"]
You missed a shot with 37 ... Qc1ch, when the Knight tricks on your
Queen disappear and Fritz gives you a slight edge after 38 Bf1 Nf3ch,
39 Qdxf3 Bxf3.
Earlier 16 ... b5 was better. Fritz gives you a big plus after 17
dxc6 Qdxc6.
But your opponent missed some shots too.
Here's the results of a 50 minute blunder check.
1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 f6 {last book move}
3. Nc3 Bc5
4. Bc4 Ne7
5. d3 c6
6. a4 d5
7. Bb3 Bg4
8. h3 Bh5
9. Qe2 Qd6
10. a5 Nd7
11. Na4 Bb4+
12. Bd2 b5
13. axb6 axb6
14. g4 Bg6
15. c3 Ba5
16. exd5
({-2.31 Fritz 8:} 16. Bc2 b5 17. Nc5 Nxc5 18. b4 Qd8 19. bxc5 Bxc3
{[%eval -112,12]})
16... cxd5
({-0.78 Fritz 8:} 16... b5 17. dxc6 Qxc6 18. O-O Bd8 19. d4 bxa4 20.
Bc4 e4 21. Nh4 Rb8 22. Nxg6 hxg6 {[%eval -231,12]})
17. Bc2 b5
18. Nc5 Qxc5
19. b4 Qc7
20. O-O O-O
21. bxa5 Rxa5
22. Rxa5 Qxa5
23. c4 Qc7
24. Bb4 Re8
25. cxb5 Qb6
26. Bxe7 Rxe7
27. Rb1 Nc5
28. Nh4 Be8
29. d4 Ne6
30. Nf5 Rb7
31. dxe5 Bxb5
32. Qd2 Qc5
33. exf6 gxf6
34. Bd3 Ng5
35. Qe3
({0.69 Fritz 8:} 35. Qa5 Nxh3+ 36. Kh2 Qc7+ 37. Qxc7 Rxc7 38. Rxb5
Nxf2 39. Rxd5 {[%eval 231,11]})
35... d4
({ 2.16 Fritz 8:} 35... Qxe3 36. fxe3 Bc6 37. Rxb7 Bxb7 38. Nd6 Bc6
39. Kh2 Bd7 40. Kg3 h6 41. e4 dxe4 42. Bxe4 Nxe4+ {[%eval 69,14]})
36. Qg3
({0.75 Fritz 8:} 36. Qe2 Bc6 37. Qa2+ Qd5 38. Qa8+ Kf7 39. Rxb7+ Bxb7
40. Qxb7+ Qxb7 41. Nd6+ Ke7 42. Nxb7 Nxh3+ 43. Kf1 Nf4 44. Bxh7
{[%eval 216,12]})
36... Bc6
37. Rxb7 Nf3+
({4.94 Fritz 8:} 37... Qc1+ 38. Bf1 Nf3+ 39. Qxf3 Bxf3 {[%eval
-41,13]})
38. Qxf3 Bxf3
39. Bc4+
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 01:53:08
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every variation. The
fact that neither player took the pawn doesn't mean anything. I'll take it
from you and win 3.5 out of 5 at G/20. Bet you $50.
Who was the other player?
I missed the tournament and thereby lost the title of Sussex County Chess
Champion, which I've held since the last 4 County event 6 years ago. I was
the only Sussex County resident to enter, by the way.
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Damiano's Defense Declined
>
> Opponents are becoming afraid of my Damiano's Defense. I played it
> twice in the Viking 4 County Open in Hackettstown NJ yesterday and
> both of my opponents declined to take the pawn. I won the first game
> easily. In the second game I played it against a rated master. I
> achieved a winning position and I was thinking that I was going to
> score my first victory over a master with the Damiano's Defense.
> However, he came up with a fantastic queen sacrifice followed by a
> bishop sacrifice which worked because my pieces happened to be in
> exactly the right spot for a knight fork winning the game.
>
> I cannot take any credit away from my opponent. He came up with
> something really good. This should go in one of those White to play
> and win problem collections.
>
> After the game, I asked him why he did not take the pawn when I played
> Damianos Defense. He said that he has overheard me mention Damianos
> Defense in one of my conversations so he knew that I knew what I was
> doing. Also, I had won my previous round game with Damianos Defense.
> He said that he wanted to win the game, so he decided that he has
> better not take that pawn.
>
> He also said that he has see my picture in Chess Life magazine but he
> had thought that I was just a chess politico. He had not realized that
> I actually play the game too!
>
> Here is the game: The first point of the game is that after 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nc3 Bc5 he can no longer take the pawn because when he
> checks with the queen I have the f8 square for my king. So, if he
> wants to take the pawn he must do it on move three. Otherwise, the
> opportunity will be lost forever.
>
> Because of his passive play, I quickly built up an overwhelming
> position and won a pawn. I would appreciate it if somebody could run
> this game through Fritz because I believe that I had several wins.
>
> I felt that my 35. . . . d4 was a good move because it set up knight
> forks. One of the spectators, a master, felt that that was the losing
> move however.
>
> For sure, if he had not sacrificed his queen he had a bad position,
> possibly losing, because of 38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7. Although
> material is equal, my threats of knight forks and discovered checks
> against his exposed king gives me the advantage.
>
> During the game, I though he could win with a rook sacrifice with 36.
> Rxb5. However, after the game he pointed out that he had seen that and
> instead I win by responding with a queen sacrifice with 36. Rxb5 Qxb5
> !!
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
> [Date "2005.08.20"]
> [Round "04"]
> [White "West, James R."]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "C40"]
> [WhiteElo "2206"]
> [BlackElo "1941"]
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nc3 Bc5 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.d3 c6 6.a4 d5 7.Bb3 Bg4
> 8.h3 Bh5 9.Qe2 Qd6 10.a5 Nd7 11.Na4 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 b5 13.axb6 axb6
> 14.g4 Bg6 15.c3 Ba5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bc2 b5 18.Nc5 Qxc5 19.b4 Qc7
> 20.O-O O-O 21.bxa5 Rxa5 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.c4 Qc7 24.Bb4 Re8 25.cxb5
> Qb6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Rb1 Nc5 28.Nh4 Be8 29.d4 Ne6 30.Nf5 Rb7
> 31.dxe5 Bxb5 32.Qd2 Qc5 33.exf6 gxf6 34.Bd3 Ng5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qg3
> Bc6 37.Rxb7 Nf3+ 38.Qxf3 (38. Kg2 Ne5+ 39. Kh2 Bxb7) 38...Bxf3
> 39.Bc4+ {Black resigns because of Qxc4 40. Rb8+ Kf7 41. Nd6# or 39.
> ... Kf8 40. Rb8+ Qc8 41. Qxc8#) 1-0
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 13:13:59
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every variation. The
>fact that neither player took the pawn doesn't mean anything. I'll take it
>from you and win 3.5 out of 5 at G/20. Bet you $50.
OK. I will take that bet. As I understand it, all I have to do is
score 2 out of 5 to win the match. Correct? Let's make it $100.
Where will we play this match? I would prefer game in 30 giving us
time to write down the moves so that we can publish them here.
>Who was the other player?
>
The other player was very weak, the game not worth posting or looking
at. The only thing of note is that after I played 2. .... f6 he
commented, "That is the worst move on the board", but then he did not
take the pawn.
Anyway here is the game, but please do not bother to play it over.
Sam Sloan
[Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
[Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
[Date "2005.08.20"]
[Round "03"]
[White "Mitchell, Calvin"]
[Black "Sloan, Sam"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C40"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Be2 Bc5 5.c3 d5 6.O-O Nge7 7.b4 Bb6
8.a4 a6 9.Na3 Be6 10.Bb2 Qd7 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.b5 axb5 13.axb5 Nce7
14.c4 Nf4 15.Bxe5 fxe5 16.Nxe5 Qd6 17.Nf3 Rxa3 18.Rxa3 Qxa3
19.Qd2 O-O 20.Re1 Ba5 21.Qe3 Bxe1 22.Nxe1 Qa1 23.Kf1 Neg6 24.Bf3
Bf5 25.Bd5+ Nxd5 26.cxd5 Bd7 27.f3 Re8 28.Qd2 Bxb5 29.Kf2 Qd4+
30.Kg3 Qh4# 0-1
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well. There's
even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this than
our $100.
BTW, I offered Ken 2:1 money odds and 2:1 time odds to play me from "the
position" and he turned me down. He's only rated about 200 points lower than
me so I don't understand why he wouldn't take a sure winning position (or so
he thinks). I'd play a 2100 player under those conditions (from the White
side, of course) any day of the week.
Are you ducking me?
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every variation.
>>The
>>fact that neither player took the pawn doesn't mean anything. I'll take it
>>from you and win 3.5 out of 5 at G/20. Bet you $50.
>
> OK. I will take that bet. As I understand it, all I have to do is
> score 2 out of 5 to win the match. Correct? Let's make it $100.
>
> Where will we play this match? I would prefer game in 30 giving us
> time to write down the moves so that we can publish them here.
>
>>Who was the other player?
>>
>
> The other player was very weak, the game not worth posting or looking
> at. The only thing of note is that after I played 2. .... f6 he
> commented, "That is the worst move on the board", but then he did not
> take the pawn.
>
> Anyway here is the game, but please do not bother to play it over.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
> [Date "2005.08.20"]
> [Round "03"]
> [White "Mitchell, Calvin"]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "C40"]
>
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Be2 Bc5 5.c3 d5 6.O-O Nge7 7.b4 Bb6
> 8.a4 a6 9.Na3 Be6 10.Bb2 Qd7 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.b5 axb5 13.axb5 Nce7
> 14.c4 Nf4 15.Bxe5 fxe5 16.Nxe5 Qd6 17.Nf3 Rxa3 18.Rxa3 Qxa3
> 19.Qd2 O-O 20.Re1 Ba5 21.Qe3 Bxe1 22.Nxe1 Qa1 23.Kf1 Neg6 24.Bf3
> Bf5 25.Bd5+ Nxd5 26.cxd5 Bd7 27.f3 Re8 28.Qd2 Bxb5 29.Kf2 Qd4+
> 30.Kg3 Qh4# 0-1
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2006 03:37:36
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
>Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well. There's
>even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this than
>our $100.
>
>I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
>The Hoboken Chess Club, located on Park Avenue near the intersection of
>4th St., is a 10-minute walk from the Hoboken Path station and 20-30 minutes
>from the shall. It's an hour's drive for me but that's no big deal.
>
>G/30s mean 5 hours if the match goes 5 games. Of course if you win the first
>two it's over in less than 2 hours. I don't mind driving back the following
>week if we need to.
>So?
OK. Angelo.I now have a little free time which I have not had for a
while, so I agree to play you a match with the Damiano's Defense under
the following conditions:
1. The time limit will be at least 30 minutes per side.
2. The match will be USCF rated.
3. The match will be broadcast live on ICC.
4. There will be a USCF certified arbiter present to settle any
disputes and also to send in the final result for rating.
5. In every game of the match, you will be White. I will be Black. The
first moves of every game will be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5
We will be playing for at least $100 cash under the table.
You pick the time and place.
Agreed?
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 16:22:11
From: Ange1o DePa1ma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam,
If that is really you you can call me (google me for my website) to arrange
the match. I would prefer G/90 but we could never finish in one day. G/60 is
disastrous for me usually, but since we'll be playing the first 10 moves in
less than a minute it might work. Would you agree to an increment? Say, G/60
+ 20 seconds? That's about 11 hours of play. Or we can play it over a couple
of days, or several evenings.
Unfortunately the Hoboken club has folded so we can't play there. I'm sure
Ken Thomas would be happy to host, but that's a schlepp for you. He's some
sort of arbiter, I think. He or his son can transmit the games to ICC.
I had originally said you would not win 2 games out of 5, but I accept your
draw odds offer. :)
How about $150?
Angelo
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
>>Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well.
>>There's
>>even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this
>>than
>>our $100.
>>
>>I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
>
>>The Hoboken Chess Club, located on Park Avenue near the intersection of
>>4th St., is a 10-minute walk from the Hoboken Path station and 20-30
>>minutes
>>from the shall. It's an hour's drive for me but that's no big deal.
>>
>>G/30s mean 5 hours if the match goes 5 games. Of course if you win the
>>first
>>two it's over in less than 2 hours. I don't mind driving back the
>>following
>>week if we need to.
>
>>So?
>
> OK. Angelo.I now have a little free time which I have not had for a
> while, so I agree to play you a match with the Damiano's Defense under
> the following conditions:
>
> 1. The time limit will be at least 30 minutes per side.
> 2. The match will be USCF rated.
> 3. The match will be broadcast live on ICC.
> 4. There will be a USCF certified arbiter present to settle any
> disputes and also to send in the final result for rating.
> 5. In every game of the match, you will be White. I will be Black. The
> first moves of every game will be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5
>
> We will be playing for at least $100 cash under the table.
>
> You pick the time and place.
>
> Agreed?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2006 00:40:57
From: EZoto
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
With this nonsense you can't even tell who is the real poster and who
isn't.
EZoto
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2006 04:19:17
From: John J.
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
You must be kidding.
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
>>Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well.
>>There's
>>even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this
>>than
>>our $100.
>>
>>I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
>
>>The Hoboken Chess Club, located on Park Avenue near the intersection of
>>4th St., is a 10-minute walk from the Hoboken Path station and 20-30
>>minutes
>>from the shall. It's an hour's drive for me but that's no big deal.
>>
>>G/30s mean 5 hours if the match goes 5 games. Of course if you win the
>>first
>>two it's over in less than 2 hours. I don't mind driving back the
>>following
>>week if we need to.
>
>>So?
>
> OK. Angelo.I now have a little free time which I have not had for a
> while, so I agree to play you a match with the Damiano's Defense under
> the following conditions:
>
> 1. The time limit will be at least 30 minutes per side.
> 2. The match will be USCF rated.
> 3. The match will be broadcast live on ICC.
> 4. There will be a USCF certified arbiter present to settle any
> disputes and also to send in the final result for rating.
> 5. In every game of the match, you will be White. I will be Black. The
> first moves of every game will be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 3. Nxe5 fxe5
>
> We will be playing for at least $100 cash under the table.
>
> You pick the time and place.
>
> Agreed?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2005 19:52:45
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
>Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well. There's
>even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this than
>our $100.
>
>BTW, I offered Ken 2:1 money odds and 2:1 time odds to play me from "the
>position" and he turned me down. He's only rated about 200 points lower than
>me so I don't understand why he wouldn't take a sure winning position (or so
>he thinks). I'd play a 2100 player under those conditions (from the White
>side, of course) any day of the week.
Why do you want the match to be unrated??
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2005 23:41:48
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
I prefer it be rated as action chess. But if you insist I will play it as a
G/30 or longer, as long as there are no rating restrictions on thematic
tournaments.
So?
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:41:31 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>So Sam, are we on? There's a lot of interest out here in western NJ. Ken
>>Thomas would host and we'd probably have a decent audience as well.
>>There's
>>even talk of a Calcutta-type auction so there could be more $$ in this
>>than
>>our $100.
>>
>>BTW, I offered Ken 2:1 money odds and 2:1 time odds to play me from "the
>>position" and he turned me down. He's only rated about 200 points lower
>>than
>>me so I don't understand why he wouldn't take a sure winning position (or
>>so
>>he thinks). I'd play a 2100 player under those conditions (from the White
>>side, of course) any day of the week.
>
> Why do you want the match to be unrated??
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 13:58:35
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:41:48 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>I prefer it be rated as action chess. But if you insist I will play it as a
>G/30 or longer, as long as there are no rating restrictions on thematic
>tournaments.
>
>So?
There are no such restrictions. Mike Goodall holds a King's Gambit
Tournament every year in San Francisco. It is fully USCF rated and
very successful.
I am ready to play if you can find a place.
Unfortunately, Hackettstown is a three hour trip each way or a total
of six hours.
The lady at the shall Chess Club does not like me so we cannot play
there.
A public park is undesirable.
The Manhattan Chess Club is out of business.
I know of no other place.
Why are you afraid of losing all those rating points?
Admittedlty it will be bad for your reputation to lose 5-0 to the
Damiano's Defense.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 17:53:17
From: J�rgen R.
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:58:35 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:41:48 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I prefer it be rated as action chess. But if you insist I will play it as a
>>G/30 or longer, as long as there are no rating restrictions on thematic
>>tournaments.
>>
>>So?
>
>There are no such restrictions. Mike Goodall holds a King's Gambit
>Tournament every year in San Francisco. It is fully USCF rated and
>very successful.
>
>I am ready to play if you can find a place.
>
>Unfortunately, Hackettstown is a three hour trip each way or a total
>of six hours.
>
>The lady at the shall Chess Club does not like me
I can't imagine why.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 06:19:00
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Sam,
I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
The Hoboken Chess Club, located on Park Avenue near the intersection of 4th
St., is a 10-minute walk from the Hoboken Path station and 20-30 minutes
from the shall. It's an hour's drive for me but that's no big deal.
G/30s mean 5 hours if the match goes 5 games. Of course if you win the first
two it's over in less than 2 hours. I don't mind driving back the following
week if we need to.
So?
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:41:48 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I prefer it be rated as action chess. But if you insist I will play it as
>>a
>>G/30 or longer, as long as there are no rating restrictions on thematic
>>tournaments.
>>
>>So?
>
> There are no such restrictions. Mike Goodall holds a King's Gambit
> Tournament every year in San Francisco. It is fully USCF rated and
> very successful.
>
> I am ready to play if you can find a place.
>
> Unfortunately, Hackettstown is a three hour trip each way or a total
> of six hours.
>
> The lady at the shall Chess Club does not like me so we cannot play
> there.
>
> A public park is undesirable.
>
> The Manhattan Chess Club is out of business.
>
> I know of no other place.
>
> Why are you afraid of losing all those rating points?
>
> Admittedlty it will be bad for your reputation to lose 5-0 to the
> Damiano's Defense.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 07:47:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:19:00 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>Sam,
>
>I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
You and Sam have about the same rating. If you get White and he
commits to play Damiano's Defense, isn't that enough of an edge ?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 16:23:30
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Yes he's only about 40 points higher than me, but he has much more
experience. I believe he'd beat me in a no-nonsense match.
However, I think the reason he's not significantly higher-rated than I is
because he plays crappy openings. I play good openings, crappily.
The point of all this is that a less-experienced player rated slightly lower
than Sam will beat him decisively in an opening which he seems to think is
sound. Call it my Sam Sloan Reality Check Experience. I'm willing to put
money on it. To answer your question, it's no fun if Black plays 3...Qe7 or
something like that. Then it becomes a bad Petroff, where White is better
but not winning.
Sam has apparently convinced some people that the Damiano is not only sound,
but that White loses if he takes on e5. One of the people he's convinced,
who's rated less than 200 points below me, claims Black wins after Nxe5.
This same person recently refused to play me in a match at 2:1 time odds and
2:1 money odds (I insisted on at least 3 minutes).
I would play anyone rated up to 2200 in that opening, with those odds, any
day of the week, provided he, she, or it takes the Damiano Knight on move 3.
Angelo
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:19:00 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sam,
>>
>>I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
>
> You and Sam have about the same rating. If you get White and he
> commits to play Damiano's Defense, isn't that enough of an edge ?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 10:29:06
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Hoboken chess club:
http://hobokenchess.tripod.com/
So?
"Angelo DePalma" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sam,
>
> I'll play it rated, as long as you take the Knight on move 3. Agreed?
>
> The Hoboken Chess Club, located on Park Avenue near the intersection of
> 4th St., is a 10-minute walk from the Hoboken Path station and 20-30
> minutes from the shall. It's an hour's drive for me but that's no big
> deal.
>
> G/30s mean 5 hours if the match goes 5 games. Of course if you win the
> first two it's over in less than 2 hours. I don't mind driving back the
> following week if we need to.
>
> So?
>
>
>
> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:41:48 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I prefer it be rated as action chess. But if you insist I will play it as
>>>a
>>>G/30 or longer, as long as there are no rating restrictions on thematic
>>>tournaments.
>>>
>>>So?
>>
>> There are no such restrictions. Mike Goodall holds a King's Gambit
>> Tournament every year in San Francisco. It is fully USCF rated and
>> very successful.
>>
>> I am ready to play if you can find a place.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Hackettstown is a three hour trip each way or a total
>> of six hours.
>>
>> The lady at the shall Chess Club does not like me so we cannot play
>> there.
>>
>> A public park is undesirable.
>>
>> The Manhattan Chess Club is out of business.
>>
>> I know of no other place.
>>
>> Why are you afraid of losing all those rating points?
>>
>> Admittedlty it will be bad for your reputation to lose 5-0 to the
>> Damiano's Defense.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2005 18:44:19
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Damiano's Defense Declined
|
Haha, Calvin Mitchell. No surprise he didn't take the pawn.
I'll gladly make it $100 provided you take on e5 at move 3. In other words,
I want to play from this position: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fe5.
We can play at Ken's if you like. I know it's far for you. I live about 18
miles north of him. If you can suggest somewhere halfway we can do that.
Also, let's make it G/29 or make it unrated.
Deal?
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:08 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The Damiano is a forced win for White. 3. Nxe5! wins in every variation.
>>The
>>fact that neither player took the pawn doesn't mean anything. I'll take it
>>from you and win 3.5 out of 5 at G/20. Bet you $50.
>
> OK. I will take that bet. As I understand it, all I have to do is
> score 2 out of 5 to win the match. Correct? Let's make it $100.
>
> Where will we play this match? I would prefer game in 30 giving us
> time to write down the moves so that we can publish them here.
>
>>Who was the other player?
>>
>
> The other player was very weak, the game not worth posting or looking
> at. The only thing of note is that after I played 2. .... f6 he
> commented, "That is the worst move on the board", but then he did not
> take the pawn.
>
> Anyway here is the game, but please do not bother to play it over.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [Event "Viking 4 County Open"]
> [Site "Hackettstown NJ"]
> [Date "2005.08.20"]
> [Round "03"]
> [White "Mitchell, Calvin"]
> [Black "Sloan, Sam"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "C40"]
>
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Be2 Bc5 5.c3 d5 6.O-O Nge7 7.b4 Bb6
> 8.a4 a6 9.Na3 Be6 10.Bb2 Qd7 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.b5 axb5 13.axb5 Nce7
> 14.c4 Nf4 15.Bxe5 fxe5 16.Nxe5 Qd6 17.Nf3 Rxa3 18.Rxa3 Qxa3
> 19.Qd2 O-O 20.Re1 Ba5 21.Qe3 Bxe1 22.Nxe1 Qa1 23.Kf1 Neg6 24.Bf3
> Bf5 25.Bd5+ Nxd5 26.cxd5 Bd7 27.f3 Re8 28.Qd2 Bxb5 29.Kf2 Qd4+
> 30.Kg3 Qh4# 0-1
>
|
|
