|
Main
Date: 03 Jul 2005 07:09:21
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 07 Aug 2005 13:26:10
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Sam Sloan wrote: > I am sure that you are aware that I am not a seeker of the truth. Sam, I think that has been obvious to most of us here for years.
|
|
Date: 07 Aug 2005 11:41:03
From: Niemand
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl wrote: > 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 count= er. Both 12.0-0 and 12.Nc3 seem quite playable, even good for White. They didn't show in my earlier Fritz8 analysis because I had it set to show only the three highest-rated lines, which at that time it saw as 12.Qc3, 12.d3 and 12.Qb5.
|
|
Date: 06 Aug 2005 06:53:20
From: Niemand
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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. Fritz8 does see any immediate win there, giving best play as 15.Qc4+ Kf8 16.Nc3 Qh4 17.d4 Qe1+ 18.Qf1 Qxf1 19.Kxf1, a position in which the main question seems to be: do White's three extra central pawns outweigh Black's extra piece? White may have an earlier improvement, at move 12. Previously I mentioned only 12.d3 and 12.Qc3, but better than either may be 12.Qb5. If Black proceeds as in your note above, 12...Qh4+ 13.Kf1 Qf4+ 14.Kg1, then 14...Bd6 is no good, losing after 15.Qc4+ Kf8 16.Nc3 Qe5 (16...Qh4 16.Qe8+ Bf8 17.g3+-) 17.d4 Qe7 18.e5 etc. The least of evils for Black may be to play 14...Rh7, giving the king a flight square.
|
|
Date: 05 Aug 2005 10:20:25
From: Niemand
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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?!.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2005 10:01:32
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 06 Aug 2005 10:15:01
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 06 Aug 2005 11:47:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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 I also noted the commentary mentioning 'winning for white' analysis by Shredder. But maybe a month ago I found a defensive move in Sam's first Damiano position [Rf8] which reversed his fortunes. The point is that if you play any opening OTB your oponnent must solve the problem/opportunity you pose in *real time*. Therefore shocking openings or later variations provide their initiator with a huge advantage. Tal famously said that almost all his variations were flawed, and the club analysts could all solve them in a few hours, days or weeks... Phil Innes
|
|
Date: 05 Aug 2005 08:08:15
From: Niemand
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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. > I realize of course that White's 8. f4 is a mistake. 8. h4 is much > better. Indeed; 8.h4 wins by force. > 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. Only against kedly inferior play. There is no refutation.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2005 16:29:34
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 07 Aug 2005 20:31:02
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2005 20:11:12
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 08 Aug 2005 02:07:11
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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 >>>> >>>>The only remotely playable move is 8...h5, after which Fritz gives >>>>best play as 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nh6 11.Bg6 Kg8, >> >>12. Nc3 Bb4 13. Qc4+ Kf8 14. Nd5 Bd6 15. g3 Ne5 16. Qc3. > > 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+. Somehow I left out 12...Nc6 13. Qb5 so the corrected line is 12. Nc3 Nc6 13. Qb5 Bb4 14. Qc4+ Kf8 15. Nd5 Bd6 16. g3 Ne5 17. Qc3. But your observation about Qc3 is true. Better is 17. Qb3 where the queen is out of danger and keeps an eye on f7. Now 17...c6 could be answered by 18. Nf4 Bc5 19. Rf1 Qd4 (19...Nhg4 20. c3 Qe7 (20...Nxh2 21. d4 looks also good for White) 21. d4+ Nd3 22. Kd2 Nxh2 23. Kxd3 Nxf1 24. Bh7! and White wins if he finds the moves!) 20. d3 Nhg4 21. Ne6+ bxe6 22. fxe6+ Ke7 23. Qxb7+ Ke6 24. Bf5+ Kd6 25. Bf4. In the final position Shredder favours White but this is all very hot and Black's possibilities are far from exhausted. It also shows White has to be pretty precise if he wants to hold an advantage. Perhaps this is a nice idea: 17...h4 (instead of c6) 18. d4 hxg3! 19. hxg3! (19. dxe5 Qh4! 20. Bf4 g2+ 21. Ke2 Bc5 or gxh1Q and Black has at least a draw) 19...Nxg6 20. fxg6 Be6 and if 21. Qxb7 Bxg3+ 22. Kd1 Bxd5 23. exd5 Rb8 24. Qxa7 Kg8 Black has good attacking chances or 18. Nf4 Bc5 19. Rf1 Nhg4 20. c3 hxg3 21. hxg3 Bf2+ 22. Rxf2 Rh1+ 23. Ke2 Nxf2 24. d4 Nfg4 25. dxe5 Rh2+ 26. Kf1 Nxe5 with the plan b6/Ba6+ unclear or 18. Rf1 Neg4 19. d4 Nxh2 20. Rf4 hxg3 (20...c6 21. e5 Bxe5 22. dxe5 Qxd5 is also possible) 21. e5 g2 22. Be3 c6 23. exd6 (23. 0-0-0 Nf1) 23...Qxd6 24.0-0-0 cxd5 unclear. If White wants to have a life more quiet, he could restrain from the aggressive 15. Nd5 and play 15. Ne2 instead. The main idea is to push away the bishop from the a5-e1 diagonal so the d-pawn is free to move. For example 15...Qe7 16. a3 Bd6 17. d3 Ne5 18. Qb3 Nxg6 19. fxg6 Qe6 with equal chances, Black even might be slightly better. Greetings Claus-Juergen
|
|
Date: 05 Aug 2005 13:54:39
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 05 Aug 2005 23:51:16
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Shit on a shingle, Sam. I put this game through Shredder many weeks ago and posted here that the Damiano is a forced loss for Black in all (as in EVERY) variations. I don't know why you don't believe that. The caliber player you're likely to face in the mid-late rounds of a Swiss are not an accurate gauge of the Damiano's soundness. Try it against a real 2200 player and I guarantee you'll have a resignable position by move 15. Errors by White are Black's only resource. I only hope that Ken Thomas (who also believes Black wins) tries it against me some time in a rated game. I'll be glad to take 4 rating points away from him. "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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: 12 Jul 2005 00:10:31
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
One thing you can say about the Damiano: It's not a girlie-girl opening like what most of the kids today play. "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >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: 12 Jul 2005 11:43:37
From: michael adams
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Nick wrote: (,,) > How might Phil Innes, a self-described 'Celt', feel about playing for > 'The Sloan Rangers' (which is a joke about football in Glasgow)? :-) No it's not - it's a play on (tonto, silver & the masked bishop) or puncy, Chelsea dandies & has nothing to do with Celtic or the Pope..
|
|
Date: 11 Jul 2005 05:20:31
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 12 Jul 2005 04:53:45
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Sam Sloan wrote: > > Here are my conclusions: Hello Sam, I admire your courage as you try to breath live into a totally discredited defense and back it up in tournament. Still, I think this defense is discredited for a reason. I admit there are chances if White doesn't know the critical move 8. h4. > 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. If White wants to win he best plays along this line. I think the black king is much more in danger than the white king. The basic idea is to advance the e and f-pawn and eventually open the f-file. A sample line: 12. e5 Controls d6 and f6 and opens the d3-h7 diagonal for queen and bishop. 12...Qe7 This is the only reasonable defense. If the bishop moves away White can either trade queens or force the king to the center, which both is not good for Black. For example 12...Bb4 13. Be4+ Bf5 (13...Kf7 14. Qd5+ trades queens) 14. Qa6+ Rb6 15. Bxf5+ Kxf5 16. Qc4 and Black is is deep trouble. One idea is 17. g4+ Kxe5 18. 0-0 another 17. Rh3. 13. h5+ Kf7 After 13...Kh7 14. Be4+ g6 15. hxg6+ Kg7 16. f4 Bc5 17. b3 White will place his bishop on b2 or a3 and castle long. 14. f4 Bc5 If 14...Bb4 15. Qd5+ Kf8 16. c3. 15. b3 plan Ba3. White trades down and brings his material advantage to bear. > 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. That is probably stretching it a little. I agree that Black may be psychologically better as White doesn't have the totally won game he might have expected. After 11. Bg6+ Kg8 12. d3 Nc6 13. Qb5 with the threat Bxh6/Qc4+ White should be better. White finishes his development and moves up his pawns through the center and f-file. Black is awkward on the kingside. > 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. After 11...Qd4 White has the queen sacrifice 12. Qg6+! Nxg6 13. fxg6+ Kh6 14. d3+ and mate next move. If 10...Ne7 11. Qg3 then 11...Qd6 is pretty much forced, 12. Qg5 Qh6 (12...g6 13. fxg6 Nxg6 14. d4) 13. d4 Qxg5 14. Bxg5 g6 15. f6 Nec6 16. c3 Bh6 17. Bxh6 Kxh6 18. e5 looks good for White. Your first move 10...Nh6 is better. Anyway, 9. Bxb7 Bd6 10. Qa5 Nc6 11. Bxc6 Rb8 12. e5 is even better than the version with 8. h4 as the center is protected. > 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. Agreed, Bg6+ with Qc3 is better. White can improve on this line with 13. Qd4. This protects e4 so Qh4+ is no good (g3) and the knight doesn't run away. The idea is to trade queens. 14. e5 was a mistake, White simply should have castled. If Black develops with 14...Bd6 15. Qe1 is quite a good square for the queen as White threatens d4 and e5. 15...Be5 (seeks to control d4 and protects f6, if 15...Bc5+ 16. Kh1 Rf8 17. c3 Qxd3? 18. Rxf6! Kxf6? 19. Qh4+ Kg7 20. Bxh6+ Kh8 21. Bxf8 mate) 16. Na3 plan Nc4. Black will get a lot of problems on the dark squares. > 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. On 19...Qb6+ White wins after 20. Qf2. Black can't shake off the pin, for example 20...Bc5 21. Bxf6+ Kxf6 22. Ne4+; 20...Be7 21. g4 or 20...Qxf2 21. Rxf2 h5 (directed against g4) 22. Ne4 Be7 23. Ref1 a5 24. Rxf5 Bxf5 25. Rxf5 Ra6 26. Ng3 (threat 27. Rxf6 Bxf6 28. Nf5+ Kf8 29. Bxf6 Rxf6 30. g7+) 26...Kf8 27. Rf4 (threat Nf5/g7+) 27...Rg8 28. Bxf6 Rxf6 (28...Bxf6 29. Nxh5 Be5 (29...Bb2 30. Bc4+ Ke7 31. Bxg8) 30. Re4 +-) 29. Nxh5 Rxf4 (29...Rxf7 30. Rxf7+ Ke8 31. Ng7+ Ke8 32. Nf5 and the threat g7/Nh6 costs a piece) 30. Nxf4 Kg7 31. Ne6+ Kh8 32. Bxg8 Kxg8 33. g3 and Black basically is helpless against the plan h7, g5, d4, Kh6 and g7 mate. > I also had chances with 21. . . . Ngh5. White wins a piece after he gets through with g4 which Black can't quite prevent. > 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 the bishop retreats along the a2-g8 diagonal the pawn at g6 is left unprotected. 24...Kxg6 and there is no mate. But White can improve on this scheme by 24. Nf3 with the plan Ne5 or Nh4 after which the pawn is protected. Black has to give the exchange. If 24...Nf4 25. Ne5 h5 26. Be6+ Kh6 27. Bc1 Ng4+ 28. Bxg4 hxg4 29. Kg3 Kg5 30. g7 wins a piece. 23. Re7 Rd8 with the plan Kf8 is insufficient because of 24. Bc4+ Kf8 (24...Kxg6 25. Bf7+ Kf5 26. Re5+ Kf4 27. Bxh5 +-) 25. Ba3 Nd5 26. Bxd5 Rxd5 27. Rd7+. So 23. Re7 indeed was a very good move. In the game 23...Rf8 instead of 23...Rd8 was also very difficult. 24. Re7 Bf5 25. g4 Bxg6 26. Bb3+ Kh8 (26...Bf7 27. Rxf7 Rxf7 28. Bxf6 ends in a lost endgame with a rook against two minor pieces) 27. gxh5 Bh7 28. Rxc7 Rab8 29. a4 (directed against b5 and Rb6, if now 29...b5 30. a5) 29...a5 (29...a6 is too slow 30. a5 b6 31. Bf7 Kg7 32. Bc4+ Kh8 33. Rc6) 30. Kg3 Ra8 31. Bf7 Ra6 (31...Kg7 32. Bg6+ Kg8 33. Bxh7 Nxh7 34. Rg7+ Kh8 35. Rg6+ Nf6 36. Ne4) 32. Rxb7 (threat Nf3-h4-g6) 32...Bg8 33. Bg6 and White has two strong passed pawns. >>[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 Claus-Juergen
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2005 18:30:31
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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: 13 Jul 2005 03:25:50
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Hello, I have been asked by Max Burkett to forward his answer to Sam's post because he isn't able to post into this newsgroup for technical reasons. I also restricted his post to r.c.g.a. since his mail to me mentions only this newsgroup. What follows is Max's reply, not mine: ---------- begin Max Burkett's reply ---------- From: Max Burkett <[email protected] > Sam: I recommend Fritz500.dll (a good free chess engine) installed in CB Light (a good free database). This will get you past some of your foolish analysis. I'll even give you instruction in the use (the help files are pitiful). >>>>>> 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 immediately to 10. . . . c6 and the queen must >> move off the fifth rank. >> Missed that one, didn't you? No, 11.Qd3 wins. I even hinted at this move (white squares, etc, etc). amici sumus Max Burkett -------- end Max Burkett's reply -------------- I think I should add that the idea of 11. Qd3 is 11...Bxb7 12. e5+ Kf7 13. Qb3+ Kf8 14. Qxb7. Black will lose another piece so White remains four pawns ahead. Claus-Juergen
|
|
Date: 10 Jul 2005 18:27:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Sam Sloan wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:23:32 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >"R.P. Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:[email protected]... > >> > >> > >> Chess One wrote: > >>> > What about something like this instead:- > >>> > > >>> > 23... Bf5 > >> > >> Loses to 24.Re7. > > > >how?! 24...hR f8 > > > >Phil > > How about 25. Be6+ Kh8 26. Rh7# > > Just a thought. > > Might work. > > Sam Sloan I still think 25. g4 is better.
|
|
Date: 07 Jul 2005 19:15:44
From: Nick
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
The Historian wrote: > Nick wrote: > > The Historian wrote (to Phil Innes): > > > Chess One wrote (to Neil Brennen): > > > > (snipped) > > > > This nearly an IM 25 years ago, playing without looking > > > > at the board seems to have some support from Fritz. > > > > > > So it was in 1980 you were "nearly an IM"? > > > As "Champman Billy" has shown, your BCF grading records > > > don't support that claim. > > > > Simon writes as 'chapman billy', not 'Champman Billy'. > > My apologies to you and to "chapman billy" for my careless error. Neil Brennen's apology is appreciated. Unfortunately, the handle '*Champman* Billy' *could* have implied that Simon has been immodest in making claims about his playing strength. I can attest that Simon has some chess achievements of note, yet he always has been quite modest in discussing them with me. Simon has high standards when it comes to assessing a player as 'strong' or 'weak', and he applies those same standards to himself. Simon and I have agreed substantially in our critical views of Phil Innes and of Taylor Kingston as writers in rec.games.chess.*. > > May I suggest that 'The Historian' read more of Robert Burns? :-) > > Never a bad idea. Here's a verse you may have had in mind Yes, I did have that one in mind. > (I've taken the liberty of "translating" some of the Scots) > > When chapman billies leave the street, > And thirsty neighbors neighbors meet; > As ket days are wearing late, > And folk begin to take the gate, > While we sit drinking at the nappy, > An' getting full and uncooth happy, > We think not on the long Scots miles, > The mosses, waters, slaps and stiles, > That lie between us and our home, > Where sits our sulky, sullen dame, > Gathering her brows like gathering storm, > Nursing her wrath to keep it warm. How might Phil Innes, a self-described 'Celt', feel about playing for 'The Sloan Rangers' (which is a joke about football in Glasgow)? :-) --Nick
|
|
Date: 07 Jul 2005 10:02:33
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
[email protected] wrote: > 2) I didn't find the theoretical move, Bxb7, over the board. However, I > did find some pretty interesting play. I analyzed with Fritz and it > looks like the theoretical move kills, for after Bxb7 Qf5+ Kh6 h4, how > do you prevent d4? You don't. In the game score as given, 8...h6?? 9.Bxb7! Bxb7?? 10.Qf5 is mate. The pawn at h6 prevents 10...Kh6. > Both g5 and g6 lose to Qf7 (g6 is less > horrible), and Bb4 loses to Ke2. I might be wrong though, since I > didn't spend as much time analyzing this opening as you did. But I > think my f4 move is good (maybe not great like Bxb7). Oh, are you talking about playing Bxb7 at move 8? That is not the theoretical move. Correct is 8.h4!, after which 8...h6 or 8...h5 is more or less forced. *Then* 9.Bxb7! is the crusher. For more on this, see: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/mcgrew11.pdf
|
|
Date: 06 Jul 2005 21:31:09
From:
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Hi guys. I was Sam Sloan's opponent. Basically I have a few comments in response to his post: 1) I don't think Damiano's defense is any good (3. Qe7 is playable but not "good" in the sense that it doesn't give black anything). That said, any opening that doesn't lose and about which you know more than your opponent can be good for you to play. My mistakes: 2) I didn't find the theoretical move, Bxb7, over the board. However, I did find some pretty interesting play. I analyzed with Fritz and it looks like the theoretical move kills, for after Bxb7 Qf5+ Kh6 h4, how do you prevent d4? You don't. Both g5 and g6 lose to Qf7 (g6 is less horrible), and Bb4 loses to Ke2. I might be wrong though, since I didn't spend as much time analyzing this opening as you did. But I think my f4 move is good (maybe not great like Bxb7). 3) Had you played Ne7 instea of Nf6, you could defend against Qg3 with Qd6. I think I would have played d4 and we both would have a playble game. 4) I didn't think 14. e5 was the best move. I was thinking of playing 13. b3 and 14. Bb2, but the pawn on e4 can be taken. So 13. d3 was fine, but then I should have probably played 14. Bd2 and 15. Bc3. 5) I don't think I had to give you the rook, I just wanted to sac the b2 pawn and have big attacking chances. But then I ran into time pressure. Sam Sloan wrote: > Can somebody please tell me where I made my mistake? Certainly after 23. h3 it was hard for you to defend. I would win both knights or the combined value of a rook, both of which would give me at least equal material. During the game I thought you could have played Qb6+ instead of Bd4+. But there was a lot of time pressure in these 45 minute games. Anyway, it was great to meet you over the board! Until next time! Sincerely, Gregory
|
|
Date: 05 Jul 2005 17:13:31
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Nick wrote: > The Historian wrote (to Phil Innes): > > Chess One wrote (to Neil Brennen): > > > (snipped) > > > This nearly an IM 25 years ago, playing without looking > > > at the board seems to have some support from Fritz. > > > > So it was in 1980 you were "nearly an IM"? > > As "Champman Billy" has shown, your BCF grading records > > don't support that claim. > > Simon writes as 'chapman billy', not 'Champman Billy'. My apologies to you and to "chapman billy" for my careless error. > May I suggest that 'The Historian' read more of Robert Burns? :-) Never a bad idea. Here's a verse you may have had in mind (I've taken the liberty of "translating" some of the Scots) When chapman billies leave the street, And thirsty neighbors neighbors meet; As ket days are wearing late, And folk begin to take the gate, While we sit drinking at the nappy, An' getting full and uncooth happy, We think not on the long Scots miles, The mosses, waters, slaps and stiles, That lie between us and our home, Where sits our sulky, sullen dame, Gathering her brows like gathering storm, Nursing her wrath to keep it warm. > > There's no shame in being an Expert or A-player Phil; > > why not come clean for once? > > > > > > "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international > > > > master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to > > > > offer an opinion..." - Philth Innes, September 21, 2004, on HLAS
|
|
Date: 05 Jul 2005 16:52:21
From: Nick
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
The Historian wrote (to Phil Innes): > Chess One wrote (to Neil Brennen): > > (snipped) > > This nearly an IM 25 years ago, playing without looking > > at the board seems to have some support from Fritz. > > So it was in 1980 you were "nearly an IM"? > As "Champman Billy" has shown, your BCF grading records > don't support that claim. Simon writes as 'chapman billy', not 'Champman Billy'. May I suggest that 'The Historian' read more of Robert Burns? :-) --Nick > There's no shame in being an Expert or A-player Phil; > why not come clean for once? > > > > "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international > > > master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to > > > offer an opinion..." - Philth Innes, September 21, 2004, on HLAS
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 13:24:52
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
In the post-mortem to my last game with Gene, he very politely gave me a lesson in defending the Exchange QGD, including (I kid you not) a reading list. In the game itself, I succeeded in creating more chaos than I deserved to create. When we got to that point in the post-mortem, Gene flagged down a friend for analytical assistance--Lembit Oll. I wish I could have lost many more such games to him....
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 13:22:11
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
[email protected] wrote: > <<Bill, I've enjoyed the memorial book on Mr. Colias. I think it was a > touching tribute on the part of the IL chess community. >> > > Afterword by Larry Parr. I try to forget that fact. As usual, it told us more about Parr than about his subject-matter.
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 13:05:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
<<Bill, I've enjoyed the memorial book on Mr. Colias. I think it was a touching tribute on the part of the IL chess community. >> Afterword by Larry Parr.
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 13:00:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
[email protected] wrote: > <<what do you personally remember as the most enjoyable aspect of > playing in > all those tournaments? - that is, as a consistent theme? >> > > That's easy--the post-mortems. > > Like many players from the Midwest, I have happy memories of analyzing > with two friends now gone--Bill Colias and Dr. Eugene tinovsky. Bill, I've enjoyed the memorial book on Mr. Colias. I think it was a touching tribute on the part of the IL chess community.
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 12:56:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
<<what do you personally remember as the most enjoyable aspect of playing in all those tournaments? - that is, as a consistent theme? >> That's easy--the post-mortems. Like many players from the Midwest, I have happy memories of analyzing with two friends now gone--Bill Colias and Dr. Eugene tinovsky.
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 19:58:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > <<what do you personally remember as the most enjoyable aspect of > playing in > all those tournaments? - that is, as a consistent theme? >> > > That's easy--the post-mortems. Really?! > Like many players from the Midwest, I have happy memories of analyzing > with two friends now gone--Bill Colias and Dr. Eugene tinovsky. More! Come on, tell us about it. A few years ago I analysed a game with Ivanov [Boston] and bust him! He was quite bemused. Phil
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 11:49:27
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Philth's Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One wrote: > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > >> Dear Bill, > >> > >> you are becoming rather insistent on personal matters at the expense of > >> the > >> ostensible subject - this is often interesting to only one party. If you > >> don't want to play a money game, and you are quite strong, no? Then its > >> all > >> wordy speculation isn't it? And chess is about performance. > >> > >> Defeat the Damiano position after hrf8, or just talk. That's a second > >> challenge. > >> > >> Phil > > > > How about presenting analysis that supports your first claim, that it > > is a "won end-game for Black"? > > Busy. Analyze it yourself. I have, and once again you don't know what you are talking about. It's not a win for Black. OTB, give yourself 20 minutes of real time. The > player a piece down has to cope with that, and after re-capturing a piece is > still the exchange down with busted King side pawns. This is what chess is > about, not a theoretical game at all, to repeat Mikhail Tal, a game played > against 2 ferocious lions, thine opponent and tick tick tick ... > > Cordially, Phil
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 11:30:40
From: The Historian
Subject: Philth's Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One wrote: > Dear Bill, > > you are becoming rather insistent on personal matters at the expense of the > ostensible subject - this is often interesting to only one party. If you > don't want to play a money game, and you are quite strong, no? Then its all > wordy speculation isn't it? And chess is about performance. > > Defeat the Damiano position after hrf8, or just talk. That's a second > challenge. > > Phil How about presenting analysis that supports your first claim, that it is a "won end-game for Black"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 18:45:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Philth's Damiano's Defense Fails
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > Chess One wrote: >> Dear Bill, >> >> you are becoming rather insistent on personal matters at the expense of >> the >> ostensible subject - this is often interesting to only one party. If you >> don't want to play a money game, and you are quite strong, no? Then its >> all >> wordy speculation isn't it? And chess is about performance. >> >> Defeat the Damiano position after hrf8, or just talk. That's a second >> challenge. >> >> Phil > > How about presenting analysis that supports your first claim, that it > is a "won end-game for Black"? Busy. Analyze it yourself. OTB, give yourself 20 minutes of real time. The player a piece down has to cope with that, and after re-capturing a piece is still the exchange down with busted King side pawns. This is what chess is about, not a theoretical game at all, to repeat Mikhail Tal, a game played against 2 ferocious lions, thine opponent and tick tick tick ... Cordially, Phil
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 11:28:55
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
[email protected] wrote: > Someone who was "nearly an IM 25 years ago" could certainly drop a game > to an A player or even a B player--I've seen players as strong as Greg > De Fotis and Paul Schmidt do it when coming back to tournament play > after long layoffs. But to do both, in consecutive rounds? I don't know if Phil ever really was near IM strength, but I do know the B-player he lost to in the tournament you cite, Dale Lyons, a friend from the Burlington Chess Club. Dale is variable, but at his best plays like an expert. So it's quite conceivable that Phil could lose to him. Personally I'm 0-2 in serious games with Dale. I also know Steven Winer, who was then rated over 2100 and finished =4th in that tournament. He's now an FM, rated about 2400, but the first time he and I played, in 1995, I won. Goes to show you never can tell.
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 11:28:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
[email protected] wrote: > I don't play for money, and I'm not questioning your integrity. > > Keep in mind that I just lost two games to an A player. :-) It ain't a > sin. > > But these are unusual results for someone who was once close to IM > strength. Perhaps you were ill in this tournament, too? > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199112199520-12529296 It looks like he became ill shortly after losing. Of course, he now claims to be able to give two Rooks as odds to B players.
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 11:21:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > >I would never get to this position in the Damiano: 3.d4 or 3.Bc4. > > 3.Nxe5 allows 3...Qe7. I ran through my MSA tournament results, and > > I'm fairly sure I lost more games to players under 1800 than you did. > > Mitigating factor: I played in 91 tournaments. > > that's a lot! I remember as a kid being so nervous I would knock over half > the pieces with the first trembling move. We didn't play much tournament > chess in Cornwall, but a weekly club to club game of about 90/game, and then > weekend inter-county games slightly longer after a 2 hour car-ride in > pipe-smoke, the driver playing all others blindfold, so to speak. And I > remember Michael Adams as a 'squeeker' eg. of no particular account then, > and who could not be swindled but could be out-manoevred, in fact I am not > sure he even played board one for his club > > what do you personally remember as the most enjoyable aspect of playing in > all those tournaments? - that is, as a consistent theme? > > this Damiano game is a weird position anyway - when I saw f4 instead of h4 I > knew we were on strange ground, and Sam played as if responding to h4, > however, I often find myself in the wilderness. I once played a guy who is > old enough to have beaten Frank shall in a full length game, How many decades after he beat Frank shall did you play him? and rather > than the daunting task of playing against 50+ years of opening theory, > played an invention, The Great Crab, featuring b4 AND g4! It was a very > strange game, and the only one I ever played against a master where, after > 40 moves, neither King had moved, and in the final position they still > hadn't moved [ROFL!] he was a very cool older gentleman and didn't buy any > of my crappy traps, so we slogged this thing out as an open game, open on > all fronts > > Your turn for old-fart weird chess position anecdote, said Innes, who is 52 > this week > > > May I gently suggest that you are a person of integrity, and that > > Taylor Kingston is a person of integrity. > > We are both import-Vermonters, except he is a flatlander, and I incidentally > just wrote to Taylor, to his [!] > > And it is my surprise that you too are a gentleman, but said like that is > demeaning, which was not my intent, only the extent of my poor wits this > afternoon. > > > ;-) > > Now, unless we can think of other things on which to disagree we are forced > to agree on... <already a bad scene> the character of Lawrence H. Parr, but > as the children say, let's not go there. > > Phil
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 18:41:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > Chess One wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> >I would never get to this position in the Damiano: 3.d4 or 3.Bc4. >> > 3.Nxe5 allows 3...Qe7. I ran through my MSA tournament results, and >> > I'm fairly sure I lost more games to players under 1800 than you did. >> > Mitigating factor: I played in 91 tournaments. >> >> that's a lot! I remember as a kid being so nervous I would knock over >> half >> the pieces with the first trembling move. We didn't play much tournament >> chess in Cornwall, but a weekly club to club game of about 90/game, and >> then >> weekend inter-county games slightly longer after a 2 hour car-ride in >> pipe-smoke, the driver playing all others blindfold, so to speak. And I >> remember Michael Adams as a 'squeeker' eg. of no particular account then, >> and who could not be swindled but could be out-manoevred, in fact I am >> not >> sure he even played board one for his club >> >> what do you personally remember as the most enjoyable aspect of playing >> in >> all those tournaments? - that is, as a consistent theme? >> >> this Damiano game is a weird position anyway - when I saw f4 instead of >> h4 I >> knew we were on strange ground, and Sam played as if responding to h4, >> however, I often find myself in the wilderness. I once played a guy who >> is >> old enough to have beaten Frank shall in a full length game, > > How many decades after he beat Frank shall did you play him? Seemed like 200 decades at the time, but then again he was playing above 2 masters at board 1, Russian imports to UMass - probably, in truth, an honorary position. It is funny, several people have written me that Mr. Bob Bornholz was a very congenial gentleman, but he let me know without a smile or much other consideration that he was there for business! ha ha ha ha Very cool old dude. Can't remember how old he was but definitely ancient. In a way I wish I had achieved draw instead of the actual result. It didn't matter to me so much, and it may have mattered much to him. I had another game like this when I offered a draw to an IM during a simul when I had a long but forced mate OTB. When I was a kid I would have taken their throats! As an adult this has become an interesting conundrum, Neil. Something, eh, something like... O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant. /MfM Cordially! Phil
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 15:35:00
From:
Subject: Playing Frank Marshall
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > writes: > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> I once played a guy who > >> is > >> old enough to have beaten Frank shall in a full length game, > > > > How many decades after he beat Frank shall did you play him? > > Seemed like 200 decades at the time, but then again he was playing above 2 > masters at board 1, Russian imports to UMass - probably, in truth, an > honorary position. I've played far less chess than Phil, but I have two candidates for "might have played shall" Circa 1980 I lost a game to Geza Fuster who, IIRC, was Hungarian champion in the 1930s. He might even have played shall in one of the olympiads and was strong enough to have a decent chance at winning, though I believe that shall's olympiad record was pretty good. . I played speed chess with one Peter Avery, who was older than Fuster (Avery escaped Petrograd in 1918). He was Toronto champion in 1942 or so, hence probably expert or NM strength at the time. I got the impression he was relatively prosperous and traveled, so might well have met shall either in a simul or in some NY event in the 20s or 30s. I don't think he'd have had much chance of winning OTB, but it is possible. -- William Hyde EOS Department Duke University
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 10:29:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
I would never get to this position in the Damiano: 3.d4 or 3.Bc4. 3.Nxe5 allows 3...Qe7. I ran through my MSA tournament results, and I'm fairly sure I lost more games to players under 1800 than you did. Mitigating factor: I played in 91 tournaments. May I gently suggest that you are a person of integrity, and that Taylor Kingston is a person of integrity. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 18:11:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Old Sailors Tall Stories
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I would never get to this position in the Damiano: 3.d4 or 3.Bc4. > 3.Nxe5 allows 3...Qe7. I ran through my MSA tournament results, and > I'm fairly sure I lost more games to players under 1800 than you did. > Mitigating factor: I played in 91 tournaments. that's a lot! I remember as a kid being so nervous I would knock over half the pieces with the first trembling move. We didn't play much tournament chess in Cornwall, but a weekly club to club game of about 90/game, and then weekend inter-county games slightly longer after a 2 hour car-ride in pipe-smoke, the driver playing all others blindfold, so to speak. And I remember Michael Adams as a 'squeeker' eg. of no particular account then, and who could not be swindled but could be out-manoevred, in fact I am not sure he even played board one for his club what do you personally remember as the most enjoyable aspect of playing in all those tournaments? - that is, as a consistent theme? this Damiano game is a weird position anyway - when I saw f4 instead of h4 I knew we were on strange ground, and Sam played as if responding to h4, however, I often find myself in the wilderness. I once played a guy who is old enough to have beaten Frank shall in a full length game, and rather than the daunting task of playing against 50+ years of opening theory, played an invention, The Great Crab, featuring b4 AND g4! It was a very strange game, and the only one I ever played against a master where, after 40 moves, neither King had moved, and in the final position they still hadn't moved [ROFL!] he was a very cool older gentleman and didn't buy any of my crappy traps, so we slogged this thing out as an open game, open on all fronts Your turn for old-fart weird chess position anecdote, said Innes, who is 52 this week > May I gently suggest that you are a person of integrity, and that > Taylor Kingston is a person of integrity. We are both import-Vermonters, except he is a flatlander, and I incidentally just wrote to Taylor, to his [!] And it is my surprise that you too are a gentleman, but said like that is demeaning, which was not my intent, only the extent of my poor wits this afternoon. > ;-) Now, unless we can think of other things on which to disagree we are forced to agree on... <already a bad scene > the character of Lawrence H. Parr, but as the children say, let's not go there. Phil
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 09:42:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
I don't play for money, and I'm not questioning your integrity. Keep in mind that I just lost two games to an A player. :-) It ain't a sin. But these are unusual results for someone who was once close to IM strength. Perhaps you were ill in this tournament, too? http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199112199520-12529296
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 17:06:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Dear Bill, you are becoming rather insistent on personal matters at the expense of the ostensible subject - this is often interesting to only one party. If you don't want to play a money game, and you are quite strong, no? Then its all wordy speculation isn't it? And chess is about performance. Defeat the Damiano position after hrf8, or just talk. That's a second challenge. Phil <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I don't play for money, and I'm not questioning your integrity. > > Keep in mind that I just lost two games to an A player. :-) It ain't a > sin. > > But these are unusual results for someone who was once close to IM > strength. Perhaps you were ill in this tournament, too? > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199112199520-12529296 >
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 08:34:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
I was checking your USCF membership, and happened to see your last USCF OTB rating of 2044. Someone who was "nearly an IM 25 years ago" could certainly drop a game to an A player or even a B player--I've seen players as strong as Greg De Fotis and Paul Schmidt do it when coming back to tournament play after long layoffs. But to do both, in consecutive rounds? http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199504303330.1-12529296
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 16:31:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >I was checking your USCF membership, and happened to see your last USCF > OTB rating of 2044. thats true, i played sick and went from provisional 2199 to 2044 in two games, what does it matter? i can still scalp ims, and also lose to 1750s! this thread is not about obsessive stalking by endlessly petty diverting distorting nitwits, its about the Damiano position, can you solve it, or just put out the next move offered by your computer? ROFL > Someone who was "nearly an IM 25 years ago" could certainly drop a game > to an A player or even a B player--I've seen players as strong as Greg > De Fotis and Paul Schmidt do it when coming back to tournament play > after long layoffs. But to do both, in consecutive rounds? maybe i am no no better than 950 these days? want to play for money Mr. Brock? Phil Innes > http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199504303330.1-12529296 >
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 07:47:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One wrote: > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > Chess One wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Loses to 24.Re7. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Phil > >> >> > > >> >> > 25.g4 > >> >> > >> >> 25... Bxg6 > >> > > >> > 26.Bb3+ > >> > >> I don't have sight of the board at the moment, but from memory of the > >> position there are three choices Bf7, Kh8 or Rf7. Each has its charms and > >> perils. > > > > The "nearly an IM" is unable to analyze the position? > > Neil, I don't mind responding to you, except that you like to talk so much > trash, its usually worthless. And I don't object to responding to you, aside from your constant crawl into libel, threats, and lies. As others have stated before and will probably state again, if you change your behavior, even to the simple extent of not posting claims you are unable to prove, you will find your online experience so much more pleasant. > This nearly an IM 25 years ago, playing without looking at the board seems > to have some support from Fritz. So it was in 1980 you were "nearly an IM"? As "Champman Billy" has shown, your BCF grading records don't support that claim. There's no shame in being an Expert or A-player Phil; why not come clean for once? > > "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international > > master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to > > offer > > an opinion..." - Philth Innes, September 21, 2004, on HLAS > >
|
|
Date: 04 Jul 2005 00:18:12
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
I've analyzed this opening extensively with the help of Shredder. The Damiano is a forced loss for black. Your opponent should play 8.h4 instead of f4, but in any case 8....h6 is a mistake. Black plays 9. Bxb7 and wins at least his piece back because 9. ... Bxb7 10.Qf5#. White's pieces are scattered after the smoke clears, but he can consolidate. Although you were up a R for 2 pawns you were going to lose the f6 knight eventually. My computer never had you even substantially better, much less winning. "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >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: 03 Jul 2005 17:21:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
R.P. Warren wrote: > The Historian wrote: > > Nearly IM His I-ness gave ...Bf5, not ...Bg4, and claimed a win for > > Black. > > Sorry, typing mistake. I mean 23...Bf5. Understood when I saw your able analysis. > > But still, would you claim a win for Black, as nearly-IM Philth did? > > I don't see any win for black, only drawing chances in an uphill battle. Agreed. But perhaps the nearly-IM sees something else.
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 17:06:32
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
The Historian wrote: > Nearly IM His I-ness gave ...Bf5, not ...Bg4, and claimed a win for > Black. Sorry, typing mistake. I mean 23...Bf5. > But still, would you claim a win for Black, as nearly-IM Philth did? I don't see any win for black, only drawing chances in an uphill battle.
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 16:02:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
R.P. Warren wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Loses to 24.Re7. > > >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 > > >> > 25.g4 > > >> 25... Bxg6 > > Chess One's recommendation may be better than I first thought. Fritz > rates the position after 23...Bg4 24.Re7 at about +2.8, practically a > piece ahead for white. Nearly IM His I-ness gave ...Bf5, not ...Bg4, and claimed a win for Black. But from there, it gives best play as 24...Rhf8 > 25.g4 Bxg6 26.Bc4+ (26.Bb3+ transposes) 26...Bf7 27.gxh5 Kg8 28.Rxf7 > Rxf7 29.Bxf6 Re8. This can lead to an endgame of three minor pieces v. > two rooks (about +1.5), or after something like 30.Nf3 Kf8 31.Bxf7 Kxf7 > a B+N-v-R situation. Fritz rates this about +3.8, but that seems too > high. With black's better pawn structure I am not so sure. Unless white > could win the a-pawn and push his own, black could have drawing > chances. But I am no Rubinstein. But still, would you claim a win for Black, as nearly-IM Philth did?
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 15:36:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Loses to 24.Re7. > >> >> > >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 > >> >> > >> >> Phil > >> > > >> > 25.g4 > >> > >> 25... Bxg6 > > > > 26.Bb3+ > > I don't have sight of the board at the moment, but from memory of the > position there are three choices Bf7, Kh8 or Rf7. Each has its charms and > perils. The "nearly an IM" is unable to analyze the position? The point is that Bf5 is saving black from losing immediately and > because white is currently a piece down needs to continue the attack or > convert more material. A few posts ago you claimed a won end-game for Black. Now it's "saving Black from losing"? I'm sure Sam will pick up on this. If you wish to > follow, suggest several moves for analysis, since I am playing all this in > my head without a board, but perhaps someone can analyse results with you. > Phil "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to offer an opinion..." - Philth Innes, September 21, 2004, on HLAS
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2005 10:39:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > Chess One wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Loses to 24.Re7. >> >> >> >> >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 >> >> >> >> >> >> Phil >> >> > >> >> > 25.g4 >> >> >> >> 25... Bxg6 >> > >> > 26.Bb3+ >> >> I don't have sight of the board at the moment, but from memory of the >> position there are three choices Bf7, Kh8 or Rf7. Each has its charms and >> perils. > > The "nearly an IM" is unable to analyze the position? Neil, I don't mind responding to you, except that you like to talk so much trash, its usually worthless. This nearly an IM 25 years ago, playing without looking at the board seems to have some support from Fritz. Phil > The point is that Bf5 is saving black from losing immediately and >> because white is currently a piece down needs to continue the attack or >> convert more material. > > A few posts ago you claimed a won end-game for Black. Now it's "saving > Black from losing"? > > I'm sure Sam will pick up on this. If you wish to >> follow, suggest several moves for analysis, since I am playing all this >> in >> my head without a board, but perhaps someone can analyse results with >> you. >> Phil > > "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international > master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to > offer > an opinion..." - Philth Innes, September 21, 2004, on HLAS >
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 15:36:12
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Loses to 24.Re7. > >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 > >> > 25.g4 > >> 25... Bxg6 Chess One's recommendation may be better than I first thought. Fritz rates the position after 23...Bg4 24.Re7 at about +2.8, practically a piece ahead for white. But from there, it gives best play as 24...Rhf8 25.g4 Bxg6 26.Bc4+ (26.Bb3+ transposes) 26...Bf7 27.gxh5 Kg8 28.Rxf7 Rxf7 29.Bxf6 Re8. This can lead to an endgame of three minor pieces v. two rooks (about +1.5), or after something like 30.Nf3 Kf8 31.Bxf7 Kxf7 a B+N-v-R situation. Fritz rates this about +3.8, but that seems too high. With black's better pawn structure I am not so sure. Unless white could win the a-pawn and push his own, black could have drawing chances. But I am no Rubinstein. > > > > 26.Bb3+ > I don't have sight of the board at the moment, but from memory of the > position there are three choices Bf7, Kh8 or Rf7. Each has its charms and > perils. The point is that Bf5 is saving black from losing immediately and > because white is currently a piece down needs to continue the attack or > convert more material. I'm sure Sam will pick up on this. If you wish to > follow, suggest several moves for analysis, since I am playing all this in > my head without a board, but perhaps someone can analyse results with you. > Phil
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 13:47:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One, "2450 or so", wrote: > >> > The Great "nearly an IM" Chess One wrote: > >> >> > What about something like this instead:- > >> >> > > >> >> > 23... Bf5 > >> > > >> > Loses to 24.Re7. > >> > >> how?! 24...hR f8 > >> > >> Phil > > > > 25.g4 > > 25... Bxg6 26.Bb3+
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2005 21:34:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
>> >> > >> >> > Loses to 24.Re7. >> >> >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 >> >> >> >> Phil >> > >> > 25.g4 >> >> 25... Bxg6 > > 26.Bb3+ I don't have sight of the board at the moment, but from memory of the position there are three choices Bf7, Kh8 or Rf7. Each has its charms and perils. The point is that Bf5 is saving black from losing immediately and because white is currently a piece down needs to continue the attack or convert more material. I'm sure Sam will pick up on this. If you wish to follow, suggest several moves for analysis, since I am playing all this in my head without a board, but perhaps someone can analyse results with you. Phil
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 13:07:44
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
The Great "nearly an IM" Chess One wrote: > "R.P. Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > > > > The Great "nearly an IM" Chess One wrote: > >> > What about something like this instead:- > >> > > >> > 23... Bf5 > > > > Loses to 24.Re7. > > how?! 24...hR f8 > > Phil 25.g4
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2005 20:22:57
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
>> > The Great "nearly an IM" Chess One wrote: >> >> > What about something like this instead:- >> >> > >> >> > 23... Bf5 >> > >> > Loses to 24.Re7. >> >> how?! 24...hR f8 >> >> Phil > > 25.g4 25... Bxg6
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 11:05:48
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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 Fritz tells me 8 ... h5 was much better, 17 ... Nh5 gives you a big plus, 21 ... Ngh5 gave you an equal game, 25 ... Nxg6 was much better than what you played and 26 ... Be6 was a better try in a lost cause.
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 08:53:38
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
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? A sloppy but interesting game. It looks like White actually made more mistakes than Black, but Black's mistakes were bigger and he made the last one. A few of Black's bad moves: 2...f6? (better 2...Nc6, 2...Nf6, or 2...d6), 8...h6?? (better 8...h5), 17...Nd4? (better 17...Nh5! -/+), 23...Rd8?? (better 23...Rf8). A few of White's: 8.f4?! (8.h4! +-), 9.f5+?! (9.Bxb7! +-), 11.Qg3?! (11.Bg6+! Kg8 12.Qc3 Rh7 13.Qc4+ Kh8 14.e5 Nfd7 15.e6 +-), 14.e5? (14.O-O +/-), 23.h3? (24.Re7! +-), 29.Bd5 (not actually bad, but 29.Re7 and 30.g7# was quicker). > > [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: 05 Jul 2005 04:06:47
From: Bob
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
R.P. Warren wrote: > > 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? > > A sloppy but interesting game. It looks like White actually made more > mistakes than Black, but Black's mistakes were bigger and he made the > last one. A few of Black's bad moves: > > 2...f6? (better 2...Nc6, 2...Nf6, or 2...d6), 8...h6?? (better > 8...h5), 17...Nd4? (better 17...Nh5! -/+), 23...Rd8?? (better > 23...Rf8). > > A few of White's: > > 8.f4?! (8.h4! +-), 9.f5+?! (9.Bxb7! +-), 11.Qg3?! (11.Bg6+! Kg8 12.Qc3 > Rh7 13.Qc4+ Kh8 14.e5 Nfd7 15.e6 +-), 14.e5? (14.O-O +/-), 23.h3? > (24.Re7! +-), 29.Bd5 (not actually bad, but 29.Re7 and 30.g7# was > quicker). I think its helpful in an analysis to try to deterimine the principles that lead to the demise. Focusing only on Black's key problems(after f6) I don't like 14 ... Qe7 on principle. I think white needs that black bishop to get to work more quickly. 14 ... Nh5 15. Qe3 Nd4 16. Qf2 Bc5 White grabs a firm grasp on key white square in the opening and black must challenge on the black squares. With 16 Bf4 white signals an challenge on the dark sqaures and black must respond quickly. 17 ... Nh5! followed by 18 ... Nxf4 19 ...Bd6 and Black is in good shape. Fritz 4.0 and Crafty 19.17 don't think much of White's 19 Be5 but I think it was the decisive move that gave White a slight edge. 23. ... Rf8 is better than Rd8 but is unclear. > > > > [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: 03 Jul 2005 07:21:53
From: R.P. Warren
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
Chess One wrote: > > What about something like this instead:- > > > > 23... Bf5 Loses to 24.Re7.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2005 18:23:32
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
"R.P. Warren" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > > Chess One wrote: >> > What about something like this instead:- >> > >> > 23... Bf5 > > Loses to 24.Re7. how?! 24...hR f8 Phil
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2005 01:22:39
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:23:32 GMT, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >"R.P. Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> >> >> Chess One wrote: >>> > What about something like this instead:- >>> > >>> > 23... Bf5 >> >> Loses to 24.Re7. > >how?! 24...hR f8 > >Phil How about 25. Be6+ Kh8 26. Rh7# Just a thought. Might work. Sam Sloan
|
|
Date: 03 Jul 2005 11:59:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >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 Rd8!? What about something like this instead:- 23... Bf5 24 g4 Bxg6 25 Bc4 Rae8 26 Rxe8 Rxe8 27 gxh5 Bf7! 28 Bd4 a6 29 Bb3 Bxb3 30 ab Kf7 31 Bxf6 Kxf6 32 Ne4+ Ke5 33 Nc5 Kd4 34 Nxb7 Rb8 35 Na5 Kc3 36 Nc6 Rb6 37 Nc5 Kxc2 With a won end-game for black. Cordially, Phil Innes > 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 > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [email protected] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >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: 03 Jul 2005 12:28:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:tqQxe.7700$vE5.7325@trndny07... > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>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 > > > Rd8!? > > What about something like this instead:- > > 23... Bf5 > 24 g4 Bxg6 > 25 Bc4 Rae8 > 26 Rxe8 Rxe8 > 27 gxh5 Bf7! > 28 Bd4 a6 > 29 Bb3 Bxb3 > 30 ab Kf7 > 31 Bxf6 Kxf6 > 32 Ne4+ Ke5 > 33 Nc5 Kd4 > 34 Nxb7 Rb8 > 35 Na5 Kc3 > 36 Nc6 Rb6 > 37 Nc5 Kxc2 > > With a won end-game for black. > > Cordially, Phil Innes Essentially Sam, I think black has to creatively return a piece, preferably not a rook [!] and also break White's bishop pair. Sacrificing on the h file is good! Especially that Knight stuck out there. Next task to is control the center on d, and hopefully exchange a pair of rooks - then break the bishops pair and advance the King. Perhaps there is different play for White in the above, but the result leaves rook v Knight with the Black King very active. Obviously taking the b pawn at the end of the above sequence and advancing black's a pawn unopposed to Queen is too great a task to prevent by White's Knight which also isn't nimble enough to cause trouble elsewhere as Intermezzo. So 23... Bf5! linking Black's rooks and also breaking up the complex on g8 and f7 needs to be refuted by something other than 24 g4, otherwise White's structure collapses - but other moves leave White a whole rook adrift with some pressure still, but imo, insufficient. Perhaps there is a later improvement to 28. Bd4, but White's prospects already look thin by this point. Cordially, Phil Innes >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-chess/ >> >> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> [email protected] >> >> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >> >> >> >> > "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >>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: 03 Jul 2005 01:35:33
From: phillip
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57F6F.8272DBB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm Damiano Defense Stats --- White Win %82 Black Win %15 Draw %3 "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message = news:[email protected]... > I really cannot understand what went wrong. I played such a good > opening. Soon I was a rook up. Yet I lost. >=20 > Can somebody please tell me where I made my mistake? >=20 > Sam Sloan >=20 >=20 > [Event "World Open Championship"] > [Site "Philadelphia, PA"] > [Date "2005.07.02"] > [Round "03"] > [White "Magarshak, Gregory"] > [Black "Sloan, Sam"] > [Result "1-0"] > [ECO "C40"] >=20 > 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 > ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57F6F.8272DBB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" > <HTML ><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=3DGENERATOR > <STYLE ></STYLE> </HEAD > <BODY > <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><A href=3D"http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm"><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2 >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm</FONT></A></DI= V > <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2 ></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>Damiano Defense <FONT = color=3D#0000ff ><FONT=20 color=3D#000000 >Stats ---</FONT> White Win %82</FONT> <FONT=20 color=3D#ff0000 >Black Win %15</FONT> Draw %3</STRONG></FONT></DIV> <DIV ><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV ><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV ><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Sam Sloan" <</FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2 >[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> = wrote in=20 message </FONT ><A = href=3D"news:[email protected]" ><FONT=20 face=3DArial = size=3D2 >news:[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2 >...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> I = really cannot=20 understand what went wrong. I played such a good<BR >> opening. Soon I = was a=20 rook up. Yet I lost.<BR >> <BR>> Can somebody please tell me where = I made=20 my mistake?<BR >> <BR>> Sam Sloan<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [Event = "World=20 Open Championship"]<BR >> [Site "Philadelphia, PA"]<BR>> [Date=20 "2005.07.02"]<BR >> [Round "03"]<BR>> [White "Magarshak, = Gregory"]<BR >>=20 [Black "Sloan, Sam"]<BR >> [Result "1-0"]<BR>> [ECO "C40"]<BR>> = <BR >>=20 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5<BR >> = 7.Bxd5+=20 Kg6 8.f4 h6 9.f5+ Kh7 10.Bf7 Nf6 11.Qg3 g5 12.fxg6+ Kg7<BR >> 13.d3 = Nc6 14.e5=20 Qe7 15.O-O Qxe5 16.Bf4 Qxb2 17.Nd2 Nd4 18.Rae1<BR >> Nf5 19.Be5 Bc5+ = 20.Rf2=20 Nxg3 21.Bxb2 Bxf2+ 22.Kxf2 Ngh5 23.h3 Rd8<BR >> 24.g4 Nf4 25.Ne4 N4d5 = 26.c4=20 Kf8 27.Nxf6 Nxf6 28.Bxf6 Bd7 29.Bd5<BR >> Be6 30.Bxe6 Rxd3 31.g7+ = 1-0<BR >>=20 </FONT ></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57F6F.8272DBB0--
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2005 05:15:02
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: My Trusty Damiano's Defense Fails
|
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 01:35:33 -0600, "phillip" <[email protected] > wrote: >http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm > >Damiano Defense Stats --- White Win %82 Black Win %15 Draw %3 Statistics are no replacement for analysis. -- King's Gambit - http://kingsgambit.blogspot.com Chess problems, tactics, analysis and more.
|
|