User talk:Volunteer Marek/Chess

Nimzowitsch himself analysed this for about 17 or 18 moves. See Kosteniuk-Bebchuk. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kosteniuk-Bebchuk: 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Ne2 e6 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h5 7.Be2 Be7 8.Bxh5 Bxh5 9.Nxh5 g6 10.Nf4 Rxh4 11.Rxh4 Bxh4 12.Qd3 Nge7! (setting a trap) 13.g3 (entering it) 13...Nf5! 14.gxh4 Nfxd4 15.Na3 Qxh4 16.Qh3 Qg5 (Nimzowitsch analysed 17.Qh8+ Kd7 18.Qxa8 Qg1+ 19.Kd2 Qxf2+ 20.Kc3 Nb3 and Black wins, although 20...Nf3!! as found by Kosteniuk is much stronger; Spielmann in 1920 chose 17.Be3? and lost) 17.Nd3!! ½-½ (draw, because this was a blitz game and she was running out of time, but Bebchuk speculates that she would not have accepted the draw if she had had more time). Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had it all worked out, but now I forgot it all.VolunteerMarek 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. (Sorry, this wasn't deliberate stalling – I was forced to revert quite a lot of vandalism, by a remarkably persistent user...) Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, now I just got to think through it all again. It's good for the mind.VolunteerMarek 19:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure 24...f5 was not best. I was expecting 24...Nc6 to stop 25.Ne5, and I was going to play 25.h4 in response. In the game, there was a nice mate after 26...h5? (to parry the threat of 27.Qh5+ g6 28.Nf6#) 27.Qxh5+!. And if 29...Qe4 had been played I could've repeated moves with 30.Qh5+ Qg6 31.Qe5 (30...Ng6 looks worse after 31.Bd4 threatening 32.Ne5), but I was actually looking at sacking more with 30.Nf6+ gxf6 31.Qxf6 when my bishop's hanging with check but I'm also threatening 32.Qf7# and 32.Qxh8. It looked interesting... (probably crap though) Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]