Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

I think this qualifies as a wild game: lots of sacking.


  • 16 months ago · Quote · #1

    InfiniteFlash

    Here is a crazy game no one has ever talked about. It happened about a a decade and a half ago. The evaluation is probably changing every move...as I feel like when I was going through this game, I was unable to figure out much of what was going on hehehe.

    Post key lines if you wish.



  • 16 months ago · Quote · #2

    ViktorHNielsen

    Not bad. Alot of temporary piece sacrifices

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #3

    Cogwheel

    "it happened around 30 years ago"

    Says 1998? That's 14-15 years ago.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #4

    InfiniteFlash

    Cogwheel wrote:

    "it happened around 30 years ago"

    Says 1998? That's 14-15 years ago.

    lol, i thought it was in the 80s rofl, misread which game i was taking from the database.

    im editing the OP

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #5

    Oran_perrett

    that was intense

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #6

    TetsuoShima

    it doesnt look sound though

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #7

    TetsuoShima

    weird that the names of the players almost look like timann and yasser

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #8

    TetsuoShima

    well im probably to weak to judge such a game and im probably missing important points but to me b xf7 looks like a blunder and black would have easily won anyway just by taking the bishop

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #9

    InfiniteFlash

    TetsuoShima wrote:

    well im probably to weak to judge such a game and im probably missing important points but to me b xf7 looks like a blunder and black would have easily won anyway just by taking the bishop

    i think the tactical point is that after bxf7 bxf7 Rf3, black  attacks f7 and a8, and the black queen cant protect both.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #10

    TetsuoShima

    Randomemory wrote:
    TetsuoShima wrote:

    well im probably to weak to judge such a game and im probably missing important points but to me b xf7 looks like a blunder and black would have easily won anyway just by taking the bishop

    i think the tactical point is that after bxf7 bxf7 Rf3, black  attacks f7 and a8, and the black queen cant protect both.

    thank you very much, seems like im getting worse and worse in chess

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #11

    TetsuoShima

    then its really an awesome game

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #12

    JG27Pyth

    Arrrgh... Internet just ate my post with tons of analysis, but anyway: 23.g4! (threatening Qf5# ... but the position hinges on a latent threat of Nf4# -- ...) leads to some very interesting lines... 

    Here's the beginning of the mainline of what I was thinking: 23.g4! Qf8 (only defense I think) 24.Rh7! Ne7 25.Qf5+! Qxf5 (Nxf5 loses instantly) 26.gxf5+ Kxf5

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #13

    falcogrine

    wow... so this is what happens when Tal plays himself.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #14

    Suvel

    lol this was so weird...

    im thinking to myself everymove "why didn't he take that"

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #15

    Oran_perrett

    falcogrine wrote:

    wow... so this is what happens when Tal plays himself.

    +1, made me laugh

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #16

    InfiniteFlash

    yeah, i just checked this with houdini, and my suspicions were right. More than half of the moves after i started the OP diagram/game were blunders.

    SMH, still funny to look over.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #17

    Atomic_Rift

    Wow... Surprised

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #18

    InfiniteCash

    Randomemory wrote:

    yeah, i just checked this with houdini, and my suspicions were right. More than half of the moves after i started the OP diagram/game were blunders.

    SMH, still funny to look over.

    How is it funny to look over if most of the moves were blunders? I could find games that were played by a couple of people rated 500 and there would be as many "sacs" as there were in this game. What is the point of discussing these blunder filed games? Are you going to start discussing games played by 500's next?

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #19

    falcogrine

    Therealbrony wrote:
    Randomemory wrote:

    yeah, i just checked this with houdini, and my suspicions were right. More than half of the moves after i started the OP diagram/game were blunders.

    SMH, still funny to look over.

    How is it funny to look over if most of the moves were blunders? I could find games that were played by a couple of people rated 500 and there would be as many "sacs" as there were in this game. What is the point of discussing these blunder filed games? Are you going to start discussing games played by 500's next?

    I find it a good game to look at, and an instructive game to analyze, with interesting positions. If you don't like this game, stop visiting this thread and start your own. You can post whatever games you like there. 

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #20

    NimzoRoy

    Randomemory wrote:

    yeah, i just checked this with houdini, and my suspicions were right. More than half of the moves after i started the OP diagram/game were blunders.

    I'm kinda curious what were your search parameters?

    falcogrine You made a good point!


Back to Top

Post your reply: