Not bad. Alot of temporary piece sacrifices
I think this qualifies as a wild game: lots of sacking.
Sort:
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
it doesnt look sound though
weird that the names of the players almost look like timann and yasser
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
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.
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
then its really an awesome game
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
wow... so this is what happens when Tal plays himself.
lol this was so weird...
im thinking to myself everymove "why didn't he take that"
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.
Wow... 
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?
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.
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!
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.