october 19 2010
the Master Greffier was absent. Now retired on his land, he is currently a victim of the scarcity of stagecoaches combined with the strike of the picotin distributors.
Unable to match the master, we will do our best without ambition.
Note to Remy: this email is indeed addressed to your usual list, but in CCI.
Once again, the session boasted a large and quality audience, which was unhoped for given the circumstances described above. In particular, we welcome the return of the great Ricou, information that can only delight his many admirers who have been without news for too long.
To begin with, a word about the great Bernhard Horwitz (for once not Klingant), a well-known composer of etudes who reached the rank of third player in the world, which is less well known. He lost a match against Staunton, losing 14 times, but still winning 7 times.
The saboteurs of the SNCF (a dwarfed sect of screwballs) and the RATP (an aberrant collection of putrid freaks) seemed to have made a mistake in their calendar of sinister deeds, programming the paralysis, against all odds, between two Saint-Lazare yards. But this was to overestimate them. Their malfeasance did not fail to manifest itself today, as is only natural.
Three helpmates, including a rather tough 3#, and by contrast a childish 6# and 7.5#. Will you find the 2# obvious or... intractable? A tribute to Andrei Lobussov who has passed away: four superb 3#s, one of which is a cyclic, posthumously dedicated to the writer Vladimir Nabokov. Which one is it? Finally a fascinating long problem and a superb selfmate by the irreplaceable Gamnitzer.
A Q+B/Q simpler than those of Vandiest. A magnificent Latvian find with an extreme "zugzwang" and above all, a very rare case, seven unique moves in a row not to lose! Finally a curious rescue from the great fortress specialist.
A world champion plays well even when he plays badly. More precisely, even when he is not in dazzling form, he instinctively plays good moves but, finding himself on a bad day, does not live up to the excellent moves he has played and the complex position he has achieved. An example that even abuses the winner, and commentator, of the game.
See you, God willing, in a fortnight time, on 2 November.
Have a good time.
Spassky being not just anyone, he had to be creative ... which he did six moves later.
Answer: capture Bd5, then play Bb5 and go after d4. 14:..a6; 15:Bxb7 Ra7!; 16:Bd5 Bb5 (e6 immediately seems more accurate) 17:a4 Be2; 18:Qe2 e6. W's can stay with a slight advantage after 19:Bc4 Bd4; 20:Rfd1 Be3; 21:Qe3 Rd7; 22:Be2 Re1; 23:Re1 Qc8.
But here Spassky (to whom we wish all the best) showed a beautiful creativity. 19:Bxe6. Note that a priori the continuation is not necessarily impressive, and I even suggested it in view of 19:...fxe; 20:d5 attacking Ra7 followed by Bb6 attacking D and Na5. I won't say "the difference between Spassky and me ...", but ONE difference between Spassky and me is that I didn't see when I suggested Bxe6 that the Q could defend Na5 by a check threat on c5 while he did.
and lost after 20 endgame moves (which were not discussed in the meeting).
What to play: 33:Rb1! Nxg2; 34:Qg4! (and not Kxg2, which lost narrowly and in a nice way).
Then followed an analysis of the Master of more than 20 moves which was quite convincing but in the notation of which I got stuck.
And now, the full report of the Master having arrived in my box, here it is with its electronic attachment.
Add a comment