Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 2051 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #241 - 09/19/11 at 22:10:39
Post Tools
This, I hope, is the last we will hear of the Monson-Morss "game."  No one is going to change his views, so what, really, is the point? 

I do not think Bruce is to be criticised for anything he has said so far.  We merely disagree somewhat.  He certainly was not remiss in posting when he noticed this thread.

In any case, will delete forthwith anything more about Monson-Morss that doesn't concern the 64 squares.  This place is for chess, not airing old grievances; asking for apologies for them; or taking those who post here for not being quite as nice as they should have been.

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #240 - 09/19/11 at 18:41:33
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 09/17/11 at 17:44:47:
Monson's post must be one of the silliest misunderstandings caused by bad reading I ever met:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:
[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]


He might even have concluded that I did not exactly mean what he suggests I meant. At least Sandman understood:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:41:03:
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.


So to make very sure that everybody understands what I meant: I am suspicious that that game is real - the question Sandman asked.
If Monson and Morss are the same person is something I cannot say with any probability. If they are the game is highly probably fake. If they aren't - well, I doubt if one played for Hungary and the other for Rumania ánd that they played each other for those teams, but call me paranoid if you like.

Edit: I was suspicious about the game, as I had forgotten about Markovich' explanation, just like I had forgotten about the whole game. Funny that Monson brings everything back in memory by apologizing for causing eventual embarrassment everybody had forgotten ....


Once more, blatant misrepresentation from people causes the discussion to be extended.  I am certainly not 'apologizing' to Mark because I think there was anything wrong with our game situation.  I apologized because apparently someone else took the information and used it in a way never intended by me. 

This has likewise happened to me (IMs and others quoting from my book or website incorrectly and mucking things up, rather than just contacting me directly if they have a question on the Belgrade Gambit).  I haven't received any apologies for that, but whatever.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: C47: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #239 - 09/17/11 at 22:05:39
Post Tools
Hi Bruce!

Nice to hear from you, My assumption has alway been that you had the cruncheroo prepared when you offered to play a game in that line, and I doubt if you could convince me otherwise. Since we were engaged in a discussion of a position at move 23 (among many other positions we discussed at length), I think that a more polite way of pointing out that Black was lost in the disputed position would have been to say why. 

But it means very little to me now, and I only posted because someone doubted that it was a real game and I thought the story was funny.  It's not like I wouldn't shake your hand or anything. Quite the contrary.  I'd love to split a beer with you sometime, or if you don't drink, a lemonade or something.

It's funny how chess games get passed around and loaded up with garbled info.  I wonder who put "Hungary" and "Romania" as our nationalities?
« Last Edit: 09/18/11 at 02:17:50 by Markovich »  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #238 - 09/17/11 at 20:05:37
Post Tools
quote:

"On correspondencechess.com I said that if you and your honey are strolling along the carnival midway some evening, munching on popcorn and listening to the calliope, and you see Monson in a booth, grinning demonically over a chess position and offering you a chance to play Black's side of it, walk on."

wow
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #237 - 09/17/11 at 19:57:41
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 09/17/11 at 17:44:47:
Monson's post must be one of the silliest misunderstandings caused by bad reading I ever met:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:
[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]


He might even have concluded that I did not exactly mean what he suggests I meant. At least Sandman understood:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:41:03:
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.


So to make very sure that everybody understands what I meant: I am suspicious that that game is real - the question Sandman asked.
If Monson and Morss are the same person is something I cannot say with any probability. If they are the game is highly probably fake. If they aren't - well, I doubt if one played for Hungary and the other for Rumania ánd that they played each other for those teams, but call me paranoid if you like.



UM .... what?!! 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #236 - 09/17/11 at 18:16:24
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 01/12/11 at 14:18:27:
Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:
Hey,

I found this Belgrade game in my database and was curious if it is an actual game or an "engineered" fake by someone. I hope Bruce or Markovich can verify it's validity or if they do not see this perhaps someone else can comment.


[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Monson Bruce"]
[Black "Morss Mark F"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C47l"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2007.04.15"]
[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bc5 8.Nb3 Bb6 9.d6 O-O 10.Qf3 Qe8+ 11.Be2 Ne4 12.Bf4 Bxf2+ 13.Kf1 Bb6 14.Re1 f5 15.Bc4+ Kh8 16.Bd5 cxd6 17.h4 Qg6 18.h5 Qf6 19.c3 Bc5 20.g4 b6 21.Nxc5 bxc5 22.gxf5 Qxf5 23.Bxa8 Qxf4 24.Qxf4 Rxf4+ 25.Kg2 Nf6 26.Re7 1-0


Thanks


I wrote about this on correspondencechess.com, back in the days when I was still active there.  The actual game began on White's 19th, ended after White's 20th, and was part of a lengthy email discussion between me and Monson in which, for the sake of argument, I upheld Black's chances after 9.d6.  From my point of view it was a purely hypothetical dispute.  The conversation was entirely polite, but I think that Monson may eventually have grown somewhat annoyed that I kept saying that Black was O.K.. 

So we're up to, as I recall, 18...Qf6 in our disputations, I say "Black is O.K." and Monson says, "How would you like to play a game from this position?"  I agree, and he sends 19.c3, I reply 19...Bc5, and he uncorks 20.g4!.  I then resign, since not having seen this strong move earlier, it's clear that I've underestimated White's chances.  I don't think much about it, except that it's a strange way for Monson to show me 20.g4!. 

So I was suprised to see later that Monson had published the game, such as it was, on his website, larded with lengthy analysis after 20.g4!.  Reading it would've been a little like sitting in post-mortem with the guy who spends several minutes showing you exactly how brilliant his winning idea was.  But having already understood the strength of Monsons' move, I didn't read further.  Monson did report my resignation on the correct move.  I don't recall whether he bothered to say that the actual game had begun on move 19. Someone has evidently copied some of his analysis into the quoted pgn, but the score as quoted is false. 

On one hand it was a little amusing, but on the other a little unkindly, that Monson took what was essentially an offhand training exercise between chessfriends and presented it as him removing my scalp in an serious CC game.  In discussing my resignation at move 20, Monson said something like "Early resignations are common in CC, where players often carry the burden of many games."  True enough, but it fostered the false impression that this was a formal CC game. In such game, I almost certainly would not have adopted this way of replying to the Belgrade, and if I had, I would like to think that I'd have applied myself a little harder around moves 15-18 and not fallen into Monson's 20.g4! idea.  But I did agree to a game, and Monson won, so there it is.

Having made a favorable impression on many people with Hard Chess, I later discovered that my defeats tended to show up in print with rather rather suprising regularity.  I suppose that people thought that it was neat to have the scalp of a celebrity, albeit a very minor one, though in fact I am a rather middling player whether of CC or OTB.  

Monson is a strong player, and he might well beat me if we ever played a proper CC or OTB game. Or perhaps I might beat him.

On correspondencechess.com I said that if you and your honey are strolling along the carnival midway some evening, munching on popcorn and listening to the calliope, and you see Monson in a booth, grinning demonically over a chess position and offering you a chance to play Black's side of it, walk on.

Here is a corrected score if anyone's interested:

[Event "Training game"]
[Site "email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Monson Bruce"]
[Black "Morss Mark F"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C47l"]
[EventDate "1998.??.??"]
[Source "Morss, Mark F."]
[SourceDate "2011.01.11"]
[PlyCount "3"]
[FEN "r1b2r1k/pp1p2pp/1b1p1q2/3B1p1P/4nB2/1N3Q2/PPP3P1/4RK1R w - - 1 19"]

{The game commenced at the position arising from 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 Nb4 6.Nxd4 Nbxd5 7.exd5 Bc5 8.Nb3 Bb6 9.d6 O-O 10.Qf3 Qe8+ 11.Be2 Ne4 12.Bf4 Bxf2+ 13.Kf1 Bb6 14.Re1 f5 15.Bc4+ Kh8 16.Bd5 cxd6 17.h4 Qg6 18.h5 Qf6 - Morss} 19.c3 Bc5 20.g4 {20...b6 21.Nxc5 bxc5 22.gxf5 Qxf5 23.Bxa8 Qxf4 24.Qxf4 Rxf4+ 25.Kg2 Nf6 26.Re7 - Monson} 1-0


First, I wasn't aware that Markovich was Morss.  Hi Mark!  It's been a long time!

Second, whatever assumptions of nefarious intent being levied here are clearly overblown.  My memory is a little faded on this whole encounter, but Mark's coverage seems pretty close to how things transpired. 

As I recall I did post the score (with the full explanation of the circumstances) on my Belgrade Gambit website at the time it happened, not on some other website at some future date, or as a compilation of "Bruce's Greatest Games and Genius Combinations and Awe-inspiring Attacks."  Anyone who went to the site back then will recall that I posted all of the games and analysis I was working on, particularly in newly developing theoretical lines as this variation was (and is). 

In fact, on my website I ran my own correspondence tournaments.  These were not rated and they were not sanctioned by any national or international correspondence bodies.  It was just Belgrade Gambit Theoretical Tournaments.  I also did individual games with people who would write in to me to "challenge me" in some critical line, usually after putting a position into their computer program and seeing it register a winning position for black.

There was certainly no hidden agenda or some other attempt to embarrass Mark with this 'game'; it was simply another theoretical game that was used as a tool for testing theory.  There was very good reasons for using a game format rather than just continuing discussions ad infinitum.  When people are playing they will place more focus on the position rather than just throwing out variations.  Some of the best innovations in the BG were in fact discovered in these "theoretical games" that were done on my website.

I might also add that I also published those games where I lost.  But I didn't discount the 'game' simply because the critical stage of the game started on move 23!  Hell, look at modern Super GM tournaments.  Those guys don't even start playing until they're 20-30 moves in sometimes and they rattle off moves at lightning speed just to get to the 'theoretical debate'.  Frankly, I don't see much difference here other than my games were always friendly. 

But I certainly don't want any hard feelings from people I view as friends.  So, Mark, if you feel in any way sleighted over all of this then I apologize.  It certainly wasn't my intent.

Incidentally, in one of the recently published Four Knights books I found it interesting that the ONLY game the guy used of mine was one where he did something similar.  He took a game I had played in one of my theory tournaments but inexplicably used one of the variations I listed as the main line and showed me actually losing the game! 

My email is out there.  Anyone writing on the Belgrade Gambit for one of their books is welcome to talk with me about anything and I'll be forthcoming.  Even if you disagree you'd think it prudent to at least contact me.  But no one ever does.  They just publish the same old stuff recycled material over and over again, mistakes and all.

Cheers, 

Bruce Monson
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 9990
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #235 - 09/17/11 at 17:44:47
Post Tools
Monson's post must be one of the silliest misunderstandings caused by bad reading I ever met:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 17:00:36:
[WhiteTeam "Romania"]
[BlackTeam "Hungary"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ROM"]
[BlackTeamCountry "HUN"]


He might even have concluded that I did not exactly mean what he suggests I meant. At least Sandman understood:

Sandman wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:41:03:
Me too, MNb.  It really struck me as rather odd so I thought I'd ask.


So to make very sure that everybody understands what I meant: I am suspicious that that game is real - the question Sandman asked.
If Monson and Morss are the same person is something I cannot say with any probability. If they are the game is highly probably fake. If they aren't - well, I doubt if one played for Hungary and the other for Rumania ánd that they played each other for those teams, but call me paranoid if you like.

Edit: I was suspicious about the game, as I had forgotten about Markovich' explanation, just like I had forgotten about the whole game. Funny that Monson brings everything back in memory by apologizing for causing eventual embarrassment everybody had forgotten ....
« Last Edit: 09/17/11 at 22:47:51 by MNb »  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
bamonson
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 31
Location: Colorado
Joined: 07/25/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #234 - 09/17/11 at 17:26:38
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/11/11 at 20:35:59:
As Monson and Morkovich both are American I am a bit suspicious.


That has to be one of the silliest conclusions I've ever heard.  Two people happen to be American is ground for 'suspicion' of their being the same person?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 578
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #233 - 06/05/11 at 13:04:04
Post Tools
I entirely agree with Markovich - after his line white is clearly better and black will struggle to survive.

Further, since 7...d3 is still considered very testing for white (possibly one of the few lines that could conceivably refute the gambit), I don't see why black would look for deviations? If he plays 5...Nxe4 he will no doubt have invested the time needed to look at the main line - as much as I love this gambit for white, I always secretly sighed in relief when my opponents avoided this and played the "safe" 5...Be7 (which I have a huge plus score with still).

A very nice try though, keep on looking for ways to save black Wink
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #232 - 05/30/11 at 17:07:46
Post Tools
robl wrote on 05/25/11 at 18:42:11:
In the main line with 5....Nxe4, 7....Be7 is considered bad (actually losing) after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxe4 6. Qe2 f5 7. Ng5 Be7 8. Nxe4 fxe4 9. Qxe4 O-O 10. Bd3 g6 11 Bh6 Re8 12 0-0

However my computer plays the non-intuitive 11 ...Rf7!
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
Yes 12 Bc4 looks obvious but fire up your computer and try to win (or even draw). Black plans a timely Bf8 and Kh8. Any ideas for White?


12.h4 d6 (12...Bb4+ 13.Kd1 d6 14.Bc4 Bf4 15.Qe2 is no good for Black) 13.Bc4 Kh8 (13...Bf5 14.Nxe7 and Black will have scant comp for his exchange) 14.O-O-O appears to be quite good for White.  He has all the time in the world to attack Black's king.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
robl
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 01/14/07
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #231 - 05/25/11 at 18:42:11
Post Tools
In the main line with 5....Nxe4, 7....Be7 is considered bad (actually losing) after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxe4 6. Qe2 f5 7. Ng5 Be7 8. Nxe4 fxe4 9. Qxe4 O-O 10. Bd3 g6 11 Bh6 Re8 12 0-0

However my computer plays the non-intuitive 11 ...Rf7!
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*
Yes 12 Bc4 looks obvious but fire up your computer and try to win (or even draw). Black plans a timely Bf8 and Kh8. Any ideas for White?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
elmudo
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2
Joined: 07/17/09
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #230 - 01/30/11 at 11:22:32
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 01/17/11 at 20:41:11:
but my cojones are not that big these days...


Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Sorry, but as a Spaniard I find that expression in the mouth of an English speaker extremely funny!!

Now seriously: does Monson have a new website on the Belgrade, or you're referring to his former one (long time defunct)?

Best regards,
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 578
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #229 - 01/17/11 at 20:41:11
Post Tools
I came out of a one-year retirement from active chess this weekend to participate in the 4NCL... my first game, as blackk, and guess what is thrown at me? (Via a 1...Nf6 move order, I should say)

Anyway, suffice it to say I remembered very little of any of this, having barely looked at a board in so long. So, I did the sensible thing, and played 5...Nxe4 - backing myself and not being a coward after the strong words.

Anyway, 6.Bc4 Be7 7.Qe2 Nc5 8.Bg5 Ne6 9.Nxe7 Nxe7 was the continuation, after which my opponent deviated from the usual 10.Bxe6 and instead preferred a quieter continuation with 10.O-O d5!? 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 (I did sit there for some time trying to make 11...Kxe7 work, but my cojones are not that big these days...) 12.Bxd5 O-O 13.Kb1?! c5 and after a few complications we eventually reached a peaceful conclusion - I would say white does not have enough for his pawn in this position, though he clearly does have play with moves such as c3 and Ng5 in some lines. On the other hand, discussions a while back centered on the far more critical lines after 10.Bxe6, where the onus was on both sides to prove something - my gut feeling was that white had at least enough, whereas Markovich and others felt black was at least equal and possibly more so. Still, it's an interesting open game in a non-theoretical position with chances for both sides - at the sub-2200 level I don't think you can ask for much more as white.

It may not be of any interest to anyone, but since the thread was still active and I'm back on the scene, I thought it might interest someone to see how I handle the black side. I maintain that 5...Nxe4 is the only critical move (though in a 4NCL game a few years back I did record a 9 move win in the 5...Nb4 line  Grin)
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Sandman
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 78
Joined: 05/10/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #228 - 01/14/11 at 00:17:22
Post Tools
Thank you Mark for clearing that up. Due to the "teams and countries" I thought it perhaps a fake especially since I didn't think you'd play the black side of the belgrade. I'm glad I asked and glad you took the time to clear it up.

Thanks
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Belgrade Gambit
Reply #227 - 01/13/11 at 22:04:26
Post Tools
bump
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board  ^Top