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
Pages: [1] 
C47: The Belgrade Gambit (Read 155503 times)
