Latest Updates:
Normal Topic C29: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis (Read 5337 times)
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
Reply #6 - 03/03/11 at 16:33:25
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/03/11 at 12:18:37:
George Jempty wrote on 03/03/11 at 11:59:48:
TalJechin wrote on 03/01/11 at 11:38:09:
The same faulty line is repeated in 3 different editions of Keres' Sportverlag books on the open games, all pointing out the threat of mate on h4. In the oldest he mentions the Alekhine game later, and in a later one Kmoch comes up in another side note.

It sounds plausible that it originated with Alekhine (but Keres doesn't attribute it to him, which might indicate that it's own analysis or that it's such an obvious line that anyone would find it...), and since White is supposed to be better anyway after d4 or h4 instead of Qb5+, no one may have thought twice about re-checking this sideline.

Btw, 9...Qh4+ (instead of ...Bxf3) looks kinda scary after 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ 12.Kxf3 Bxd4 so, at least OTB I'd prefer d4 or h4.


Yes I agree 9...Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ looks scary for OTB though my engine thinks White is winning handily.  For the faint of heart (myself perhaps included Wink a path to an edge may still exist for White by 10. Kd1 Bxf3+ 11. Be2 Bxh1 12. Qxa8 Qd8 13. Qxa7 d4 (otherwise White's impending d4 cements his advantage) and either 14. Na4 or 14. Bc4 and 15. Ne2


meh 10. Ke2 Bc5 11. fxg4 and White has sufficient tactical resources to stave off Black and wind up with a winning edge, e.g. 11...Qf2+  12. Kd1 Qf3+  13. Ne2 Qxh1  14. Ng3 threatening Black's Qh1 as well as 15. Qc8+ Ke7  16. Nf5 mate


But instead of 13...Qxh1?? Black has 13...0-0! with serious compensation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
Reply #5 - 03/03/11 at 12:18:37
Post Tools
George Jempty wrote on 03/03/11 at 11:59:48:
TalJechin wrote on 03/01/11 at 11:38:09:
The same faulty line is repeated in 3 different editions of Keres' Sportverlag books on the open games, all pointing out the threat of mate on h4. In the oldest he mentions the Alekhine game later, and in a later one Kmoch comes up in another side note.

It sounds plausible that it originated with Alekhine (but Keres doesn't attribute it to him, which might indicate that it's own analysis or that it's such an obvious line that anyone would find it...), and since White is supposed to be better anyway after d4 or h4 instead of Qb5+, no one may have thought twice about re-checking this sideline.

Btw, 9...Qh4+ (instead of ...Bxf3) looks kinda scary after 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ 12.Kxf3 Bxd4 so, at least OTB I'd prefer d4 or h4.


Yes I agree 9...Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ looks scary for OTB though my engine thinks White is winning handily.  For the faint of heart (myself perhaps included Wink a path to an edge may still exist for White by 10. Kd1 Bxf3+ 11. Be2 Bxh1 12. Qxa8 Qd8 13. Qxa7 d4 (otherwise White's impending d4 cements his advantage) and either 14. Na4 or 14. Bc4 and 15. Ne2


meh 10. Ke2 Bc5 11. fxg4 and White has sufficient tactical resources to stave off Black and wind up with a winning edge, e.g. 11...Qf2+  12. Kd1 Qf3+  13. Ne2 Qxh1  14. Ng3 threatening Black's Qh1 as well as 15. Qc8+ Ke7  16. Nf5 mate
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
Reply #4 - 03/03/11 at 11:59:48
Post Tools
TalJechin wrote on 03/01/11 at 11:38:09:
The same faulty line is repeated in 3 different editions of Keres' Sportverlag books on the open games, all pointing out the threat of mate on h4. In the oldest he mentions the Alekhine game later, and in a later one Kmoch comes up in another side note.

It sounds plausible that it originated with Alekhine (but Keres doesn't attribute it to him, which might indicate that it's own analysis or that it's such an obvious line that anyone would find it...), and since White is supposed to be better anyway after d4 or h4 instead of Qb5+, no one may have thought twice about re-checking this sideline.

Btw, 9...Qh4+ (instead of ...Bxf3) looks kinda scary after 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ 12.Kxf3 Bxd4 so, at least OTB I'd prefer d4 or h4.


Yes I agree 9...Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ looks scary for OTB though my engine thinks White is winning handily.  For the faint of heart (myself perhaps included Wink a path to an edge may still exist for White by 10. Kd1 Bxf3+ 11. Be2 Bxh1 12. Qxa8 Qd8 13. Qxa7 d4 (otherwise White's impending d4 cements his advantage) and either 14. Na4 or 14. Bc4 and 15. Ne2
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TalJechin
God Member
*****
Offline


There is no secret ingredient.

Posts: 2892
Location: Malmö
Joined: 08/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
Reply #3 - 03/01/11 at 11:38:09
Post Tools
The same faulty line is repeated in 3 different editions of Keres' Sportverlag books on the open games, all pointing out the threat of mate on h4. In the oldest he mentions the Alekhine game later, and in a later one Kmoch comes up in another side note.

It sounds plausible that it originated with Alekhine (but Keres doesn't attribute it to him, which might indicate that it's own analysis or that it's such an obvious line that anyone would find it...), and since White is supposed to be better anyway after d4 or h4 instead of Qb5+, no one may have thought twice about re-checking this sideline.

Btw, 9...Qh4+ (instead of ...Bxf3) looks kinda scary after 10.Ke2 Bc5 11.d4 Bxf3+ 12.Kxf3 Bxd4 so, at least OTB I'd prefer d4 or h4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
Reply #2 - 03/01/11 at 00:10:50
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 02/28/11 at 23:30:46:
My sources (Pachman plus Tseitlin/Glaskov) don't mention 7.Qb5+ at all. I have written 7.Qb5+ .... 10.Rg1 Nbd7 11.d4 in the margin, but have no idea of the source. It's certainly not original.
You might consult Harding's book on the Vienna from the early 70's. Unfortunately I only own the twinbrother on the Bishop's Game.
Pachman in his 1980 book Moderne Schachtheorie 1.Offene Spiele gives
Quote:
6.Qe2! Nxc3 (Oder Ng5 7.h4 Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 Be6 9.d4 Nc6 10.Be3 Be7 = but not 9.Qb5+ Nd7 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qc6 Rb6 12.Qa4 Be7 -+) .......... (analysis)

which implies this is his own work.


Forgive my hubris but 10. Rg1 and 11. d4 could well be my own analysis you somehow came across.  I published this 12 years ago at http://web.archive.org/web/19990505014052/www.maxpages.com/cornbeltchess/vienna

I now believe 11. Rg3! is even stronger than 11. d4

The Pachman line you cite with 7. h4 and 9. Qb5+ has some similarities but is by no mean exactly the same as the 7. Qb5+ line.  But Pachman could well have opined about 7. Qb5 elsewhere and therefore cannot be ruled out as a possible source and would not be un-surprising to me by any means.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10487
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
Reply #1 - 02/28/11 at 23:30:46
Post Tools
My sources (Pachman plus Tseitlin/Glaskov) don't mention 7.Qb5+ at all. I have written 7.Qb5+ .... 10.Rg1 Nbd7 11.d4 in the margin, but have no idea of the source. It's certainly not original.
You might consult Harding's book on the Vienna from the early 70's. Unfortunately I only own the twinbrother on the Bishop's Game.
Pachman in his 1980 book Moderne Schachtheorie 1.Offene Spiele gives
Quote:
6.Qe2! Nxc3 (Oder Ng5 7.h4 Nxf3+ 8.gxf3 Be6 9.d4 Nc6 10.Be3 Be7 = but not 9.Qb5+ Nd7 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qc6 Rb6 12.Qa4 Be7 -+) .......... (analysis)

which implies this is his own work.
  

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
 
George Jempty
Full Member
***
Offline


Participant 1996 US Corres.
Champ. Qualifying Rd.

Posts: 201
Location: Carrollton, TX
Joined: 03/29/09
Gender: Male
C29: Origin of faulty Vienna analysis
02/28/11 at 23:13:52
Post Tools
I've seen some faulty analysis repeated across a number of sources, including Harding during the 70s (if I recall correctly, otherwise apologies) and DeFirmian just 10-12 years ago or so, though he has since removed it from more recent editions of MCO.

The line begins 1. e4 e5  2. Nc3 Nf6  3. f4 d5  4. fxe5 Nxe4  5. Nf3 Bg4  6. Qe2 Ng5, when 7. Qb5+ is given a question mark based on 7...c6  8. Qxb7 Nxf3+  9. gxf3 Bxf3 which is where the analysis stopped, presumably because Black threatens both ...Bxh1 and ...Qh4+

In a tournament in the early 90s though I played 10. Rg1 and later in the decade showed this to Bruce Pandolfini when he visited the Omaha chess club and he agreed that any analysis that ended with 9...Bxf3 was deficient in having missed the 10. Rg1 resource for White.

I actually believe 10. Rg1 is quite good for White, for instance 10....Nbd7  11. d4 or better yet 11. Rg3.  But that is beside the point; rather I'm curious if anybody knows the origin of this analysis. 

I have a theory, though its pure conjecture, and that is that the analysis possibly originates with Alekhine, considering that he played and lost with 7. h4 in a 1921 consultation game vs. Rotenstein/Wagner.  Alekhine being the source of the analysis would explain why it got copied un-challenged for decades.

What would seem inexplicable though is that Alekhine would be capable of such an incorrect conclusion, missing the 10. Rg1 resource for White.  However, I have a couple of theories about this too, though again, pure conjecture:

One, I've heard that Alekhine actually published a fair share of inaccurate analysis; I've even heard he was suspected of dashing off such shoddy work when inebriated?

Two, possibly Alekhine was trying to entice somebody into trying 6...Ng5? (my evaluation: based on general principles, Black having moved the same knight thrice, and analysis, namely 10. Rg1 Nbd7  11. Rg3) against him again, realizing that White has a fine game after 10. Rg1

In any event, since this is mere conjecture, I'd be very curious if anybody has some solid information about this particular piece of analysis.  Perhaps somebody with an Alekhine games collection with analysis of the consultation game where he played 7. h4.  Or somebody with other sources with the same flawed analysis dating back to earlier than the 70s, which, again if I recall correctly, was when I first encountered this material.

Thanks in advance
« Last Edit: 07/19/11 at 13:47:13 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo