Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:52 pm Post subject: 58 Years Waiting to be Refuted.

By chance happened upon the game that won the
Brilliancy Prize in the 1953 Irish Championship.

Murphy - Turner

Black to play. (He was mated 5 moves later.)

Cracking game, solution and the full game here.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread.php?blogpostid=63

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:32 am Post subject:

Does it start with Qf3? I can't see any other way to prevent mate.

George Murphy · Knight Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 19 Location: Cardross

Geoff

Stunning transformation - then and now. But, eerily reminiscent of Kafka’s Metamurphysis, don’t you think?

Creepy…

George

PS You’re a real treasure yourself, never mind all these nuggets you keep turning up.

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:30 pm Post subject:

I still don't really get it. How is Qxg2 any good? What's wrong with my suggestion of Qf3?

26. --- Qf3
27. gxf3 d6
28. f4 Bg4

... and isn't black even winning? Confused

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am Post subject:

After 26...Qxg2+ Black was praying for:

27.Kxg2 h3+
28.Kxh3 d5+

When it gets all messed up.

The notes in Chess Review from 1954 go overboard with 24.Rh4+
and I looked at following issues.
No one appears to have spotted the 26..Qf3 idea.

The type of move you will see if shown a diagram and
asked 'What's the move'. But OTB and even noting up the
games for publication can very easily be missed.
As was the case here, Black missed it OTB, the lad who annotated
the game in 1954 missed it, (so did the readers).
I missed it in 2011 playing over the game.

Fritz saw it as a defensive resource ages before the position appeared.

One lesson here is, if you use a box to look at your games
or prepare an opening and Fritz says the position is = it's assessment
may be based on you having to find a move like Qf3 OTB
in 10 or 11 moves time.

The funny thing is I was messing about trying to
to get a Barnes - Morphy finish and switched on Fritz
as it can spot a mate in 8-9 moves very quickly.

It threw out Barnes - Morphy and found Paulsen - Morphy instead.

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

I am shocked and horrified. Everything I hold dear has been cast asunder. Geoff Chandler uses a computer with chess databases and Fritz!!!!

The scoundrel! The charlatan!

I demand that he be stripped of his ‘Player of the Year’ title and have it replaced by a ‘Box of the Year’ award.

My belief in humanity has been shattered.

AMcHarg · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject:

I haven't used an engine on this one, admitedly only because my computer blew up last week and after fixing it I haven't installed Fritz again. Is Qf3 sound? I didn't look at it in a huge amount of detail but my initial instinct was that it's the only move that can be played that isn't obviously losing (at least not obviously to me).

Cool

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:58 pm Post subject:

"My belief in humanity has been shattered."

My belief in chess was shattered.

I spent a while tossing bits about on a board trying to sac
a Bishop or at least line line them up as in the final postion
in Barnes - Morphy. The Qf3 idea simply passed me by.

I was wanting to force in link between Morphy and Murphy.

So I fired up the big 'F' because it does sometimes find nifty mates
if you make some random moves in positions like this or force
it to play blunders so it can show what it usually hides.

When it said no mate and a small White or Black plus
I thought the thing had gone bonkers.
(or I had put in the wrong position, that's happened in the past).

But when it showed me Paulsen - Morphy instead.
I knew at long last the thing had come around to my way of thinking.

The Paulsen - Morphy afer 17....Qxf3.

After 18.gxf3 The Rooks and Bishop come in and mate the King.
(Though PCM missed the really beautiful mate).

I could have said I found Qf3 in the first game but nobody would believe me. Smile

Graham Morrison

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject:

Hi Graham.

Of course I am not familiar the Jacob Book though Keith showed
me a position from his copy where a totally lost and resigned position
was turned around by the computer.

Not bought a new book for ages, need to wait till appears in a junk shop Wink

Neither do any of the 400+ viewers who looked at the Blog to date have a copy.
(or as is the norm with chess players, perhaps a lot of them have a copy but not read it!).

It's only been up a few days so give them time.

Glad to see 4 out of 8 missed it.
(Ah but did any see the Morphy links - me and my new pal did,) Smile

So someone must have spotted the shot earlier and put it in another publication.
Or did Jacob himself spot it. Big credo's to him if he was first.

I was thinking about the reason why it was missed back then
(by quite a few people including the lads who judged the best game).

Today it is seen (although a hint is given there is something on -
I perhaps felt it, because I knew something was in there. I got a itch.)

Is it these days players are use to seeing 'odd' defensive moves
thrown up by computers and so start looking for them.

So the box is helping players to look for 'odd' moves when defending.
(.....they are starting to think like computers) Smile

Excellent reply Graham. Cheers.
(Good to see some Chess being discussed on this forum.)

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject:

Jacob has been in touch.

He spotted the flaw when studying '1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate'
by Fred Reinfeld.

(The good players actually read their chess books....So that is the secret.)

Updated the whole tale on the next blobby thingy.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread.php?blogpostid=64