Maroczy–Tartakower 1922

[AdminX]

Interesting yet speculative sacrifice from Tartakower. I was not familiar with this game. I own a copy of his classic 500 Master Games of Chess. I wonder if this game is in there. Anyway here is my output on mobile.

[Henk]

What if white plays Nd2xe4 ?

Then doesn't the simple Qh6 work for black? -+

Yes. After that white only has Bg2. But white can still play a game although he is more than one point down. de Qe4 Nf6 Qd3 followed by e4

I think that defense is lost because ...

17. ... Rh2
18. Nxe4 Qh6
19. Bg2 Rg2
20. Kg2 Qh3
21. Kg1 dxe4

Rg2 is worse than de.

Code: Select all

10    0.40   8.484      780610   g1g2 h6h3 g2g1 d5e4 c2e4 d7f6 e4c2 g8g7 c4c5 d6c7
11   -0.14   33.281     2965421   g1g2 h6g6 g2h2 d5e4 d1d2 g6h5 h2g1 h5g6 
12   -0.14   72.668     6502671   g1g2 h6g6 g2h2 d5e4 d1d2 g6h5 h2g1 h5g6 

[AdminX]

What if white plays Nd2xe4 ?

Then doesn't the simple Qh6 work for black? -+

Yes. After that white only has Bg2. But white can still play a game although he is more than one point down. de Qe4 Nf6 Qd3 followed by e4

I think that defense is lost because ...

17. ... Rh2
18. Nxe4 Qh6
19. Bg2 Rg2
20. Kg2 Qh3
21. Kg1 dxe4

Rg2 is worse than de.

Code: Select all

10    0.40   8.484      780610   g1g2 h6h3 g2g1 d5e4 c2e4 d7f6 e4c2 g8g7 c4c5 d6c7
11   -0.14   33.281     2965421   g1g2 h6g6 g2h2 d5e4 d1d2 g6h5 h2g1 h5g6 
12   -0.14   72.668     6502671   g1g2 h6g6 g2h2 d5e4 d1d2 g6h5 h2g1 h5g6 

Really! Hmm ... and here I was thinking my line was more forceful. LOL so much for my brain.

[MikeGL]

Interesting yet speculative sacrifice from Tartakower. I was not familiar with this game. I own a copy of his classic 500 Master Games of Chess. I wonder if this game is in there. Anyway here is my output on mobile.

I have that classic book of Tartakower too.
I remember this game being included on that book. It was written by Tartakower and this game is a classic k-side attack of Tartakower.

[Maarten Claessens]

Interesting yet speculative sacrifice from Tartakower. I was not familiar with this game. I own a copy of his classic 500 Master Games of Chess. I wonder if this game is in there. Anyway here is my output on mobile.

Tartakower analyses the game in another classic: "Die hypermoderne Schachpartie", starting on page 404.

[AdminX]

Interesting yet speculative sacrifice from Tartakower. I was not familiar with this game. I own a copy of his classic 500 Master Games of Chess. I wonder if this game is in there. Anyway here is my output on mobile.

I have that classic book of Tartakower too.
I remember this game being included on that book. It was written by Tartakower and this game is a classic k-side attack of Tartakower.

I found the game on page 556 (Game#429), I will go over Tartakower's analysis later in the day. I guess its time to dust off "Old English Notation"!

PS: There is a Kindle version for $5.69 USD (I might have to pick up the E-version as well)

[Kyodai]

Yes, and tartakower's comments after 17.-Rxh2

'A rare occurrence: a positional sacrifice of a Rook, based on general considerations only,
succeeds because the opposing forces are disorganised. The sacrifice fructifies nineteen moves after its consummation.'

'This break-up sacrifice succeeds only because Black is able for some time to tie up White's relief troops.'

As said Rxh2 followed by Qxf2+ is a /if not standard\ , so at least a seen
and known break through. But sometimes these familiar combinadze fail
due to some specific defensive resources.

The main question is if black wins with 17.-Rxh2 or if white can come up
with some saving resources. Of course when you comment a game won,
to some newspaper, you are sometimes prone to to be slightly biased...

[Eelco de Groot]

In this game Tartakower took on h2 with 17.-Rxh2 - can engine spot
a winning line here - or do white have some resources?

I'm very short of time so just posting the link here - scroll down and you find the game

http://en.chessbase.com/post/teplice-op ... miniscence

[d]r1b3k1/pp1n3p/2pbpq2/3p4/2PPp1p1/PP2P1P1/1BQN1P1r/3RRBK1 w - - 0 18

[pgn]
[Event "4, Teplitz-Schonau it GER"]
[Site "4, Teplitz-Schonau it GER"]
[Date "1922.10.05"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Geza Maroczy"]
[Black "Savielly Tartakower"]
[ECO "A84"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "70"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3 d5
7. Nf3 c6 8. O-O Ne4 9. Qc2 Bd6 10. b3 Nd7 11. Bb2 Rf6
12. Rfe1 Rh6 13. g3 Qf6 14. Bf1 g5 15. Rad1 g4 16. Nxe4 fxe4
17. Nd2 Rxh2 18. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19. Kh1 Nf6 20. Re2 Qxg3 21. Nb1
Nh5 22. Qd2 Bd7 23. Rf2 Qh4+ 24. Kg1 Bg3 25. Bc3 Bxf2+
26. Qxf2 g3 27. Qg2 Rf8 28. Be1 Rxf1+ 29. Kxf1 e5 30. Kg1 Bg4
31. Bxg3 Nxg3 32. Re1 Nf5 33. Qf2 Qg5 34. dxe5 Bf3+ 35. Kf1
Ng3+ 0-1
[/pgn]

Here's what the latest Stockfish gives in reply to Rxh2:

Code: Select all

info depth 47 seldepth 77 multipv 1 score cp -63 nodes 108468977460 nps 24714100 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 4388951 pv g1h2 f6f2 h2h1 d7f6 e1e2 f2g3 c4c5 d6c7 d2c4 g3h4 e2h2 c7h2 c2h2 h4h2 h1h2 d5c4 b3c4 c8d7 f1g2 a8f8 d1b1 h7h5 h2g3 f6e8 g2e4 e8g7 b2a1 d7c8 g3h4 g7f5 e4f5 f8f5 e3e4 f5f4 b1e1 g8f7 h4h5 e6e5 d4e5 g4g3 e1g1 f4f3 a1b2 c8h3 h5h4 g3g2 a3a4 a7a6 b2d4 a6a5 h4g5 f3d3 d4f2 d3a3 g5h4 h3e6 h4g5 a3a4 g5f4 a4c4 g1g2

How do you like this line as best response from Rainbow Serpent, not Kxh2, not even Bg2 but:

[d]r1b3k1/pp1n3p/2pbpq2/3p4/2PPp1p1/PP2P1P1/1BQN1P1r/3RRBK1 w - -

31/59 22:21 -1.11 18.Re2 {:shock: correct or bug?!} Rh6 19.Bg2 Qf5 20.Nf1 Bc7
21.Rb1 b6 22.b4 Bb7 23.b5 Rc8 24.Rc1 cxb5
25.cxb5 Bb8 26.Qd1 Rf8 27.Rec2 Rhf6
28.a4 a5 29.Qe2 R8f7 30.Qe1 h5
31.Ba3 (3.403.147.197) 2536

I will see if the engine can reach depth 47, but maybe that takes too long on my old Q6700.

[Eelco de Groot]

I will see if the engine can reach depth 47, but maybe that takes too long on my old Q6700.

Disregarding some search instability evaluation seems to move towards zero.

.
.
35/73 64:57 -1.09 18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3
21.Bc3 Bd7 22.Nb1 Qh4+ 23.Rh2 Qg5
24.Be1 Nh5 25.Bh4 Qxe3 26.Qf2 Qf3+
27.Qxf3 gxf3 28.Bf2 Bxh2 29.Kxh2 Kf7
30.Be3 a5 31.Nd2 (9.791.924.631) 2512

36/73 87:33 -1.02 18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3
21.Nb1 Qh4+ 22.Rh2 Qg5 23.Rg2 g3
24.Be2 Kf7 25.Nd2 Bd7 26.Bc3 Qh6+
27.Kg1 Qxe3+ 28.Kh1 Qh6+ 29.Kg1 Bf4
30.Nf1 Rg8 31.Be1 (13.210.905.468) 2514

37/74 127:07 -0.87 18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3
21.c5 Bc7 22.Nc4 dxc4 23.bxc4 Qh4+
24.Kg1 g3 25.d5 exd5 26.cxd5 Nxd5
27.Rd4 Nf6 28.Red2 Qh6 29.Bc4+ Kf8
30.Qc3 b5 31.Bb3 (19.413.657.017) 2545

38/81 156:28 -0.50 18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3
21.c5 Bb8 22.Nc4 Qh4+ 23.Rh2 Bxh2
24.Qxh2 Qxh2+ 25.Kxh2 dxc4 26.bxc4 Bd7
27.Bg2 Rf8 28.Bc3 Nh5 29.Be1 Ng7
30.Bg3 Nf5 31.Bf4 (24.053.309.705) 2562

39/81 182:15 -0.75 18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3
21.c5 Bc7 22.Nc4 dxc4 23.bxc4 Nh5
24.Qxe4 Qh4+ 25.Kg1 Ng3 26.Qg2 Nxe2+
27.Bxe2 Bg3 28.Rf1 e5 29.Bd3 Bd7
30.Bc3 exd4 31.Bxd4 (28.391.499.103) 2596

FHs and FLs are manually suppressed from the output. I think I will stop because depth 47 is a bit too far.

[peter]

I think I will stop because depth 47 is a bit too far.

Hi Eelco!

Here is the latest SF dev. I have, at depth 47 after some Backward of what I would call the main variant.
(18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3 21.c5)

r1b3k1/pp1n3p/2pbpq2/3p4/2PPp1p1/PP2P1P1/1BQN1P1r/3RRBK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 270615 64 POPCNT:

18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3 21.c5 Bc7 22.Nc4 Qh4+ 23.Rh2 Qxh2+ 24.Qxh2 Bxh2 25.Kxh2 dxc4 26.bxc4 Bd7 27.Bg2 Rf8 28.Rb1 h5 29.Kg3 Ne8 30.Bxe4 Ng7 31.Ba1 Bc8 32.d5 exd5 33.cxd5 Nf5+ 34.Bxf5 Rxf5 35.dxc6 Rf3+ 36.Kh4 Kf7 37.Kxh5 bxc6 38.Bd4 g3 39.Rg1 Bh3 40.Kh4 g2 41.a4 Ke6 42.e4 a5 43.Bb2 Ke7 44.Bd4 Kf7 45.Be5 Re3 46.Bd6 Kf6 47.Bh2 Ra3 48.Bc7 Be6 49.e5+ Kf5 50.Rxg2 Rxa4+ 51.Kh5 Ra1 52.Rf2+ Ke4
=/+ (-0.56) Depth: 47/76 00:37:58 40383MN


May I ask why you are interested in depth 47 especially?