Is Marshall Attack drawish?
kmoor...@gmail.com
However, isnt it drawish? That black gets its chance of winning only
if white is also trying to win. If white wants only a draw, is it
possible for black to gain anything? In GM games white will never
compromise for a draw after taking that pawn..(or allowing marshall
attack)..Even though there are enough chances to take a draw by
perpetual..
Worth discussing?
David Richerby
> Marshall Attack is one of the most feared attacking systems in
> chess. However, isnt it drawish?
You suggest that, while the theory might be drawish, White tends to go
for a win, which reduces the rate of draws in practice. According to
the games in the database at chessbase.com, the stats for the Marshall
( 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O
8.c3 d5) are
White wins: 30.2%
Black wins: 25.0% (from 612 games, 1917-present)
Drawn: 44.8%
In contrast, after 7... d6, the stats are
White wins: 35.2%
Black wins: 18.5% (from 3,316 games, 1917-present)
Drawn: 44.4%
For completeness, in the 7... O-O 8.a4 anti-Marshall systems, the
stats are 36.6%-40.9%-22.5% (from 707 games, 1925-present).
So it would seem that, in practice, the Marshall attack is not
significantly more drawish than the options after 7... d6 but does
offer Black a better chance of a win, unless White goes for the
anti-Marshall. If White does opt for the anti-Marshall, he has a
slightly better chance of winning than if Black had never asked the
Marshall question in the first place! :-)
I'll leave it to the experts to make chess comments rather than
statistical ones.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Pickled Lotion (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a soothing hand lotion but it's
preserved in vinegar!
Ron
David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> I'll leave it to the experts to make chess comments rather than
> statistical ones.
Speaking of the Marshall, does anyone know if Quigley's refutation ever
got much in the way of high-level tests.
(The line, for those who don't remember it, is: 1 e4 e5 2
Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d5 9
exd5 Nxd5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 11 Rxe5 c6 12 d4 Bd6 13 Re1 Qh4 14 g3 Qh3
15 Be3 Bg4 16 Qd3 Rae8 17 Nd2 Re6 18 a4 f5 19.axb5)
-Ron
(ah ... back in the day when there were lost of high-level discussions
about moves on r.g.c)
Chess One
"Ron" <ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-E541...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
Here's some history of the variation, Ron:
-----------------------------------------
I spent a long time trying to make a rook sac against f2 work. Couldn't do
it, if only it occurred at move 33, or just below the time control it might
be worth a swindle-try. But basically I couldn't bust the bust, and white
survived anything. And no, I never saw this line played out.
FOLLOWING: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0
8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5
9. ... Nxd5 is now common and the Steiner var, 9. ...e4 doesn't seem to
offer black anything, or enough.
11. ...c6 was introduced in 1956! - by Shamkovitch, and Wade eg, thought it
might be good nuff for a draw. In 1918 the original Marshall had 11. ...
Nf6, which is decidedly weaker - see Hansson v Westerinen, Esbjerg, and as
late as 1983 ! [if 20. Rf2! as Byrne-Mednis]
Therefore, the 'new' move for white is 12. d4, and the old alternate was 12.
Re1. [although Kevitz analysed 12. Bxd5 to white's advantage, and this found
an outing in I. Ivanov v Hebden NY 1984, not sharp but fully playable.
Subsequent main branching comes at move 16. alternatives are 16. ...f5 which
is 'complex', and 'inexplicably fallen from favour' according to
Shamkovitch. On 17. f4 black choses either 17. ... g5 [25. Bf3! Fischer, eg,
and on 24. ... Bh3 Boleslavski's 27. Qxe3 doies the trick] or 17. ... Rae8
which Tal tried Leningrad 1962, but Boleslavsky was already better at 22.
And this brings us back to the line in question above, and follows 17. ...
Re6!?!
[in passing, white's other try is 18. c4 which can meet 18. ... Bf4 as
Byrne-Geller, Las Palmas 1976. And then lovely fireworks!
19. Qf1! Nxe3!
20. Qxf3 Bxh3
21. cb Nc2!
22. Bxe6! fe
23. gf Nxa1
24. Rxa1 Rxf4
Now, says Samarian after 25 ba white has nothing better than perpetual after
25. ...Rg4+ 26. Kh1 Bg2+ etc, a sequence white loses. And after the interim
move 25 f3! Rxd4, 26. Ne4, cb 27. Kf2 black according to Shakovitch still
"stands slightly better, but there are drawing chances."]
All this is a necessary preamble, since unusually the onus is on White to
come up with a decent game against the @pain@ of the Marshall, hence the
current line 18. a4
18. a4
18. ... f5
19. ***axb5***, the new move, and the only move, since all other moves
proved unsatisfactory - though, in 1986 not entirely explored.
Shamkovitch and Schiller didn't analyse it, and give the mainline response
as 19. Qf1 [while rejecting 19. f4 as dubious with analysis by Henken and
Boleslavsky].
This has us arriving at the start position of Ron's reference and stem game
above. If readers here can bust White's play they will be famous for more
than a day! :)
Phil Innes
Chess One
Quigley and told him his line had already been
> dealt with in the 60s in and there was no refutation. I believe he
> concurred, hopefully memory his serving me well here. I will try and dig
> it up. I think it has something to do with a Spassky-Tal candidates match
> in the 60s. There was a Chess Life article by Keres, I think. On to dusty
> old boxes of notes!
phil
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bTCDh.2$aO6.0@trndny06...
Taylor Kingston
> quick postscript - in another nig someone said > Some years back I wrote
> Quigley and told him his line had already been
> > dealt with in the 60s in and there was no refutation. I believe he
> > concurred, hopefully memory his serving me well here. I will try and dig
> > it up. I think it has something to do with a Spassky-Tal candidates match
> > in the 60s.
Spassky did play the Marshall three times in his 1965 Candidates
Match with Tal, but this Quigley line never occurred. The closest they
came was in game 1, which followed the line through White's 18th move.
However, at that point Spassky played 18...Qh5, not 18...f5.
The only game I could find with this line, involving either Tal or
Spassky, is Tal-Geller, USSR Ch Yerevan 1975, drawn in 31 moves. The
most recent high-level example I could find was Kamsky-J. Polgar,
Linares 1994:
1 RUY LOPEZ. MARSHALL ATTACK
Kamsky G. - Polgar J.
½:½, 1994.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-
O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1
Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Be3 Bg4 16. Qd3 Rae8 17. Nd2 Re6 18. a4 f5 19. Qf1
Qh5 20. f4 bxa4 21. Rxa4 Rb8 22. Bxd5 cxd5 23. Qg2 Qe8 24. Qxd5 Kh8
25. Nc4 Bxf4 26. gxf4 Rg6 27. Nd6 Bf3 28. Kf1 Bxd5 29. Nxe8 Rxb2 30.
Re2 Rb1 31. Re1 Rb2 32. Re2 Rb1 33. Re1 [½:½]
> There was a Chess Life article by Keres, I think. On to dusty
> > old boxes of notes!
>
> phil
>
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bTCDh.2$aO6.0@trndny06...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ron" <ronaldinh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chess One
with the rgcp hitmen, opponent is rated 2420 :(
i'm fine until 19, unless its sprung
Thank heavens as Black I'm playing a nice simple Pelikan ;)
Phil
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bTCDh.2$aO6.0@trndny06...
>
Chess One
> hurry up with that analysis! i just got into the preliminaries of a
> Marshall with the rgcp hitmen, opponent is rated 2420 :(
> i'm fine until 19, unless its sprung
Ahhhhh! Pete T says:- 18.a4 Qh5! (played by Spassky) and from an old CL
Jan 1966 with annotations by Bernard Zuckerman
---
He explains in the notes that Spassky had played bxa4 and drawn vs. Stein at
the zonal tournament in 1964. THAT game was anotated in the November 1964
Chess Life. Keres mentions in that article that Spassky had beaten
Novopashin in the latest Soviet Championship with 18.a4 bxa4. In the
February Chess Review, Trifunovich points out that Spassky found the Qh5!
improvement after Parma had found an imporvement on the Stein game on move
25 (!), and although Spassky drew he was not a happy camper---
> Thank heavens as Black I'm playing a nice simple Pelikan ;)
ugh he deviated early - now i get to chose k or q side mutual attacks with
Nc6 returning to b8 or Ne7 which is a sac line and highly scarey play. I
want my momma or Matt Nemmers, who has provided insufficient risk-guidance
counselling :(
poor phil
Chess One
On Feb 23, 11:16 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> quick postscript - in another nig someone said > Some years back I wrote
> Quigley and told him his line had already been
> > dealt with in the 60s in and there was no refutation. I believe he
> > concurred, hopefully memory his serving me well here. I will try and dig
> > it up. I think it has something to do with a Spassky-Tal candidates
> > match
> > in the 60s.
Spassky did play the Marshall three times in his 1965 Candidates
Match with Tal, but this Quigley line never occurred. The closest they
came was in game 1, which followed the line through White's 18th move.
However, at that point Spassky played 18...Qh5, not 18...f5.
**You found it Taylor! its in a CL annotated by B. Zukerman; Pete is digging
it out and sending whole article. I wrote a bit more in another post.
Spassky tried other moves before this, as did Tal, and thus 18. ... Qh5 is
the improvement he came up with.
The only game I could find with this line, involving either Tal or
Spassky, is Tal-Geller, USSR Ch Yerevan 1975, drawn in 31 moves. The
most recent high-level example I could find was Kamsky-J. Polgar,
Linares 1994:
1 RUY LOPEZ. MARSHALL ATTACK
Kamsky G. - Polgar J.
½:½, 1994.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-
O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1
Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Be3 Bg4 16. Qd3 Rae8 17. Nd2 Re6 18. a4 f5 19. Qf1
**interesting! still book! but how interesting Kamsky should play it -
though did J. Polgar sort of outrank him then in ratings? - Kamsky was quite
a serious world title contender. Maybe he was happy for a draw for some
reason? //Phil
Taylor Kingston
In mid-1994 Kamsky (then age 19) was FIDE-rated 2666, #11 in the
world, and Polgar (then just 17) 2601, #53. As far as being a serious
world title contender, Kamsky was indeed -- in 1996 he played Karpov
for the FIDE title, though he did end up losing +3 -6 =9.
> Qh5 20. f4 bxa4 21. Rxa4 Rb8 22. Bxd5 cxd5 23. Qg2 Qe8 24. Qxd5 Kh8
> 25. Nc4 Bxf4 26. gxf4 Rg6 27. Nd6 Bf3 28. Kf1 Bxd5 29. Nxe8 Rxb2 30.
> Re2 Rb1 31. Re1 Rb2 32. Re2 Rb1 33. Re1 [½:½]
>
>
>
> > There was a Chess Life article by Keres, I think. On to dusty
> > > old boxes of notes!
>
> > phil- Hide quoted text -
Chess One
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1172262792.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> **You found it Taylor! its in a CL annotated by B. Zukerman; Pete is
> digging
> it out and sending whole article. I wrote a bit more in another post.
> Spassky tried other moves before this, as did Tal, and thus 18. ... Qh5 is
> the improvement he came up with.
But what Pete found was a much earlier stem~, so here is the latest, and
attributions: [interesting the 11. ... c6 was found on both sides of the
pond. But it was the Brit CH "O'Death" Alexander which actually gave 17. ...
Qh5 its first big outing in 1939.
notes below by Pete Tamburro, unless Golombek or other cit. //Phil
--------
note: both Marshall and Milner-Barry came up with c6 in the Marshall
apparently independently and then Alexander gave it all publicity with his
game vs. Dulanto at the Buenos Aires Olympiad in 1939. Here is the game with
notes from British Chess Magazine in 1939 (p. 436):
Harry Golombek's notes except for the "--PT"
A. Dulanto--C.H. O'D. Alexander, Ruy Lopez. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4
Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6
A recent improvement by Marshall on his own attack. 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.d4 Bd6
14.Re1 If 14.Re3 then f5 with a strong attack. 14...Qh4 15.g3 Qh3 16.Qf3 If
16.Be3 Bg4 17.f3 Bxg3 wins. 16...Bf5! 17.Qg2 White cannot capture the Pawn
at once for after [17.Qxd5 Rae8 18.Re3 (18.Bd2! Bd3 19.Na3 Bxa3 20.bxa3 Bc4
21.Qb7 Rd8 22.Re5 f6 23.Rc5 Rfe8 24.Qg2 Qg4= --PT) 18...Qh5 19.Qxd6 Bh3 he
is quite lost.] 17...Qh5 18.Qxd5 Rad8 In order to release the pin on the
queen bishop. 19.Qg2 Rde8 An altrnative is 19...Bh3 and if 20Qh1 Bg4 21Nd2
Rde8. or if 20.Qc6 Be6 21Rxe6 fxe6 22Nd2Qd1+ followed by Qc2. 20.Be3 Bh3? An
error which allows White to consolidate his positon. Correct was: [20...Be4
21.f3 Bxf3 22.Qf2 Bc6 23.Nd2 Qd5 24.Kf1 Re6 25.Bf4 Bxf4 26.gxf4 Rg6
winning.] 21.Qh1 Be6 Black had intended [21...f5 22.Nd2 f4 with a winning
attack; but he now observes that after 21...f5 22.Qd5+ Kh8 23.Nd2 Qg6 24.f4
his attack completely disappears.] 22.Nd2 Bd5 23.f3 f5 24.Bf2 g5 25.Qg2 g4
26.Rxe8 [If 26.fxg4 fxg4 and (i) 27.Qf1 Bxg3 and wins or (ii) 27Ne4 and now
not Qf5 becaue of 28Nf6+ but 27...Rxf2] 26...Qxe8 Not now 26...RxR because
of 27.fxg4 27.Re1 Qg6 28.b3 gxf3 29.Qh3 [If 29.Nxf3 Qh5 30.Re3 Kh8 followed
by 31...f4] 29...Bf4 30.Nf1 Kh8 31.Be3 If [31.Kh1 Bh6 followed by f4.]
31...Bxe3+ 32.Nxe3 32Rxe3 loses after f4 Rook moves and f2 32...f4 33.Nxd5
fxg3 34.Rc1?? [Throwing away the fruits of his previous excellent defence.
Correct is 34.Rf1 gxh2+ 35.Kxh2 (35.Kh1 Qg1+! (Must be a typo. Had to mean:
35...Qg2+ ) ) 35...Qd6+ 36.Qg3 Qxd5 37.Qe5+ with a draw.] 34...f2+ 35.Kh1
[If 35.Kf1 g2+ 36.Qxg2 Qd3#] 35...Qe4+ Resigns.
Taylor Kingston
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172262792.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > **You found it Taylor! its in a CL annotated by B. Zukerman; Pete is
> > digging
> > it out and sending whole article. I wrote a bit more in another post.
> > Spassky tried other moves before this, as did Tal, and thus 18. ... Qh5 is
> > the improvement he came up with.
>
> But what Pete found was a much earlier stem~, so here is the latest, and
> attributions: [interesting the 11. ... c6 was found on both sides of the
> pond. But it was the Brit CH "O'Death" Alexander which actually gave 17. ...
> Qh5 its first big outing in 1939.
Interesting. In a Chess Review column circa 1946 (anthologized in
"Great Moments in Modern Chess," Dover, 1948), Reuben Fine cites a
slightly earlier game for the debut of 11...c6: Alexander - Milner-
Barry 1938. However, I cannot find any such game. Their one 1938
encounter on my databases, at Margate 1938, was a Petroff, not a Ruy.
Fine mentions the mysterious game while annotating Christoffel - H.
Steiner, Hastings 1945-46:
RUY LOPEZ. MARSHALL ATTACK
Christoffel M. - Steiner H.
Hastings 1945-46.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-
O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1
Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Qd3 --
Fine says Alexander - Milner-Barry continued 15.Qf3 Bg4 16.Qg2 Qh5
17.Be6 Bf3 "with unclear results." It's also unclear where this game
was played. Anyone know?
15...Bf5 16. Qf1 Qh5 17. Be3 Rae8 18. Nd2 Re6 19. a4 Bh3 20. Bd1 Qf5
21. Qe2 Nf4 22. Qf3 h5 23. Bb3 Bg2 24. Qd1 Qh3 25. Bxf4 Bxf4 26. Rxe6
Bxd2 27. f4 Bxf4 28. Qe2 Bf3 29. Qxf3 fxe6 30. Re1 Rf6 31. Qxf4 Rxf4
32. Bxe6 Qxe6 33. Rxe6 Rf6 34. Rxf6 gxf6 35. axb5 axb5 36. Bf2 Bf7 37.
Bf3 Be6 38. Be4 f5 39. Bf4 Bd5 40. Bxf5 Bc4 41. g4 hxg4 42. Bxg4 Bb3
43. h4 Bxb2 44. h5 Bxc3 45. h6 [1:0]
An odd error: Chess Assistant misidentifies H. Steiner not as Herman
of the USA, but as Heinz of Austria.
The first instance I can find of this 18...f5 line, which you
attribute to Quigley, is this:
RUY LOPEZ. MARSHALL ATTACK
Bradvarevic A. - Lutovac
Yugoslavian Championship, 1963.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-
O 8. c3 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1
Qh4 14. g3 Qh3 15. Be3 Bg4 16. Qd3 Rae8 17. Nd2 Re6 18. a4 f5 19. Qf1
Qh5 20. f4 Rfe8 21. Qf2 Kh8 22. Bxd5 cxd5 23. axb5 axb5 24. Nb3 b4 25.
cxb4 g5?? -- Better 25...Bxb4 +/=. 26. Nc5 gxf4 27. Nxe6 fxg3 28. hxg3
Rxe6 29. Bf4 Bf3 30. Qh2 Qe8 31. Rxe6 Qxe6 32. Bxd6 Qxd6 33. Qh4 Qc6
34. Qd8 Kg7 35. Ra7 Kh6 36. Qf8 [1:0]
I am curious to know: who is this Quigley person? Gaige lists two
Quigleys, a John Brendan born in Cork, Ireland in 1953, and a Steven
born in England in 1961. Both would appear to be too young to be the
originator of a move played in 1963.
> notes below by Pete Tamburro, unless Golombek or other cit. //Phil
> --------
>
> note: both Marshall and Milner-Barry came up with c6 in the Marshall
> apparently independently
Ah, you must be referring to the same game Fine cited. Where/when
was it?
Taylor Kingston
refutation" was. I had thought it referred to 18...f5, but checking
Ron's post above I see that it seems to refer to 19.axb5 after
18...f5. The earliest examples of that in my databases go back only to
1991. Chess Assistant 5.0 gives four such games, all wins for Black.
CB Mega 2005 lists five (three of them the same as three on CA), the
results +3 -2 in Black's favor. So if 19.axb5 is intended as a
refutation of the Marshall, it doesn't seem to be very successful in
practice.
On Feb 24, 10:20 am, "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com>
wrote:
> > [If 35.Kf1 g2+ 36.Qxg2 Qd3#] 35...Qe4+ Resigns.- Hide quoted text -
Chess One
> On Feb 24, 7:42 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172262792.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > **You found it Taylor! its in a CL annotated by B. Zukerman; Pete is
>> > digging
>> > it out and sending whole article. I wrote a bit more in another post.
>> > Spassky tried other moves before this, as did Tal, and thus 18. ... Qh5
>> > is
>> > the improvement he came up with.
>>
>> But what Pete found was a much earlier stem~, so here is the latest, and
>> attributions: [interesting the 11. ... c6 was found on both sides of the
>> pond. But it was the Brit CH "O'Death" Alexander which actually gave 17.
>> ...
>> Qh5 its first big outing in 1939.
>
> Interesting. In a Chess Review column circa 1946 (anthologized in
> "Great Moments in Modern Chess," Dover, 1948), Reuben Fine cites a
> slightly earlier game for the debut of 11...c6: Alexander - Milner-
> Barry 1938. However, I cannot find any such game. Their one 1938
> encounter on my databases, at Margate 1938, was a Petroff, not a Ruy.
Which was a draw in 35 moves. I have that game score.
In the same Margate tournament he drew with Alekhine, and also with Menchik!
But beat Petrov and G. Thomas, lost to Golombek. Rybka has those scores too.
Margate is the only tourney cited in the db. [these players met, same place
previous year, btw] I suspect if this was a '39 game it was either at the
tournament at Cheltenham, or at Hastings, which Szabo won. [britbase]
> Fine mentions the mysterious game while annotating Christoffel - H.
> Steiner, Hastings 1945-46:
I think we already traced this to BA, in 1939. Yes, Rybka says it was versus
Dulanto and has its game score featuring 11. c6. An [C89] Marshall Attack.
I'll try to get back to the rest of this later, and see if chess assistant
has anythign to say
Phil
Chess One
>> Steiner, Hastings 1945-46:
>
> I think we already traced this to BA, in 1939. Yes, Rybka says it was
> versus Dulanto and has its game score featuring 11. c6. An [C89] Marshall
> Attack.
>> The first instance I can find of this 18...f5 line, which you
>> attribute to Quigley, is this:
>>
>> RUY LOPEZ. MARSHALL ATTACK
>> Bradvarevic A. - Lutovac
>> Yugoslavian Championship, 1963.
Sorry, there is mcuh confusion here -
(a) 18 ... f5 is not Quigley's line,
(b) and the first players of 18. ...f5, introduced in 1956! - by none other
than Shamkovitch, and Wade. [Source: Shamkovitch & Schiller, Spanish
Gambits]
(c) Discoverers of 11 ... c6 were apparently simultaneously Milner-Barry and
Marshall himself.
(d) In 1918 the original Marshall line went 11. ... Nf6 [even though Nf6 was
still seen in top play as late as 1983!]
(e) Quigley's is not move 11 but move 19 ... after 18. a4... f5 19.
***axb5***
Pete Tamburro who provided many of these notes to supplement Shamkovitch is
in touch with Quigley - and I am publishing Pete this weekend in the column,
so will defer making more notes here at this time.
Phil Innes
Taylor Kingston
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cwKEh.9762$tA1.293@trndny02...
>
>
>
> >> Fine mentions the mysterious game while annotating Christoffel - H.
> >> Steiner, Hastings 1945-46:
>
> > I think we already traced this to BA, in 1939. Yes, Rybka says it was
> > versus Dulanto and has its game score featuring 11. c6. An [C89] Marshall
> > Attack.
> >> The first instance I can find of this 18...f5 line, which you
> >> attribute to Quigley, is this:
>
> >> RUY LOPEZ. MARSHALL ATTACK
> >> Bradvarevic A. - Lutovac
> >> Yugoslavian Championship, 1963.
>
> Sorry, there is mcuh confusion here -
>
> (a) 18 ... f5 is not Quigley's line,
Yes, as I realized, and made clear in a corrective post on 2/24,
which I guess you haven't read yet, Phil. Here it is again:
***
It appears I may have misunderstood about what "Quigley's
refutation" was. I had thought it referred to 18...f5, but checking
Ron's post above I see that it seems to refer to 19.axb5 after
18...f5. The earliest examples of that in my databases go back only
to
1991. Chess Assistant 5.0 gives four such games, all wins for Black.
CB Mega 2005 lists five (three of them the same as three on CA), the
results +3 -2 in Black's favor. So if 19.axb5 is intended as a
refutation of the Marshall, it doesn't seem to be very successful in
practice.
***
So, I'm still curious: who is Quigley?
And where was the 1938 Alexander - Milner-Barry game cited by Fine,
the one in which 11...c6 debuted, that does not seem to be on any
databases? Anyone know?
> >>> [If 35.Kf1 g2+ 36.Qxg2 Qd3#] 35...Qe4+ Resigns.- Hide quoted text -
Chess One
>> (a) 18 ... f5 is not Quigley's line,
>
> Yes, as I realized, and made clear in a corrective post on 2/24,
> which I guess you haven't read yet, Phil. Here it is again:
No need to say it again [and must you guess so much with so little
inhibition, especially after having got it wrong in the first place?] - I am
only writing to correct the record, not to amplify effects of your mistake
or divert with what is not Quigley. This is not about you!
> ***
> It appears I may have misunderstood about what "Quigley's
> refutation" was. I had thought it referred to 18...f5, but checking
> Ron's post above I see that it seems to refer to 19.axb5 after
> 18...f5. The earliest examples of that in my databases go back only
> to
> 1991. Chess Assistant 5.0 gives four such games, all wins for Black.
> CB Mega 2005 lists five (three of them the same as three on CA), the
> results +3 -2 in Black's favor. So if 19.axb5 is intended as a
> refutation of the Marshall, it doesn't seem to be very successful in
> practice.
That is a fair point - though in our rather extensive conversations here
previously I think there were few advocates for black's position. Maybe Ron
will remember differently?
This dissapointment on how to proceed after 19. axb5 may have sponsored
Spassky's own attention to the Marshall, and to his improvement at 18. over
...f5 - which previously achieved a 18. ... f5!
I am sorry if our posts are overlapping. But such huge efforts which are
/wrong/ take a bit of catching up with, and since you wrote your notes here,
I have also written other ones.
> ***
>
> So, I'm still curious: who is Quigley?
Am I not deferring an answer to this subject to a later posting, as I said
in a note below? Perhaps someone else will fill you in, in the meantime I'll
let Pete's work stand apart til the weekend, since he has done some amount
of work on it.
Phil Innes
Rob
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> > So, I'm still curious: who is Quigley?
>
> Am I not deferring an answer to this subject to a later posting, as I said
> in a note below? Perhaps someone else will fill you in, in the meantime I'll
> let Pete's work stand apart til the weekend, since he has done some amount
> of work on it.
>
> Phil Innes
OH, OH!! Can I answer this one?? (jumping up and down)
Dainel Quigley researched the Marshall. He was even discussed at Chess
Cafe! It was in The Kibitzer
by Tim Harding.
Damn! Even I know somethings!
Rob
:-)
Taylor Kingston
Chess One
See, nothing heavy or personal about this, after all, chess teaches us that
anyone can make 16 consecutive mistakes even if the material is in their own
library or website. Its being so sure the other guy is wrong despite this
sequence which can cause problems in later life. PI
Tony Mountifield
Interesting article. However, does it have a couple of typos?
On at least two occasions it mentions a move Bf1 for white,
but such a move doesn't seem possible. Comments?
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Chess One
"Tony Mountifield" <to...@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:es68ap$a25$1...@softins.clara.co.uk...
> In article <1172680128....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Taylor Kingston <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 10:36 am, "Rob" <robmt...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dainel Quigley researched the Marshall. He was even discussed at Chess
>> > Cafe! It was in The Kibitzer
>> > by Tim Harding.
>> >
>> > Damn! Even I know somethings!
>>
>> Aha, yes! Here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz24.pdf
>
> Interesting article. However, does it have a couple of typos?
> On at least two occasions it mentions a move Bf1 for white,
> but such a move doesn't seem possible. Comments?
Yes. I rather wonder at Tim Harding. There are in fact 3 occurances. The
most egregious is in this series:-
-------
There is a final possibility for Black that neither Quigley nor the other
newsgroup contributors considered, one hinted at in the quote from my 1979
book, namely to decline the piece offered by 20 Bxf4 and reply 20...Rh6!?
At first I thought this might draw for Black, e.g. 21 Bxh6 (21 Bxd5+ cxd5 is
probably only a transposition.) 21... Rxf2 22 Bxd5+ cxd5 23 Re8+ Kf7 24 Re7+
(24 Kxf2 Qxh2 + at least draws for Black) 24...Kf8 25 Bxg7 + Kg8 26 Kxf2
(Else there is a draw by repetition.) 26...Qxh2+ 27 Ke3 (27 Ke1 Bxg3+ 28
Qxg3 Qxg3+ 29 Kf1 Bh3+ drawing.
Unfortunately, 21 Bf1! Rxf4 (best?) 22 bxc6 seems to refute the idea:
22...Bf3 23
-------
Tim has garbled his lines here, since even if he means 21 Bd1+, or Qf1, then
unfortunately black has 21. ... Qxh2++ or leading to mate.
I am also the author of 21.... Rxf2 which he doesn't cite, and also makes
drawing, but I didn't at the time, since I remember finding some white
resources. Tim does suggest checking deja for all contributions... the
period of discussion here was circa March 1998.
There are a few other inaccuracies - true there were conversations in
rec.analysis, but there were many strong ones in chess.misc which I think
led the charge in sorting out which lines stopped-cold, and which were yet
unresolved and of some complexity.
Of purely historical interest is one ommission - c6 was introduced by
Marshall, as he says, but also independently by Milner-Barry which he
missed.
I think where Tim has leaned rather heavily on the rec.games compendium,
since his resolutions are [correctly] that Spassky's move order is very
important: thus 18 ... Qh5 and then 19 ... f5
The other very important factor that Tim Harding recognises is that although
the Quigley main line 19. axb5 seems to have resulted in black wins - all
recording games whether won by black or white seem flawed, and thus, these
are rather happenstance 'refutations', and the enigmatic position has not
been well tested by first-tier players.
But this is where we came in! Tim suggests researching it from white's point
of view 'to score a few wins before its better known' though it is not quite
true that strong players don't know about it - and I rather doubt they will
be unaware of Adams even earlier variant 17. ... Qh5 or why he evolved that
response.
Nevertheless - its a good article suffering from these technical typos, and
overlooking one disaster, and they might be corrected to improve it - and
also be somewhat less lionised by Tim, since we all got this far in
rec.games ;)
Strange, actually, that no one has produced a monogram edition on these
variations. Perhaps Enigma should write one?
Phil Innes
Rob
> "ChessOne" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:GzGDh.2330$sv6.1609@trndny08...
>
> > hurry up with that analysis! i just got into the preliminaries of a
> > i'm fine until 19, unless its sprung
>
> Ahhhhh! Pete T says:- 18.a4 Qh5! (played by Spassky) and from an old CL
> Jan 1966 with annotations by Bernard Zuckerman
>
> ---
> He explains in the notes that Spassky had played bxa4 and drawn vs. Stein at
> Novopashin in the latest Soviet Championship with 18.a4 bxa4. In the
> improvement after Parma had found an imporvement on the Stein game on move
> 25 (!), and although Spassky drew he was not a happy camper---
>
> > Thank heavens as Black I'm playing a nice simple Pelikan ;)
>
> ugh he deviated early - now i get to chose k or q side mutual attacks with
> Nc6 returning to b8 or Ne7 which is a sac line and highly scarey play. I
> want my momma or Matt Nemmers, who has provided insufficient risk-guidance
> counselling :(
>
> poor phil
>
> > Phil
>
> >news:bTCDh.2$aO6.0@trndny06...
>
> >> "Ron" <ronaldinh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ronaldinho_m-E541...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> >>> In article <1bp*fj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> >>> David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>> statistical ones.
>
> >>> Speaking of theMarshall, does anyone know ifQuigley'srefutation ever
> >>> got much in the way of high-level tests.
>
> >>> (The line, for those who don't remember it, is: 1 e4 e5 2
> >>> Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d5 9
> >>> exd5 Nxd5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 11 Rxe5 c6 12 d4 Bd6 13 Re1 Qh4 14 g3 Qh3
> >>> 15 Be3 Bg4 16 Qd3 Rae8 17 Nd2 Re6 18 a4 f5 19.axb5)
>
> >>> -Ron
>
> >>> (ah ... back in the day when there were lost of high-level discussions
> >>> about moves on r.g.c)
>
> >> Here's some history of the variation, Ron:
> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> I spent a long time trying to make a rook sac against f2 work. Couldn't
> >> do
> >> it, if only it occurred at move 33, or just below the time control it
> >> might
> >> be worth a swindle-try. But basically I couldn't bust the bust, and white
> >> survived anything. And no, I never saw this line played out.
>
> >> FOLLOWING: 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3
> >> 0-0
> >> 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5
>
> >> 9. ... Nxd5 is now common and the Steiner var, 9. ...e4 doesn't seem to
> >> offer black anything, or enough.
>
> >> 11. ...c6 was introduced in 1956! - by Shamkovitch, and Wade eg, thought
> >> it
> >> current line 18. a4
>
> >> 18. a4
> >> 18. ... f5
> >> 19. ***axb5***, the new move, and the only move, since all other moves
> >> proved unsatisfactory - though, in 1986 not entirely explored.
>
> >> Shamkovitch and Schiller didn't analyse it, and give the mainline
> >> response
> >> as 19. Qf1 [while rejecting 19. f4 as dubious with analysis by Henken and
> >> Boleslavsky].
>
> >> This has us arriving at the start position of Ron's reference and stem
> >> game
> >> above. If readers here can bust White's play they will be famous for more
> >> than a day! :)
>
> >> Phil Innes
Just wanted to let you know that Dan QUigley plays chess on
ChessWorld.net and he was very interested to know his lines were being
discussed. I think he would enjoy playing you, Phil. You both share
about the same ratings. It's pretty interesting who plays on this
site!
Rob
Chess One
> ChessWorld.net and he was very interested to know his lines were being
> discussed. I think he would enjoy playing you, Phil. You both share
> about the same ratings. It's pretty interesting who plays on this
> site!
> Rob
>
It would be interesting to play, though I don't venture the Marshall much,
and also since so few people play the Ruy! Maybe I should try it - the
trouble with playing Mr. Q would be a deviation at 18, a la Spassky.
In another worldchess league game [see below] we have a Ruy, but I am white,
and the opponent 2449 rated. Its already way out of any book, though has
Marshall-like features, but no gambit to gererate a black piece initiative.
Black's strategy is to push the c pawn into white's position, and this pawn
will either prove to be the key in the game or a liability. Against the same
player with black we have an oob Pelikan, where I may now have an
advantage - so the strategy is to risk something on one board if I have
advantage on the other [if I want to try for wins in both] or let both
subside to drawish outcomes [over the next 2 years <yawn!]
I would say that in terms of actual play the Marshall is anything but
drawish, and by exchanging material for initiative whichever way the game
goes is more likely to achieve a positive result for either player.
Phil
BTW: the Ruy Lopez Memorial tournament [1st one!] is still going in Spain.
"Rob" <robm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1174828579.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Rob
> > Just wanted to let you know that Dan QUigley plays chess on
> > ChessWorld.net and he was very interested to know his lines were being
> > discussed. I think he would enjoy playing you, Phil. You both share
> > about the same ratings. It's pretty interesting who plays on this
> > site!
> > Rob
>
> It would be interesting to play, though I don't venture the Marshall much,
> and also since so few people play the Ruy! Maybe I should try it - the
> trouble with playing Mr. Q would be a deviation at 18, a la Spassky.
>
> In another worldchess league game [see below] we have a Ruy, but I am white,
> and the opponent 2449 rated. Its already way out of any book, though has
> Marshall-like features, but no gambit to gererate a black piece initiative.
> Black's strategy is to push the c pawn into white's position, and this pawn
> will either prove to be the key in the game or a liability. Against the same
> player with black we have an oob Pelikan, where I may now have an
> advantage - so the strategy is to risk something on one board if I have
> advantage on the other [if I want to try for wins in both] or let both
> subside to drawish outcomes [over the next 2 years <yawn!]
>
> I would say that in terms of actual play the Marshall is anything but
> drawish, and by exchanging material for initiative whichever way the game
> goes is more likely to achieve a positive result for either player.
>
> Phil
>
> BTW: the Ruy Lopez Memorial tournament [1st one!] is still going in Spain.
>
I agree that some of the time limits on these games will put you to
sleep. I have a few games pop back up that I had forgotten I was
playing. On the otherhand, I find that most regular players will make
at least one move per day and sometimes many more. That is at least
tolerable. I have had several conversations with GM's and master level
players on the site. It is interesting to play back over their games.
and just chat.
Rob