70(!) years before Timoschenko and Sveshnikov took up the system that has become known as the Sveshnikov Sicilian, Janowski uses it in a key match-up with a rival for 1st place! Janowski quickly reaches a winning position, but then we get a first taste in this series of the strange weaknesses in Janowski's play. In a position that seems ideally suited to his dynamic and aggressive play, Janowski plays rather tamely and allows Tarrasch to reestablish control of the position.
Thanks! I'm having a lovely time going through old books and picking out games of Janowski's. I have to say he was a real crowd-pleaser: guaranteed thrills and spills in every game!
Hi Matthew, have you considered (or done a series about already) revisiting old engine lines by Rybka or early quite materialist stockfishs and how different they are in evaluation? I remember watching a video about a game of alleged cheater B. Ivanov where Rybka (the strongest engine at the time) showed zeros and SF12 said it was +2 all the time. I think it was some kind of Benoni structure which was considered to give some counterplay for black. I found the change in evaluation very interesting in itself. Thank you
I did think sometime about doing a series looking at my old analysis as a professional (pre-computer age) and seeing how well it stood up to engine analysis 😊 I will do it someday!
Great video, once again, thank you. FWIW I have a ChessBase DVD titled: The Greatest Tournaments. Clearly, this tournament is included. I feel similarly about misattribution. Two examples spring to mind, viz.: The Schliemann Defence (C63) should more properly be known as the Jaenisch Gambit (since--IIRC--Schliemann never actually essayed 3...f5 against the Spanish, he delayed the break.) The Richter-Veresov (D01) should be named for its true inventor, Gyula Breyer (although admittedly he never introduced it in his praxis, as far as I can recall). I'm a fan of Breyer's. And of Janowski's. And of Tarrasch's.
Thanks Mark! Yes indeed, opening attributions are pretty poor in general in chess. The Richter-Rauzer is another: Richter played it all the name, Rauzer never did! ☹
70(!) years before Timoschenko and Sveshnikov took up the system that has become known as the Sveshnikov Sicilian, Janowski uses it in a key match-up with a rival for 1st place! Janowski quickly reaches a winning position, but then we get a first taste in this series of the strange weaknesses in Janowski's play. In a position that seems ideally suited to his dynamic and aggressive play, Janowski plays rather tamely and allows Tarrasch to reestablish control of the position.
Thank you for your enjoyable analysis from a game that is over a century old.
Thanks! I'm having a lovely time going through old books and picking out games of Janowski's. I have to say he was a real crowd-pleaser: guaranteed thrills and spills in every game!
I never knew the Sveshnikov was 19th century! Interesting and instructive as ever, thank you.
Thanks Allan! No I was shocked too! 😊
Crazy game. This is just unbelievable, a 36 round tournament of classical games. What's the longest tournament that you played Matthew ?
13 I think 😂😂 Yes these classic players had to work for their tournament victories! 😎
Thank you for the lesson! I didn't know this game and it's intricacies.
Thanks enio17! 😊 I've been discovering so many fantastic things in Janowski's games - a totaaly underestimated player!
Svechnikov in 1898 that is a shocker!!?? Wow very impressive from Janowski!
Yes I was amazed too! Especially such a thematic-looking one!
Hi Matthew, have you considered (or done a series about already) revisiting old engine lines by Rybka or early quite materialist stockfishs and how different they are in evaluation? I remember watching a video about a game of alleged cheater B. Ivanov where Rybka (the strongest engine at the time) showed zeros and SF12 said it was +2 all the time. I think it was some kind of Benoni structure which was considered to give some counterplay for black. I found the change in evaluation very interesting in itself. Thank you
I did think sometime about doing a series looking at my old analysis as a professional (pre-computer age) and seeing how well it stood up to engine analysis 😊 I will do it someday!
Great 😍
😊😊
Great video, once again, thank you. FWIW I have a ChessBase DVD titled: The Greatest Tournaments. Clearly, this tournament is included.
I feel similarly about misattribution. Two examples spring to mind, viz.:
The Schliemann Defence (C63) should more properly be known as the Jaenisch Gambit (since--IIRC--Schliemann never actually essayed 3...f5 against the Spanish, he delayed the break.)
The Richter-Veresov (D01) should be named for its true inventor, Gyula Breyer (although admittedly he never introduced it in his praxis, as far as I can recall). I'm a fan of Breyer's. And of Janowski's. And of Tarrasch's.
Thanks Mark! Yes indeed, opening attributions are pretty poor in general in chess. The Richter-Rauzer is another: Richter played it all the name, Rauzer never did! ☹