The Musil Nemesis

Submitted by sam_musil on Mon, 06/15/2009 at 3:00pm.

I have now played six games versus einstein69101 during the last two years.  I have decided that this good friend who lives only 60 miles from my house is my personal nemesis: a formidable and usually victorius rival or opponent.

Nemesis (in Greek, Νέμεσις), also called Rhamnousia/Rhamnusia ("the goddess of Rhamnous"), located at her sanctuary at Rhamnous, north of Marathon, in Greek mythology was the spirit of divine punishment against those who succumb to hubris, vengeful fate personified as a remorseless goddess. The name Nemesis is related to the Greek word νείμειν, meaning "to give what is due".

Nemesis is now often used as a term to describe one's worst enemy, normally someone or something that is the exact opposite of oneself but is also somehow similar. For example, Professor Moriarty is frequently described as the nemesis of Sherlock Holmes.

In chess, nemesis is used to describe an opponent like Spassky versus Fischer before their world championship match: Spassky had never lost even one game to Fischer!  Spassky was Fischer's nemesis!

Now let me summarize my record against einstein, who has always been ranked at least 200 points lower than me

, but has established an amazing record: 1 win, 4 draws, and only one loss!  Here is my latest debacle in which the Chess.com computer said I played an almost perfect game for 77 moves with no mistakes, no blunders, and only 3 inaccuracies!  This high level of play would defeat most 2200 players, but not my good friend.  He is my nemesis!

» posted in sam_musil's Blog
 

Comments:

by nosce_te_ipsum - 4 months ago
atlanta United States
Member Since: Jun 2009
Member Points: 2
hey whats wrong with playing 26. ne2 instead odf c6?
by sam_musil - 4 months ago
Marysville, Kansas United States
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 266

To everyone ,

Sorry about the mistake in interpreting bondiggity 's analysis.  I did not look at it until today.  I corrected my last erroneous note.

Both lines given are dead draws!  The chess.com computer analysis is wrong.  Computers cannot play end games!

Sorry,  Sam

by bondiggity - 4 months ago
United States
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 1514

"Of course, if white exchanges rooks on the open e-file, the game is over foe white because black will always obtain the opposition because of the spatial advantage and superior pawn positioning."

 

Really? Did you even look at the position? Black can't force anything b/c white has plenty of room so that he always has the opposition when black moves forward. And queenside progress is moot. I really don't understand how you can't see this. 

by Eiwob - 4 months ago
Norway
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 450

Ah, I didn't see your comment on the f4 move, bondiggity. It makes my whole analysis flawed. sam_musil, what do you mean by "White cannot exchange rooks or he loses immediately with the bondiggity line!"? bondiggity showed how white would draw, not how black would win if the rooks were exchanged...

by sam_musil - 4 months ago
Marysville, Kansas United States
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 266

bondiggity ,

Of course, if white exchanges rooks on the open e-file, the game is drawn   because white will always obtain the opposition because of the  pawn positioning.  Your analysis is correct.  I did not play through your analysis but mis-interpreted your comments.  During the game, I expected white to start a series of checks on black's king.  That is why I did not capture with the e-pawn.  The point that the chess.com computer found is that the eventual Re3 will win because both sides get passed pawns after white plays R:g5, but black will queen first.  Of course, the computer was wrong since computers cannot play end games.

Due to the excellent analysis from bondiggity, we see that the game was drawn in either case given!

Eiwob ,

Your analysis is not correct if the rooks are exchanged, but bondiggity 's last analysis shows the loss after f4!!!.  White should exchange rooks and draw immediately with the bondiggity line!

Again I want to thank everyone for their participation and contributions!

Sincerely,  Sam

by bondiggity - 4 months ago
United States
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 1514

Yes. My final note on the position stated that wandering over to the queenside resulted in f4! and a loss. The only way black can try for a win is by losing! i.e.)

 

The effectiveness of f4! is dependent on white's king position. In your position white's king was close enough (e2), but if the king where on say e1, f4 would only draw since black could retreat in time to defend his pawn after f4 gxf4. So white would then play Ke2 and black would have to retreat back as well to defend so I'm pretty sure its a draw (as long as I'm not missing anything)

 

by Eiwob - 4 months ago
Norway
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 450

bondiggity , are you sure bringing the king to c6 and breaking through with b6 doesn't win?

by bondiggity - 4 months ago
United States
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 1514

Your evaluation of the endgame reached after 54. exd4+ is off. Nonetheless, good game. 

 

by KriptikMike - 4 months ago
Elk Grove, CA United States
Member Since: May 2009
Member Points: 156

Very good game and strong play from both of you.

by sam_musil - 4 months ago
Marysville, Kansas United States
Member Since: Jan 2008
Member Points: 266

Shakje ,

Thanks for the compliments on my analysis.  I always try to honestly share my frustrations over my weak moves.  Leaving the isolated e-pawn on the board was really lame!

Sincerely,  Sam

by shakje - 4 months ago
Tyne and Wear, UK Scotland
Member Since: Aug 2007
Member Points: 903

Fantastic game, thanks for posting. It make me happy that I noticed Rd8 and exd4 were more natural! Really informative and well analysed. Thanks again!

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.