|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: With 25 Rd8+ followed by 26 f5, Chigorin finds two strong forcing moves (check and pawn double attack), enabling a devastating "double attack" theme after 27. Qc5! Following 27. Qc5!, the dual threats of either 28. Qf8# or 28. Nxf5+ force black's surrender, as they can only be avoided at the cost of giving up too much material. |
|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: If black attempts to escape by 27...Re1+, then 28 Kf2 wins. Chesslab.com gives the following analysis of white's win if black tries 27...Re1+:|
(6.64 plus score) 28. Kf2 Re2+ 29. Kf1 Qxg3 30. hxg3 Rxc2 31. Qxf5 Rxb2 32. Qg4+ Kh6 33. Qd4 Rb1+ 34. Ke2 Rb6 35. Qxf6+
(6.10 plus score) 28. Kf2 Re2+ 29. Kf1 Qxg3 30. hxg3 Rxc2 31. Qxf5 Rxb2 32. Qg4+ Kh6 33. Rd7 Rb1+ 34. Ke2
(5.64 plus score) 28. Kf2 Re2+ 29. Kf1 Qxg3 30. hxg3 Rxc2 31. Qxf5 Rxb2 32. Rd7
(5.75 plus score) 28. Kf2 Re2+ 29. Nxe2 Kh6 30. Qxa7 b5 31. Qe3+ Qg5 32. Qxg5+ Kxg5 33. Nd4
(5.67 plus score) 28. Kf2 Re2+ 29. Nxe2 Kh6 30. Qxa7 Be4 31. Nf4
(5.46 plus score) 28. Kf2 Re2+ 29. Nxe2 Qg4 30. Qxa7 Qb4
|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: Chigorin, plays an excellent attack against Janowski's two knights defense. However, instead of 11...Nxe7 conceding the initiative and the center to white, Janowski might have done better with 11...Kxe7.|
Computer analysis by chesslab.com gives 11. ... Kxe7 12. Nxd4 Qxd1 13. Nxc6+ bxc6 14. Raxd1 Rab8 15. b3 Rhd8 16. Nc5 Rd6 with a near even game and drawing chances for black, though with a slight pull for white (.01 plus score white advantage) due to black's weaker queenside pawn structure.
|Jun-29-03|| ||Sneaky: ".01 plus score white advantage" Don't overestimate the importance of computer evaluations. If the comp says "+3.29" or "+Mate05" then you better listen to it, but in that case it's so close to zero it's totally meaningless. |
|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: <Sneaky> Actually, I'm basing the white slight plus on my own assessment of the position (albeit the position given by computer analysis). The fact that black has two doubled pawns on the (c) file and an isolated pawn on the (a) file, while white has three connected pawns and otherwise equal play in this rook and knight versus rook and bishop position, gives white the slight advantage. With reasonable chances to exchange down to a pawn only ending or at least a rook and pawn ending, white will have most of the chances in the end game. And black will have to play very carefully and with much skill to draw. White, however, will need to be careful to avoid a knight versus bishop ending, with chances for black. |
|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: Instead of 8...Qh5, Batsford Chess Openings (Kasparov and Keene) gives 8...Qa5 as leading to an even game for black. The BCO analysis goes 8...Qa5 9. Nxe4 Be6 10. Bd2 Qd5! 11. Bg5 Bd6 12. Bf6!? (12. c3 0-0 = Littlewood/Medina, Hastings 1969/70)0-0! = (with a level position). |
|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: Chesslab.com in a variation on the BCO recommendation above gives 8...Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10. Bd2 Bb4 (the computer's preference to the BCO 10...Qd5 recomendation above) 11. Nxd4 Nxd4 12. c3 Be7 13. cxd4 Qd5 14. Bf4 c6 15. Nc3 Qf5 16. Qd2 O-O 17. Re5 Qg4 with an even position (0.11 plus score for black) that seems to offer satisfactory middle-game tactical play and chances for black. |
|Jun-29-03|| ||patzer2: I'm beginning to wonder about the chesslab.com computer analysis. I plugged in 25. f5 instead of 25. Re1+ to see if the move order in the winning combination made any difference (25. f5 and then 26. Re1+ instead of 25. Re1+ followed by 26. f5).|
To my surprise, the chesslab.com computer gave one recommended variation as 25. ... Bxf5 26. Rd8+ Kg7 27. Qc5 Re1+ 28. Kf2 Re5 29. Qxa7(with a 0.63 plus score for white). However, the chesslab.com computer missed a mate in one by not playing 29. Qf8# instead of 29.Qxa7. Interesting! I guess computers, like humans, also make mistakes in analysis. I wonder if Fritz 8 or Chessmaster 9000 would do better?
|Jun-29-03|| ||crafty: 25. f5 ♖xd6 26. fxg6 ♖d1+ 27. ♔f2 hxg6 28. ♘e4 (eval 5.97; depth 15 ply; 150M nodes)|
|Jun-29-03|| ||fred lennox: A battle between one who prefered bishop(s) to one who prefered knight(s). Chigorin was looked upon as old fashion in his preference for knights by the classical school. The Russians naturally took a differant view clinging to the 19th century thought of bishops not being superior. They were often favored by Nimzowitch, Tal, Kasparov and Petrosian. It was Nezhmatdinov favorite piece. In exploiting the knights potential the door opened to multifarious and dynamic play. |
|Jun-30-03|| ||drukenknight: re: chesslab computer. what I have found, is that when it gives you a line of moves, this is less of a certainty than when it gives you the next move.|
What I mean is that since the computer can only see x number of moves ahead, it is very likely to play bad moves at the end of a given line of analysis than at the beginning. For obvious reasons.
If the computer can only see, for example 10 moves ahead, and it gives you a line of analysis 9 moves long, it could easily miss a mate in 2 on the 9th move. Or it could miss a mate in 3 on the 8th move. Etc etc.
Do you see what I am saying?
The best remedy is to play the moves one by one asking the computer for analysis upon each move.
OF course if there are some obvious moves, then of course play 3 or 4 in a row and then ask it for analysis.
The computer always plays true to itself and will find all the tactical possibilities and mating possibilities wiht a short reference span, say 5 or 6 moves.
But by the same token it is unable to form a clear plan beyond this. I have found that the computer can be fooled quite easily when it chases material in the latter stages of a line.
I.e. I give the computer a move that gives black an attack and white some material. For the first 5 or 6 moves the computer plays white very tactically. As black I parry every tactic, still keeping my attack alive.
But then near the end of 5 or 6 moves the computer sees a chance to grab more material. If I am smart I have a long term positional advantage that I am playing for, e.g. a passed pawn. He grabs the material because he cant see deep enuf to see how the passed pawn will score.
I will post some examples in a short time.
|Jan-22-07|| ||notyetagm: <patzer2: With 25 Rd8+ followed by 26 f5, Chigorin finds two strong forcing moves (check and pawn double attack), enabling a devastating "double attack" theme after 27. Qc5! Following 27. Qc5!, the dual threats of either 28. Qf8# or 28. Nxf5+ force black's surrender, as they can only be avoided at the cost of giving up too much material.>|
Very nice explanation of Chigorin's brilliant petite combination 25 ♖d8+ ♔g7 26 f5! ♗xf5 27 ♕c5! <double attack>.
|Apr-01-07|| ||gambitfan: Is this a Max Lange attack ?|
|Feb-17-08|| ||Knight13: Look at the position after 14. Qd2. Chigorin must've been grinning.|