|Feb-09-06|| ||Valtro: What a crazy game...|
|Mar-06-11|| ||selfmate: This game is given by Hooper and Whylde as an example of Nizowitsch's play in 1st ed. O.C.C.|
I have to question 12...c4 - isn't that sort of move, removing the central tension and allowing white a free hand on the k-side, usually bad?
Spielmann really seemed to have gotten a winning k-side attack, but threw it away with inaccurate play.
Nimzowitsch did a nice job consolidating though, and it's striking how he transferred his king to safety over on the q-side only to advanced his b-pawn for a breakthrough there.
|Dec-27-15|| ||PawnSac: Sometimes if you give your opponent enough rope he will hang himself! lol|
|Dec-27-15|| ||perfidious: <selfmate....Spielmann really seemed to have gotten a winning k-side attack, but threw it away with inaccurate play.>|
Believe this was also Euwe's conclusion in his books on the middlegame--seems to me that he believed the first piece sacrifice was sound, but not the second.
|Feb-24-17|| ||waustad: Two players I really like who both went to Scandinavia to get away from bad stuff back home. I wish the world had been better to both.|
|Feb-24-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: 36...Nc6 was when every kibbitzer in the room said bu, bu, but wha about de...?|
|Feb-24-17|| ||offramp: <ChessHigherCat: 36...Nc6 was when every kibbitzer in the room said bu, bu, but wha about de...?>|
36...de is not possible. Do you mean 36...bc?
|Feb-24-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <offramp> No, I meant, What ef...?|
|Feb-24-17|| ||kevin86: A bad afternoon for Spielmann.|
|Feb-24-17|| ||Honza Cervenka: 20.Ne4! was much better continuation. White is threatening 21.Qxg7+ and his attack is definitely worth of sacced piece, for example 20...Nf5 21.Qg6+ Kf8 22.Bh6+ Nxh6 23.Qg7+ etc. or 20...Bxh4+ 21.Ke2 Kf8 22.Nd6 etc.|
|Feb-24-17|| ||keypusher: <waustad: Two players I really like who both went to Scandinavia to get away from bad stuff back home. I wish the world had been better to both.>|
That is well said.
<I have to question 12...c4 - isn't that sort of move, removing the central tension and allowing white a free hand on the k-side, usually bad?>
So the books say...I think it tends to work better than its reputation.
<Indirect defence [that is, defense by counterattack in a different part of the board] by means of advancing a pawn majority on the queenside was at one time held in high esteem and was more often practised than nowadays; the real reason for this is that we have acquired a better understanding of the centre and the technique of centralization, thanks to the hypermodern school. It is clear that the player who has a majority on the wing, when the material is equally balanced, will usually not have the greater influence or pressure in the centre, nor will he have the necessary conditions for a central action. A majority on the wing is created at the expense of the centre and means giving up lateral pressure on the centre, and that is the sort of strategy which the masters of today are reluctant to adopt. The struggle for the centre is a characteristic feature of all present-day openings, and the centralization of the pieces is an important theme of modern positional play; as a result, a majority on the wing appears nowadays more as a by-product of a particular strategy than its primary aim (for example, in the Exchange Variation of the Gruenfeld Defence).>
Tarrasch vs Schlechter, 1896
See P Ostojic vs Botvinnik, 1969 -- apparently Korchnoi also played this way.
|Feb-24-17|| ||morfishine: <Honza Cervenka> Nice post, you have a unique way of seeing through a position|
|Feb-25-17|| ||morfishine: Ping Pong Chess|