< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|May-30-03|| ||drukenknight: Ugi here is Fischer improving the Goteborg a little with 13...Rh7|
But why doesnt Geller continue to attack the K w/ 14 OO+? He is behind in material he needs to make every move count towards the attack.
Also if 10...Nd7 is bad because it blocks the Bishop then isnt whites most logical choice to give his B more freedom. So if 11 Bc4 this then sets up a better sack on e6, yes?
The B sack on e6 is fairly common in the sicilian, because when the N recaptures on e6 it can then give check on the K.
|Jul-18-03|| ||ughaibu: Drukenknight: I agree the castling looks most natural but black's pieces can come to life very quickly. Bb5 is the move the Argentinians had missed in their homework, I dont remember why it's necessary. Nd7 re-routing the knight to e5 is the main point of g5. |
|Jul-18-03|| ||drukenknight: whats your response to 14..00+ then? |
|Jul-18-03|| ||ughaibu: Kg8. I think I remembered the idea of Bb5, it's in order to prevent black protecting his knight, once it gets to e5, with the other knight. |
|Aug-16-03|| ||Marnoff Mirlony: I think I prefer 14. Rf1+ to 14. 0-0+ simply because then you can Castle opposite flank with 0-0-0 with a safer King.|
The 13. Bb5 move was what "put the Argentenians out of business" so-to-speak. It's still a curious one to look at. Shows the power of the top Soviet GMs to be able to find it.
|Aug-27-03|| ||SicilianDragon: There's an interesting story behind this match and variation can be found at http://chessbase.com/columns/column... and is really fascinating. Fischer had declined a draw earlier and only took the draw because he saw that David Bronstein (who had the same score but was better on tie-breaks) was in a losing position and the half-point was all he needed to overtake Bronstein and qualify for the Candidates. |
|Aug-28-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Gligoric should have played the immediate 14. 0-0 or Rf1+. Why didn't he? |
|Feb-17-05|| ||aw1988: An amazingly sharp introduction. |
|Nov-28-05|| ||aw1988: I think the point is either O-O+? Kg8 when both the bishops are threatened, or that the king is in perfect safety, but I think the former may be true.|
|Nov-28-05|| ||Brown: Well, Shabalov gave it a shot and was successful against different opponent and quicker time controls|
Shabalov vs Sadvakasov, 2000
|Nov-28-05|| ||aw1988: But that looks unsound.|
|Nov-28-05|| ||Brown: <aw1988> When you click on similar games, it seems that white is doing remarkably well.|
|Nov-28-05|| ||aw1988: OK, so this is why Fischer disappeared for 20 years. Happy?|
|Nov-29-05|| ||Brown: <aw1988>
|Nov-29-05|| ||aw1988: Never mind, I have a horrible sense of humor.|
|Dec-07-06|| ||joelsontang: is 11.Qh5 a refutation of the goteberg variation? since the opening book 'basic chess openings' says it is. in 'complete chess games of the american world chess champion', by lou hays, it also says 11.Nxe6?, but 11.Qh5 . so is black's position still playable after 11.Qh5?|
|Dec-08-06|| ||RookFile: No, 11. Qh5 is not a refutation.
O Maiorov vs Sadvakasov, 1996
|Jul-26-07|| ||Owl: Svetozar Gligoric is Serbing he is not Argentinaian|
|Jul-26-07|| ||plang: <Svetozar Gligoric is Serbing>|
Which galaxy is that in?
|Jul-13-08|| ||offtherook: <joelsontang: is 11.Qh5 a refutation of the goteberg variation?> I have some analysis from Geller that claims this line is a forced draw because White must take perpetual check after the attack can not defeat proper defense. Geller was actually the first to play the knight sac (the three Soviet players Geller, Keres, and Spassky vs the 3 Argentines Najdorf, Pilnik, and Panno at the Interzonals looked off each others positions on the demonstration boards after they were surprised by this novelty the Argentines had worked together on- played simultaneously on 3 boards in the same tournament!) but his later analysis says that White has to look elsewhere because the 11 Qh5 line is a forced draw. I like to play this as Black because once I know the theory, I have at least a draw and there is a good chance of my opponent messing up and letting me win.|
|Sep-02-08|| ||chancho: Photo of this game:
|Jan-17-09|| ||nhat8121: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...|
|Sep-17-09|| ||timhortons: <HEMATEme>
this is what cg user <zanshin> say about what you ask me>
I went through the rest of the game more quickly and found evaluations ranged from -0.2 to +0.4. At the end of the game, it was about +0.09. So I have to conclude that Rybka evaluated the game as pretty much a draw from beginning to end.
<hemateme>..everything is debatable here at chessgames.com, but one thing i know is that zanshin is better qualified than me in using chess software in analyzing games. i hope this offer you help...
|Mar-12-10|| ||rapidcitychess: For Questions on this complex variation, go to B99 page.Sicilian, Najdorf, 7...Be7 Main line (B99)|
|Mar-12-10|| ||rapidcitychess: Shams told an old dude how it is done.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·