|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Sep-04-09
 |
| RandomVisitor: Here is what I am working on (incomplete):
After the possible improvement 25...Rf8 26.Qf4 Ne4 [forced] 27.Qe5 black has great problems: Analysis by Rybka 3 :
<27...Qd7> [+1.20] d=23 28.fxg6 hxg6 29.Nxe4 dxe4 30.Ba3 Rf7 31.Qxe4 Qf5 32.Qh4 Qh5 33.Qd8+ Kh7 34.Bd6 Qf5 35.Qh4+ Qh5 36.Qg3 a5 37.h3 g5 38.d5 a4 39.Ba3 Nc5 40.Bxc5 bxc5 41.d6 a3 32.Ra1 g4 43.Rxa3 <27...Qc6> 28.fxg6 hxg6 29.Nxe4 dxe4 30.Ba3 Rf5 31.Qb8+ Kg7 32.Bd6! Na5 and now perhaps 33.h3 and white should win |
 |
Sep-05-09
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: There is now a link on my page ... that points them directly to your post. (above) |
|
Sep-05-09
|
| RandomVisitor: Here is the final refutation of <25...Rf8>: After the possible improvement <25...Rf8> 26.Qf4 Ne4 [forced] 27.Qe5 black has apparently no way to draw: Analysis by Rybka3:
<I 27...Qd7>
28.fxg6 hxg6 [28...Nxg3 29.hxg3  ]
29.Nxe4 dxe4
30.Ba3 and now:
A. [+1.79] d=25 30...Rf7 31.Qxe4 Qf5 32.Qh4 Qh5 33.Re8 [Qd8 +1.80/21] Kh7 34.Qe1 Qf5 35.h4 Qf4 36.Be7 Nc1 37.Bg5 Nd3 38.Bxf4 Nxe1 39.d5 Nd3 40.Be3 g5 41.Bxg5 Kg6 42.d6 Rd7 43.Rd8 Rxd8 44.Bxd8 (21:57.13) 21752283kN B. 30...Re8 31.Qg5 Qf5 32.Qe3 scores +1.99/20 32...Qh5 33.Rf1 Qh4 34.h3; +2.16/20 32...Qa5 33.Bd6 Qd5 34.Be5 <II 27...Qc6> 28.fxg6 hxg6 29.Nxe4 dxe4 30.Ba3 Rf5 31.Qb8+ Kg7 32.Bd6! Na5 and now perhaps 33.h3 and white should win |
|
| Sep-05-09 |
| psmith: <RandomVisitor>: going back to your earlier suggestion of 21...Qc6, I have looked at the plan of 22. f4 followed by f5. Aided by Fritz 5.32 I have looked at two lines. (Actually, I have looked at a lot more, but at the moment these seem most salient to me.) In the first, Black just ignores white and continues with his queen-side plan: 21... Qc6 22. f4 b5 23. f5 a5 24. Re3 b4 25. f6 gxf6 (25...g6 26. Nf5 Kh8 27. Nd6 Kg8 28. Qf4 Nbc5 29. dxc5 Qxc5 30. cxb4 axb4 31. Bd4) 26. Nf5 fxe5 27. Qg3+ Qg6 28. Nh6+ Kh8 29. Nxf7+ Kg8 30. Qh3 Nd2 31. Rg3 Nxf1 32. Rxg6+ winning In the second Black tries to organize a defense:
21... Qc6 22. f4 Qh6 23. f5 Nf8 24. f6 g6 25. Re3 Ne6 (25... b5 26. Kh1 a5 27. Ba3 Ne6 28. Nf5 gxf5 29. Rh3 Qd2 30. Qxf5 h6 31. Rg3+ Ng5 32. h4 b4 33. hxg5 Nxd4 34. cxd4 Qxd4 35. Qh3 winning. Any thoughts? |
|
| Sep-05-09 |
| psmith: Sorry, the second line should go:
21... Qc6 0 22. f4 Qh6 23. f5 Nf8 24. f6 g6 25. Re3 Ne6 (25... b5 26. Kh1 a5 27. Ba3 Ne6
28. Nf5 gxf5 29. Rh3 Qd2 30. Qxf5 h6 31. Rg3+ Ng5 32. h4 b4 33. hxg5 Nxd4 34.
cxd4 Qxd4 35. Qh3) 26. Kh1 b5 27. Nf5 gxf5 28. Rh3 Qd2 29. Qxf5 Nf8 30. Ba3 Ng6
31. Qh5 h6 32. Rg3 Kh7 33. e6 Rxe6 34. Rxg6 fxg6 35. Qxd5 Rae8 36. Qd7+ winning. |
|
Sep-05-09
|
| RandomVisitor: <psmith>I have this as a deep look at 21...Qc6 - I am examining your suggestion of 22.f4: [+0.82] d=25 21...Qc6 22.Nf5 Qe6 23.Nd6 f5 24.g4 f4 25.Nxe8 Rxe8 26.Bc1 Rf8 27.Qh4 b5 28.Ba3 Re8 29.Qg5 Nb8 30.Qxf4 Nc6 31.Re2 a5 32.Bb2 b4 33.Qe3 a4 34.cxb4 Nxb4 35.Bc3 Nd3 36.Ra2 Qd7 (15:45.25) 11423569kN |
|
Sep-05-09
|
| RandomVisitor: After 21...Qc6 22.f4:
[+0.71] d=19 22...a5 23.Nf5 Nf8 24.Re3 (0:17.21) 189506kN |
|
Sep-05-09
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <Random Visitor> Thanks for all your hard work. My initial judgment was that 25...Rf8; while perhaps ONLY SLIGHTLY SUPERIOR to 25...Re8; it should still not be enough to save the game. (My logic? It did not fundamentally change the nature of the position.) |
|
Sep-06-09
 |
| Open Defence: and to think players like Capablanca calculated such variations <OTB> wow!! |
|
| Sep-06-09 |
| psmith: <RandomVisitor>
My suggestion would be 21...Qc6 22. f4 a5 23. f5 (rather than 23. Nf5).The point is that I am not just suggesting a *move* (22. f4). I am suggesting a *plan* -- which is f4-f5-f6. In my opinion this was in fact Botvinnik's plan and what he would have played if Capablanca had played 21...Qc6. The further details of this plan will unfold later but may include Nf5 (either after gxf6 or as a sacrifice after g6), Ba3 (especially if the Non d7 goes to f8), Re3 (in order to lift to g3 or h3) and Qh4 (to attack h7 or possibly to go to h6) or Qf4 (to go to h6). So analyzing 21... Qc6 22. f4 a5 23. Nf5 is pretty much *not* analyzing my suggestion -- if you're going to play Nf5 before f5-f6, then why play f4 first? So, to make a long story short, I'd be curious about the outcome according to Rybka of 21...Qc6 22. f4 a5 23. f5. (I would also like to note a difference between analysis by Rybka, and what I am doing. I am analyzing using a much weaker engine -- Fritz 5.32, but I am not just reporting analysis by that engine. I am instead using the engine in combination with my own analysis. The results are not infallible. But I believe they indicate that my plan is winning for White.) |
|
Sep-06-09
 |
| Chessical: <psmith> Applying Rybka 2.2. and Fritz 11 to your suggested line of: <21...Qc6!?> 22. f4 a5 23. f5 
click for larger viewThe programs' "consensus" continuation on about 45 seconds a move is: <23....b5> 24. Nh5 Qh6 25. Nf4 Qc6 26. Re3 b4 27.Rh3 and both show about a pawn advantage to White. 
click for larger viewApplying the plan "neat" (without <24.Nh5>) seems playable but the computers show less of an advantage to White: <21... Qc6> 22. f4 a5 23. f5 b5 <24. f6!?> gxf6 25. Nh5 Kh8 26. Qh4 Rg8 27. Nxf6 Nxf6 28. Rxf6 
click for larger view |
|
Sep-06-09
|
| RandomVisitor: After 21...Qc6 22.f4, deeper run:
[+1.19] d=23 22...a5 23.Nf5 b5 24.Re3 (19:05.57) 13661759kN |
|
| Sep-15-09 |
| qv0: Does anybody know if there is any record of how much time each of the players used in making their respective moves? |
|
| Sep-16-09 |
| Checkmater: After 41. Kh5
41. ...h6
42. Qg6+ Kh8
43. e8=Q+ Qxe8
44. Qxe8+ Kg7
45. Qe7+ Kg8
46. Kxh6 Nxd4
47. Qg7# 1-0 |
|
| Oct-14-09 |
| HeMateMe: beautiful play by Botvinnik. I don't think Capa ever expected the A pawn sac. |
|
| Oct-23-09 |
| Qb6: How about 30.  a3  e8? |
|
Dec-24-09
 |
| mysql: 30. Ba3 and 31. Nh5+ are just brilliant. |
|
| Jan-23-10 |
| Shah Mat: <HeHateMe> I think at 16.Rae1, Capa saw that Botvinnik was going for central play and leaving the pawn to the maw of the monarch. and i disagree with <RandomVisitor> that taking the pawn was misguided. it was an appropriate plan based on the position and at many points in this game black could easily have won or drawn if not for the brilliancies Ba1 and Nh5+ |
|
| Apr-18-10 |
| mrandersson: You got to love classic chess players in the days be for computers. Not sure what grandmaster is was that quoted "most super gms moves are often rybka based these days hence all the quick draws" does any 1 know who it was that said it?what i wrote might not be word for word but you get the idea. |
|
| Jun-15-10 |
| bishop55: This masterpiece isn't actually flawless. On move 13 Capablanca should have played cxd4 and take over the c file. This indicates that Botvinnik's move order was inacurate. Better was 11.f3, with play similar to Kasparov vs B Ivanovic, 1983. |
|
| Jun-15-10 |
| kjr63: This game is very similar to the Bot-Capa game:
Gelfand vs Eljanov, 2010 |
|
Jul-27-10
 |
| tpstar: Very entertaining kibitzing, and deep analysis of some interesting sidelines. I think the 30. Ba3!! Qxa3 31. Nh5+! gxh5 32. Qg5+ combination suffers on this site from familiarity ("overrated") as the two-piece sacrifice is easy to see once you've seen it. It also helps that White ends up with a monster passed Pawn while Black's Queenside Pawns are miles away from Queening and the Nb3 is no help. It surprises me that club players wouldn't recognize this game. The setting is so famous and the pattern is so distinctive that I would expect everybody to know the winner, with most able to name the specific game reference. |
|
Jul-27-10
 |
| Calli: "two-piece sacrifice" - I would quibble that Nh5+ merely exchanges knights and should not be classified as a sacrifice. |
|
| Aug-09-10 |
| Grantchamp: To calli: Botnivvik sacced two pieces. One temporaroly and one permanently |
|
| Aug-10-10 |
| sevenseaman: The intricate moves to take White king away from the marauding Black queen's reach is noteworthy. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
