Feb-22-06
 |
| notyetagm: Wow, no kibitzing for Botvinnik's textbook example of creating a second weakness in order to overstretch the defense. |
 |
Jun-06-06
 |
| KingG: Yeah, i'm quite surprised this hasn't been more kibitzed on as well. This is one of the most instructive games ever played IMO. 25.g4!! is just fantastic. |
|
| Jun-06-06 |
| offramp: Probably because it's like one of those games where one player plays and the other one applauds. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| KingG: Yeah, like there aren't hundreds of pages of kibitzing on other such games. |
|
| Jun-06-06 |
| ughaibu: 36.... d4? |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| KingG: <ughaibu> 36...d4 37.Rg5!  |
|
Jun-06-06
 |
| keypusher: What is this <creating a second weakness> claptrap anyway? 25. g4 creates a weakness in White's position. That it (possibly) wins by force is a mere detail. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| KingG: <keypusher> It creates a weakness in White's position that Black has no way of exploiting(so it's not really a weakness). On the other hand, once the pawn reaches h5, it creates a weakness on Black's K-side that White can exploit. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| keypusher: Well, as long as we're throwing jargon around, g4-g5 creates targets, not an enemy weakness as I understand the term. Botvinnik breaks up his own kingside to make Black's king easier to get at. That makes <textbook example of creating a second weakness> a silly way to describe the game IMO. |
|
| Jun-06-06 |
| madlydeeply: ooh, look at this game...I gotta new toy! Open the gfile in an IQP position...I can't wait to try it out... Botvinnik won from both sides of the IQP, dominate the center, then start a kingside attack and the opponent collapses... I wonder if Botvinnik would have opened up his kingside of more minor pieces were present...there would be more counterattacking potential if black had some knights, also how about 29... or 30...Rd6 looking to swing over to g6 and start a counterattack...makes the position less rational... thank goodness black played 33...Rb8 covering the all important b pawn, the endgame is never too far away! I mighta played ....Rd6-h6, ...Be6, ...Kf7, ...Rfh8 but hey that's why I'm such a crazy patzer! |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| KingG: < Well, as long as we're throwing jargon around, g4-g5 creates targets, not an enemy weakness as I understand the term. Botvinnik breaks up his own kingside to make Black's king easier to get at. That makes <textbook example of creating a second weakness> a silly way to describe the game IMO.> What is the difference between 'weakness' and 'target'? They seem mean more or less the same thing to me. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| keypusher: The pawn at d5 is a weakness. The pawn at g7 is a target. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| KingG: <keypusher> They are both weak pawns aren't they? |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| keypusher: <KingG> The pawn at d5 is a classic weakness, of course. The pawn at g7 isn't -- it isn't backward (at the moment Botvinnik plays g4-g5), isolated or doubled. It is, rather, relatively easy to attack, and hard to defend. That makes it a target. A small distinction, but a useful one, in my view. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| KingG: <keypusher> Ok, i see your point. |
|
Jun-06-06
 |
| Gypsy: <madlydeeply: ooh, look at this game...I gotta new toy! Open the gfile in an IQP position...I can't wait to try it out...> This g2-g4-g5 is a standard 'can-opener' maneuver. It works of the 'hook' on h6 (or one on f6) for this to work. I am not making the strange rerminology up, the saying goes that you need such a hook to have somethin upon which to hang your attack. If the 'hook' is on g6, then the the standard 'can-opener' maneuver is h2-h4-h5. I reckon that when Botvinnik played the 'escape hatch' move h2-h3, he expected fully well to induce the tit-for-tat reply h7-h6 (or g7-g6). |
|
| Jun-06-06 |
| madlydeeply: I've seen Botvinnik lift his rooks in the IQP similar position to go for a king side attack, along with a knight posted in e5 attacking f7, and I have seen lots of games utilising the h6 or g6 hook, those are generally sicilians with opposite side castling or ruy lopez' with e4/d5 vs. e5/d6 center blockage...what is new (for me) about this game is the center is open and airy, so playing g4 is a little more ballsy, weakening f3 and h3 when black has the light squared bishop... and I'm all for strange rerminology! did you make up the word "rerminology"? its a good one! oh, i guess you meant "terminology" no that I think about it, "terminology" is a good name for nuclear weapons, a contraction of "terminal technology". Oh i'm so funny |
|
| Jun-06-06 |
| offramp: I think there should be no kibitzing at all for this dull-as-ditchwater game. |
|
Jun-06-06
|
| Gypsy: <madlydeeply...what is new (for me) about this game is the center is open and airy, so playing g4 is a little more ballsy, weakening f3 and h3 when black has the light squared bishop...> Two times to play thus: one, when we have all the initiative; two, when we have none. In the first case, we play for the win; in the second, for mixing up things. <did you make up the word "rerminology"?> Lol. I obviously did. Speaking of rook lifts and IQP: This is a duzy Keene vs Miles, 1975. |
|
| Oct-18-07 |
| fictionist: I don't understand some of these user's posts that Botvinnik did actually make a weakness by playing 25.g4. I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it is well played as it starts to undermine Black's kingside resulting into a nearly naked kingside for Black. His pieces are indeed active but tied down to their posts and couldn't even react to Botvinnik's "little-by-little" invasion. Black's rooks were already too late to defend. |
|
| Sep-20-08 |
| Phoenix: Botvinnik first nails down the IQP, then opens a second front on black's king...the principle of two weaknesses in action. 25.g4 loosens up white's kingside but black cannot take advantage of it, being too tied up with the defense of his d-pawn. This example was a middlegame, whereas Aronian vs Ivanchuk, 2008 was an endgame, but the similarities are clear. Aronian contains the d-pawn with a nice king maneuver and breaks through on the kingside via f4-f5 creating more weaknesses on g6 and b6. Quite instructive. |
|
