|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jan-25-05
 |
| An Englishman: Good Evening: Somewhere, Nimzowitsch was either smiling with pleasure or moaning and wishing he had played the game first. This game has it all: the Nimzo-Indian, restraint and blockade, slow constriction resulting in zugzwang: seriously, if you didn't know who had Black, wouldn't you have guessed Nimzo? I want to draw special attention to 18...dxe5. Just when you think Black's going to play c5xd4 and then snatch the c4 pawn, he eliminates his own threat! Not only that, he closes the c-file to his own Rook! Reshevsky even opens the d-file for White's Rook! But he's seen further; what really matters is that both White Bishops will be useless for the rest of the game. Very good. |
 |
| Jan-25-05 |
| JohnnyRambo: I find it amazing that
Reshevsky in time trouble ignored 32. g4 with
Rcd7. Terrific play on Reshevsky's
part. |
|
Jan-25-05
 |
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: This indeed was a great game by Reshevsky. It was Botvinnik's first defeat in the tournament (it was at the halfway point). But Botvinnik got his revenge--he soundly defeated Reshevsky in their next two encounters. |
|
| Jan-25-05 |
| JohnnyRambo: Well, I give Botvinnik full credit
for the Nimzo Indian victory. But
the 4 knights game is a joke. To
understand this, realize that at any
point in the opening, Reshevsky could have offered a draw, and Botvinnik would have gladly accpted. The tournament position, and the reality that Keres was throwing free points to Botvinnik, forced Reshevsky to attempt a reckless strategy aimed at creating complications. A better estimate of their relative strengths can be found in their 1955
match, which Reshevsky won, 2.5 to 1.5. |
|
Jan-25-05
|
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: <JohnnyRambo>--I disagree with that last statement. By the 50's Botvinnik was not quite what he had been and he didn't do very well in any of his matches. But in 1948 he was still at the top of his form and had positive scores against all of the other participants in the match-tournament. Reshevsky probably would have become world champion if the time controls had been different--say, 40/2(days). |
|
Jan-26-05
 |
| euripides: <Greg By the 50's Botvinnik was not quite what he had been and he didn't do very well in any of his matches.> He did OK in 1958 and 1961. I think if Reshevsky had played Botvinnik for the world championship Botvinnik would have been as ruthlessly determined as in these two matches. |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| Kingdumb: I am a firm believer that doubled pawns will kill you. White lost this game at move 6. I ultimately find that in games between players of equal strength doubled pawns are the difference in a great percentage of them. I personally have found most games I lose are because of this very problem. At move 5 white should have played Bd2. It may seem insignificant at this point but again, my experience tells me otherwise. Sometimes games are indeed lost in the first 5 moves. |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| JohnnyRambo: Well, it wasn't hard for Botvinnik to get
a plus score against Keres, who
was throwing games to Botvinnik.
A lot of people feel that at this
time, Reuben Fine was actually a
stronger player than Reshevsky (although in his games against Reshevsky himself he had a couple
of blunders). Kasparov made the
point that Rueben Fine is the only
non-champion in history to have a positive
score against the world champions
he played ( in his case, 5 of them ).
If memory serves, Fine had a plus score
against Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine,
and Botvinnik, and played Euwe even.
With that kind of strength, why didn't
he play? Fine felt it was a waste
of time, he could see that that Russians
were going to throw games as needed to
each other to ensure a Russian victory.
By about 1950 or so he was done with chess,
it was time for him to start making
money. |
|
Jan-26-05
|
| euripides: <JR> At least do Keres the courtesy of getting his nationality right. |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| JohnnyRambo: So, I was being a bit lazy. Keres
said the same thing to Fischer himself
once, and Fischer said: "You're all
Russians to me!" Not that there is
a doubt which country was calling the
shots.... |
|
Jan-26-05
|
| euripides: <JR> Yes, that anecdote speaks volumes about Fischer. |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| drukenknight: <I am a firm believer that doubled pawns will kill you.> You are being too dogmatic here and possibly suffering from delusions of paranoia. I know this for sure, because I used to think this, until my mental health professional changed my medication levels. Okay, some people on this website helped me too. Its true, you can go through my posts from 2002 and 2001 and see that I was operating under some serious delusions. You can prove that your idea does not make sense very simply. THere are many endgames positions that we know are drawn and they include many positions where one side has doubled pawns. Find a few of those from books. Now, it is also true in chess, that in many of these positions, adding more pieces does NOT make it easier to win. In fact it makes the game more likely to balance. (if you play enuf games you will learn this by experience). Now start adding more pieces, to these drawn positions. Keep adding pieces until you get to an opening. You will see that many openings have doubled pawns but do not lose. Hence doubling pawns by itself will not lose the game in MANY MANY cases. THere is also another, more theoretical way to prove this. In every game of chess something has to give, you cannot play a game of chess and get your pieces onto all their ideal squares no matter how many games you play. SOoner or later one side has to give up a pawn, or one side has to double pawns, or one side has to put a piece on a bad square. There is no other way around this problem. ANd yet we know from experience and from computer analysis, that even with slightly weaker position the game is still a draw! THink about that. And give your mental health professional a call. |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| JohnnyRambo: Well, take the case of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4. This is the old way they used to play the Ruy Lopez exchange variation, Lasker rolled up some nice victories with it. What is not quite as well known is that Rubinstein
was very happy to be black here, and would use his two bishops to cut the board in half, winning games with black, which is why 5. d4 fell out of favor... |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| Kingdumb: Hey Knight! :) Actually I've been off the meds for a while. I think David E Kelly and myself need to go back on them. I agree with a lot of what you're saying to a point. And yes, you can't play a flawless game of chess as you say. But of all the evils in this game I do believe doubled pawns to be the worst, even more so than a piece being on a bad square as there is always a way to either defend it, move it or try to get something back for it even if not of equal value. That is of course unless you play like my Uncle Milton who couldn't beat a corpse who's been collecting dust and bugs for 10 years. I'm just saying that personally I'll take my chances with a poorly placed piece, which in a sense a doubled pawn is anyway, over the other ills in chess. I personally seem to lose more games this way. Maybe it has something to do with my strengths as opposed to my weaknesses. I have a much easier time getting my queen out of what seems like a sure death blow than in trying to deal with those pesky doubled pawns. Like they say, to each his own. But I will look into getting back on the meds. |
|
| Jan-26-05 |
| drukenknight: <And yes, you can't play a flawless game of chess as you say> Not exactly what I'm saying though. Is it? I am saying you cannot play a game w/o one side or the other having to partially weaken some aspect, whether it is positional problem, material loss, tempo problem whatever. You CAN play flawlessly. You can play w/o mistakes, happens everyday everywhere in the world. BUt NO game in the world (other than short draws can you play w/o creating some problem somewhere on the board. IT cannot be done. Oh sure you can find closed games going 20 25 moves w/o any pawn being captured. But eventually the game must open, yes? I want to be clear what I am saying. (Self perception problem, seek anti depressant therapy) <But of all the evils in this game I do believe doubled pawns to be the worst> No cant possibly be it. Of all positional problems on the board think of: pawn on 6th rank that is firmly there, split pawns like e4/c4 creating a "hole." I cant remember the last time I lost a game where guy played e4/c4 or somethign like that. Those holes are fatal. A pawn on the 6th rank that is firmly there will be fatal, if: he is closing off the enemy K; or there is an enemy pawn on 2nd rank. It will be hard to find a game in the data base where the player with that advantage did not win. Other than bad error. <I'm just saying that personally I'll take my chances with a poorly placed piece> actually what you said was a doubled pawn will kill you. Short term memory loss? Again they have stuff like Ginseng and super strength Ginko Biloba for this problem. |
|
Jan-31-05
|
| euripides: <JR Well, I give Botvinnik full credit
for the Nimzo Indian victory. But
the 4 knights game is a joke. To
understand this, realize that at any
point in the opening, Reshevsky could have offered a draw, and Botvinnik would have gladly accpted. The tournament position, and the reality that Keres was throwing free points to Botvinnik, forced Reshevsky to attempt a reckless strategy aimed at creating complications. >I think that the game referred to here was played in the 24th round, after Botvinnik had won the tournament. |
|
Feb-01-05
|
| Gregor Samsa Mendel: I noticed that too. If you play through the game, it sure seem like Reshevsky was over-reaching in an effort to win. Was there any sort of prize for second place, which I believe was still up for grabs when the game was played? Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948 |
|
| Feb-01-05 |
| Hidden Skillz: <JR> and then again give props to keres havin a plus score against fine.. |
|
| Feb-01-05 |
| RookFile: I agree with Gregor that he was over reaching in an all out attempt to win.
About 15 years ago I knew all the ins and outs of this tournament, and today, all I remember are the conclusions drawn. The whole game smacks of Botvinnik
being satisfied with a draw as white
and Reshevsky going all out for a win as black. First of all, the choice of the opening was 1. e4 by Botvinnik, and then instead of the Ruy he goes for the four knights. I bet Reshevsky would have preferred to play Rubinstein's 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 to sac a pawn,
except that white basically can force a draw in that line if he wants to. I
forget the details, and it's hard to tell just by looking at the games, because you have to remember some games were probably still adjourned.
He probably was thinking about 2nd place, and factors involved were that Smyslov had played an extra game, and was due to play Euwe, which in this tournament was like a full point bye. |
|
| Feb-01-05 |
| ughaibu: RookFile: Euwe did better against Botvinnik than Reshevsky did, are you implying that playing Reshevsky was a point plus bye??? |
|
| Feb-07-05 |
| malbase: This was the first game that Botvinnik lost in the Hague-Moscow tournament. In one of the tournament books the notes said, "It could be done." Later on when the tournament was just about decided, Keres defeated Botvinnik for his first win against Botvinnik.
Reshevsky and Fine were considered to be the top two players in the Western World. But Fine would not play. |
|
| Aug-09-07 |
| sanyas: I can't see a way for Black to win after 34. dd1. |
|
| Jul-09-09 |
| Julian713: <At move 5 white should have played Bd2.> I don't want to get into you guys' debate about doubled pawns as it fits into overall strategy, but a couple points about this statement: 1) 5.Bd2...Bxd2+ and Black has gained a minor piece advantage just 5 moves in. Or, 5.Bd2...Bxb2 6. Ra2...Bxa3 and Black has gained 2 pawns advantage and destroyed White's queenside structure. Or even 6...Bxd4 which is still 2 pawns ahead AND opens a file on White's king! 2) Considering the above, if you're a player that scared of doubled pawns, the move to avoid was 3.Nc3, bypassing the pin and likely playing the safer 3.Nf3. |
|
| Jul-09-09 |
| Julian713: Wow...I just realized that debate is older than my college career! |
|
| Jul-09-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Black is NOT lost after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4. In fact white is at a disadvantage since black has the two bishops! |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
