< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-17-03|| ||jaime gallegos: Botvinnik played this game with an imaginary scalpel dissecting Keres slowly as the Hannibal Lecter´s style !!! |
|Mar-31-04|| ||notyetagm: Anyone know where I can find annotations to this game? Thanks. |
|Mar-31-04|| ||Benzol: <notyetagm> You could try to get "Botvinnik's Best Games 1947 - 1970" (originally published by Batsford in 1972 with the English translation by Bernard Cafferty) or more recently "Botvinnik's Best Games Volume 2 1942 - 1956" published by Moravian Chess with the English translation by Ken Neat in 2000. Hope this helps. |
|Apr-01-04|| ||TrueFiendish: notyetagm: that's an interesting moniker. Does it mean you don't like annual general meetings? |
|Apr-01-04|| ||square dance: <truefiendish> no, no you've got it all wrong it means he's <not yet a General Manager> for his favorite sports team. duh ;) |
|Apr-01-04|| ||ughaibu: You're both wrong, she is not yet a grand mother. |
|Apr-05-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Soltis claims that 11...Bd6? was the main error and that 11...Nh5 and 11...Ng4 would have been better, trading off the bad queen bishop immediately. Although 11...Bd6? apparently threatens 12...Bxh2+, it's basically a waste of time since Keres ends up moving the piece a few times (5...Be7; 11...Bd6?; 13...Be7) and by then, Botvinnik sets the f3, e4 plan into motion. |
|Apr-05-04|| ||Benzol: Well people I have a question. Does the following linked game look familiar!? Botvinnik vs Keres, 1952|
Call it deja vu!
|Apr-05-04|| ||chessgames.com: Thanks Benzol, we fixed the games now. |
|Apr-06-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Would 22...Ne8!? have been any better? Now the white knight has no post on d6 and white's d4 appears to be untenable in the long run. Perhaps 22...Ne8!? 23. Red1 (23. e6!? f6 looks OK for black to me despite the cramped space) Nf8!? Maybe I am being too optimistic, but the knights seem to do okay on the back rank in this case, guarding critical squares like h7, e6, d6, etc. Anyone have Botvinnik's book or a thought about this? |
|Apr-08-04|| ||Lawrence: <Ben>, if 11...♗d6 was an error it's much too subtle a one for a bean-counter like Junior 8 to discover. It prefers 11...♘g6 by a tiny margin, also a6 and a5.|
After a 3 min. search your 22...♘e8 gets exactly the same eval as the ♘d5 that Keres played, +1.12. Junior continues with 23.♖d1 ♘c7 24.♘e4 ♘b5 25.♘c5 ♘c7.
|Apr-08-04|| ||Benzol: <Ben> Botvinnik's Best Games Vol 2 (1942-1956) has only this comment after 22.e5 "Although Black now obtains a comfortable post for his knight at d5, far more important is the fact that the White knight will penetrate to d6".|
Botvinnik's Best Games 1947-1970 has no comment at all.
|Apr-08-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Lawrence: thanks, I guess if Junior is correct it is because the limited scope of the knights offsets the lack of weaknesses in the black camp. It may be a matter of style though since Junior 8 is well known for its distinct preference for piece activity. Junior 8's line doesn't contain my strategy however, it seems to follow off on its own tangent with some strange knight maneuvers on c7. It would be nice one day to not only get computers to try your move, but also your strategic plans in the position. |
Benzol, thanks for that comment too, I'm surprised Botvinnik did not mention ...Ne8 since he apparently thought that the outpost on d6 was key. Maybe he just considered it too absurd a move, and it may be.
|Oct-14-05|| ||Chess Addict: 30...gxf5? allows mate by 31.Rg3+,Ng7 32.Qf6, and 30...Ree8 fails to 31.Nh6+,Kh8 32.Qf6+,Ng7 33.Nxf7+, when black position collapses.|
~ Foundation of Chess Strategy (By: Lars Bo Hansen)
|Nov-07-05|| ||Gypsy: This game is splendidly annotated in Dvoretsky/Yusupov: "Positional Play, Prophylactic thinking, The Opening." |
A related later specimen of a game is Ivanchuk vs Yusupov, 1991, which was gleefully pointed out by Botvinnik himself, as he watched that game unfold.
|Nov-07-05|| ||Gypsy: <keypusher> This is the example of 'over-protection' feeding into a 'laviering solution' of the position that I mentioned on the Aron Nimzowitsch page. It all revolves around the e4-square: (1) <13.f3, 14.Rbe1, & 16.Ng3> can be all viewed as initial, over-protecting moves of the e4-square. (2) <17.Qf2 & 18.Nf5> uses some of the surplus fire power from the over-protection dutty for other preparatory purposes -- exchange of useful defensive piece, covering d4, preparing Q-attack on K-wing,... (3) And now comes the 'laviering on e4' part: (3.1) <20.e4 21.fxe4 & 22.e5> and the first piece used the e4 square for a pass through; (3.2) <23.Ne4 & 24.Nd6> and the second piece passed through the e4 square; and (3.3) <25.Be4 & 27.Bxd5> a third piece moved via e4 to exchange self for the best positioned piece of Black. The fourth potential maneuver on e4, (3.4) Re4-fgh5, just remained latent.|
After all this, the Black position is wrecked.
Of course, as usual, there are other ways to "read" this game, not just my Nimzo-like: In fact, Dvoretsky (Positional Play) stresses more the prophilactic strength of the moves such as 12.Kh1!, 13.f3!! 14.Rbe1 and 16.Ng3 ... Another view is Pachman's (Modern Chess Strategy), which focuses more on the strength of the classical pawn center -- the d4,e4 pair -- and gives the exclamation marks 12.Kh1! 13.f3! 14.Rbe1! ...
|Nov-11-05|| ||Petrocephalon: <Gypsy> Hi Gypsy, are you familiar with Conway's 'Game of Life', in particular the way Dennett used it as an explanatory tool in more than one of his books?|
|Nov-11-05|| ||Gypsy: I am familiar with the 'Game of Life' but not with the way Dennett uses it. I'd love to hear more.|
|Nov-12-05|| ||Petrocephalon: Well, Dennett used the Game of Life to illustrate levels of description -- there's the level of pixels turning on or off, and then at a higher level of description there are 'objects' that move around on the grid. (He further used Life to discuss evolution and the meaning of determinism -- great stuff). The low level of description is rigorous and deterministic, but expensive (at least for a large grid running for a long time). The higher level of description involves less cognitive labor (you don't have to compute at the physical level), but is more provisional.|
Prior to reading your post I had thought of the different schools of chess thought in terms of which were better or more correct. But after reading your post, I see that one can also think of them in terms of levels of description. The lowest level of description is brute calculation, which is always right if it's deep enough. Wheras Nimzo's overprotection concept is a very high level of description -- vivid, but 'risky' for a moderate-level player to try to employ. Pachman's view (based on your brief description, I haven't read that book myself) would probably be a 'lower' level of description than Nimzo's.
|Nov-12-05|| ||Gypsy: <Petrocephalon> That is great food for thought, friend. Thanks!|
To essentially repeat what you just said: It all in many many ways boils down to modeling questions. The same situations (games here) can be seen through the eyes of many different models -- of different levels of abstraction, ease of computation, veracity ... Some models may clearly dominate others, but most of the time they will not, they are just different.
Exept, I think you said it better. My heat is off to you! You pulled out the essential and immediately put it into a cristaline form.
Btw, thx also of reminding me Dennett. It has been a few years since I last read any of his stuff. I should go and close the gap some.
|Nov-12-05|| ||Petrocephalon: And thank you for the illuminating overprotection analysis -- that's the kind of kibitzing I most enjoy and wish there was more of.|
There was one 'minor' (?) move of the game I didn't understand, and that was 11.Rb1 -- what was that for?
|Nov-12-05|| ||Gypsy: That <Rb1> is normally played at the start of a minority attack here -- the march of the a- but chiefly b pawns. It was the standard way of playing such (Carlsbad) positions in the early 50s. The aim of Keres' 11...Bd6?! was to get a promissing piece counterplay on the K-side. But there was a conceptual flaw to the execution of the idea and Botvinnik bared the flaw with his prophilactic 12.Kh1! and 13.f3!! moves. Keres' 13...Be7 clearly admited the errors of Black ways.|
The streamlined way of playing this, with immediate 11.f3, is a later invention; Suetin vs M Shishov, 1955 may be the earliest game.
Btw, besides the minority attacks and the e4-pushes, one can sometimes also see O-O-O and K-side pawn storms in the Carlsbad positions.
|Nov-12-05|| ||Petrocephalon: "The aim of Keres' 11..Bd6?! was..."
Ah, now I understand 12.Kh1 better.
|Jun-06-09|| ||WhiteRook48: always take advantage of pins|
|Nov-29-10|| ||jmboutiere: - Playing the Queen's Gambit • A Grandmaster Guide • by Lars Schandorff
2009 p 13|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·