< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|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|
|Apr-20-15|| ||Ulhumbrus: We can say that the developing move 29 Rc3 is a way of preparing the sacrifice 30 Nf5! On 30...gxf5 31 Rg3+ develops further the rook to the g file and on 31...Ng7 32 Qf6 Black has no way to defend the knight|
|Nov-16-16|| ||Honza Cervenka: This is Botvinnik at his best.|
|Nov-16-16|| ||morfishine: Relentless pressure|
|Nov-16-16|| ||gars: Gentlemen: how can I see the last November 9th page of Chessgames.com? Thanks a lot.|
|Nov-16-16|| ||moodini: Is this a FICS reference?|
|Nov-16-16|| ||Annie K.: Yep :)|
|Nov-16-16|| ||kevin86: F-file decides this one!|
|Nov-16-16|| ||jith1207: <gars>: not sure about the previous days' pages links in this site, but you could probably Google search in their caches, if you search by date. But if you wanna follow previous days' POTD or GOTD games, you could come find some game collections in this site, being updated daily by some nice gentlemen here. Hope that helps.|
|Nov-16-16|| ||Steven87: 26. Bxh7 followed by Qh4 and Rf3. Is there a way out for the Black King?|
|Nov-16-16|| ||Boomie: <Steven87: 26. Bxh7 followed by Qh4 and Rf3. Is there a way out for the Black King?>|
The first line that comes to mind is 26. Bxh7+ Kxh7 27. Qh4+ Kg8 28. Rf3 Ndf4, covering h3 and aiming for Ng6.
click for larger view
Komodo prefers 26. Qh4 closely followed by 26. Nf5. That Botvinnik played this is a tribute to how formidable a player he was.
Komodo rates 26. Bxh7+ a blunder. But not exactly the line I saw at first blush.
26. Bxh7+ Kxh7 27. Qh4+ Kg8 28. Nf5
click for larger view
The game is even instead of white winning.
|Nov-20-16|| ||Steven87: Thanks for the thorough analysis <Boomie>! Nf4 was the refutation I missed. This is why Botvinnik was Botvinnik, and I am studying.|
|Jul-17-17|| ||Toribio3: The occupation of the king bishop file by Botvinnik is overwhelming. Despite the stubborn defense of Keres, he was not able to withstand the devastating attack!|
|Nov-14-17|| ||tigreton: I like 29. Rc3, the rook couldn't be on a better square than that, in the open -and undisputed- file, and ready to attack from f3, g3 and h3.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·