< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|May-11-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <erniecohen> I would not call it a blunder but it was an inaccuracy in tactically complex and messy position, which could have got Tal into big troubles. Also Botvinnik's 23.Bd2 was inaccurate move and 23.a3 was much better as some kibitzers pointed out here. But despite of that this is a great game.|
|May-11-12|| ||King Death: Inaccuracies mistakes and outright blunders come in just these kinds of positions, especially when you're facing a human being that was one of the best ever in complex positions. It's one thing to sit behind Fritz 4034 and analyze and a whole different ball game to face your 2700 type opponent when it's just you and him. They could give most of us a day and it wouldn't be enough!|
|May-15-12|| ||erniecohen: <Honza> <King Death> Just to be clear, when we point out a mistake, it is not to denegrate the game, nor to insult the players, who are obviously far better at chess than we are. It is to get to the truth of a game, to understand what really happened. |
It is quite unnecessary to point out that it is easier to analyze a game than to play it, or that it is easier to analyze a game with computers than without them.
I do, however, agree with <Honza> that we have a terminological problem. We use the word "blunder" ambiguusly to mean a move that was (or should have been) very costly, in addition to meaning "he should have known better", since at this level, the latter are very rare. I use the word to mean a move that is likely to cost half or a full point. By this measure, you would have to classify 23...♕xb2 as a blunder. I'm open up to alternative suggestions.
Innacuracy is more like something that is tangibly inferior to an alternative.
|May-16-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <erniecohen> I am not a native English speaker and so I am hardly the most competent person to define terminology in English. But as I understand it, the term "blunder" is stronger and harsher expression than some of its synonyms like "mistake" or "error", not to say "inaccuracy". Thus for me "the blunder" is a poor move, which not only leads (or can lead) to dramatic negative change in overall evaluation of position but which is also wrong for some fairly obvious reason. Of course, at GM level such an obvious reason must not be limited only to something stupid like a piece left en prise, overlooked fork, missed back rank mate or some trivial two- or three-move tactics but it should not be very difficult to find and assess. I think that in this case all objectively inferior moves pointed out in previous comments don't fit to this category because their inferiority and drawbacks were far from obvious, at least for me. On the other hand, the "inaccuracy" for me is just an inferior (but not necessarily bad) move, whose inferiority is at first glance inconspicuous or deeply hidden, or whose consequences are not fatal for the overall evaluation of the position and outcome of the game.|
|May-16-12|| ||King Death: <Honza Cervenka> Your understanding of the difference between "blunder" and the other terms is just fine. "Inaccuracy" is much more subtle.|
|May-16-12|| ||erniecohen: <Honza>,<KingDeath>: Okay, I'm good with that. Let's use "error" to mean a move that loses at least half a point, and reserve "blunder" for an error that a player of the level has no excuse in making. (So 23...♕xb2 would probably be a borderline error.) "Inaccuracy" will mean an inferior move with less severe consequences. I don't know what term to use for a less than excusable inaccuracy though, maybe "careless"?|
|Jun-16-12|| ||rjsolcruz: Castro vs Forcado in Meralco's Father's Day Cup 2012 opened with the same moves up to 6.Nc3.|
|Nov-08-12|| ||marljivi: In the variation,pointed out by Honza Cervenka,eg.25.Bf3Bb1 26.Rb1Qc2 27.Rc1Qb2 28.Bg4Be5 29.Kg2,and isn't it now so,that 29...Rc3 is the correct move? (30.Rc3Rc3 31.Bc3Qe2 32.Be2Bc3 and black is a pawn up,although white should still draw this position.)|
|Nov-14-12|| ||scorpion2a: OK, I made a deep search for an analysis to this move: Why not 24.Bxf3|
It turns out that where some state that the Bxf3 line might have been OK for white I have to disagree. After 24.Bxf3 Bxb1 25.Rxb1 Qc2 26.Be4 black has the resource of 26...Be5+ by tempo and then 27...Rxe4 and winning the rook on b1 if 28.Nxe4.
If indeed Botvinnik went for 28.Nxe4 there is no 29.Nxd6 because the black dark-sqr bishop on e5 is now defending it and also blocking the queen of penetrating into the position of black. Also there is no f4 due the brilliant Bxf4+, winning the position completely. So black is better in that position.
This was just the Tal show!
|Nov-15-12|| ||AylerKupp: <scorpion2a> To summarize from Tal's book on the 1960 World Championship match (see the full quote by <dragon40> on p.1, Botvinnik vs Tal, 1960) Tal indicated that he thought that White had nothing better than 25.Bxf3 Bxb1 26.Rxb1 Qc2 27.Rc1 Qb2 28.Rb1 and a draw by repetition and that Botvinnik shared that opinion. At this point in the match Botvinnik was down a point and, with the White pieces and a piece up (for 3 pawns) in an unclear position probably felt that he could (and needed to) do better than a draw by repetition. As Tal said "The psychological aspect of this [the exchange of queens] is fully understandable: having an extra piece and being under attack, it is always more pleasant to get rid of your opponent's Queen."|
And as <dragon40> indicated in his quote from the book, a few days after the game GM Salo Flohr showed that after 25.Bxf3 Bxb1 26.Rxb1 Qc2 instead of 27.Rc1 White has 27.Be4 so that if 27...Rxe4 28.Nxe4. If instead 27...Be5+ as you suggested (note: I corrected your move numbering, you were off by one move), then instead of 28.f4 Bxf4+ White has 28.Kg2. Houdini 1.5a then indicates that Black's best is 28...Rxe4 29.Nxe4 Qxb1 30.Nxd6 (this IS possible even though the DSB is "defending" the pawn) 30...Bxd6 31.Qe6+ Kg7 32.Qd7+ Kg8 33.Qxc8+ Bf8 34.Qe6+ Kg7 35.Bc3+ Kh6 36.d6 Qf5 (otherwise Black will have to give up his bishop even sooner to prevent the d-pawn from queening) 37.Qxf5 gxf5 38.Be5 Kg5 39.d7 Be7 40.Bc7, evaluating the resulting position at [+4.43], d=26 since Black will have to give up his bishop for White's new queen, with an easy win for White. And the entire continuation looks pretty much forced.
click for larger view
But, yes this game was just the Tal show since neither player likely saw this continuation.
|Dec-14-12|| ||fokers13: <AylerKupp> your first line(28.Nxe4) leads to an easily drawn fair game of DSB where white eventually attains an extra pawn he can make no use of.|
|Apr-05-13|| ||adrboliveira: When we see matches masters of that time, the most refutable is the need of computers. Perhaps only to study but never disprove the talents, not even put in doubt his brilliant moves.|
|Jun-06-14|| ||zydeco: Tal notes that he started to consider ideas for the knight sacrifice at about move 14 -- although at that point it was "still hazy." |
If 23.a3 Qb3 24.Bxa7 Be5 25.Bf3 Tal planned to sacrifice his queen with 25.....b6 26.Qd1 Qxb2 27.Ra2 Rxc3 28.Rxb2 Rxc1 and if 29.Qd2 Be4! is killing while if 29.Qe2 R8c3 gives black a strong attack.
Tal thought that the game should have continued 23....Be5 24.f3 Qxb2 25.Nd1 Qd4 26.Rxc4 Rxc4 27.Rc1 Rxc1 28.Bxc1 Qxd5 29.Bf1 with a complicated game.
23....Qxb2 is basically a draw offer since after 24.Rab1 f3 25.Bxf3 Bxb1 26.Rxb1 Qc2 white can take a draw by repetition with 27.Rc1. Botvinnik didn't like it because he thought black had 27....Qf5 which doesn't work, and both players missed Flohr's idea of 27.Be4 Rxe4 28.Nxe4 Qxc1 29.Nxd6 Rf8 30.Qe6+ Kh8 31.Nf7+ when white's better in the endgame.
Tal says that his technique is a bit sloppy. He should have played 37....Kg7 and missed white's idea of 39.Ra3 and if 39....Bxe2 40.Re3+.
|Sep-04-14|| ||James Tal: Nice Game....|
|Dec-29-14|| ||DrGridlock: <Analysis by Rybka reveals that Be5 is NOT Black's best continuation in this line at move 24.|
click for larger view
Black's best continuation is Ra8. This is an option I have never before seen mentioned or analyzed. I'll post Rybka's analysis later, but leave as an open challenge to others to find White's best response in this line. Here are the ground rules - no computers. Try to find White's response "over the board." There is only one reply which maintains an advantage for White.>
25 Nb5 is White's only move to maintain an advantage in the 23 a3 variation above.
1. ± (1.14):
|Dec-30-14|| ||Domdaniel: The *real* game of the century.|
|Dec-31-14|| ||RookFile: Spectacular play by Tal.|
|Jan-10-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Honza Cervenka: <erniecohen> I am not a native English speaker and so I am hardly the most competent person to define terminology in English. But as I understand it, the term "blunder" is stronger and harsher expression than some of its synonyms like "mistake" or "error", not to say "inaccuracy".>|
Absolutely correct. Blunder almost implies that "you should have seen it! What were you thinking??"
|Feb-20-15|| ||offramp: A great game. It taught me that piece activity, and having the initiative, are crucial chess factors. They also make the game more fun to play.|
|Feb-20-15|| ||Mating Net: <piece activity, and having the initiative are crucial chess factors.> So undeniably true <offramp> the psychological edge grows exponentially from a long lasting initiative.|
|May-28-15|| ||Alex Schindler: Great pun, referencing both the opening and botvinnik 's disparagement of tal's playing style. Magic tricks, as it turned out!|
|Dec-21-15|| ||yurikvelo: http://pastebin.com/Xw6eDsyv
this game multiPV
|Apr-22-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Five pages and no one appears to have mentioned one very important aspect of this game.|
Trivial Pursuit Question No.162.
Which World Championship game was moved to a back room away from the spectators.
"Fischer - Spassky, Game 3 1972."
Wrong. That game was played in a quiet room with no spectators.
This game was actually moved whilst it was still in progress to another room.
The controllers had enough of trying to quieten the spectators whilst this game was progress so here, after White played 28.Kg1
click for larger view
They moved the players, the pieces, the board and clocks into a closed room and the game continued on from there.
One can only imagine the noise level for such drastic action to be taken and this must have had an affect on the players. Tal says the electric warning panel had been flashing 'Silence' since his Knight sac back at move 21.
Here, with Black to play.
click for larger view
A few here have commented that 28...Rxc3 wins outright.
"Tal missed 28. ... Rxc3! and ... Rd1 to follow, which would have finished the game off immediately. Even the greatest tactician in history missed a few now and then!"
Agreed and Tal accepts he missed it but adds "there was more than chess reasons for this." and then tells us the controllers carried out their threat to move the game off stage. (which does indicate the noise level up to move 28 had been increasing.)
Instead of 28...Bf4 the crowd obviously saw 28...Rxc3 and erupted.
The game at this point was taken off stage.
Tal continues that he is not used 'to playing in Nomadic conditions.' and being moved in the heat of the battle.
In 'When Pieces Come Alive.'
"Chess players know how a smallest annoying thing can totally ruin their game. And such a change in the conditions could upset anyone.
When I sat at the board again, I couldn’t remember the variant I calculated. I had to begin anew and, of course, overlooked a spectacular strike that led to the immediate victory.
Fearing to miss something, I played more simply and prosaically. Thankfully, that move also won."
Of course the computers have been in and mauled this game to shreds right to the end but how does one program in noise levels (shout at it when it is calculating) or 'small annoying things' (put a Fritz icon on a Rybka start up program...)
So all computer analysis should be ignored. There were external factors that cannot possibly be acknowledged by a glorified pocket calculator.
And No. This enlightening post is not me having my monthly rant v computers it is about....
Conspiracy Theory Number 289.
Botvinnik is 1-0 down in a world title match. Tal has a clear cut winning combination on the board when suddenly the arbiter stops the clock and carries away the board.... Tal misses the combination.
C'mon guys. This is better than 1948 and all that jazz. This is dynamite.
|Apr-22-16|| ||Howard: It's a fairly well-known fact that Game 6 had to be, indeed, moved to another room because the spectators couldn't control themselves.|
But, when something like that happens in the United States, the earth will stop rotating on its axis !
|Apr-22-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
It was not mentioned in the previous pages. So perhaps not too well known. Some think chess history became irrelevant the day Fritz 1 was released.
Someone should have brought it up when the words 'blunder' and 'miscalculated' popped up.
It's not an excuse for missing a shot you hear everyday. Someone moved the board and pieces to another room.
Noisy crowds can put you off.
How about everyone in the audience shouting out the best move 'Take the Rook' and yet player missed it.
A Ebralidze vs Ragozin, 1937 (kibitz #3)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·