|Jul-28-04|| ||Spassky69: Chigorin blew it!! What wins is 48.Qh3! Qc7 49.Qh8! Qf7 50.Ra1! Rxb4 51.gxf6 gxf6 52.Nh4! Rbb2 53.Rxa4 Ke7
54.Ra8 Kd7 55.Nf3 Rb5 56.Ngxe5+! fxe5 57.Nxe5+ Rxe5 58.Rg7!
1-0 which if he found this analysis this might have been his most brilliant win ever! |
|Jul-28-04|| ||white pawn: Wow... how long did it take you to find that? |
|Jul-28-04|| ||Spassky69: Well I analyized that back in the day with my team of chess coaches. I just recently anaylzed it with Fritz and it took Deep Fritz 30 minutes to find Qh3!. |
|Jul-28-04|| ||Calli: An exciting game. White's knights on the Kingside and blacks Rooks Queenside remind me of Pillsbury-Tarrasch played two years later. |
<Spas> While its true that 48.Qh3! is supposed to win, the previous move 47...Qd6? is bad. 47...a3 is recommended by annotators with good drawing chances.
|Sep-12-04|| ||offramp: I don't think white has any particular advantage in the position after black's 47th move - so why should he have a forced win?
After 48.♕h3 I can't see what is wrong with the simple 48...fxg5.
If 49.♘fxe5 then black has 49...♗c7, if then 50.♕h8 ♕xe5! .
If 49.♘gxe5 ♕h6=pins the queen.
Larsen said that long variations are wrong variations.
|Sep-12-04|| ||suenteus po 147: <offramp: ...Larsen said that long variations are wrong variations.> Since I am one to whom long variations do not come easy, I'm tempted to jump up and down and cheer. On the other hand, for everyone who takes the time to work out such long variations, that has got to hurt. |
|Sep-14-04|| ||offramp: <suenteus po 147:> In the game Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 Botvinnik admitted that he could not analyse far enough ahead at the end. He analysed as far as he was guaranteed perpetual and begn analysing again. It is not a very good game in any case; Capablanca was old and out of form. |
|Oct-29-05|| ||Petrocephalon: <spassky69> 48.Qh3 was pointed out by Tchigorin himself, and analyzed in depth by both players to a draw. Their main line starts 48.Qh3 Qc7 49.gf, while in your line they stop at 48.Qh3 Qc7 49.Qh8 Qf7, with the implication that it's not sufficient for white. (This is from Renfield). A computer verification of your analysis should start at 50.Ra1.|
<Calli> Incidentally, Renfield punctuates 47..Qd6!
There were some other error by both sides, but it's all the good moves that makes this game interesting. For example, the way Tarrasch manoeuvers the bishop from b7 to b3.
Renfield uses exclamation marks fairly frequently, but awards a rare double exclamation to 25..Kf8.
|Jul-17-06|| ||SnoopDogg: <Petrocephalon> Actually the anaylsis (or lines) <Spassky69> posted was by GM Yasser Seirawan who improved upon the Chigorin line and included 50. Ra1! and 52. Nh4! I haven't checked into the line, but I think I'll trust Yaz.|
|Mar-14-09|| ||zooter: This game is analyzed by Alexander Kotov in his classic "Think like a grandmaster" -- he gives the move 48.Qh3 and has actually seen ahead 20 moves!!|
|Mar-04-12|| ||Richard Taylor: I have worked out sometimes 20 moves ahead (only once OTB but mainly following moves from diagrams in game, and THAT is good practice, remembering that in real OTB games one will only be "seeing" a few moves ahead, hopefully the right ones, to more or less quote Capa,...) but it is (almost always) futile do do that. In most cases such long analysis means that errors in analysis creep in. I fact even in much shorter lines I have very badly miscalculated. That happens to players whether in form or not. (Very strong or very weak players)|
Soltis gives a good example of how one really often only has to see 1 1/2 moves ahead or 3 at the most, and indeed shows two GMs, Kasparov and Karpov.
Correspondence chess is different. But even there is a limit, and time is still a problem.
The Botvinnk game was a great game. The point is that Botvinnik is being honest. In many cases one cant see so far ahead, and as in Judgement and Planning as in Chess by Euwe he explains that many combinations are a mix of judgement and assessment. There is always a degree of uncertainty.
It is a question of judging whether a resulting position few moves ahead is good or bad in many cases.
|Mar-04-12|| ||King Death: < offramp: In the game Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 Botvinnik admitted that he could not analyse far enough ahead at the end. He analysed as far as he was guaranteed perpetual and begn analysing again...>|
This is often all that it's practical to do, trying to analyze every line out to the end is impossible anyway and just diverts energy from the practical problems we'll meet in a game.
|Oct-05-16|| ||scholes: Alexander Kotov analyses this game in his book think like a grandmaster. He gives 48 gxf6 a question mark. And says Qh3 is winning.|
Stockfish says 48 Qh3 is draw and 48 gxf6 is winning.
I guess engines are so strong. The only way to improve is to analyze yourself