| Feb-18-05 | | WMD: Fine played 17...Rfd8. |
 |
| Jul-29-09 | | PeterB: Reuben Fine, to me, was a bit of an enigma. At his best, as in AVRO 1938, he was great, and then as here and in post-1945 games, he played rather weakly. In this game he seems to completely underestimate Keres' plan of pushing the e pawn to e5 and e6! |
|
| Jul-29-09 | | AnalyzeThis: I don't know. It's a tricky opening. Spassky beat Petrosian with a similar d5 push, except that the terrible pawn was a d pawn instead of an e pawn. (In fact, Petrosian was even ahead a pawn, but it didn't matter). I've taken black in similar Queen's Accepted positions againt the computer, and even with plenty of attention paid to the d5 square, the thing plays d5 and beats me anyway unless I'm extremely careful. Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 |
|
| Jul-29-09 | | veigaman: What a pitty that keres changed his style! What a player in that time and also later. |
|
| Aug-02-09 | | birthtimes: Here's another wonderful illustration by Keres of Nimzowitsch's concept of overprotection. This time, by move 16, the strategically important e5 square is overprotected by White's queen, pawn, knight, and rook. Three moves later, White's other rook joins in on the fun! From this tremendous position of strength, White's two sham sacrifices result from "the form of a large radius of activity" for those pieces engaged in the overprotection of the e5 square. Truly, if pieces are are so engaged in overprotecting strategically important points, "they get their reward in the fact that they will then find themselves well posted in every respect." Today's tendency to downplay the importance of overprotection stems primarily from an inadequate and incomplete understanding of overprotection itself... |
|
| Aug-26-09 | | Crocomule: The white rooks on the e file aren't about "over-protection" at all; Keres was merely pursuing a faulty tactical ploy, and needed to remove a rook from d1. But, nontheless, it is an amazing game - and his first true masterpiece... |
|
| Aug-29-09 | | birthtimes: Crocomule, utilizing Nimzowitsch's concept, the white rooks are overprotecting in the way Nimzowitsch defined overprotection. Now, if you can find something by Nimzowitsch that counters this, then let us know. |
|
| Aug-29-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Overprotection has to do with building up on e5 to discourage a freeing idea such as f6. That wasn't what was happenning here. This was a king hunt. |
|
| Aug-29-09 | | birthtimes: As Nimzowitsch states, "strategically important points [such as e5], should be overprotected. If the pieces are so engaged, they get their reward in the fact that they will find themselves well posted in every respect...the reward came in the form of a large radius of activity for the pieces [so] engaged." |
|
| Aug-29-09 | | birthtimes: Here's another wonderful illustration by Keres of Nimzowitsch's concept of overprotection. This time, by move 16, the strategically important e5 square is overprotected by White's queen, pawn, knight, and rook. Three moves later, White's other rook joins in on the fun! From this tremendous position of strength, White's two sham sacrifices result from "the form of a large radius of activity" for those pieces engaged in the overprotection of the e5 square. Truly, as Nimzowitsch stated, if pieces are are so engaged in overprotecting strategically important points, "they get their reward in the fact that they will then find themselves well posted in every respect" (to then branch out into "the form of a large radius of activity" [such as a form of a king-side attack] i.e., 17. Qh4 23. Ng5 and 25. Rh3). Today's tendency to downplay the importance of overprotection stems primarily from an inadequate and incomplete understanding of overprotection itself... |
|
| Aug-31-09 | | Crocomule: After long thought white decided on the following plan. He would like to make a pawn sacrifice, by d5 and if then ed to continue the attack by e5. But this is not possible immediately, since after 18.d5, ed; 19.e5, black answers 19..Ne4 and if then white tries the intended exchange sacrifice by 20.Re4, de, then his rook on d1 is en prise and he cannot continue with 21.Ng5. Therefore, in preparation of this combination, white first removes his rook from the queen file. (Keres '64) |
|
| Aug-31-09 | | birthtimes: Yes, I know that Keres was not thinking about Nimzowitsch's overprotection concept when he was thinking about these moves, nor did he probably make the connection years after this game was over, yet it is still overprotection as defined by Nimzowitsch. This is crystal clear if one understands how Nimzowitsch defined overprotection, as mentioned above. But again, if you or anyone can find something that Nimzowitsch wrote that counters his previous statements that are listed above, feel free to let us know. |
|
Sep-15-11
 | | whiteshark: <23...h6> should hold the game.
click for larger viewe.g. <24.e6 hxg5 25. exf7+ Kxf7 26.Re7+ Kg8 27.Qxg5 Qc3> 
click for larger view |
|
| Sep-15-11 | | Kinan: What about 24.Nxf7 ? |
|
Sep-16-11
| | whiteshark: <Kinan: What about 24.Nxf7 ?> After <24.Nxf7 Kxf7 25.e6+ Kg8 26.exd7 Rxd7> Black is a pawn up an White's initiative is coming to a stop. 
click for larger view |
|
|
 |
|
