| Aug-23-03 | | refutor: why can't white play 10.Qxc6? sure he'll lose a couple of tempi but isn't the c-pawn worth it? or am i overlooking the trapping of the black queen |
|
| Aug-23-03 | | Jonber: 10.Qxc7, which I assume you meant, leaves the d-pawn, a key defender for White, vulnerable. After 10.Qxc7 Qxd4, White’s position is troublesome, which is why 10.e3 was called for. |
|
| Aug-23-03 | | NiceMove: 19. b5! can someone explain the compensation for the pawn ?. 19. ... cxb and then what ? White gives up the only open file to black, and a pawn. I don't get it.
thanks. |
|
| Aug-24-03 | | Shadout Mapes: 19...cxb5 is horrible as it leaves the d pawn isolated and doubled the other pawns. 20.Qb3 looks suffiecent. |
|
Nov-01-03
 | | Eggman: According to Bronstein 51.Rf6 was the move that let slip the win - by restricting the movement of the Black King White allows Geller's stalemate sacrifice offer (53...Rf3+). 51.Ra8 would have won, again according to Bronstein. |
|
| Nov-01-03 | | drukenknight: I wouldnt take Geller's word on it, Eggie. He has some peculiar ideas of how to play endgames, can you spot the very basic error he makes at the end of this one? Geller vs Fischer, 1970 |
|
| May-03-04 | | horticulture: Poor Reshevsky... |
|
| May-03-04 | | badbadLeroyBrown: LOL...horticulture, I'm sure Sammy appreciates your sympathy! I think Reshevsky deserves praise for pulling out a draw 2 pawns down against a player of Geller's level. |
|
| Jul-22-04 | | marekg248: 53...Rf3+! 54.Kg2 Rxg3+, and when white takes rook it's stalemate. The game was adjourned after 41.Kh2, and analysing it Geller found this splendid stalemate possibility. |
|
| Jul-22-04 | | Knezh: <Shadout Mapes> After 20.Qb3 Nd2 and white lose. |
|
| Feb-21-05 | | AdrianP: Some amusing comments on this game cited in OMGP 4
"41...Re1 Reshevsky did not conceal his surprise that Geller decided to play on. With an ironic smile he sat down at the board, ordered a cup of coffee and began slowly stirring it with his spoon. There was indeed no reason to hurry: the two extra pawns were a sure guarantee of victory." (Averbakh) 53...Rf6
"It can be imagined with what pleasure Geller made this move, and how triumphantly he looked at his opponent. And Reshevsky? In the seconds remaining to the time control he began thinking intensively. At that moment Geller summoned a waiter, deliberately loudly ordered a glass of tea, and the unhurriedly began stirring in some sugar." (Averbakh) |
|
| May-19-05 | | Madman99X: Surely 53. Rxf5! wins for Reshevsky. |
|
| Nov-07-06 | | mack: Bronstein has pointed out that 32...Rxa3 33.b7 Rb4 34.Rd8+ Kh7 35.b8=Q Rxb8 36.Rxb8 Rd3 37.Rf1 Rc3 was possible. |
|
| Feb-18-09 | | TheaN: Ironic.
Rybka gives 57....Ra2† 0.04 (?!) for White, going into forced perpetual, and maybe an easier draw for Geller. But not that it matters, because 57....Rb3 deploys a restriction tactic. The White King cannot force himself past the third rank without leaving the f-pawn. Which in turn will then be taken up by King and Rook of Black. However, she gives Geller's 57....Rb3 as 0.61, which is more than a half pawn advantage for White! Excuse me miss R, but that is as dead a draw as it can be: it comes from the fact that if we play, lets say 57....Rb3 58.Re5 Kg4 59.Re3 Rxe3 60.Kxe3 Kf5, which is a clear opposition draw, is still evaluating as +0.60. Only with the Black King on f7 she'll jump to 0.00-ish. Computers don't understand endgames. |
|
| Feb-18-09 | | AnalyzeThis: <Madman99X: Surely 53. Rxf5! wins for Reshevsky. > It's very tricky, but I don't think it does. 53. Rxf5 Kxh4 54. Rf8 Kg4 is one of those problem endings where black can sometime draw two pawns down. Essentially, the black rook can prevent the white king from offering support, and if white advances the f pawn, say 55. f5, black merrily chases it with Kg5. |
|
| Aug-29-09 | | WhiteRook48: 53 Rxf5+ say draws due to a rook in the back of the pawn |
|
| Jan-22-19 | | bkpov: 50. Kf3 Kh5. 51 g4+ |
|
Jan-22-19
 | | gezafan: Another example of the old adage "There's nothing harder to win than a won game." |
|
May-06-20
 | | plang: The position after 10..c6 resembles positions reached through the Ragozin variation of the Queens Gambit. An example of how not to persue a minority attack would have been 16 Nxe6..Rxe6 17 b5..Qg5 18 bxc..Rxc6 19 Qb3..Bh3 20 Bf3..Bxg2! 21 Bxg2..Rg6. 18..a6 should have been played to make White's b5 break a bit more difficult to achieve. Geller used some clever tactics starting with 20..c5 to obtain a passed c-pawn that gave him some counterplay and after 27 Qd4? (27 b6 or 27 Rd4) he had realistic chances of saving the game. Played in the 24th round (of 28); Reshevsky had lost to Kotiv in the 23rd. Geller had sealed 41..Re1 and before the game was resumed Reshevsky was outplayed by Smyslov in the 25th round; the results in these three rounds effectively ended Reshevsky's qualification chances. Marin: "The whole endgame is a perfect illustration of what well-thought-out play can achieve even in fairly unequal circumstances (such as being two pawns down). Geller mentions that in the nocturnal analysis he discovered, along with Averbakh, the following three saving ideas: the rook endgame with h- and f- pawns, some situations where the white connected pawns are blockaded by black's king and...a stalemate position!" With modern time controls and no adjournments saving this endgame would be a lot less likely in my opinion. 45 h4?! complicated White's effort; better would have been 45 Rf3 followed by Kg3. Wood and Bronstein both suggested 48 g4 as an improvement but after 48..f5! Black is able to achieve the notorious f & h pawn rook ending after gxf or an effective blockade after 49 g5..Kg6 50 Kg3..Kh5 51 Rb3..Ra4. While the ending was theoretically winning Reshevsky was guilty of seriously underestimating Black's defensive resources. |
|
Jul-19-23
 | | FSR: What is with these idiot Stockfish 9 annotations? Geller's stalemate defense 53...Rf3+ draws (and thus should be "!" IMO); Stockfish correctly notes that the position is 0.00 after Reshevsky's 54.Ke2. (The alternatives 54.Kxf3 stalemate and 54.Kg2 Rxg3+! are no better.) Yet Stockfish gives 53...Rf3+ a question mark, saying that Black should instead play "53...Rb3 54.Rxf5+ Kg4 55.Rc5 Rf3+ 56.Ke2 Kxg3 ⩲ +1.00 (5 ply)." Why does Stockfish prefer a move for Black that it evaluates as leading to +1 advantage for White over a move that gives dead equality? Obviously from Black's perspective a move leading to 0.00 is better, not worse, than a move that gives White +1. Also, Stockfish gives Reshevsky's 53. g3? a question mark, saying that he should prefer "53.Rf8 Ra2+ 54.Kg3 Ra3+ 55.Kh2 Kxh4 56.g3+ Kg4 57.Rg8+ = +0.08 (57 ply)." News flash: +0.08 is not a meaningful advantage, so a move that leads to 0.00 does not deserve a question mark just because another move would have led to a +0.08 advantage. You need a much larger difference between the two moves to warrant a question mark. |
|
Jul-19-23
 | | perfidious: <drukenknight: I wouldnt take Geller's word on it, Eggie. He has some peculiar ideas of how to play endgames, can you spot the very basic error he makes at the end of this one?> Does that blunder make everything Geller ever said or played worthless? How about the howler by White in Petrosian-Bronstein? <plang: The position after 10..c6 resembles positions reached through the Ragozin variation of the Queens Gambit....> Long ago, I had this position with both colours and 11.Nf3 Bf5 was played; this is safe enough, but presents Black with no real problems. <FSR.... News flash: +0.08 is not a meaningful advantage, so a move that leads to 0.00 does not deserve a question mark just because another move would have led to a +0.08 advantage. You need a much larger difference between the two moves to warrant a question mark.> Required reading for those who indulge in such hair-splitting to no purpose. |
|
Kibitzing
