< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-26-03|| ||Open Defence: Smejkal may have overlooked 72..Bc5, once the connected passed pawns arise it would not be possible to stop them of course, SMejkal must have been hoping to win the Queening race, but still Bc5 is an amazing move, and of course, Smejkal's Bxh3+ made Bc5 possible, do you think Smejkal realized the position was lost and played Bxh3+ to allow Karpov to play Bc5 ? |
|Mar-01-04|| ||Lawrence: 39.Qf1? was an error, Karpov says Smejkal should have played 39.Kg2. The game was adjourned after 42.Kg2, explaining K.'s little jig on moves 40, 41, and 42. 46.Bb7? was another error and K. goes into a complicated explanation involving zugzwang and conjugated squares (?) (critical squares?) (sorry, I don't know the name in English though I saw it explained once) to explain that White should have kept his Bishop on c6 and d5 because then he could have played 50.Qxf2.|
Note that 37.Qe2 was White's ONLY move, everything else led to checkmate.
|Sep-05-04|| ||Eggman: <<Karpov goes into a complicated explanation involving zugzwang and conjugated squares ... to explain that White should have kept his Bishop on c6 and d5 because then he could have played 50.Qxf2.>>|
Lawrence, where was this analysis published?
|Sep-06-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Eggman> I saw this game commented by Karpov in Anatolij Karpov - Izbrannye partii (Best Games) 1969 - 1977 published by "Fizkultura i sport", Moscow in 1978. I don't know if it was translated into English but I guess that it was. |
|Sep-06-04|| ||Lawrence: <Eggman>, <Honza>'s right, in English it's "Anatoly Karpov's Best Games." |
|Sep-06-04|| ||Benzol: It might have translated as "My Best Games" published by RHM Press in 1978. The book has 58 games covering the years 1969 - 1977 and has some draws as well as wins in it.|
"Anatoly Karpov's Best Games" was published relatively recently in 1996 by Batsford.
|Sep-07-04|| ||Chessical: <Lawrence> I believe that "Conjugated squares" = corresponding squares. Mechanically plotting in a K+P endgame where a K reaches one square the corresponding square the other K must reach to avoid a zugwang. |
|Sep-07-04|| ||Lawrence: <Chessical>, thanks. The explanation I saw had a lot more pieces on the board and there were 4 important squares but the logic was very subtle and beyond me. <Chess Mentor> for example goes into "opposition" in a big way but doesn't even touch "corresponding squares," presumably because it is so sophisticated. |
|Sep-07-04|| ||Gypsy: <Lawrence> Recently I saw a good treatment of critical squares in Muller & Lamprecht "Secrets of Pawn Endings" -- a good ballance of clear exposition and reasonable rigor. |
The key contest of a corresponding-squares battle is whether the defending side can keep the correspondence or the attacking side can force a misalignment (and therefore a breakthrough to some critical square). Opposition is just the simplest example of defensive success; triangulation the simplest example of correspondence missalignment and attacking break.
<<Chess Mentor> for example goes into "opposition" in a big way but doesn't even touch "corresponding squares," presumably because it is so sophisticated. > I have noted that traditional Anglo/American endgame theory relies too havily on oposition and strethes it far beyond its useful range. At the same time the teaching shortchanges the power of the theory of critical squares and the theory of corresponding squares.
|Sep-08-04|| ||Lawrence: <Gypsy>, thanks for that info. Does Karpov's explanation--"White should have kept his Bishop on c6 and d5 because then he could have played 50.Qxf2"--(my post March 1st) agree with Muller & Lamprecht's treatment of corresponding squares? |
|Sep-08-04|| ||Gypsy: <46.Bb7? was another error and K. goes into a complicated explanation involving zugzwang and conjugated squares (?) (critical squares?) (sorry, I don't know the name in English though I saw it explained once) to explain that White should have kept his Bishop on c6 and d5 because then he could have played 50.Qxf2.> This is true, because from d5 and c6 the White bishop has a quick transfer to f1 and g2 where he (bishop) is needed to stop the g-pawn. White trouble is that on b7 such a bishop transfer is prevented by his own pawn a6.|
It strikes me that the <conjugate squares> in question were the White bishop's c6 and d5 in response to Black bishop's c5 and d4. But to view this as a case of <corresponding squares> theory stretches that concept beyond its useful range.
Finaly, had Smejkal played better, say, 46.Bd5, Karpov would had have other means to try to win the game, whouldn't he?
|Jan-09-05|| ||chezwit: a great game from beginning to end by karpov! |
|Feb-16-05|| ||Poisonpawns: This game is also annotated in english by GM Mednis in "How Karpov wins" He says smejkal "dropped" a pawn in time pressure by 39.Qf1? when Kg2 draws.33.Qe6!is better than Bd7!? and would make blacks King rather uncomfortable. |
|Feb-26-05|| ||morphy234: what a great finishing move!! |
|Aug-27-05|| ||ameekmalhotra345: what happens if 18.Q:b2?
|Aug-27-05|| ||tamar: After 18 Qb2 Bxc3! uncovers a mating attack on h2 with the queen.|
|Sep-25-05|| ||ConfusedPatzer: Is queen and bishop vs queen a draw?|
|Dec-30-05|| ||gladiator367: Wow! What a beautiful finish by Karpov!|
|Oct-08-06|| ||Eggman: <<I'm looking at white's 71st and thinking there is something else there.>>|
If you mean 71.e6 (instead of 71.Bxh3+), then 71...hxg2 72.e7 g1/Q 73.e8/Q Qd4+ 74.Ke6 (74.Kc6 Qa4+) Qe4+ 75.Kd7 Qxe8+ 76.Kxe8 g2 is pretty convincing for Black.
|Jan-21-08|| ||mikecy: A masterpiece example about Karpov game, especially after Be7 and Qf6 capturing defence and prospect attack positions at the same time and the magnificen move of Qf8 game was directed for the final result.|
|Sep-07-08|| ||Woody Wood Pusher: This is one of the most impressive endgames I have ever seen. I cannot even begin to imagine playing against Karpov, what a beast!|
|Sep-07-08|| ||drukenknight: Can 57 Qd2+ save this?|
|Sep-07-08|| ||Woody Wood Pusher: <Can 57 Qd2+ save this?> I haven't carried out an exhaustive analysis of course, but my guess is....NO|
|Dec-15-08|| ||blacksburg: <Gypsy - I have noted that traditional Anglo/American endgame theory relies too havily on oposition and strethes it far beyond its useful range.>|
i agree, and i think it's because the simple opposition is such an easy idea to teach, even though it's just a really simple example of corresponding squares. ever since i read "my system", i've agreed with nimzo that the term "opposition" is useless and that ideas like the "reserve blockading square" are much more practical.
|Jul-29-10|| ||birthtimes: If the bishop was on d5 instead of b7, White would have 50.Qxf2 Bxf2 51.Kf5 g4 52.Bc4 which prevents Black from queening his shortside pawns...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·