|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Oct-29-06 |
| MadBishop: Carrying on ... :
13. Nxh7 +\-- Re8(13. ... Kxh7 14. Qh6+ Kg8 15. Qxg6+ Kh8 16. Qh6+ Kg8 17. Be4 f5 18. Bd5+ Rf7 19. Qg6+ +\--) 14. Qh6(14. Qf4 Nb4 15. Qxf7+[15. Bxb7? Nxd3+ 16. exd3 Bg5+] 15. ... Kh8 16. Bh6 Rg8 17. Nxf8! +\--; 14. ... Kxh7 15. Qh6+ Kg8 16. Qxg6+ Kh8 17. Bxf7; 14. ... Ne5 15. Bxb7 Rxb7 16. Qxe5 Kxh7 17. Qd5 Osnos) 18. 0-0(18. Rf1 Nf3+; 18. cxd5 Nf3+) |
 |
| Oct-29-06 |
| MadBishop: And finally:
18. ... Bxc4 (18. ... Bf3 19. Qe3 Bg4 Zaitsev)
It is said that during this game, Korchnoi got up and in spite of the rules, adressed an official, asking whether he could castle now that his rook was under threat. A couple moves later he castled and got a victory!!! |
|
| Dec-11-06 |
| mcgee: >>MadBishop<< see the various comments by myself and others above as I said before, did Korchnoi play 13Nxh7 and see through to the position in the game at move 18 at the time? The win would not have been easy if White could not have castled short. |
|
| Jan-01-07 |
| Fisheremon: <MadBishop> 11...Rb8 also possible, but once Black played 11...Nxd5, 12...Rb8 was really a blunder (12...Bf6 was necessary for a save). |
|
| Mar-06-07 |
| ALEXIN: Fabulous combination of Korchnoi. 11.Qd2 (preparing move) is the key in this game. |
|
| Mar-06-07 |
| TrueFiendish: If I were Korchnoi and been unsure as to whether I could castle with my rook under attack, I would just have done it and pretended I hadn't noticed if subsequently told it was illegal. |
|
Mar-06-07
 |
| whatthefat: <TrueFiendish: If I were Korchnoi and been unsure as to whether I could castle with my rook under attack, I would just have done it and pretended I hadn't noticed if subsequently told it was illegal.> But if castling were not legal, he would have been forced to move his king by touch rule, dropping the rook to ...Bxh1. Note that he could not have touched the h1-rook first to be safe, since in that case castling is illegal: <4.4 (b) If a player deliberately touches a rook and then his king he is not allowed to castle on that side on that move and the situation shall be governed by Article 4.3(a).> [From the FIDE Handbook] |
|
| Mar-06-07 |
| TrueFiendish: <whatthefat> Yes, quite right. I guess I was speaking from an embarrassment point of view rather than from a game-winning point of view. Shows I'll never be a world title contender, I suppose. Maybe, then, he should have had a quiet word with a buddy (his second?) behind his hand rather than going public. |
|
| Apr-11-07 |
| Darth Simplicio: It is not possible for Korchnoi to check with anybody (except the arbiter) otherwise that would be considered cheating. Look at all the cheating accusation on Topalov because of possible communication between him and Danailov ... |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| Peligroso Patzer: <pastpawn: If I remember right, this is the game where Korchnoi had to ask the arbiter if 18. 0-0 would be legal with the king's rook under attack.> <mcgee: Pastpawn, you are correct. Korchnoi admitted that he had never encountered this scenario in all the years he had been playing chess; presumably this legal finesse had bypassed him when he learnt the rules of chess, and as such he was unsure at the age of 43 whether castling with the rook under attack was legal. *** Korchnoi checked with arbiter O' Kelly and all was well.> It is interesting that <Alberic O'Kelly de Galway > was the arbiter for this game. Some 40 years previously, O'Kelly lost a 13-move miniature in a game involving another situation in which there could be confusion on the part of some players with regard to the legality of castling. In the O'Kelly game from 1934, it was the b1 square that was under attack, and the decisive stoke for White was 13. 0-0-0+ (giving check and also attacking a Black Rook on b2): Feuer vs O'Kelly, 1934 |
|
Apr-11-07
 |
| Marmot PFL: I didn't think he would even be allowed to ask the arbiter. I mean what next, should the TD show him how the horsey moves? This is GM chess, not a junior high school event. I learned to play by age 8 or 9, but it wasn't until I read a book on chess (by I.A Horowitz) which I found in the family bookshelves that I knew about the en passant rule, Q side castling or underpromotion. The book was a game collection that didn't explain these things, but it had so many diagrams that I could figure them out from the position and the notation (which in those days was descriptive). So I am astounded that a strong GM wouldn't know a simple rule. Maybe it was just Korchnoi's way of adding insult to Karpov's injury, which I wouldn't put past him. |
|
Apr-11-07
|
| Marmot PFL: <LIFE Master AJ> Very nice job. Enough diagrams that I didn't need to use a board. Qd2 was probably prepared although Korchnoi finds strong moves OTB as well. <I produced my card proving that I was a certified Club TD> Good thinking not to show them your Life Master certificate. They might take you into the backroom and break your thumbs..."We got no use for chess hustlers around here boy." |
|
| Apr-15-07 |
| mcgee: >>9. ... Nc6?!(9. ... g6 10. Qd1 d6 11. cxd5 Na6 12. 0-0 Nd7=<< see the earlier comments about Hartston and Keene visiting Korchnoi during the match and suggesting 9..g6 10.cxd5 followed by an all-out attack with h2-h4 |
|
| Apr-15-07 |
| mcgee: >>Very nice job. Enough diagrams that I didn't need to use a board. Qd2 was probably prepared although Korchnoi finds strong moves OTB as well.<< 'A move, the true value of which was recognised by many venerable commentators, including the former World Champpion Botvinnik, who even expressed the suggestion that I had prepared it at home. But I could not have anticipated all of Karpov's dubious moves!' (Korchnoi on 11 Qd2) |
|
Dec-18-07
 |
| kevin86: I was just wondering:would it had been the job of the referee to tell a player that a certain move was illegal-or even to answer a direct query on whether a move IS illegal? In this case,castling was legal-put the bishop at b4 or h3 instead of e5 and it would have been illegal. |
|
| Dec-18-07 |
| Riverbeast: Maybe he asked if O-O was a legal move because he couldn't believe his eyes, he was waxing karpov so bad.... Or knowing Korchnoi, maybe he asked the question just to annoy Karpov...like "you didn't see O-O" ? |
|
Dec-18-07
 |
| micartouse: <LMAJ: I have played in many bars and stuff across the country. In such environs, all the rules of chess are NOT clearly known, take a pawn "EN PASSANT," and you are liable to have your arm broken for being a cheater. (It got so bad that for many years I took toting a rulebook around in my car just for such instances.)> This is annoying when people don't know the rule, but whenever I play around I just pretend the rule doesn't exist - I hate being accused of making up rules as I go along. Usually against such players, you can afford this kind of handicap easily though. As for this game, I think Korchnoi knew the rule and he was messing with Karpov. |
|
| Dec-18-07 |
| zooter: another one for the rules: I've had players say that when my pawn reaches the 8th rank, it can only be promoted to a piece based on the square (eg. a square means rook, b square means knight and so on)... off course, i never argue as these people are too weak to beat me anyways; interestingly i wonder what happens in these rules if the e pawn gets promoted? Double king play?? |
|
Dec-19-07
|
| kevin86: There was another promotion nuance I heard of before:take this position
click for larger viewWhite to play and mate in one-
He moves the pawn to b8 and promotes to a BLACK knight. It's of course illegal,but just something to think about. |
|
Dec-19-07
 |
| talisman: sure would like to see these games on the WC pages 1975.better than no games.karpov's 9th move is the problem here.11th move is bad too.maybe 11.Re8 is better. |
|
| Dec-22-08 |
| WhiteRook48: Strange that Karpov would make this kind of blunder
|
|
| Dec-23-08 |
| WhiteRook48: ...Qxg5?? is a bad novelty. How could a GM and world champion not see that an h6-queen defends a g5-bishop? |
|
| Jan-13-09 |
| WhiteRook48: how could KARPOV blunder his queen? Or was the game blitz? |
|
| Feb-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: or maybe Korchnoi had a threat that forced Karpov to give up his Q |
|
| Apr-01-09 |
| onesax: WhiteRook: supposing Karpov moved his threatened queen instead (or even played Re7), Korchnoi has 17. Bf6 with mate on g7 or h8 to follow. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
