< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
|Dec-31-11|| ||Shams: <talisman><16. Ne2! novelty at the time?>|
I think so, yes, and rather famously. Now 16.Nb3 is preferred and both moves are, I believe, met with 16...Rfe8.
|Jan-02-12|| ||talisman: thanks <Shams>.|
|Jul-09-12|| ||The Last Straw: Won't 27 Qh8+ Ke7 28 Re1+ lose to 28...Qxe1#?????????????????????|
|Jul-09-12|| ||JoergWalter: <The Last Straw: Won't 27 Qh8+ Ke7 28 Re1+ lose to 28...Qxe1#?????????????????????>|
it would. but 27 Qh8 Ke7 28. Nd5+ does not
|Jul-09-12|| ||JoergWalter: <talisman: 16.Ne2! novelty at the time?>
yes, it was. however, some correspondence games by Nesis raised doubt on the quality:|
16. Ne2 Re8 17. Bh6 Bh8
(prevent the exchange of Bg7).
Then 16.Kb1 instead of 16.Ne2 became popular. 16.Bh6, 16.e5, 16.Nd5, 16.Nb3 or 16.b3 have all been tested.
|Jul-17-12|| ||screwdriver: I like this game by Karpove. He figured out alot from Rd3, to sacking the pawn on g5, then playing Rd5 which really was the clincher.|
|Aug-28-12|| ||McChesser: 19...Be6 was suggested by Keaton Kiewra as an improvement for black in this line.|
|Jan-10-13|| ||duplex: KARPOV's 20- g5 is absoulutely brilliant Korchnoi must have tought that after Rc4-c5 ,Karpov would not make the move but it came like a bomb..Karpov what a great player !|
|Jan-10-13|| ||Everett: <bmulligan: And it doesn't hurt to have the line analyzed to mate before you sit down, either.>|
Doesn't hurt to realize that Korchnoi didn't have to play into it. Also, Some of the later moves were found at the board.
All that said, home analysis has always been the bane of OTB chess, to a real fight. Look at the recent WC, near-perfect, home-analyzed and prepared chess. Incredibly boring!
|Jan-11-13|| ||ozmikey: I wonder if there's any verification of the "analysed out to mate" claim that's often made vis-a-vis this game. The only even roughly contemporary statement of that kind I remember reading was from Leonid Shamkovich, who commented that it was hypocritical of Karpov to include this game in his own collection of best games, given that the ENTIRE game had been home analysis by Furman. But that's just a claim by one person; has it been stated elsewhere?|
|Jan-13-13|| ||lost in space: <<RandomVisitor:> After the suggested improvement 16...Re8 (snip)>|
After 16...Re8 17. e5 Nxg4 18. fxg4 Bxg4 19. e6 Bxe6 20. Bd4 f6 we have this position:
click for larger view
I let run shredder a few days on this position with the following result:
shredder 12, d=25
A: +0,15; 21. Nf4 Bf7 22. Nfd5 Qa5 23. Qg2 Bxd5 24. Nxd5 Qxa2 25. Rd3 Qa1+ 26. Kd2 Qa5+ 27. Bc3 Qb5 28. Kc1 Qc6
click for larger view
For me the end-postion is looking quite promising for white. Let shredder run over night and will post the result.
B: +0,04; 21. b3 Rc6 22. Nf4 Bf5 23. Nfd5 e6 24. Ne3 Qa5 25. Nxf5 Qxf5 26. Kb1 Rec8 27. Qe1 e5 28. Nd5 Qxc2+ 29. Ka1 exd4 30. Qe6+ Kf8 31. Qe7+ Kg8 32. Nxf6+ Bxf6
C: 0,00; 21. Kb1 Qa5 22. Nc1 h5 23. Rhg1 Bf7 24. Qd3 g5 25. Nb3
|Jan-17-13|| ||lost in space: The end position (see post above) is 0,8.
I decided to slide along the main (d>=20 each move) line and try to find improvements for Black.
21. Nf4 Bf7 22. Nfd5 Qa5 23. Qg2 e5! (instead of Bxd5)
24. Be3 h5 25. Rxh5 gxh5 26. Nxf6+ Kh8 27. Nxh5 Bxh5 28. Qh3 Kg8 29. Qxh5 Re6
click for larger view
shredder gives this position higher ply +0,02. with the best move 30. Qh3.
Seems, the line is playable.
|May-08-14|| ||satkul: 21 Rd5!!! was excellent,coming especially coming from Karpov,who is not famous for attacking style|
|May-08-14|| ||john barleycorn: Yes, a real gem of a game. However, the question ever since is how much of it was home preparation and due to Geller.|
|May-08-14|| ||Petrosianic: The important novelties in the game were 16. N4e2 and 19. Rd3.|
You might also check Korchnoi's match games against both Geller and Karpov in 1971, to see the state of his Sicilian Dragon before this game.
|May-08-14|| ||trnbg: Sorry, my French is not good enough for the pun. What does it mean?|
|May-08-14|| ||john barleycorn: Google translate gives Korchnoi maltreated, flayed. French is probably chosen because it is onomatopoeic.|
Oh god, one post and 2 words I had to look up. I am no Abdel :-(
|Jun-29-14|| ||dernier thylacine: Splendid game of course, prepared at home or not. As Frenchman, I love very much the pun!!|
TO trnbg: do you like to eat a rabbit including it's fur and skin?
If not, "il faut commencer par l'ECORCHER!"
As I will do with you if you do not buy a french-english dictionary, ha! ha!
|Oct-05-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: <john barleycorn> It was well known by many Dragooneer GMs that Karpov was a Dragon-Slayer. Why Korchnoi decided to play the Dragon against a Dragon-Slayer can be boiled down to surprise. I suppose Korchnoi believed he would surprise Karpov; it didn't work. As a Dragoneer, I believe the Dragon is very good for White. Black only has excellent chances if White delays attacking or makes mistakes; then Black can capitalize in rapid, attacking and dazzling fashion.#|
|Oct-05-14|| ||john barleycorn: <tranquilsimplicity>|
Karpov's fame as dragon slayer with the majority of games after 1974:
Korchnoi won their first contest in the dragon. I think it was a training game which Karpov never accounted for in his own statistic against the dragon.
Then there is a story that Korchnoi abroad bought a book about the dragon and tried to hide it from his colleagues before the 74 game. (story by Geller? I am not sure and I cannot find the source for it). Dragon as a surprise for Karpov? definitely not.
|Oct-05-14|| ||perfidious: <ozmikey: I wonder if there's any verification of the "analysed out to mate" claim that's often made vis-a-vis this game. The only even roughly contemporary statement of that kind I remember reading was from Leonid Shamkovich, who commented that it was hypocritical of Karpov to include this game in his own collection of best games, given that the ENTIRE game had been home analysis by Furman. But that's just a claim by one person; has it been stated elsewhere?>|
Till now, had never read or heard of such a claim being made by Shamkovich or in any way pertaining to Geller's preparation. Who knows, really? Such a statement would be the ancestor of all the panning of Anand in these pages, which has taken place since his well-known win vs Aronian.
As to <tranquilsimplicity: <john barleycorn> It was well known by many Dragooneer GMs that Karpov was a Dragon-Slayer.>: Karpov had only faced the Dragon five times entering this game, winning four, the first of which was played before he was even a titled player, thus hardly the stuff of which Fischer's early reputation was founded in that regard following his smashing victory against Larsen at Portoroz.
|Oct-05-14|| ||tamar: The earlier game Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1971 may have given Korchnoi the impression Karpov was not up on current theory.|
He hardly would discuss the game afterwards, saying it was not a real game, but a result of preparation.
|Oct-05-14|| ||perfidious: Korchnoi had also essayed the Dragon in the second and fourth games of his 1971 match with Geller, the latter being his only loss of the match.|
|Oct-05-14|| ||tranquilsimplicity: <Perfidious> In all honesty I borrowed that 'Dragon-Slayer' term attributed to Karpov from GM Eduard Gufeld. It was Gufeld's opinion.|
<john barleycorn> As for the Dragon being surprise for Karpov, I was merely inciting responses which I have received. The Dragon is too well known to be a surprise for any GM or even a strong player.
The bottom line however, Karpov played brilliantly! Very unlike his serpentine slow build up and strangling style. I suppose playing the Yugoslav really gives White all sorts of tactics to throw against Black, open up the King's cover and do some mating!#
|Oct-27-15|| ||Helios727: What would happen if black played 24... dxe5 ?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·