< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|May-31-10|| ||sisyphus: IM Bill Hartston annotated this in his "Kings of Chess." After 7...Na6 he writes|
<Korchnoi had prepared his sixth move specially for this game, expecting the reply 7 dxc5, as recommended in the theoretical manuals. Karpov played 7 d5 almost without pause for thought. As part of this pragmatic approach, he had develped a knack of avoiding the moves which his opponents expect in the opening.>
|May-31-10|| ||Astardis: I never understood Korchnoi's plan to play the Pirc - and I was totally confused reading somewhere that it was an opening he basically thought of as incorrect...|
|Jul-08-10|| ||keypusher: <sisyphus> More crap from Hartston. The OE shows 290 examples of 7.d5 (over 50 before 1978) and 40 examples of 7.dxc5 (zero before 1978).|
|Jul-08-10|| ||Petrosianic: Playing the Pirc wasn't the best idea, especially in hindsight, but it wasn't the first time he'd played it, even in this match. I thought he should havep layed the French, which he played against Karpov several times in both the 1974 and 1978 matches, and never lost. On the other hand, he had been dead lost when he'd last played it, in Game 22, and only survived by a miracle.|
|Aug-29-10|| ||echever7: <WeakSquare> <timothee3331> <AnalyzeThis> <Astardis> etc.
Gospoda: hinting that Karpov cannot win against a French defense or that Korchnoi can't draw or win playing the Pirc is insulting to both Karpov and Korchnoi. May be it wasn´t Karpov that was exhausted. May be it was Korchnoi that was exhausted: winning those three games aginst Karpov to come back to life, comsumed a lot ot of energy from that 47 year old GM. It seems that (since the 8th game) always being behind in the score, Korchnoi felt kind of 'relaxation' ("mission acomplished! I tie the match!")after the miraculous comeback.|
|Sep-05-11|| ||DrMAL: Game 32, 5-5 tie, Korchnoi had a great comeback but reigning WC Karpov has the white pieces (and his face to save after becoming default WC when Fischer bailed three years before). 28...Qb8 led to a continuing draw but nobody knew precisely that in 1978, there were no Houdinis or Rybkas chugging away for spectators to make certain with. With a draw Korchnoi would have the white pieces soon enough. He took more risk with 28...Bc8?! instead and, although Karpov missed 29.c4!! (e.g., 29...Nc7 30.Qxe7 Nxb5 31.Qe5!) or 29.Qg5! his 29.Be2 was good enough to maintain advantage. After 35.Qh6 white was up a pawn but the position was also probably drawn with either 35...Ne5! or 35...Ng8 and adjournment was near, but Korchnoi played 35...Rg8?! instead, and Karpov played 36.Nf3! and a few more moves to remain WC. Now THAT was a close match!|
|Sep-05-11|| ||DrMAL: <Astardis: I never understood Korchnoi's plan to play the Pirc - and I was totally confused reading somewhere that it was an opening he basically thought of as incorrect...> He very rarely played Pirc but he was trying for a win, and he had good results with it since Fischer vs Korchnoi, 1962.|
|Sep-06-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
I think part of the reason is Ray Keene, who seconded with Michael Stean. We'll have to ask him to verify if this is true; Ray had written a seminal work on the Pirc for Batsford after all.
|Sep-06-11|| ||DrMAL: Let us know what he says. Ole Keene was in the middle of a lot of things that's for sure, great player too. Even detective incognito LOL: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...|
|Sep-06-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: Ray's answer:
<i was all for the main line of the pirc -which was tried in one game-but i was not at all in favour of the ...c5 experiment for what turned out to be the final game-i later tried it myself but its very risky> (from his page today)
|Sep-06-11|| ||DrMAL: Thanx. Yes I imagine he was persuasive, Ray did really great with it. And, yes, I agree with him Pirc is very risky particularly if not played with great accuracy in the opening. Other GMs from that time like Pirc a lot too, I'm thinking of Lev Albert's book in particular. I don't think this was a good decision for Korchnoi, he did not really believe in it. As Kasparov emphasized a number of times in his video (including game 24 of his 1985 match with Karpov), it is very important to play what one believes in and feels most comfortable playing (familiarity!). I agree very much with this philosophy and I'm sure Ray Keene does too, especially in hindsight. Kasparov was very happy Karpov chose 1.e4 in game 24 he could play his beloved Scheveningen (already even more refined to include Najorf move order with 5...a6 to avoid Keres) whereas Karpov was uncomfortable with pushing K-side pawns necessary here, valuing pawn structure (quality) more than attacking tempo as the (definitively great) Positional player he was. Back to 23.Be3 in that game, Kasparov commented that if someone like Shirov had the white pieces he would not have hesitated to push pawns including 23.f5! making him a more dangerous player than Karpov for that opening. I think he was similarly correct, Karpov needed a win even more so than Korchnoi did here, and he played something that he did not believe in, and the rest was history.|
|Sep-06-11|| ||perfidious: <DrMAL: ....I'm surprised to see him not being in favor of "the ...c5 experiment" this was the move that made (6).Be2 fall out of favor.... >|
Two vastly different circumstances are being discussed here, as <ray keene> well knows.
In the Austrian Attack, 6.Be2 indeed declined in popularity-understandably, though not justifiably-after Fischer's crushing defeat at Curacao. It was, however, revived by the late 1980s and is considered an excellent alternative to 6.Bd3, which supplanted it.
The difference between the bishop moves is seen in that after 6.Be2 c5 7.dxc5 Qa5, 8.cxd6 cannot be played because of 8....Nxe4, whereas after 6.Bd3 c5 7.dxc5 Qa5, the bishop defends e4.
This is all basic Pirc theory.
Your willingness to put down others whom you perceive as having less understanding than yourself is already legend here; try to accept, just like the rest of us whom you roundly scorn, that you can also learn. No-one will think less of you for that.
|Sep-06-11|| ||DrMAL: I looked at Ray Keene's answer and, while I agree about his points I'm surprised to see him not being in favor of "the ...c5 experiment" this was the move that made 5.Be2 fall out of favor somewhat after Fischer vs Korchnoi, 1962 or, if one believes Ed Mednis, before then. For example, 5.Bd3 was later tried in order to avoid 6...c5! (e.g., Judit Polgar vs A Chernin, 2007). Someone already pounced on my post as I was editing it to better word it LOL, I have a few creepy idiots/trollers on IGNORE.|
|Sep-06-11|| ||DrMAL: Ooops I got confused here, as you <SWT> pointed out in Fischer vs Korchnoi, 1962 thanx for clarifying that. Ray Keene's post makes sense now, back to Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985 for me.|
|Sep-06-11|| ||DrMAL: <SWT> You got my curiosity up here. For myself, in the rare instance I encounter Pirc I always play Austrian Attack. This game, played the same year shows the same opening with black winning (perhaps due to white's rating) P Jamieson vs E Torre, 1978 seems it was all quite the experiment then, as Ray pointed out. Interesting how Judit Polgar tried 5.Bd3 (link above), she got a strong position particularly after 6...Bg4 not a bad move but it did give her two-bishops advantage (hence, I would not play it even if Tal did Geller vs Tal, 1975). Whatever, I never play Pirc as black not believing in it, as Korchnoi also probably didn't. Maybe that's why he tried 6...c5 instead of 6...c6 (or even 6...Bg4 also more popular then). Anyways, enough on this for me but I am curious what Ray thinks of Fischer's 13.g4 there. It looked thematic but maybe dubious to me, I did not know it was a "known trap then" and I still have difficulty believing it to be a "trap" maybe it's the wording, cheers.|
|Sep-07-11|| ||FSR: I know hindsight is 20/20, but Korchnoi should have kept playing his normal defenses - the French and the Open Lopez. When he deviated from them in his matches with Karpov, it was often to his chagrin and never to his benefit - e.g. his losses with the Pirc (here), the Petroff, and the Dragon Sicilian.|
|Sep-07-11|| ||perfidious: <FSR> As it was, Korchnoi barely hung on with the French in game 22, after essaying the 5....exf6 Caro-Kann in game 20 (he lost to Liberzon in the latter at Lone Pine a few months later). Both those games could easily have gone 1-0. Is it possible that Karpov was showing signs of fatigue as he had in 1974, and would in his first match with Kasparov, when the latter could play one colourless draw after another to regain his balance?|
In that 1974 loss with the Petroff, he uncharacteristically sacrificed a pawn, after his Dragon in the second game.
The curious thing about Korchnoi's outings with the Dragon (for he'd played it twice against Geller in '71 as well) was that he didn't play it much, before or after those candidates matches.
|Sep-10-11|| ||DrMAL: http://ezinearticles.com/?Defamatio...|
|Sep-10-11|| ||I play the Fred: You are <relentless>, Doc; not correct, but relentless:|
J Wheeler vs A J Goldsby, 2001
|Jan-13-12|| ||talisman: has anyone looked at black's 24...a8? i would be curious to know what the engines say. this looks to be the turning point and 25.e5 looks strong.|
|Jan-14-12|| ||optimal play: <Sep-07-09><jmboutiere><24. ... h6 +o.32 Rybka 3 (0.05.59)>
<24. ... h6 +0.24 (0.02.05)><24. ...Qa8 +0.52> |
I don't see that Korchnoi had anything better. Karpov already has a commanding position and was determined to push through the centre.
Even if 24...e5 then 25.dxe6 fxe6 26.e5 dxe5 27.Qxe5 which is worse for Black.
|Jan-14-12|| ||King Death: <echever7: <WeakSquare> <timothee3331> <AnalyzeThis> <Astardis> etc. Gospoda: hinting that Karpov cannot win against a French defense or that Korchnoi can't draw or win playing the Pirc is insulting to both Karpov and Korchnoi...>|
What's the problem here? Every French they played in the 2 matches was a draw but like <perfidious> pointed out, Korchnoi was in big trouble in game 22. With the Open Ruy Lopez struggling too this was going to be an uphill battle to come up with something for even a single game.
|Oct-10-12|| ||tivrfoa: why black resigned? what would white play next? c5?|
|Oct-10-12|| ||Honza Cervenka: <tivrfoa: why black resigned? what would white play next? c5?>|
42.c5 is fine but 42.Nxf7 is better. Of course, 42...Kxf7 leads to mate in 1 and so white is two Pawns up and his QS Passers are worth of extra piece.
|Oct-10-12|| ||tivrfoa: <Honza Cervenka> Thanks a lot! =)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·