|Mar-27-04|| ||morphyvsfischer: chessgames.com, this is a Closed Sicilian, not an Uncommon Opening |
|Mar-27-04|| ||morphyvsfischer: I think Karpov slipped up after 25 ...b3?, handing White the initiative |
|Aug-16-04|| ||Zenchess: In the final position, White can escape the checks by 51. Qf2; after 51...Qg5+ 52. Kh2, the only checking square (f4)is covered by the queen. |
|Jul-17-05|| ||calman543: Amazing that Korchnoi was able to trick Karpov into being on the black side of the Sicilian.|
|Jul-17-05|| ||calman543: Why didn't black play 28...Nxa6 ?|
|Jul-17-05|| ||beatgiant: <calman543: Why didn't black play 28...Nxa6 ?>|
White's a rook ahead after 28...Nxa6 29. Rxc8+ Bf8 30. Rxa6, etc.
|Apr-08-06|| ||suenteus po 147: Interesting game. I'm not sure this opening can be considered a true closed Sicilian as the queen's knight doesn't arrive at c3 until after the white c-pawn is gone. Are there any other world championship games throughout history that see an Alekhine's Gun?|
|Aug-20-06|| ||talisman: took guts to play 1.g3 in WC.|
|Aug-20-06|| ||sixfeetunder: Playing chess in a WC is already gutsy.|
|Apr-09-08|| ||Knight13: This is exactly the way I play the freakin' Closed Sicilian. Works really good. Black usually dies if he doesn't know what he's doing! The worst mistake a class player would make is like 13. d5?.|
|Mar-08-09|| ||stoy: Black overlooked 27 Qc1 which defends e3 and attacks c7. 25 ... b3 was hyperactive. An interesting game.|
|Sep-05-09|| ||jmboutiere: 5....d6 - 0.28 Rybka 3
9. ... b5 -0.21; 9. ...Ne8 +0.02
25....Rcb8 +0.30; 25....b3 +0.67
26. ...Rcb8 +0.71; 26....Rb3 1.79
37.... fe5 3.10; 37....f5 +2.40
50. ... Qd2 + 6....41
|Aug-14-10|| ||ajile: This is also known as the Grand Prix Sicilian opening. (e4 and f4)|
|Oct-17-10|| ||sfm: Larsen writes in his book about the match, about the white move 24.Rd-c1:|
"They say you always move the wrong rook. This is the exception, but White could never have dreamt of the game continuation where his choice of rook becomes decisive."
(forgive me if there's a slight change in wording, it is more than 30 years ago I last saw the book...)
After 26.-,Rxb3, if the rook on a1 would have been on d1 instead, then 27.Qc1 would not be possible, and on 27.Rd-c1 black calmly answers -,Rb-b8.
I think Larsen gives 25-,b3 a "??".
|Oct-17-10|| ||whiteshark: <ajile: This is also known as the Grand Prix Sicilian opening. (e4 and f4)> |
Lawrence Day would call it a <BIG cLAMP>:
|Oct-17-10|| ||Fusilli: <sfm> Larsen is right that Korchnoi moved the right rook, but if he was implying this choice was difficult to make, he was way off. The rook would do nothing staying on d1, and it is grossly underestimating Korchnoi to suggest he may not have seen the three-move sequence leading to 27.Qc1, or the general character of the game continuation.|
|Jul-11-12|| ||sfm: <Fusilli: Larsen is right that Korchnoi moved the right rook but if he was implying this choice was difficult to make, he was way off. The rook would do nothing staying on d1...>|
I don't think Larsen implied anything more than he said, but your statement that the rook would 'do nothing' on d1 seems to me to indicate a limited understanding of how rooks are used.
There are several good arguments for keeping the rook on the d-file. That they may not be good _enough_ is another matter.
E.g. by playing 24. Rac1, White keeps one rook at the c-file, while still keeping a rook to support the central files d, e and f. Which, in general, are more important than the a and b files.
Additionally, a rook at d1 has the option of moving to the 3rd rank, where it can participate in attack/defense on the queens wing.
It is very common that rooks 'do nothing', as you call it, else than e.g. backing pawns (in the centre). This 'doing nothing' for a long time is one reason why deciding on moving the right rook to the right square can be very hard, even for very strong players.
For these reasons the tongue-in-cheek expression "You always move the wrong rook" was coined, and Larsen's comment hits the nail on the head.
In this position, if White plays 24.Rac1, there is 24.-,Qa4 to consider.
And, as we know, 24.Rdc1 prevents the obvious -,b3 move.
<...and it is grossly underestimating Korchnoi to suggest he may not have seen the three-move sequence leading to 27.Qc1, or the general character of the game continuation.>
I also didn't see Larsen suggest that?
What he said was, that Korchnoi couldn't have dreamt about what happened, which in plain English means that he would never have expected it to happen.
That strongly suggests that Larsen would have expected both Karpov and Korchnoi to see it.
How you can read it the opposite way is a mystery to me.
|Jul-11-12|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <sfm> you wrote <if White plays 24.Rac1, there is 24.,Qa4 to consider>.|
Well, no, it wouldn't be considered by either of these players, or even a decent club player, since it pretty much loses immediately to the (not that hard to spot) 25.Ba6, which wins the exchange by force.
After your position 24.Rac1 Qa4??
click for larger view
And now after 25.Ba6
click for larger view
|Jul-11-12|| ||Paraconti: Korchnoi is a great player, but somehow I've never managed to derive the satisfaction from his wins that I do from Fischer or Capablanca or Kasparov. His wins always seem to lack the smoothness of good chess games. It's as if they were played by different players who took over from positions where the one before left off.|
|Aug-05-12|| ||Fusilli: <sfm:
I don't think Larsen implied anything more than he said, but your statement that the rook would 'do nothing' on d1 seems to me to indicate a limited understanding of how rooks are used.>
I looked at the position again and I fully stand by my original statement. Rdc1 is far superior to Rac1 and the rook would do nothing on d1 in this case. Of course it is often a good idea to have a rook supporting a central pawn, but this d-pawn is not a passed pawn, and has no chance of becoming a passed pawn any time soon, and it is not even being threatened in any way, which means that the rook on d1 is just passively overprotecting an already solid pawn.
Besides, I suggest you try to make your arguments without belittling or mildly insulting others. Just say "I disagree" instead of saying that I have "a limited understanding of how rooks are used". It doesn´t help your argument to come off as pompous and arrogant.
|Aug-05-12|| ||perfidious: On general grounds, there's no need for the Nimzowitschian overprotection
of d4 by playing Rac1. The positional and tactical specifics are another story. We cannot know for certain whether Korchnoi had prophylaxis of the losing continuation in the game in mind when playing 24.Rdc1, but independent of that consideration, it certainly suggests itself as the natural way of playing here.|
|Mar-09-14|| ||offramp: < Paraconti: Korchnoi is a great player, but somehow I've never managed to derive the satisfaction from his wins that I do from Fischer or Capablanca or Kasparov. His wins always seem to lack the smoothness of good chess games. It's as if they were played by different players who took over from positions where the one before left off.> That is such a good comment!|
|Sep-23-14|| ||Zhbugnoimt: sfm: Fusili is right, you are wrong. It is YOU who have a limited understanding of how rooks work.|
|Aug-12-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: It seems that Karpov just lost the exchange and got ground down by a super gm. This is no classic|