< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Sep-11-14|| ||patzer2: <Once> Thanks for the analysis of 41. Rg6! Rd8 which makes the solution more difficult.|
|Sep-11-14|| ||kevin86: I saw the immediate suicidal move of 41 ♖g5 ♖f7#... I think this is called a helpmate.|
I think Rg6 is the best...
|Sep-11-14|| ||JustAFish: Hey, I was feeling really good about finding Rg6. Then I read all the comments about how this was an easy puzzle. Thanks a lot! :-)|
|Sep-11-14|| ||notyetagm: Karpov vs Salov, 1995|
41 ♖g2-g6!, a nice <LINE-CLOSING> shot missed by Karpov.
|Sep-11-14|| ||Everett: <Cheapo by the Dozen: Actually, <Plumbst> is the one who posted a line that beats wholly passive defense. Thanks!>|
Actually, <Plumbst> post didn't exist when you asked the question, but mine did, specifically with the line you asked about - < Cheapo by the Dozen: I'm failing to see what's so great about 41 Rg6 if Black calmly retreats his rook to his first rank.> I provide Gelfand's answer via Van Perlo's Endgame tactics book starting with 41.Rg6 <Rd8> above.
<Plumbst> post offers more defense and is most appreciated. Thanks!
And thanks for noticing <zb2cr:>
|Sep-11-14|| ||shishio71: Ahh, so close! Rg6 was the first move I looked at, but I couldn't make out what to do after 41...Rd8|
|Sep-11-14|| ||BOSTER: You need an iron nerve to hold the white knight in his camp.
Black to play 20...
click for larger view
How to play this pos.? No any idea.
The best way is: don't book luxurious seats in your camp for guests like monster knight on d6.
|Sep-11-14|| ||ferrabraz: 41. Rg6! Rd8 42. Bd6!! , followed by 43. Bf8! and 44. h7, sealing the coffin, should do it.|
|Sep-11-14|| ||Bubo bubo: 41.Rg6 Rd8 42.Bd6 was my choice too; I'm a bit disappointed to see that I missed two easier possibilities, the lines given by <Everett> and <plumbst>.|
<ferrabraz> Note that Black can prevent 43.Bf8 by playing 42...Kh7, making the menace to the Rg6 real. But White just fortifies the rook with 43.h5, and after 43...Rg8 44.Kf7 Black should succumb to zugzwang sooner or later.
|Sep-11-14|| ||The17thPawn: Salov lost this one but in Classical games he played Karpov tough. No push over is Mr. Salov.|
|Sep-11-14|| ||Olavi: <The17thPawn> No push over, but still dominated, +6 -2 =10 for Karpov. (The 1994 Buenos Aires games were played in the Polugaevsky JT Sicilian thematic tournament and were unrated.)|
|Sep-11-14|| ||kbob: I too thought I was clever for finding 41 Rg6, but after reading all these complicating posts I no longer feel that Karpov simply "missed" it. Especially if time control had been reached. Karpov's method immediately guarantees an eternal g passer and limitless maneuvering room for his king in the far center. He may not have seen every possible position, but I think he was 100 percent sure of victory. Unless someone can actually demonstrate a draw for black, I don't think Karpov can be criticized in any way.|
|Sep-11-14|| ||The17thPawn: <Olavi> - So Karpov just figured they were a wash and didn't bother to put forth his best effort? Seems a strange tact to take if your bothering to sit down to a protracted classical time control game.|
|Sep-12-14|| ||Once: <kbob> agreed. Sometimes the longer way to win can be the best if it requires less calculation.|
For my money, 41. Rg6 wasn't as simple as it first seemed. Karpov's play was pragmatic - to play for the advantage that he could see clearly rather than risk the win on a flashier move (which might turn out to have a hole in it).
|Sep-12-14|| ||Olavi: <The17thPawn> Didn't say that, just that they were basically exhibition games. Yes surely the tournament had prize money - though it is possible that only appearance fees. I'm just used not to include such games in h-to-hs. This site for instance gives Capa - Alekhine as 9-7, for me (and I dare say to almost everybody) it is 7-7.|
|Sep-12-14|| ||perfidious: <Olavi....I'm just used not to include such games in h-to-hs. This site for instance gives Capa - Alekhine as 9-7, for me (and I dare say to almost everybody) it is 7-7.>|
Almost two years ago, I posted on the topic of serious games vis-à-vis those in other, slightly differing conditions at chessgames.com chessforum and the response was interesting, as it admitted that there is no clear way to answer the question.
Likewise, Boleslavsky never won a game outright from Botvinnik, save Boleslavsky vs Botvinnik, 1952, which was a training game, as stated by Botvinnik in his collection of games covering 1947-70.
In my opinion, the games from Buenos Aires 1994, which (for those who are unaware) were compulsory Open Sicilians, so would put certain players who did not generally play either side of such openings at a practical disadvantage.
|Sep-12-14|| ||Everett: <memberOnce: <kbob> agreed. Sometimes the longer way to win can be the best if it requires less calculation.
For my money, 41. Rg6 wasn't as simple as it first seemed. Karpov's play was pragmatic - to play for the advantage that he could see clearly rather than risk the win on a flashier move (which might turn out to have a hole in it).>|
That's right. This tending toward pragmatism is a big part of why Karpov was great for so long, and is also the characteristic which was criticized a bit by Kasparov.
|Sep-12-14|| ||Olavi: <perfidious: the games from Buenos Aires 1994, which (for those who are unaware) were compulsory Open Sicilians>|
Even more restrictive: 4.Qxd4 (of course after 2...d6) was not allowed.
|Sep-12-14|| ||Olavi: <perfidious: the games from Buenos Aires 1994, which (for those who are unaware) were compulsory Open Sicilians>
Even more restrictive: 4.Qxd4 (of course after 2...d6) was not allowed.|
|Sep-12-14|| ||The17thPawn: <Olavi & Perfidious> - Interesting perspective on the Alekhine v. Capablanca exhibition games. Difference being of course that they were not constrained to specific openings and my understanding is that the winner was paid more than the loser though both were paid. Seems to me any self respecting professional would do their utmost to win. Of course the conditions of the exhibition have been posted previously on different game pages and may be erroneous.|
|Sep-12-14|| ||Olavi: <The17thPawn> I think it's a question of what one expects such head to head stats to say. How can we know with what attitude they approached the game? Even if they were trying to be deadly serious, can a player give his best when it doesn't matter? And there are famous games like Bronstein vs Petrosian, 1963 and Tal vs Timman, 1975. In those I'm quite sure the attitude was different from a normal tournament game. How do you decide which exhibition games to include and which not?|
|Sep-12-14|| ||Everett: <Olavi> that's like saying some games do not have the same value as others, and that would completely blow ELO out of the water. We can't have that here on this site, no sir ;-)|
|Sep-12-14|| ||The17thPawn: <Olavi> - I honestly don't expect head to head stats to be totally definitive as players have different peak periods of strength and opposing styles matter as well. I do expect a professional to give their utmost when being paid to perform, which has been the expectation of any professional for time immemorial. Enjoyed reading your perspective though, thoughtful comments always have merit even if they are tongue in cheek:)|
|Sep-12-14|| ||Olavi: <The17thPawn> Well the whole discussion started with the question of how tough an opponent Salov was for Karpov. In that context, I think the Buenos Aires games should not be considered, as the first four moves were predetermined. And for me likewise with all 'non-serious' games, we can never draw a clear line. As for trying their utmost, one can do that and still give himself a great handicap - say, the ultra cautious Andersson himself initiating uncalculable complications against Shirov, for the sake of the public ;-) Cheers.|
|Sep-13-14|| ||perfidious: <Olavi> Speaking of Buenos Aires '94, just ordered a copy of the tournament book, <Sicilian Love>. Remember getting a look at it in Montreal many years ago, but never buying it for some reason.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·