|May-19-05|| ||perfidious: In Botvinnik's Best Games 1947-70, he noted that, instead of 11. e4, 11. Qb3+ Ke8 12.Ne6 Qd6 13.Nxg7+ Kd8 14.Ne6+ Kc8 shouldn't trouble Black; in 1987, I played the Black in this line vs Chris Chabris and won, as Black's king wound up the safer of the two, despite all its early peregrinations.|
|Mar-19-08|| ||Richard Taylor: <Perfidious> You should maybe load up some of your games. You must have had some interesting games!|
|Mar-19-08|| ||Richard Taylor: I have this game of Keres in a book of his games...|
|Sep-05-10|| ||Xeroxx: wild game.|
|Apr-25-11|| ||perfidious: <Richard> If I ever run across the score of my game with Chabris, I'll have a go at posting it here. There are some others of interest from the past, too, from my days in Boston, with a number of strong players.|
|Apr-25-11|| ||Nilsson: Interresting endgame.
Is it possible for white to hold it with 31.Kf2 instead of 31.Bc5. And also 33.Bxb4 instead of 33.Rc1 looks better. (After 33.Rc1? the position is lost.)
|Apr-25-11|| ||DrGridlock: <Is it possible for white to hold it with 31.Kf2 instead of 31.Bc5.>|
Rybka scores it:
click for larger view
Analysis by Rybka 2.2n2 mp 32-bit :
1. µ (-0.71): 31.Kf2 Bxe4 32.fxe4 Rd8 33.Rf1 g5 34.Bc5 b3 35.Ke2+ Ke6 36.g3 Be5 37.Rb1 Bd4
2. µ (-0.81): 31.Bc5 Bxe4 32.fxe4 b3 33.Kf2 Be5 34.Rb1 Rd8 35.Be3 Ra8 36.Bc1 Ra2
|Sep-24-11|| ||perfidious: Engine analysis aside, this game was played at the board, and the defender has considerable practical difficulties in these endings when facing the bishop pair; it's very easy indeed for anyone to aver that such and such position is 0.36 or -0.67, but what does it all prove, really?|
|Jun-26-16|| ||apexin: Black has won more games than white after 8.cxd5 was played. Looks very risky but if a player of Lombardy's class tried it there must have been a good reason.|
|Jun-26-16|| ||perfidious: <apexin> This game was played in the relatively early days of the line and the interesting decision came at Lombardy's ninth move: as mentioned above, I was familiar with this deviation from, first, the more common 8.b3 (my choice when playing White in this), followed by the further trek off the beaten path with 9.dxe6 due, in part, to the annotations mentioned above; partly also by reading Keres' annotations of this game in <The Art of the Middlegame>, which is a fine book if there is a copy to be found.|
|Jun-27-16|| ||Granny O Doul: Kacheishvili-Friedel, http://uschessleague.com/games2009/... , from the US Chess League a few years back, is another noteworthy game in this line.|
|Jun-27-16|| ||AylerKupp: <perfidious> ... but what does it all prove, really?>|
All that engine analysis "proves" are the <theoretical> possibilities of a position. Theoretical because, as you pointed out, an OTB game is played between 2 players, and many factors affect the quality of their play. And engines can make mistakes in their evaluations, just like humans, when confronted with the horizon effect.
Still, since the top engines are superior to the best players, it's interesting to see how they evaluate a given position. Chess is such a complex game that it is often difficult (impossible?) to uncover the hidden potential of many positions.