|Dec-05-03|| ||Benzol: Korchnoi's book written jointly with his former trainer Vladimir Zak on the King's Gambit states at move 14 that 'White is more pleasantly placed.'
However, 14...Nxe4! alters this evaluation. |
|Dec-05-03|| ||ughaibu: So do you think Korchnoi wrote his openings books with the intention of misleading potential opponents? That would be the ultimate practical player's approach. |
|Dec-05-03|| ||Spitecheck: That has been surmised by some, and in fact in the Open Ruy Lopez, parts of which Korchnoi analysed for ECO, his own play contradicted the analysis in one instance (of course my memory could be faulty).|
|Dec-05-03|| ||Benzol: No. I think it indicates the depth of Chess. Didn't Capablanca think Chess would become played out. Fischer is of the same opinion about Chess today, but I believe we still have a way to go before that happens. |
|Nov-12-07|| ||mrbiggs: 14...Nxe4 seems fairly obvious to me. Even a patzer like me would immediately consider it, seeing as that it wins a pawn even if you don't see that the remainder of the attack is even stronger. Sure, the bishoop is left en prise, but the discovered check is clearly more dangerous.
Am I missing something here?|
|Feb-24-15|| ||Howard: Just briefly looked at this game last night in the Informant....there is a LOT of analysis to this game presented in it, especially considering that the game itself only lasted 20 moves !|
By the way, Tim Krabbe mentioned this game in a Chess Life and Review article back in 1976 or 1977, in which Krabbe quipped that "Korchnoi acted as his own henchman" in this game---in other words, he commented on how Korchnoi refuted his own opening analysis here.
|Feb-24-15|| ||Howard: By the way, Moscow 1975 was the last tournament that Korchnoi played on Soviet soil before he....|
...anyone wanna finish the sentence.
|Feb-24-15|| ||chancho: <By the way, Moscow 1975 was the last tournament that Korchnoi played on Soviet soil before he....>|
|Feb-24-15|| ||Howard: Very funny !
The second answer is, of course, correct.
|Apr-13-15|| ||Phony Benoni: My cynical side feels that Zak wrote the book, and Korchnoi allowed his name to be put on it just to help out an old friend. He may well have never seen the analysis before Planinc played the line against him.|
Larry Evans wrote to the effect that you should trust the lines a grandmaster actually plays, not the ones he writes about. Certainly Korchnoi's experience with the King's Gambit was quite limited.
|Apr-13-15|| ||scormus: <PB> that's a very grown up observation, and it makes a lot of sense. I've seen leading experts do the same in connection with my job, without them having read what their associates had written.|
An aurely 14 ... Nxe4 is too obvious a move for the comment to fool anyone. It seems to give B a clear edge as well has posing difficulties for W to find the right moves OYB. On that point 16 Kf1 might have been better, though it is easy to ndestand W's reluctance to put his K there with the B Q+R bearing down on g2.
|Apr-13-15|| ||FSR: Fischer did something similar. He famously claimed that, "In my opinion, the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force." in the first issue of Larry Evans' <American Chess Quarterly>. http://www.academicchess.org/images... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%... Fischer only analyzed 3.Nf3, but concluded his article, "Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently. Thank you, Weaver Adams!" A couple years later, Fischer played the King's Gambit against Evans, whom he had never before beaten, and crushed him. Fischer vs Larry Evans, 1963|
|Apr-13-15|| ||morfishine: <FSR> Right! Fischer either refuted the refutation or was playing mind games all along|
|Apr-13-15|| ||FSR: <morfishine> I always thought it strange that Fischer never (at least to my knowledge) explained his inconsistency. Mind you, this is a man who once claimed to have never made a mistake in published analysis! How does he reconcile this with adopting an opening that he once claimed "loses by force"? It would seem that his whole article was a gigantic mistake in published analysis.|
Incidentally, there is a third possibility that you don't mention: that Fisher continued to believe that the KG lost by force but thought that Evans and his other opponents wouldn't find the refutation to 3.Bc4 (Fischer's preferred "flavor" of KG). But I can't believe that Fischer would deliberately play an opening that he considered refuted.
|Apr-13-15|| ||Honza Cervenka: An improvement in this line for white seems to be 13.e5 like in Fedorov vs G Timoshenko, 1998|
16.Kf1 was clearly better than 16.Kd1?
|Apr-13-15|| ||Honza Cervenka: Bobby was a bit sloppy with his analysis and categorical conclusions on King's Gambit. For example, he gives following line 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. O-O Bg7 7. c3 Ne7 8. g3 d5 9. exd5 fxg3 10. hxg3 O-O 11. Qb3 Qd6 12. Kg2 Nf5 with evaluation that black is won, which is correct for sure, but he doesn't explain why white should be so cooperative and play such a howler like 11.Qb3?? Instead of covering unimportant Pawn and putting the Queen out of the game it makes much better sense to play 11.Ne5 with idea 11...Nxd5(?!) 12.Rxf7 Rxf7 13.Nxf7 Kxf7 14.Qf3+ etc. or 11...Qd6 12.Nd2 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5 14.Qf3 with rich compensation for a Pawn, for example 14...Bf5 15.g4 Bg6 16.b3 Qd6 17.a4 c5 18.Ba3 Nd7 19.Rae1 etc. Also 8.g3 is not obligatory for white, he can play also 8.h4 or any developing move. But still I think that "Fischer's defense" is the most solid way to meet the KGA, if black wants to have a chance not only to equalize but to get some advantage from the opening. I mean that in this line it is rather white who struggles for equality.|
|Apr-13-15|| ||kevin86: White played himself into an early grave.|
|Apr-13-15|| ||Howard: Yes, FSR, I've read too about Fischer's claim,"I pride himself in that I've never made a mistake in published analysis."|
Well, his classic M60MG has at least 8-10 blatant mistakes, but to be fair, most of them were computer-discovered.
|Apr-13-15|| ||Petrosianic: The computer is irrelevant. The boast was that the mistakes weren't there at all.|
But if it took a computer to find them, I wouldn't call the mistakes "blatant". "Undeniable", maybe.
|Apr-13-15|| ||Howard: You're right ! "Blatant" is too strong a word.|
|Apr-13-15|| ||offramp: ALbin planinC vs viktOr korcHnOL|
|Apr-13-15|| ||BOSTER: < PB: My cyhical side>.
This is a big, big blef.
Zak offered to write the book about KG , where he had analysis .
Korchnoy'd check out and comfirm.,or refute them. At the begining of the 70 players from Belgrad asked Korchnoy to write the
the chapter about KG.
|Apr-13-15|| ||Cheapo by the Dozen: What century was this game played? :)|
|Aug-03-17|| ||Toribio3: Brutal finish against the White King!|
|Aug-03-17|| ||offramp: The King's Gambit is as dead as vaudeville.|