< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-11-04|| ||tud: It was +4 -2 or +3 -1, two points different. Something is missing. |
|Mar-11-04|| ||ughaibu: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/676... |
|Mar-11-04|| ||tud: fair enough, spassky's years were 68-69 |
|Aug-29-04|| ||offramp: 26.♕b6 is called a creeping move. They are very impressive; but I believe only queens can do them. |
|Dec-26-05|| ||PARACONT1: Spassky played the same kind of banal Queen sacrifice in a game against Fischer|
Spassky vs Fischer, 1970
|Dec-28-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: The final move should make a nice Monday puzzle some day.|
|Mar-21-06|| ||sitzkrieg: <offramp: 26.b6 is called a creeping move. They are very impressive; but I believe only queens can do them. >|
Qb6 wins a pawn, for now Nd5 will work as the queen will be covered by the bishop.
|Mar-21-06|| ||sitzkrieg: <offramp>I was reading about what they call "creeping moves" and wondered about the same thing, can only queens do them? This because of Kotov giving only examples of Queens in his book. But I think other pieces or even pawns maybe should be able to make them also, f.e. when they place the other side in zugzwang. Anyway, it is probably only theoretical "importance". I know Agaard wrote something about it but i cant find it now.|
|Dec-21-06|| ||who: <EA The final move should make a nice Monday puzzle some day.> 35.Rh1+ Kg8 36.Qh6 wins in the same way but without the sac.|
|Dec-22-06|| ||who: Never mind, 35.Rh1+? Kg8 36.Qh6?? loses to 36...Qd3! 37.Ka1 Nc2+ 38.Kb1 Na3+ 39.Ka1 Qb1+ 40.Rxb1 Nc2#|
|Oct-27-08|| ||Hot Logic: <who>
Quote:"35.♖h1+ ♔g8 36.♕h6 wins in the same way but without the sac."
There is a minor problem with your line:
40.♖xb1 ♘c2# 0-1 smothered mate.
Although ironically your line would lead to a nice monday puzzle.
|Oct-27-08|| ||Hot Logic: Egg. Sorry about that, I didn't see the second post because it was on the next page and I got excited when I saw the smothered mate.|
|Sep-06-09|| ||rchczrms: Sir, please take my Queen!!!|
|Nov-20-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Korchnoi hated the KID with black. Why he used it against one of the greatest Saemisch players, I'll never know.|
|Nov-21-09|| ||pawn to QB4: Sounds like the man himself agrees with you: "to the astonishment of my seconds, I chose the King's Indian defence, an opening which I play extremely rarely, and then only against weak opponents. Spassky played splendidly....he introduced an interesting innovation, and, being inexperienced in the King's Indian...I failed to resolve the position". He also recalls being anxious to eliminate Spassky's lead in the match...he'd won the last game and decided at all costs to involve Spassky in a tactical battle. "I was seeing the situation as if in a distorting mirror. At that time Spassky was...a hardened fighter, and it was I who was nervous".|
He was certainly up against it: up to this stage in Spassky's career our database shows that if Spassky opened d4, c4, Nc3 he hardly ever lost and had a huge number of wins: so maybe Grunfeld/QGD/Nimzowitsch weren't that promising either.
|Nov-21-09|| ||kurtrichards: Prior to that KID game, Spassky opened 1.e4 and Korchnoi won when Spassky blundered. Korchnoi knew that Spassky will go for 1.d4 as it was Spassky's habit to vary opening when he lost a game. But despite of a prepared defense Korchnoi answered Spasky's 1.d4 with the KID "to the astonishment of his seconds..." The match was won by Spassky 6 1/2 - 3 1/2.|
|Nov-23-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: It wasn't that Korchnoi played poorly when he utilised the KID, albeit rarely, it's just that it's perhaps not the most prudent of openings against one of the KID's best practitioners as white. Even Bobby knew not to engage Spassky in this type of defence, so he'd invariably choose the Grunfeld as a reply.|
|Nov-23-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: You're right about that. Fischer went even so far to say that he feared the Saemisch formation, which is basically what Spassky used here. All this is Fischer's viewpoint up to 1972. In 1992, he did play the KID against Spassky, of course.|
|Nov-24-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Spassky's record with it certainly speaks for itself.|
|Sep-02-11|| ||Elrathia Kingi: On move 27, I don't see what would be the best option after ♘xd5. 27...♘xd5 28.♖xd5 ♕b7 29.♕xb7 (♗xc6? ♗xc6 30.♕xc6 ♖c7) ♖xb7 30.♗xc5 ♗xc5 31.♖xc5, and now black can work towards an endgame with just an a-pawn, which is a draw. As it was, he lost the pawn anyway, but left enough firepower for Spassky to find a brilliant win.|
|Sep-02-11|| ||Sastre: <Elrathia Kingi: On move 27, I don't see what would be the best option after xd5. 27...xd5 28.xd5 b7 29.xb7 (xc6? xc6 30.xc6 c7) xb7 30.xc5 xc5 31.xc5, and now black can work towards an endgame with just an a-pawn, which is a draw>|
The position after 31.Rxc5 is not a draw. White is better and has good winning chances.
|Apr-21-13|| ||grasser: Tutorial video:
|Apr-03-14|| ||Tigranny: <PARACONT1> I don't think this queen sac is banal at all. Sure it's simple to calculate, but it's still nice since it leads to a pretty mate.|
|May-27-18|| ||offramp: "An Enemy Queen Mystery".|
|May-27-18|| ||Toribio3: Good job, Boris! You are the humblest World Champion ever produced by Russia.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·