< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-03-09|| ||Ulhumbrus: Fine says that this is one of the games which give the impression that the Sicilian has been refuted. Fine says that White's pawns advance like a tank offensive. However White's pawns do not overwhelm the defence by themselves. Following the pawn advance 17 f4 it is the White pieces which go to work. First White's QB occupies the long diagonal, then White's N heads for h5 and sacrifices itself on g7, then White's Q and R join the attack.|
|May-13-12|| ||vinidivici: from move 29, white doing a great job hunting the king.|
|Aug-27-16|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: A mating attack sustained for 20 moves, one of my favorite attacking games. Let's not forget to give a little credit to the humble f-pawn, whose advance on move 39 begins the final assault. Another key feature; White does not mind exchanging pieces because he can always summon one more attacker (e.g., 35.Rd1+).|
|Aug-27-16|| ||faulty: Please mind that these two guys never drew a game|
|Aug-27-16|| ||offramp: <Resignation Trap: ..."Very well", said Tolush, "I will defeat you with an attack in the vicinity of g7 and h7"!>|
...Then he discovered he was playing Black.
|Aug-27-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: The puns this month have mostly sucked.|
|Aug-27-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <offramp: <Resignation Trap: ..."Very well", said Tolush, "I will defeat you with an attack in the vicinity of g7 and h7"!>|
...Then he discovered he was playing Black.>
Hmm, it says up top that Tolush was playing White, not Black
|Aug-27-16|| ||offramp: < thegoodanarchist: <offramp: <Resignation Trap: ..."Very well", said Tolush, "I will defeat you with an attack in the vicinity of g7 and h7"!>
...Then he discovered he was playing Black.>|
Hmm, it says up top that Tolush was playing White, not Black>
I was trying to make a joke, IF Tolush had made that boast AND THEN found out he was playing BLACK, then - actually I am going to draw a diagram and post it at Instagram.
I'll post the link later.
|Aug-27-16|| ||Pinkerton: "I've Got Nothing Tolush." - Kotov the Day.|
|Aug-27-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <offramp: ...
I'll post the link later.>
It's already here:
|Aug-27-16|| ||rainingpieces: 22...Bxe2 strikes me as an odd decision at first glace, but it has its points. Perhaps that knight would be dangerous on h5. However, Bxe2 does allow White's queen to enter Black's camp more quickly, unless White doesn't mind giving up an exchange.|
|Aug-27-16|| ||RandomVisitor: After 22.Nxg7 black has a tough game
click for larger view
+0.62/33 22...Rad8 23.Nd4 Rxd4 24.Qg4 Bxf1 25.Nxe6 Bxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rd7 27.gxf6 Bxf6 28.Nxc7 Rg7 29.Bxb4 Rc8 30.Nd5 Rxc2+ 31.Kf1 Rxg4 32.hxg4 Rc6 33.g5 Bxb2 34.Ra2 Bd4 35.Rd2 Bg7 36.f5 h6 37.f6 Nxf6 38.gxf6 Bxf6 39.Nxf6 Rxf6+ 40.Ke2 Kh7 41.Ke3 Re6 42.Rd5 Kg6 43.Bd6 h5 44.Bg3 Rb6 45.Bh4 Rb5 46.Rd6+ Kf5 47.Rxa6
+0.61/32 22...Qc8 23.gxf6 Bxf6 24.Bxb4 Rd8 25.Qe1 Bxg7 26.Rg1 Nf6 27.Bc3 Ra7 28.Ng3 Rg8 29.Be5 Qxc2 30.Rc1 Qd3 31.Rc3 Qd8 32.Nxe4 Nd5 33.Nc5 Bxe5 34.Qxe5+ Qf6 35.Qxf6+ Nxf6 36.Nxe6 Rd7 37.Bc6 Rd2 38.b4 Rb2 39.Bxb5 axb5 40.Ng5 h6 41.Rc6 hxg5 42.Rxf6 g4 43.Rf5 Rxb4 44.hxg4 Rb2 45.Rh5+
|Aug-27-16|| ||victim2: This is good because Tolush is in fact my favorite player. Blacks attack and setup was too basic staid time consuming and unproductive.|
|Aug-27-16|| ||RandomVisitor: After 20.Bc3 under best play it seems that black must still allow the attack on g7|
click for larger view
<+0.25/34 20...Rad8 21.Nh5 f6 22.Nxg7> Bxe2 23.Nxe6 Bxd1 24.Nxc7 Bxc2 25.exd5 Rb8 26.Ne6 Rf7 27.Nd4 Bc5 28.Nc6 Nxc6 29.dxc6 Bb4 30.Bd4 Rd8 31.Bb6 Rd2 32.c7 Ne7 33.Rfe1 Bf5 34.Ra4 Rxg2 35.Rxb4 Rg3 36.Bd4 Rxh3+ 37.Kg1 Nd5 38.Rb8+ Kg7 39.c8Q Bxc8 40.gxf6+ Nxf6 41.Rxc8 Rh4 42.Rc6 Rxf4 43.Bc3 Rg4+ 44.Kh2
|Aug-27-16|| ||RandomVisitor: <victim2 has kibitzed 1 time to chessgames >Welcome to chessgames.|
|Aug-27-16|| ||YoungEd: Splendid game indeed! That's not a very interesting comment, but it's my first in a couple of years, so cut me some slack, please!|
|Aug-27-16|| ||profK: White's setup is very similar to what often emerges out of the Weaver Adams line against the Najdorf Sicilian. Pawns on h3,g4,a3 Bg2 and N on e2 often ending up on g3.|
|Aug-29-16|| ||kevin86: Lately, there seems to be a lot of queen checks on the kingside. Am I correct?|
|Dec-18-17|| ||zanzibar: <ResignationTrap>'s memory is stellar:|
Tolush vs Kotov, 1945 (kibitz #3)
I have Lombardy/Daniel's book in front of me, and the anecdote begins thusly:
<Sometimes the deals that aren't made are more interesting than those that are. A Soviet grandmaster [ed-
who,where,when?] tells the following story about two of his older colleagues.>
|Dec-18-17|| ||zanzibar: BTW- chess editors, how can this game be R19 for a 18-RR-1?|
|Dec-18-17|| ||zanzibar: Let me amend that, given that Flohr dropped out...|
which should have max round of 18.
|Dec-19-17|| ||zanzibar: I should mention that <CP> mentions Kotov being in the hunt for 1st place (p113-114), but he was definitely out of the running by the last round, with both Botvinnik and Boleslavsky being undefeated.|
On the other hand, Kotov did share a tie for 4th place, and there well may have been prize money involved.
This may or may not have happened. It's folkloric, or gossipy, depending on how you view it. But don't forget, Kotov himself indulged in quite a bit of folkloric/gossipy writing about other GM's himself.
|Dec-19-17|| ||zanzibar: BTW- Least one thinks Kotov is beyond reproach in the ethics department- Winter offers this other example, originally due to Harkness:|
<‘So far as the complaints of collusion among Soviet players are concerned, it is undoubtedly true that the Soviet contestants in FIDE tournaments, especially in the early competitions, have played as a team and not as individuals. Alexander Kotov admits this in his Memoirs of a Chessplayer, published in the USSR in 1960. He apologizes for his victories over Smyslov in 1933 [sic – 1953] and Botvinnik at Groningen in 1946, and hopes he will be forgiven, since he made up for these lapses by defeating Reshevsky and Euwe respectively in these tournaments.’>
But then continues to research the original sources, concluding
<Mr Giddins comments:
‘It is quite clear from the above that no admission of the sort that Harkness alleges is made; quite the contrary. Indeed, it is inconceivable that any such admission could have been made, given Kotov’s known Communist loyalties, and the heavy hand of the Soviet censor. I can only assume that Harkness himself did not understand Russian (a supposition supported by his mistranslation of the book’s title) and was merely reciting something he had been told by somebody else. It may be that, in some other context, Kotov joked about asking “forgiveness” for beating his colleagues, but to suggest that this amounts to an admission of a conspiracy is quite unjustified.>
|Dec-20-17|| ||Chess Is More: <zanzibar: Winter offers this other example, originally due to Harkness>|
Interesting, but can we trust Winter?
There are very mixed opinions out there.
|Dec-21-17|| ||zanzibar: <<Chess Is More> Interesting, but can we trust Winter?>|
The general answer is that question is yes (say with >99% confidence).
The thing is that Winter is surveying the literature, and quoting various sources. In this case it seems Winter leans towards the same opinion as Mr. Giddins - that Harknesses claims appear unsupported.
But he doesn't render a definitive conclusion, instead relying on the quoted material to lead us in a similar direction.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·