| Nov-11-11 | | qqdos: <historic game?> This seems to be the first recorded example of the Velimirovic Attack in the Sicilian Sozin. In particular Nezh is years ahead of anyone in playing 9.0-0-0. Not until Tringov vs B Kolvig, 1964 and Velimirovic vs P Dely, 1965 do we find long castling to supplement Qe2. Is this another reason to admire the great and innovative Nezhmetdinov? Compare the position after 11 moves with Nunn vs C W Pritchett, 1986 - the only difference is the White wing pawns. In one case Nezh played h3 (and only drew) while Nunn played 11.a3 (and won!) - can anyone confirm? |
|
| Nov-11-11 | | qqdos: <correction> I overlooked R Bogdanovic vs J Rejfir, 1962 where both Qe2 and 0-0-0 were played. Perhaps this line-up was the "local" inspiration for Dragoljub and his Mum when they were perfecting their system! |
|
| Nov-11-11 | | DrMAL: Thanx <qqdos> for referring to game. It is creative offshoot from foundation in Tartakower vs Pachman, 1949 where Pachman played 9...Bd7 and Tartakower played 9.f4 in more usual fashion. Categorizing as Velimirović makes assumption of long castle on move 9, there were a few earlier games where same position was reached and white castled short. 8.Qe2 does not really imply long castle, it can simply be viewed as transposition. I think short castle is better plan because black counterplay is generally on Q-side so castling long seems to take unnecessary risk. As you know, Velimirović attack is not played much today whether white castles long or not, usual plan is in our beloved Fischer vs Geller, 1967 but Fischer helped make 7.Bb3 (and 7.0-0) popular alternatives. Game here has 10.h3 move that was replaced by better 10.Bb3 as in R Bogdanovic vs J Rejfir, 1962 but that game had weak 10...Bd7 reply instead of 10...Na5 in Velimirovic vs Sofrevski, 1965 considered the landmark game for this attack. Following year 10...0-0 was introduced this also became popular. Game line shows first example and thus creativity by Nezmetdinov but it is neither exemplary nor strong. Black got advantage, particularly after 14.Nb3 losing more tempo to defend. But opponent did not make moves (e.g., 14...b4!) to show this. With stronger variations introduced during decades that followed, and then computers completely changing opening theory afterwards, Velimirović attack has important place in history, but I do not think it one of Rashid's biggest contributions. Of course, that is a relative statement, he contributed a lot to chess! Cheers. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | qqdos: <DrMAL> sadly what you say is true of most of my pet openings, but I shall persevere regardless! Yes, top players don't seem to be willing to venture the Velimirovic Attack often these days. But there was quite a healthy crop by lesser mortals in 2010. I think Nezh's 10.h3 was weak and he did'nt follow up very cogently. What interested me was where Velimirovic got his ideas from, and I lean towards R Bogdanovic vs J Rejfir, 1962, which was a more likely "local" source. The Queen on e2 protects the pawn on g4, followed or preceded by Rhg1 and the onslaught on the BK! That's what is exciting and you can't launch that attack without Q-side castling. It may be unsound (tant pis) and Bobby was rarely comfortable with it, but those thematic sacrifices on d5; f5; and e6 get my adrenalin churning! All the best to (B89) fans. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | DrMAL: <qqdos> Good points, especially about K-side expansion and Q-side vs. K-side castling. Also, attack was created by Rashid over 50 years ago, level of resistance then was incomparable to today or even few decades ago due to refinements in technique. Velimirovic attack is certainly not unsound and, as you wrote, it makes for very exciting game. Top GMs today usually prefer other lines but it is certainly very appropriate at master levels and can still be dangerous weapon at highest levels to catch someone off-guard. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: The possible explanation for the decline of Velimirovic Attacks is the change in fashions. The Rauzer 6. Bg5 is far more popular than the Sozin, as hinted at by <DrMal>. I remember how it used to be a regular feature of John Nunn's games, at the highest level too. The Velimirovic remains unrefuted to this day. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | King Death: <Simon>, <DrMAL> Didn't the Sozin fall off in popularity after this game? Fischer vs Spassky, 1972
Even Fischer switched to the Rauzer near the end of the match after having what looks like some trouble in this game 4. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | DrMAL: Well, idea of "fashion" still much exists, but with computers having taken over in last decade, chess at master level or above is basically dictated by computer, especially at higher levels where one simply cannot get away with personal preference or with catching opponent with novelty. It is very different game today that it was even in 90s with Kasparov leading theory, he states this several times in his "My Story" video and one can only agree. Good example is Tromp game in P Wells vs Shirov, 2006 <SWT> and I posted on during past two days (with some usual comedy from site's one-and-only Florida Fischer LOL). Opening line there was created in 90s with excitement from GMs who formulated new, very sharp line. Sharpness is primary weapon at higher level in general, but with computers today it is relatively easy for good player to decipher best move order and basically turn line into interesting but well understood double-edged game. It is fascinating to study chess historically, in awe of players like Nezmetdinov who created brilliant new theory from scratch. But chess today is just totally different game. Some examples are dialogs between <SWT> and me where he gave lines from Informator at or near time of game, and we saw how often even best players' analyses back then had errors, as late as just few years ago. It is fun and instructive for me to revisit games I have in notebooks from 10-20 years ago where, as master I was very familiar with theory and ideas, basically most of what was known then. Today I must confine myself to specialist in order to keep rating, I do not have time to eat, drink and breathe chess as top player needs to do in order to stay current. Nakamura recently showed what happens when super-genius like him starts to get distracted. Yes, chess today is just totally different game! |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | DrMAL: <King Death> Regarding Sozin attack, maybe game had some influence but not really in Soviet Union, good players there had access to information otherwise kept very secret from outside world. It is interesting when one looks at Jeff Sonas' Chessmetrics graph showing overall ratings being steady during cold war era because (he is idiot behind ludicrous idea of historical "rating inflation") what it actually shows is how information was kept so secret within Soviet Union then, so that outside world had little access to most of top level chess analysis, influencing how rest of world could improve with time. Sozin attack lost popularity simply because of competition from other ideas. Over time, especially after computer gained sufficient strength, it became better known how limited attack is, and how other methods have better promise. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<KingDeath>
I think you are quite right about the influence of the Fischer-Spassky game.
It might explain the increase in Velimirovic Attacks compared to classical Sozins after the match. 6.Bc4 seems to come in and out of fashion, eg. there was a little rage for the move versus the Najdorf Sicilian in the early 90s - notably Short in his games versus Kasparov. Golubev also did his bit by writing a book for <Gambit> some years ago. The picture at top level now definitely seems to be 6.Be3/6.Bg5 v. the Najdorf and the Rauzer Attack if white wants to challenge for an edge. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
I was certain I had read an article on the Velimirovic Attack in New In Chess Yearbook on the "audacious" 14. Nf5 from the famous Velimirovic-Sofrevski, 1965 game. Sure enough: NIC YB/70 (published 2004). Jeroen Bosch gave his survey the rather charming title: "A Move of Beauty is a Joy Forever." Quite right. 14. Nf5 is one of those moves that make one say <Holy smoke!> The part I found interesting with re. to such lines and computer analysis/preparation of opening variations was -- summarising in my words -- that engines, whilst indispensable here, have trouble judging the purely long term compensation white enjoys and thus will evaluate black as winning until something concrete comes within their horizon. As noted, that was Bosch in 2004. Such statements on engines have to be referenced or time stamped these days, I guess! I also liked how he said these sorts of games are worth studying even if you don't like white or black in the Velimirovic simply because they are beautiful and illustrative of ideas like positional compensation, king in the middle and attacking/defending. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | DrMAL: <SWT> Interesting coincidence mentioning Sozin and Kasparov-Short, it was subject of online discussion on friend's site, I will make post on 1993 WC game 6 tomorrow. And go through Velimirovic-Sofrevski, 1965 game soon after, thanx for suggesting useful games to re-examine. Wish I could ask Florida Fisher for "best analysis on internet" but unfortunately he has deemed me unworthy to qualify. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | King Death: <DrMAL> You're right that they had quite a treasure trove of analysts in the USSR back then, and I'll bet this was why Fischer avoided favorite lines like the King's Indian and Grunfeld against Spassky. Even the way that match went, his Poisoned Pawn took a beating. It was a shrewd practical decision to constantly switch openings though he had played 1.c4 before the match with Spassky. <Simon> I never played a Sozin in my life with either side, but remember some of John Nunn's games. Any "experience" I have is from playing through old games. Nunn is a topnotch writer and anything he has to say has been worth reading in my experience. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | DrMAL: I guess it is better to write a few generalizations related to this discussion here instead of Short vs Kasparov, 1993 game page. Recall in Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984 genius condemning 6.g4 (Keres) on basis of white's K-side pawns "unnecessarily disturbed" (LOL, poor pawns needed therapist). Kasparov's beloved Scheveningen was of age to become married to Najdorf at that point, he tied knot by adding Najdorf move order (5...a6) to Scheveningen in order to avoid Keres. But this had much further reaching implications in theory, with Najorf/Scheveningen redefined this way, it is easier to understand various methods of open Sicilian attack, especially three primary ones (after 5...a6 in Najdorf): 6.Bg5 and 6.Be3 and 6.Bc4 since most of the time 6...e6 is played anyway. 6.Bg5 games typically have f4 move "disturbing" white pawns this way. Drawback is that d5 break leads to isolated d5 pawn and f5 break has Nd5 move (often ignored by theory books) as in celebrated game P Santos Isain vs Najdorf, 1956. Some have tried 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 without f4 move but this leads to black getting strong N on e5 instead. For example, 7...h6! 8.Bh4 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 Qc7 10.Nc2 Bc7 11.Qe3 g5! and 12.Bg3 Ne5! as in V Liberzon vs Portisch, 1980. Therapist can remind black's "disturbed pawns" that their K is happy going to Q-side castle if he needs to but, as shown in game, K may not want to go anywhere. English attack 6.Be3 games have drawback of immediate 6...Ng4 showing prematurity of move as in Shirov vs Kasparov, 1997. Notice how e5 is strongpointed as well, this prompted Shirov to trade B for N 11.Bxg4 Bxg4 giving black bishop pair, a major concession in Sicilian. In Sozin attack 6.Bc4 with 6...e6 7. Bb3 Kasparov revived in 1993 match almost forgotten 7...Nbd7 move, he has played it a few years before against Elvest (as did Tal) and Ivanchuk scored points as black too (e.g., DeFirmian vs Ivanchuk, 1989). Nc5 in that setup is multipurpose move, N can take B on b3 at leisure but it is very strong on c5 anyway, protecting e6 square. These are all good reasons for fact that "fashion" for white against Najdorf (actually Scheveningen with 6...e6) has not been well defined, including moves such as 6.Be2 and 6.f4 right away along with a host of other tries (Opening Explorer) it is because this defense is very strong and has many options. Kasparov made big innovations in 80s and 90s for it (especially marriage between Najdorf and Scheveningen in 1984 to begin with) but with especially computers many unusual but playable lines have been developed. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | qqdos: <SWT - Holy smoke 14.Nf5!!> absolutely. That knight can be sacrificed earlier (with good results) and I wonder if any of our assiduous compilers has made a Games Collection of (B89) games with Nf5. By the way, I think the Velimirovic and classical Sozin were affected by Sicilian specialists adopting the 6...Qb6 Benko (B57) as an Anti-Sozin strategy more and more frequently since about the mid-1990's. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | DrMAL: I do not see how N sac could have worked earlier than move 14 in Velimirovic game. Black's plan was good one, no mistakes were made, N sac simply led to much sharper position, it is fundamental part of opening here. Double edged position is just that, by making sac white also took risk of being inaccurate and quickly losing. For example if, after 17.Rhg1 Bxd5 18.Rxd5 0-0 white does not simply get material back and instead tries to stay fancy with 19.h4?! then after 19...Re8 to make space for B, white attack should fizzle into loss. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | qqdos: <DrMAL> I did not mean only in this or the Velimirovic game, but in the (B89) classification as a whole - e.g. when Black has played Na5. Games like V Palciauskas vs Vytautas Andriulaitis, 2001. That's another interesting and complex game! |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | DrMAL: Yes, you are right <qqdos> thanx for pointing out other game, it is also very interesting. It seems we are both writing same thing, Nf5 sac is basic part of this attack, option to do so is part of line and usually available. Sac is very sharp, making minefield, especially for black. I am glad to look at these games again, from this perspective, I think it is a more dangerous weapon than I previously thought because I had thought of sac as option only in certain games. It is important to understand moves carefully, so I can play move order accurately if someone is trying to "catch me out" as black! |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: I recommend the book <Sacrifices in the Sicilian> by David Levy. (Published by Batsford some 30+ years ago; hard to find now, though.) Levy collected numerous positions and games from different branches of the Sicilian, arranging the material in chapters according to the sacs, e.g. takes on b5 or ...Rxc3. I am certain the book will help anyone appreciate the tactics of the Sicilian. More recent books are the NIC book on tactics in the Sicilian and <7 Ways to Smash the Sicilian>. |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | qqdos: <DrMAL> & <SWT> thanx to both and for the book references. I forgot to mention some games with 12.Nf5!? e.g. Nunn vs V Liberzon, 1979 and Velimirovic vs V Bukal Sr, 1971 by two of the great practitioners! Exactly, even if quasi-unsound it makes it a minefield for Black and White has to be resolute and acute. One slip .... |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | King Death: <Simon> I had a copy of that a long time ago. Interesting book, but I never played the Sicilian much after a friend gave it to me. Like you said, it's worth getting if you find a copy. |
|
| Nov-18-11 | | DrMAL: There are so many good books on Sicilian simply because it is so incredibly rich in ideas. Najdorf variation alone has many books with each GM giving some of his personal insight or game contribution to show certain lines or plans. It would be great to see book that combines all these but just for Najdorf it may end up size of encyclopedia! Sozin and it's subvariation Velimirovic are important to study in this small universe, as long as it does not take up too much time. On move 6 alone in Najdorf there is (in addition to Sozin 6.c4) sharpest 6.Bg5 and English 6.Be3, along with 6.f4 solid move, 6.Be2 employed by Anand in WC, 6.g3 for Bg7 more positional but also playable, and even Fischer's childhood move 6.h3 to support g4 advance this is still useful idea (not at high level any more), cannot mention Najdorf without Fischer, cheers. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
