< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-03-04|| ||Chessical: arielbekarov: Petrosian may have analysed something along these lines: |
<18...Qxd8> 19.e5 Qe7 (19...Qh4 20.e6 Re7 21.Rxd7) 20.e6 Rf6 21.Rxd7.
He cannot get out of the pin and move his N fast enough to avoid the e pawn.
|Aug-03-04|| ||arielbekarov: Thank you Chessical !
It looks quite reasonable. I will anyhow print it and take a look. It is like an adventure to analyse games and I am just a beginner in it. Botvinnik's statement : " Study your own games meticulously. That's the only way to become a master ! "
It is not quoted word by word, but as I remember it.
Thank you !
|Aug-03-04|| ||arielbekarov: <Chessical> Indeed, after having just looked again (a few minutes later), it wouldn't have helped him by taking
But, I will see, if there was a way for Petrosian to save the game. I don't think so.
No, now I feel very energetic to work with this. I have always heard the importance of it, but I could never discipline myself to analyse my own games. On the surface, yes !
But analysing all possible lines. It's hard work, but the reward is, of course, worth gold !
|Aug-03-04|| ||Chessical: arielbekarov: Amazingly, Petrosian may have been able to eat the e pawn after all:|
18...Qxd8 19.e5 <Qe8> 20.e6 Rf6 21.e7 Rg6 22.f3 Kf7 23.Qc4+ Kxe7;
but it would have taken nerves of steel, (and possibly a steel stomach).
|Aug-03-04|| ||arielbekarov: <Chessical> I will study this carefully ! This is really interesting !|
Good nerves are very helpful !
How chess mirrors life outside the world of chess. I can never stop being thrilled by this art, science and game.
All in one !
|Aug-04-04|| ||arielbekarov: Dear <Chessical> ,
I have taken a look with help of my chessboard, and I'm afraid the consequence of <18...Qxd8 19.e5 Qe8
20.e6 Rf6 21.e7 Rg6 22.f3 Kf7 23.Qc4+ Kxe7> will be 24.Re1+ Re6 25.Qxe6+ and then all hope is ...
I believe more in the line that <drukenknight> presented.
I take upon myself the right to defend my perhaps incorrect analyse, because of being in the beginning of this enormous interesting activity.
|Aug-04-04|| ||acirce: <24.Re1+ Re6 25.Qxe6+ and then all hope is ...>|
|Aug-04-04|| ||arielbekarov: Yes ! You are right, the Bishop can still move. I tend to neglect some pieces. Thank you for telling, until my theory was rooted severly.
What about 24. Bd2 or b4, BUT black will get out of the pin, I suppose.
Thank you for the correction ! One has to look out !
|Aug-04-04|| ||arielbekarov: <Chessical> Sorry for missing such a simple thing as a bishop. So, I guess your analyse is still going strong.
|Aug-08-04|| ||patzer2: I looked at the 18...Qxd8 line and verified Drukenknight's analysis with Fritz 8. Looks like 18...Qxd8?! has been justly condemned, and is actually a losing move. |
After 18...Qxd8 19. e5 Qe8 20. e6 Rf6
21. exd7 Qxe2 22. d8=Q+ Rf8 23. Be3 Rxd8 24. Rxd8+ Kf7 25. Rd7+ Kg6
26. Rxb7 Qxb2 27. Rd1 Qxa2 28. Rxa2 Qb3 29. Rd6+ Kh5 30. h3!Bc3 31. Re7 Qb1+ 32. Kh2 Bf6 33. g4+ Kg6 34. g5 Fritz 8 assess the position as a clear win for White(+3.69 @ 17/40 depth & 1345 kN/s).
|Aug-09-04|| ||arielbekarov: I have only seen this particular "Frits 8" on photo. I haven't been dealing with any of these programs so far. It looks interesting to me ! So this is obviously what Petrosian calculated without computer !!|
Only a little comment !
Aren't many users consulting like for instance "Fritz 8" too early ? Sometimes, after having played a game online. Some players immediately ask Frits for a brief analyse, and I think, there is a danger that we too quickly use computer aid, where we could pratice our brain instead. This is a computer question in general, so I know this particular game isn't the right place. But, <patzer2> you have have mentioned Frits, so the thoughts came quite naturally.
Do you have, or anybody else a comment on my thoughts ?
Whatever, thank you very much for your contribution, because it shows what the great players are able to calculate.
|Aug-09-04|| ||patzer2: <arielbekarov> I usually look at the position and try to figure it out myself, and then only use the computer in really difficult positions to confirm my analysis or to look for other options.|
I jokingly refer to my own resources (analysis without a computer) as MOWPB-1 (My Old Wood Pushing Branin - Version 1). I occasionally use Chess Master 9000, but have found Fritz 8 to be stronger and a much more user-friendly analysis tool. It finds most of the "brilliant forced combinations" within seconds, but sometimes struggles to find the best continuations in unclear and closed positions. To get really reliable stuff from Fritz 8, you have to be patient and let it run as high as 19 to 20 depth in unclear positions.
I agree that one should first try to solve the problems on their own before using the computer. Otherwise, there is a temptation to let the computer do all the calculation without thinking for yourself (much like calculators have made people lazier when it comes to understanding and performing basic mathamatics computations).
|Aug-10-04|| ||arielbekarov: <patzer2> Indeed, I think anything what we have can be used in at least two ways. Your way of using the computer sounds great !|
I must find a name for my brain as well. I think I have one, a brain , I mean, but sometimes I do wonder ?
Perhaps I will call for you, when I have some more questions about the different programs.
|Aug-10-04|| ||patzer2: <arielbekarov> You certainly do have a brain! Your amusing comment reminds me of a line from the Wizard of Oz, where the scarecrow who thinks he doesn't have a brain is awarded a "diploma" because many of those in the highest levels of education have no more brains than the scarecrow. But they have the one thing he doesn't have -- a diploma!!
At least in Chess titles like Expert, Master or International Master or Grand Master must be truly earned.|
However, sometimes I find myself agreeing with the Wizard in concluding that a Doctorate Degree or diploma in higher education doesn't necessarily mean the recipient has more brains than the scarecrow.
|Aug-10-04|| ||iron maiden: <patzer2> I also agree. It's sort of like knowing a lot of opening theory: it's only useful if you have the technique to put that theory to use. |
|Aug-11-04|| ||arielbekarov: <patzer2> Thank you for your generosity !|
Yes ! This is from the film with Judy Garland as a very young girl. It's a great one ! Long time passed without seeing it.
This interests me a lot ! But I will take up this discussion on perhaps Kibitzer's café.
I can only tell, if a violinist wants to have a seat in a symphony orchestra, he can bring ten brilliant diplomas, but the conversation might be something like this :
- Very, very nice diplomas ! You must be quite a violinist !
- Yes ! I guess so.
- So, take up your violin and play
something what you know and then we
will let you play something that you
are not prepared for.
- ( with surprised face ) I didn't
bring my violin ............
|May-20-09|| ||numbknight: 18. ... Qxd8 19. e5 Bc6 20. e6 Re7 21. Bg5! Is why Tigran didn't take the knight on d8. Analyis by Chesslab, http://www.chesslab.com/PositionSea...|
|May-20-09|| ||numbknight: ps, i think that 11...bxc3? is a blunder.
11. ... exd5 12. Nxd5 Nxd5 13. Bxd5 Bxd5 14. Rxd5 Qe7 15. Bd2 appears to
Take not that
12...fxe6? is a blunder.
12. dxe6 fxe6
13. Bxe6+ Kh8
14. bxc3 Qe7
|Aug-29-10|| ||sevenseaman: ..13. Qd7 may be a tad sounder than Qc7, in the end, Polu was the form guy of the day.Polu going for the QR rather than the KR seems subtly advantageous in that the N could stick it out in the 8th rank to increase mating chances.|
click for larger view
Its a very competently played game and Polu has a very dominating grip from here.
|Jun-25-12|| ||lemaire90: Why didn't Petrosian ever capture that knight ?|
|Jun-25-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: Interestingly, Kasparov says <...after 18...Qxd8! 19. e5 Qe8 20. e6 Rf6! a win for white is out of the question....>|
("On My Great Predecessors Part III", pp.81-82)
<chessical> aug-03-04 gives one of GK's lines.
|Jun-25-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <lemaire90 and SimonWebbsTiger> WC Kasparov is right! |
After 18...Qxd8! 19. e5 Qe8 20. e6 Rf6!, Stockfish gives the following as better for Black: 21. exd7 Qxe2 22. d8=Q+ Rf8 23. Be3 Rxd8 24. Rxd8+ Kf7 25. Rd7+ Kf6 26. Rxb7 Qxb2 27. Rd1 Qc2
It is possible that in his calculations, WC Petrosian had not seen 20...Rf6! (or at least the winning implications of it for Black).
It's also possible that he focused his attention only on 20...Re7? - a line I had investigated earlier that gives White the advantage - and therefore, unfortunately for him in this game, decided against 18...Qxd8!
|Jun-25-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<LTJ>
Kasparov remarked too that 16. Qh5 is better, supporting it with one of his typically involved variations. His point being 16...Nf6 17. Bf4! Qe7 and only now 18. Bxf7! (btw, GK's book was published in 2004, which is of note with regard to engine developments!)
Garry played black in this variation in his 1983 match (game 4) versus Beliavsky. There he played 10...cxd4. Lev's 11. d5! is too strong -- he was a great theoretician and innovator, old Lev.
|Jun-25-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <SimonWebbsTiger> 16. Qh5 and the resulting variation is truly Kasparovian!|
I'm excited about checking out the game versus Beliavsky in '83 now!
With genuine thanks,
PS. I have already checked out Beliavsky vs Kasparov, 1983, which resulted in a loss for the soon-to-be WC. It is possible that Kasparov could have improved by playing 14...Qb4 and following V Tukmakov vs R Fuchs, 1967 (up until about 25...Rc8). Of course this is not to be taken as gospel, but moreso something in the realm of possibility!
Also, I just found this interesting game that was played very recently, Bu Xiangzhi vs Xiu Deshun, 2011, involving 12...Nbd7!?
Of course in relation to Kasparov's game, this Xiu Deshun game is an anachronism; but, there was this one played in '78 which Gazza might have known about:
V Osnos vs D Gedevanishvili, 1978
|Jun-29-16|| ||celsochini: arielbekarov: thanks for your questions! They opened my mind to new paths! |
Abraços from Brazil !
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·