|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-03-04 | | Tigran Petrosian: This is a masterpiece. After only one innacuracy (11...b5?), Petrosian weakens black's pawns then paralyzes black on the open file. |
|
| Sep-16-04 | | fred lennox: Instead of 11...b5 black might of tried...Nb8...c6. White would have to modify his development in order to take possession of the c file. |
|
| Sep-16-04 | | clocked: 40...Kg7 anticipating g4. For example, 41.g4 hxg4 42.Qxg4 Ra6 43.R6c2 Rh8 |
|
| Sep-17-04 | | Dudley: Unzicker must have been glad when this game was over. Talk about torture! |
|
| Dec-27-04 | | InfinityCircuit: This game was briefly analyzed by Alexander Shashin as a demonstration of his methods. http://www.chesscafe.com/text/misha... A brilliant game--check out the positional king march. |
|
Mar-29-05
 | | LIFE Master AJ: Many believe that this is Petrosian's finest game. |
|
| Mar-29-05 | | colp99: You gotta love Petrosian's positional style. He is one of my favorite champions. |
|
| Mar-29-05 | | aw1988: Yes, after b5 the game is over, Petrosian gives him no chances. Excellent. |
|
Mar-31-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <everyone>
BTW ... the move of 11...b7-b5!? (?!) is NOT as bad as everyone has made it out to be. There is a famous piece of GM analysis. (But I refuted it.) |
|
| Mar-31-05 | | RookFile: where |
|
Apr-01-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: Hmmm, thou makest me to try and (prematurely) divulge secrets. ---> Actually, I have already deeply annotated this game, if you print it out it runs nearly 30 pages. I am in the process of formatting the web page for this game, I shall endeavor to post that link here when that work is complete. |
|
Apr-06-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <everyone>
The game is finished ... and ready for your inspection. (http://www.lifemasteraj.com/great_c...) As usual, any comments or feedback would be appreciated. I actually have started to annotate this game about a hundred times, only recently did I get really serious about doing it ... and actually completing it. |
|
| Apr-06-05 | | Minor Piece Activity: Why not 13...Bb7 instead of Ne8? |
|
Apr-07-05
 | | tpstar: <Minor Piece Activity> On 13 ... Bb7 maybe 14. Bc7 & 15. Ba5 picking off the Pb4. Note 13 ... Ne8 prevents this maneuver. |
|
| Apr-07-05 | | Minor Piece Activity: Interesting maneuver tpstar, good job. I take it that on 13...Bb7 14. Bc7 Qc8, now 15. Ba5 Qxc2 16. Bxc2 Rfc8 17. Bb3 and the pawn is lost? |
|
Apr-07-05
| | tpstar: <MPA> Exactly, but White should prepare first since 17 ... Rab8 18. Bxb4? Bxb4 19. Nxb4 Ba8 wins a piece. Perhaps 18. Rfc1 is best since pounding b4 by 18. Ne1!? Ne4 19. Nd3? loses the exchange to 19 ... Nd2. With Queens off, this wouldn't be a guaranteed win for White anyway, but maybe Black wanted better play with 13 ... Ne8 avoiding this line featuring the Queen trade. |
|
Apr-11-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <everyone>
All this trading talk is silly. About a dozen different authors have shown that if Black trades down in this game, he loses the endgame in a rather routine fashion. |
|
| Apr-11-05 | | drukenknight: AJ: are you kidding me? 30 pages of analysis and you cannot show us the move that loses the game. Is this the best I can get out of your commentary: "50...Bf6!? Something like this is probably forced - instead playing the Queen to f6 will probably just transpose to the note that begins with the move, 50...Raa8." |
|
Apr-13-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <drunkenknight>
Actually you were NOT paying attention. At one point there is a VERY long diatribe about bad moves ... and their CUMULATIVE effect. (Did you sleep through that? Or were you too drunk to appreciate its significance?) |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | drukenknight: Diatribe? Oh yes I saw that. I think it is intellectually dishonest to tell readers that a game was lost by cumulative moves. I mean think about it. Chess is a logical game. Every position there is only two possible states: the game is lost OR the game is still draw... Go back to the lost position at move X, this position you are sure is lost by rigorous logic. THen go back one move to X-1, is the position still lost? Just because you cannot find that single move where the game was lost does not mean "the game was lost by cumulative moves." OR "black drifts into a lost position."
OR: "there is no one losing move."
All this is hogwash. |
|
Apr-14-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <drunkenknight>
"All this is hogwash."
In your opinion. |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | drukenknight: It's not an opinion, it's a fact that stems from the logic of chess. Go back to the lost position at move X, this position you are sure is lost by rigorous logic. THen go back one move to X-1, is the position still lost? go back to X-2, etc. Keep going back until the position is not a lost position. At that move a blunder was made and that was the losing move. What do you disagree with? |
|
Apr-14-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <everyone>
First of all, I have put in a specific link, please read the dicussion. (http://www.lifemasteraj.com/great_c...)Let me put forth a new idea in chess. I realize that this will be hard for some of you to accept ... if for no other reason than it runs against time-honored, nearly-holy ... TRADITION!!! Most annotators are simply LAZY! They DON'T want to work. This is not an indictment of any one person, more of a reflection on human nature. (One chess writer told me he never spends more than two hours on his column for the U.S. Chess magazine. I often will spend weeks - or even months or years - working on a game! This does NOT mean I am better than anyone else!! Just that I like to dig below the surface, and find things that others may have missed. I also consider myself a seeker of chess truth. And I DON'T think it will be easy or automatic.) Most writers go through a game one or two times. They find one move ... they hang a question mark on it ... and then they are done. COMPUTERS ARE CHANGING EVERYTHING, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF CHESS ANNOTATION!!!!! (Many times recently, I have found a move that some erstwhile pundit has hung a question mark on. Many times it does not deserve that emblem ... the computer will reveal the problem came either earlier or later.) The idea that any one move - BY ITSELF - might not be the cause of defeat is neither illogical nor mathematically unsound. <drunkenknight> Personally, I think you like you annotations simple. You don't want to work ... or think. (Or be challenged.) In this case, maybe - in the future - you should skip my pages. |
|
| Apr-14-05 | | drukenknight: You asked for comments and I gave them. Now you dont like my comments. Do I like my annotations simple? I dunno what that means. I like for the annotator to show me the last chance for Unzicker (or whomever lost) to save the game is this too much to ask? |
|
Apr-14-05
| | LIFE Master AJ: <drunkenknight>
I indicate several places where Unzicker ... could have and should have improved. As I have stated MANY times before - see my book reviews of MGP on Amazon - I HATE and despise ... "The Modern School of Annotation." (Bashing older games, based on perhaps a hundred years of theory.) If any ONE move has to be criticized here ... it must be Black's NINTH move! (# 9.) Of course, this flies in the face of chess theory ... which has never questioned this move ... at least not to the best extent of my chess knowledge. >/= 9...exd5! is a BIG improvement ... in my opinion ... and gives Black a FULLY playable game. (This isverified by games in the database, the computer, and also is based on YEARS of work and analysis.) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
