chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Jan Hein Donner vs Lajos Portisch
"Never Donned on Me" (game of the day Apr-17-2018)
Hoogovens (1968), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 1, Jan-10
Nimzo-Indian Defense: Huebner Variation (E41)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 27 more J H Donner/Portisch games
sac: 11.Bxh7+ PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: To access more information about the players (more games, favorite openings, statistics, sometimes a biography and photograph), click their highlighted names at the top of this page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <ChessHigherCat: <mike1> Why "no"? It's still an advantage. Do you have a better move than 16. Bd2?>

He's probably responding to <The rejoinder 16.Bd2 is winning for White.>

Usually the million dollar question in positions like this is whether Black can play 12....Kg6. The answer, after 13.h4, appears to be no.

Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: The computer annotations to this game are worth looking at.
Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  JohnBoy: <CHC> - I believe <mike1> is merely objecting to <perf>’s “16.Bd2 is winning”.

Better... certainly. Winning... not quite.

Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  mike1: Yes, Bd2 is not winning.Nothing more, nothing less. White is slightly better
Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <offramp: Amazing to see the Mt Rushmore-like Portisch totally lost in just 11 moves.>

<JohnBoy: <CHC> - I believe <mike1> is merely objecting to <perf>’s “16.Bd2 is winning”. Better... certainly. Winning... not quite.>

Having read the comments, and seen the computer annotations that keypusher mentioned, it looks like I was premature in writing off Portisch's chances.

SF, in the annotations, gives 11.Bxh7+ as ⩲ +1.12.

Its next comment is 15...Ne4?, it prefers 15...Ba5 16.Bd2 etc which it says is = +0.45.

So somewhere Donner lost 60% of a pawn, but SF doesn't know where.

Apr-17-18  WorstPlayerEver: Whoa 8...exd5 seems playable.
Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: I stand by my post, based on my assessment on looking at the diagram; makes no difference to me what a nearly fifty-ply variation ginned up by a poster using software says. I would far rather think for myself, same as the old days.
Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  sneaky pete: A really oldfashioned master might play 15.bxc3 Bxc3+ 16.Ke2 Bxa1 17.Rxa1 ..


click for larger view

threatening 18.Bf6 ..

Does black have a sufficient defence here?

Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <sneaky pete> Foregoing an engine, this old-fashioned patzer would play 17....Be4 and I think the king will survive.
Apr-17-18  1shooter: 12...kg6 Its a tough defense but black is better per computer. I am really surprised Portisch didn't play it here. Maybe it was not as well known defense back then. I read about this in a book somewhere. But what choice did he have there. You can't let the queen in that easily. You have to sac a piece back a lot of times to control squares and what not.
Apr-17-18  posoo: PorFOODUs dat is RITE, stik to ur GUNS! u and i do NOT alwoys agree but in DIS case u haVE CLEARLY IDENTAFIED who is lazy and who is good

STOCKFISH PLAYERS LAZEY

PORFOODUS GOOD

Apr-17-18  The17thPawn: 7...exd5 looks playable to me.
Apr-17-18  lentil: Black tried a cheapo. I wondered why W captured 14 Bxg5 instead of 14 Qxg4. Cererus paribus, as the game progressed, 15. ... Ne4+ would have scooped the Q.
Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  sneaky pete: <keypusher> You're probably right and I didn't consider that move, I just looked at several bad moves black might try.

The tournament bulletin (published in daily installments after each round) mentions that Matanovic (who commented on the games for the audience) expected Portisch not to allow Bxh7+ .. by playing 10... Bxd5 when after 11.exf6 Qxf6


click for larger view

black has 3 pawns for the Knight and maybe better chances than in the actual game.

Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: I'm with <perfidious> here: There's no measuring whats going on inside someone's head during an OTB encounter. After <16.Bd2> the player of the Black pieces may very well sulk noting he's giving a piece back and he has no Queen, so his morale may sag, clouding his thinking

You just never know during an OTB game

I'm definitely with <perf> here

*****

Apr-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: < offramp: Amazing to see the Mt Rushmore-like Portisch totally lost in just 11 moves. >

Are you implying that Portisch had a big head?

Apr-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <thegoodanarchist: < offramp: Amazing to see the Mt Rushmore-like Portisch totally lost in just 11 moves. > Are you implying that Portisch had a big head?>

I wasn't but he DID. Freakisch Portisch they called him.

Apr-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: " Portisch losing to Donner? I am surprised, astonished, amazed, perplexed, dumbfounded, you name it!"

The score between these two heavily favoured Portisch.

This one...

J H Donner vs Portisch, 1968

....was used by Shamkovich in his Batsford edition of 'The Modern Chess Sacrifice' (page 111) highlighting a positional pawn sac to keep a King uncastled (move 17.Bd3).

Donner featured on the wrong side of quite a few instructive losses.

Apr-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<ChessHigherCat> <mike1> Why "no"? It's still an advantage. Do you have a better move than 16. Bd2?>

I think that "No" is the accurate assessment, at least from a human perspective. An evaluation of [+0.40] is considered an advantage by an engine, but humans don't have centipawn resolution; probably more in the neighborhood of [0.50]. Chess GUIs (engines don't make a qualitative assessments) typically assess evaluations in the [0.00] to [+0.49] as equal, evaluations from [+0.50] to [+0.99] as White standing slightly better, evaluations from [+1.00] to [+1.49] or [1.99] as White having a definite advantage, and evaluations greater than [+1.50] or [+2.00] as White having a winning advantage.

A chess engine will select a move for a terminal position having an evaluation of [+0.41] over a move having a terminal position evaluation of [+0.40] every time, but a human probably can't tell the difference.

Apr-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<perfidious> I stand by my post, based on my assessment on looking at the diagram; makes no difference to me what a nearly fifty-ply variation ginned up by a poster using software says. I would far rather think for myself, same as the old days.>

And you would probably be wrong, same as the old days. :-)

Seriously, it depends on whether the engine's evaluation and line are presented like coming from the gods, without any additional verification, as unfortunately it's often done. I am occasionally guilty of the same thing although it's usually as a result of time constraints or some such (yeah, I know, if I haven't checked the engine's line I shouldn't be posting at all). In that case I would agree with you.

But if the engine's line is verified by reviewing each move and investigating alternative moves, and if the impact of the horizon effect is mitigated by forward sliding or by at least what I like to call "forward leaping", then I would put my money on the engine's evaluation of the position, even if the human that disagreed with the engine was Magnus Carlsen. It doesn't necessarily mean that the engine will be right all of the time, but on the average it will be.

And if you don't think that using engines properly and spending time validating their results and exploring promising looking alternative moves and lines requires thinking for yourself, then you probably haven't done it, or at least haven't done it very often. Although it does sometime require a somewhat different kind of thinking.

Apr-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <Offramp: So somewhere Donner lost 60% of a pawn, but SF doesn't know where.>

No doubt in the Sierra Nevada:

Donner Party - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donne...

Apr-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <AK....And you would probably be wrong, same as the old days. :-)>

More'n likely. (laughs)

<....Seriously, it depends on whether the engine's evaluation and line are presented like coming from the gods, without any additional verification, as unfortunately it's often done....>

That very often happens, which was why I was nettled by the post above.

<....I am occasionally guilty of the same thing although it's usually as a result of time constraints or some such (yeah, I know, if I haven't checked the engine's line I shouldn't be posting at all). In that case I would agree with you....>

Actually, I find your posts quite reasonable on the whole and leavened with humour--a most welcome trait in these days which so often feature just those strings of analysis.

<....And if you don't think that using engines properly and spending time validating their results and exploring promising looking alternative moves and lines requires thinking for yourself, then you probably haven't done it, or at least haven't done it very often. Although it does sometime require a somewhat different kind of thinking.>

Not often, really, in chess; I am used to such critical thinking in poker, where it is everyday action, at the table and away from it.

Apr-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: OTB play vs Computer-assisted play are two completely different animals, much like the old adage 'trying to compare apples and oranges'

At best, engines are a tool to improve one's OTB play. Chess is after all, meant to be played OTB

Using a computer to actually play chess is borderline cheating IMO

*****

Apr-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: But it's amazing how often these guys choose the top SF move OTB. They must have trained so much with SF that it's inspiring/contaminating them, depending on your point of view.
Apr-19-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: P.S. Not talking about Donner and Portisch, of course, who had to rely on their Ouija boards. I mean the contemporary players and patzers, and I definitely fall into the latter category. As somebody who has played without any computer assistance his whole life and just learned how to use SF a few months ago (and that only minimally, by clicking on the "Engine" butt on on CG), I can say:

Pros: It really is a fantastic tool if you use it properly, i.e. by calculating a line and the using it to check if you were right

Cons: It can be habit-forming to click on the "Engine" button FIRST instead of relying on your own calculations, in which case it is definitely counterproductive in terms of preparing yourself for normal games.

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
shakman's favorite games - 2
by shakman
Game 38
from Modern Chess Brilliancies (Evans) by Qindarka
చదరగం 1
by tejuchess
April 17: Never Donned on Me
from Game of the Day 2018 by Phony Benoni
11. Bxh2+ is a fairly easy h7 sacrifice win.
from Demolition of Pawn Structure: Sac on h7 (h2) by patzer2
Chessgames used my pun
by belgradegambit
Black Knight 2's favorite games
by Black Knight 2
kuna65's favorite games PART TWO
by kuna65
Round 1
from Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1968 by WCC Editing Project
3. Ripping Apart the King Position
from Storming The Barricades by jakaiden
Round One, Game #3
from Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1968 by suenteus po 147
3. Ripping Apart the King Position
from Storming The Barricades Compiled by jakaiden by fredthebear
11. Bxh2+ is a fairly easy h7 sacrifice win.
from Demolition of Pawn Structure: Sac on h7 (h2) by Jaredfchess


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC