< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-19-04|| ||ughaibu: Apart from the similarities (to the Botvinnik game) in the final position, this game also suggests a conflict of assessment at move 30-31, and most remarkably things kick-off with b4 attacking a knight on c5 in both games. Having played the earlier game Ragozin would've had a significant experiential advantage in assessing the coming positions. I cant help wondering if his whole plan of b5 and Nb5-d4 wasn't directed to setting up the possibility. It would be very interesting to see the players' notes for this game. |
|Apr-19-04|| ||Gypsy: There is a little doubt in my mind that you see it acurately, <ughaibu>. |
|Apr-19-04|| ||meloncio: <ughaibu> <It would be very interesting to see the players' notes for this game> I have this game commented by Botvinnik in his book "Ragozin's Selected Games" (Spanish version). I could try the translation, but there is six pages only for this game (BTW, the last one of the book). Too much for my poor English and my laziness!|
I can tell you what Botvinnik writes after the final move: "Omnipotent knight! Always on time to defend and to attack! Now white can't avoid to lose material"
|Apr-19-04|| ||Lawrence: <Gypsy>, (as the crotchety old ex-English teacher that I am) I think you mean "There is little doubt..." |
|Apr-19-04|| ||Gypsy: Oh no! Thanks for catching that, <Lawrence>! Yes, I do concur with <ughaibu> speculations. |
|Apr-20-04|| ||ughaibu: Meloncio: Is six pages for one game about standard for Botvinnik's book? I would be particularly interested in anything Botvinnik had to say about black's 24th, 30th and 33rd moves and white's 31st move and, of course, any other remarks about the game that strike you as interesting. |
|Apr-20-04|| ||meloncio: <ughaibu> No, six aren't the standard in the book; usual is 2-3 pages for every game. In the foreword, Botvinnik explains that Ragozin was slowly writing the book from some years ago, but he could finish because his illness (cancer) and death. He and others friends finished the work and published the book. So there are games commented by Ragozin (short comments) and others by Botvinnik (extended comments, like this one). By the way, he don't say who were the 'others friends'.|
"24. ... Nxb5!, If 24. ... axb5 25.Ra7 . Black don't want a passive defense."
"30. ... Qf7. Very clever move. Black are ready to attack if white decides the exchange sacrifice in c5"
"31.b4! ... Much better than 31.g5 then Rxf4"
"33. ... Rxf4 34.Bxf4 d3! Black must have seen this intermediate move from his 30. In case of 34. ... Qxf4 35.Rf1 Qxg5+ 36.Kh1 Nd7 37.Qc7 and Black are lost. Now the game must be a draw".
He goes on and writes that White lose this game by the mistakes 39.Qf2 (better 39.Qd2) and 41.Qf2 (better Qc3). There is a long analysis for every move, but I think it's enough.
Ooof, I'm tired! Not only the translation Spanish to English, but also the change from descriptive to algebraic notation. Go to bed ...
|Apr-20-04|| ||meloncio: Correction: ... but he could <not> finish because his illness (cancer) and death. |
|Apr-21-04|| ||ughaibu: Meloncio: Thanks, very interesting. |
|Apr-23-04|| ||ughaibu: Meloncio: It would be nice if you could make a collection of the games in the book. |
|Apr-23-04|| ||meloncio: OK, I'll try it, but I will see how many games I must upload from the book. For instance, the first game of the book (Murdoch-Ragozin, 1928) is not in this database. I hope not many more ... |
|Apr-23-04|| ||ughaibu: Thanks. Most games are probably at Chessbase, so copying them is a fairly easy way to upload. |
|May-03-04|| ||barrister: This is a masterly game on Black's part, playing like a lovely Benoni gone good... |
|Sep-05-08|| ||dwavechess: In this games both player concur a lot with rybka 2.3.2 at 14 ply.|
|Sep-05-08|| ||dwavechess: Ragozin 75% moves concur with rybka|
|Sep-05-08|| ||ughaibu: What percent of Bergraser?|
|Sep-05-08|| ||dwavechess: 64% for Bergraser|
|Sep-05-08|| ||IT4L1CO: 13 .., exd5 is a good move! Now Bxd5+ doesn't work or Nd5 is too strong. Any good analyses?...|
|Sep-07-08|| ||ughaibu: Dwavechess: thanks.|
|Sep-09-08|| ||dwavechess: your wellcome!
|Sep-12-08|| ||dwavechess: With Rybka 3 at 3 minutes per move is 64% for ragozin 59 % for Bergraser|
|Jan-04-10|| ||mertangili: A very nice but complicated game for my part. There are a number of moves i couldnt figure out the underlying idea, but by far the strangest move is 35. Qg2. I dont get whats wrong with simply taking the pawn with 35. Bxd3? Any ideas?|
|Dec-09-11|| ||indoknight: 34...d3!! is great move. not 34...Qxf4 because 35.Rf1 Qxg5+ 36.Bg2 Nd7 37.Qc6 white advantage.|
|Jan-18-12|| ||King Death: < IT4L1CO: 13 .., exd5 is a good move! Now Bxd5+ doesn't work or Nd5 is too strong. Any good analyses?...>|
Taimanov annotated this game in Fernschach and he thought 15.h3 was a mistake losing the advantage, that White should have played either 15.Qe2 with Ne6 to come or 15.Ne2-f4 when he would have had great compensation for the pawn.
|Jan-19-12|| ||GrahamClayton: <mertangili>I dont get whats wrong with simply taking the pawn with 35. xd3? Any ideas?|
Unattributed analysis in "The Games of the World Correspondence Chess Championships I-VII" by Tim Harding, (Batsford, 1979) gives White a small plus after 35. xd3 xf4 36. f1 xg5+ 37. g2 xg2+ 38. xg2 xd3 39. cxf8+ g7 40. 8f7+ h6.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·