| Jan-06-04 |
| catfriend: I'ts an amasing game, played a bit in "The good old masters" style, but then becoming a magnificent show of using the advantage white got.. But the repetitions in the last part (I think it's to save time) marr a bit the beauty of the game. 10.h4! is correct (I checked every variation)but! after 14.g4? black should take the bishop: 14..h: g5 15.h:g5  d7 16. d2 f6 17.h2 f8 |
 |
Jan-06-04
 |
| kevin86: A whimsical game! White slowly picks up black's queenside pawns one at a time--and when all the ruckus is over,white has 4 pawns for the exchange! The checks add to the drama. |
|
| Jan-06-04 |
| foxgoku: Seems to me that the game could have ended faster with 43. Nf7 forking the king/queen/rook instead of Bf7. Did I miss something important? |
|
| Jan-06-04 |
| n8osapi: the pin, foxgoku... mr Knight can't move |
|
| Jan-06-04 |
| Phoenix: When I saw the names of the players and the caption "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" I knew which game it was! |
|
Jan-06-04
 |
| patzer2: It's amazing how the interesting 10. h4!? plays such a key role in this game, not only in the opening but in the later middle game play. However, Fritz 8 indicates Black can safely capture the Bishop, and reach full equality, after 10...Nxd4! 11. Qxd4 hxg5 12. hxg5 Ng4 13. Be2 <13. Rd3!? e5 14. Rdh3 Nh6! 15. Qd3 Bxg5 16. fxg5 Qxg5+ 17. Qe3! Qxe3 18. Rxe3 Be6 gives Black a slight advantage> 13...e5! 14. Qd3 Bxg5! 15. fxg5 Qxg5+ 16. Qd2 Qxd2+ 17. Rxd2 Ne3 18. Rh2 Rd8 19. Rd3 Nc4 = (0.00 @ 14/40 depth & 670 kN/s). |
|
| Jan-06-04 |
| catfriend: What about 13.Qd2? |
|
| Jan-06-04 |
| TheTurk: can somebody tell me whats up with the sub-title to this game?
"the emperor wears no clothes"
when i saw the brooding kingside attack i figured it meant that black would evade it but he lost solidly. |
|
Jan-06-04
|
| patzer2: <TheTurk> <can somebody tell me whats up with the sub-title to this game? "the emperor wears no clothes">
My assumption was it means Black is stripped of pawn cover for the King, making the "win of an exchange" late in the game meaningless. |
|
Jan-06-04
|
| patzer2: <catfriend> <What about 13.Qd2?> In that case, 13...Qb3!enables Black to obtain a level position. After 10...Nxd4! 11. Qxd4 hxg5 12. hxg5 Ng4 <13. Qd2?!>, Fritz 8 analyzes 13...Qb3! 14. Re1 Rd8 15. Bc4! <15. Rh4 d5! 16. exd5 f5 17. Bc4 Qd6 18. Rh3 Bd7 19. Rd3 Qc7 20. dxe6 = (-0.25 @ 14/41 depth & 665kN/s)> 15...d5 16. exd5 Bd4 17. Rh4 Bxc3 18. bxc3 Qc5 19. Bb3 exd5 20. Reh1 Kf8 21. Re1 Kg8 = (0.00 @14/41 depth & 665kN/s). |
|
| Jan-06-04 |
| TheTurk: thanks patzer.
btw did anybody see 37. Qxa6!
its a clencher... |
|
Jan-07-04
|
| patzer2: <The Turk> Indeed, Shabalov did miss a much faster win in 37. Qxa6! Rxe7 < 37...Qxg5+ 38. hxg5  > < 37...Kd8 39. Rf7! > 38. Qb7+ Kd8 39. Qxb6+ Kc8 40. Bb7+ Kb8 41. Ba6+ Ka8 42. Qb7# |
|
| Aug-31-05 |
| aw1988: You know, you are bloody getting on my nerves. Can you limit this to ONE page, please? Thanks. |
|
| Oct-27-05 |
| aw1988: Sorry, I forgot who I was responding to. So if someone stumbles upon this page and thinks I'm nuts, someone deleted their post... |
|
May-18-08
 |
| Albertan: Smirin's 30th move was a blunder.Instead,the only move in the position is 30....Ke8. After 30...Ke7?? Shabalov could have played 31.Rg7+ and after 31...Kd8 32.Qxh8+ Be8 33.Bf7 Kc7 34.Bxe8 (Shabalov did not mention this blunder in his analysis of the game in Chess Informant...Rybka 2.3 (multiprocessor version) found this continuation.According to Chess Informant, Shabalov was in time pressure at the end of the game, and this lead to his blunder on move 37 (which meant he had to win the game all over again). Smirin helped Shabalov win the game by making a blunder on his 42nd move...42...Ke5?? Instead, Smirin should have played 42..Kf4 or 42...Kf6 and he would have had equality. Shabalov's time trouble is most likely the reason why he did not find a better continuation on move 67. Instead of playing 67.Nf7 he could have played 67.Be4! and had a decisive material advantage after 67...Qd6 68.Qg7+ Qe7 69.Bf5+ Kd6 70.Ne4+ This game was played at the 1992 Manila Chess Olympiad, and GM Jan Timman, in a letter he wrote to Yasser Seirawan in
Inside Chess Magazine, stated this game, in his opinion, should have won the brilliancy prize, (not the Kasparov-Nikolic game). The Shabalov-Smirin game, as we have seen, contained a known long-term bishop sacrifice, followed by many interesting tactical and positional twists, and it culminated in a Zwickmule (windmill). Timman asserted that the Kasparov-Nikolic game, should not have been awarded the brilliancy prize, because Kasparov missed a chance to win the game by exchanging queens, even though Kasparov had used a knight sacrifice. You can play through this ga me by going to Kasparov vs P Nikolic, 1992 |
|
icon.
