|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-02-03
 | | Eggman: Indeed it's a draw! So I was right! ;)
Thanks for that, AdrianP. |
|
Nov-03-03
 | | Open Defence: dk no offence but I think I kibitzed about this first saying that my analysis indicated a draw, and that I wanted to check if my analysis was right.......... |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: Yes you are right, some of these threads you just join onto and you forget how it all started. Cyph, you had hallucinated on move 57 Right? Aulero had taken the line some and so had I, but you rejected my move 57 as losing. You had obviously worked on the problem before what exactly happend to your analysis on 57? I didnt play out the line but just in words what was the situation on the board after? >>>The problem was that after 57. Kb4, I hallucinated: 57.- Ke6 58. Kc5 Kd7 59. Kb6 Kd6 60. Kb7 c5?? 61. Kc8 |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | Cyphelium: Well, if you play it through you'll understand. I just calculated the line when black rushes the c-pawn (60.- c5??) and saw that this was winning for white. When I tried to analyse with a board later on, I realised that this was a stupid oversight of mine as black doesn't have to move the c-pawn. That's all. |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | AdrianP: So which one of you lot is the <amateur from Switzerland> mentioned by Shirov himself...! ;-) |
|
Nov-03-03
| | Eggman: I must say it absolutely amazes me that Timman could resign in a drawn position (especially such a basic one) and it is five times as amazing that Shirov would continue to think that the position was drawn, even after analyzing the game! I can scarcely even recall another instance of a super-GM resigning a drawn position, let alone such a simple one! Amazing! |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: Eggie this stuff happens all the time. You are just too enamored with these guys. |
|
Nov-03-03
| | Eggman: <Eggie this stuff happens all the time. You are just too enamored with these guys.> "This stuff" being a GM resigning a drawn position? Example? |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Kramnik vs Deep Fritz, 2002
Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997
These two are probably the most famous examples, but there are many more. I remember some involving Karpov, Anand, and Shirov as well. |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | Benjamin Lau: In the two games I mentioned though, the draws are very difficult to see, more difficult than in this game. |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: Eggman: we have had two from Timman this week including this: Timman vs Nunn, 1982 |
|
| Nov-03-03 | | drukenknight: And did you see this one a few days ago:
Spassky vs Fischer, 1966 |
|
Nov-04-03
| | Eggman: <Timman vs Nunn, 1982 ... Spassky vs Fischer, 1966> No, Drukenknight, those are examples of losing in a drawn position, not resigning in a drawn position. Big difference. |
|
| Nov-05-03 | | drukenknight: maybe you can show us the win. |
|
Nov-05-03
| | Eggman: DK, I'm not sure why Honza's Oct 24 analysis regarding the Timman vs Nunn, 1982 game doesn't satisfy you, and as to the Spassky vs Fischer, 1966 game, I'll look at it when I get the chance. |
|
| Nov-12-03 | | MoonlitKnight: Wow, I got into the final position here today while playing blitz. I swindled my opponent and won with the white pieces, probably because I had analyzed this game. |
|
Oct-31-05
| | Open Defence: <Mr Keene> My home analysis revealed a draw, I wonder was this ever commented on in higher circles .. certainly the chess articles of the time did not mention it ... howver in India we certainly wondered why on earth Timman resigned .. <Others + Mr Keene> If computers show any new lines please let me know |
|
| Dec-31-07 | | talisman: This looks a lot like Karpov-Korchnoi 1978, game 10, where the move was seen for the first time.Keene said white's 11th move came like a thunderclap.Korchnoi said it's a move you see once every 100 years.Now Korchnoi declined to bite and just played PxP,(after a long thought) and drew. Timman bites and should have drawn.This looks like a move Shirov or Tal could have come up with.How many grandmasters have looked at that position over the years, and never once thought of it.It's an intriguing thought. Anyway, i think the second to Karpov was Zaitsev(sp?) who was credited with the move. |
|
| Jan-01-08 | | talisman: only 17 games in 30 years where queen takes knight.
19...g6 was a novelty by timman. |
|
| Jan-01-08 | | Jim Bartle: "Incidentally Shirov in that article claimed Black resigned because of 50h4 Kxc6 51 f5 Kd6 52f6 hehehee" Shirov handled this in an interesting way in "Fire on Board." He repeated his initial analysis (as above), then added a note afterward saying a Swiss amateurhad discovered the draw. |
|
Jan-31-09
| | Open Defence: <Jim Bartle> this is my original post from 2003 <Oct-29-03
Open Defence: Ok I got my notes and here is the analysis compiled by me:
49g5 Kd6
Variation A:
50h4 Kxc6 51 f5 Kd6 52f6 Ke6
Variation A1:
53Kf3 Kd6 54Ke4 Ke6 55Kd4 Kd7
Variation A1a:
56Kd5 Ke8
Variation A1b:
56Ke5 Ke8 57Ke6 Kf8
Now if 58Kd7 c5 etc
Variation A1c:
56Kc5 Ke8 57Kc6 Kd8
Now if 58Kb7 c5
The whole point of Black's strategy and technique is to keep the White K out of d8 coz then Black will be in zugzwang Now above was the standard technique (which most of us goof up in OTB play hehehe) This I feel is the critical line:
Variation B
50.Kf3 Kxc6 51f5 gxf5
Variation B1
52h4 Kd6
Variation B2
52Kf4 Kd6 53Kf5 Ke7 54h4 Kf7 55h5 c5 56Ke5 c4 57Kc4 c3 58Kd3 Ke6 The strategy in this line is to draw the white king far enough away and then reduce the game to a 2 vs 2 pawns on the k side which in theory is drawn. Even more interesting is this line of play:
Variation B3 (after 53 Kf3 Kd6):
54Kg4 Ke6 55h5 Kf7
Variation B3a:
56h6 Ke6 (which is simmilar to variation A)
Variation B3b:
56hxg6 Kxg6 with h6 to follow still holds it
I hope my analysis is correct, if not it is still a good learning experience
> I hope the Swiss Amateur had found it later :) |
|
| Jun-20-12 | | vinidivici: Timman so unlucky in this game. It SHOULD draw.
Shirov and Timman believed after 49.g5 then
49...Kd6
50.h4 Kc6
51.f5 gf5
52.h5 Kd7
53.g6 hg6
54.h6 (Timman recklessly believed that this would happen and shirov h=file pawn would queen). But the problem is the 51st move for Timman he didnt need to take the f-pawn.
51...Kd7
52.f6
and now Timman for 52nd move just need to move back and forth Kd8, Kd7, and Ke8. Shirov would never ever get a chance to make a final blow. The corresponding square are c6 and d8, so thats the most important if white king move to c6 then black king MUST to d8 square. c8 restricted to black because white f-pawn would queen. |
|
| Mar-16-14 | | Conrad93: Almost every game with this gambit gets the same exact endgame, so it should be relatively easy to prepare for. |
|
| Apr-18-15 | | Howard: This ending is in Joel Benjamin's latest book Liquidation on the ChessBoard, but I don't know what he says about it--yet. I've ordered the book ! |
|
| Oct-10-15 | | Howard: It was also featured in the most recent issue of Chess Life. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 26.Ba5