< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Mar-12-04|| ||Alfonso Geraci: How come this game does not feature in the Opening Explorer? Will somebody answer please. |
|Mar-28-04|| ||kashparov72c5: oh the game was actually reached by transposition opened the game with d4 then e6 then e4 and so on, maybe that will help you find it.I have a book with this game in it and that is how the game is notated... |
|Jun-22-04|| ||Sneaky: I see this game in the Opening Explorer
... It seems that ...Bg4 is rare, and 6...Bd6 is a sort of novelty. |
|Jun-22-04|| ||acirce: <chessgames.com>, this game seems to have started 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 instead of as shown. This according to both the March 28 post on this page and <ray keene> on http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... (Krasenkow-Short) |
|Jun-23-04|| ||chessgames.com: OK, we fixed the opening moves. |
|Apr-19-05|| ||drukenknight: does it look like: 15...Ne4 in order to continue the idea of exchanging and liberating his position? |
|Feb-10-07|| ||Themofro: Great job by Short to win a ending when having doubled pawns and being down a knight for bishop.|
|Jul-22-07|| ||keypusher: A game that is most remarkable for the circumstances under which it was played. If I remember right, this was the last round of the interzonal, and a spot in the candidates was a stake. Not even Lasker-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914 had such drama (at St. Petersburg, there were still several rounds to go). A draw was good enough for Gurevich; Short had to win, with Black.|
|Oct-03-07|| ||notyetagm: <keypusher: A game that is most remarkable for the circumstances under which it was played. If I remember right, this was the last round of the interzonal, and a spot in the candidates was a stake. Not even Lasker-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914 had such drama (at St. Petersburg, there were still several rounds to go). A draw was good enough for Gurevich; Short had to win, with Black.>|
That is exactly correct. It must have sucked to be Gurevich after this game. All he had to do in order to qualify for the Candidate Matches was draw a White game and he lost, playing the French Exchange(!).
How can you lose a French Exchange as White when you do not need to take any risks in order to win? A shocking loss.
|Oct-03-07|| ||BipolarFanatic: <notyetagm: How can you lose a French Exchange as White when you do not need to take any risks in order to win?>|
Perhaps he got sloppy, and thought that playing *anything* in this line would lead to a draw.
|Oct-12-07|| ||Erdkunde: <Great job by Short to win a ending when having doubled pawns and being down a knight for bishop.> Of course, those doubled pawns allowed Black to penetrate with his Rook down the a-file, and that Knight was sufficient to end the game once it had found the strong e3-outpost. ;)|
|Dec-15-07|| ||MichAdams: Dominic Lawson wrote about this game in The Inner Game, his book on Nigel Short. Apparently, a terrorist bombing occurred near the players' hotel shortly before the final round, and Gurevich played like a man who'd shat himself.|
|Dec-16-07|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: <notyetagm> (incidentally, I like your positive attitude), Gurevich lost precisely because he took no risks. Even the greatest players in these situations will play too "safe," play too "solidly," play too "soundly."|
In his excellent book Psychology in Chess, Nikolai Krogius went into great detail in discussing these "I must win!" and "I want to draw!" games. He focused more on the "I must win!" cases and it's interesting that Short played exactly as Krogius recommends: play the same kind of game you always play, only a little bit better! This is a Short type of game; squeezing an endgame where his two remaining pieces are more active than White's, and the White Bishop is on the same color as his central pawn.
Gurevich should have played not for equality, but for the advantage, and as soon as he had a sizable one, "charitably" offered to split the point.
|Apr-03-08|| ||whiteshark: IMO <36.Bf2> would have kept the position in balance.
click for larger view
|Apr-03-08|| ||whiteshark: In the last two rounds Gurevich needed only a draw to qualify, but he failed. In the last but one round he lost this way:
Anand vs M Gurevich, 1990
|May-22-08|| ||OhioChessFan: 26. Bd6 ends the Queen side expansion. Any time on moves 27-29 Bd6 would also have been better. What in the world was the point of Bh2/f4?|
|May-22-08|| ||cannibal: <OhioChessFan>
Maybe my eyes are letting me down here, but that looks a lot like a king on d7...
|May-22-08|| ||OhioChessFan: What in the world was I looking at?! Grrrrrr.|
|May-22-08|| ||OhioChessFan: Well, that explains it. 25. Re1+ <Kf7>|
|May-22-08|| ||OhioChessFan: I plugged <Whiteshark> <36.Bf2> into Fritz and slid forward. I think it does hold.|
-.30 at 22 plies.
36. Bf2 g5 37. Rb1 Nb5+ 38. Kd2 Rxb4 39. c3 Rb3 40. Kc2 Nd6 41. g3 hxg3 42. Bxg3 Nf5 43. Bf2 Ke6
click for larger view
|Sep-11-08|| ||Abdooss: GM Keene used to comment in the Spectator: "In the last round, Mikhail Gurevich just needed a draw to qualify to the Candidates level. He chose the French Exchange (despite being a Queen Pawn player with White). Short beat him like a drum, and proceeded to face Kasparov in the World Championship. Gurevich's never recovered from this blow (to qualify to world Championship level).|
|Jan-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: piece fork... nice|
|Jan-27-09|| ||frank124c: My theory is that a strongly posted Knight is worth more than a partially blocked Bishop.|
|Oct-11-10|| ||Eggman: This famous game is not the only instance where Short won to order in the final round of an interzonal, in the process preventing another competitor from qualifying. There was also Short vs Van der Wiel, 1985 from the 1985 Biel interzonal. The win created a three-way play-off between Short, Van der Wiel, and Torre, from which Short emerged as the lone qualifier.|
|Oct-11-10|| ||bishop55: Just another french exchange that lead to nothing for white.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·