|Mar-15-05|| ||RookFile: In his book, Kasparov praises Reshevsky's play in the late opening, early middle game, pointing out how,
in an unfamiliar position, that had been deeply analyzed by the russians before the game, he found good moves,
although at the cost of time, in a position where some others before him had gone astray. |
|Nov-16-05|| ||RonB52734: Hey <Resignation Trap>:|
Sorry to track you down like this, but I've got a question for you, over on Larry Melvyn Evans. It's a serious question (see Game Collection: 1946 US Open, Pittsburgh, PA).
By the way, I enjoyed reading your profile!
Thanks in advance.
|Jun-06-06|| ||TylerD: a fantastic game full of complications and unexpected turns|
|Sep-11-09|| ||King.Arthur.Brazil: This game is commented by Smyslov in his best games. I guess that Reshevsky find many solutions in a desert zone for him, while Smyslov has deep knowledge on this variant as he almost tells in his book. But, firstly he uses his 2 Bishop with P, to advance P and win space and material. Then, after winning taticks he has to win against the 2 white Bishops. But you can say that Reshevsky lose 3 P on the end game, which makes the black victory more easy.|
|Jan-28-10|| ||plang: Game two of their two game match which Smyslov swept. Reshevsky, aiming for a complicated struggle, bypassed the standard 5 a4 in favor of 5 e3 allowing 5..b5. The same year Kotov played 12 e4 against Smyslov but Black was fine after 12.. c5 13 dxc..Qc7 14 e5..Ne4. Reshevsky's clever 21 Nd4! invited 21..Bxg2! 22 f3..Bh3 23 Bc6 winning the exchange. Still, Smyslov obtained excellent counterplay on the queenside with 24..Bc2 and 25..b3!. Kasparov pointed out that Reshevsky would have maintained a good game if he had played 28 e4 but after Smyslov's 28..e5! and 29..Bc3! Black won material (if 30 bxc..Nxc3 31 Qd2..Nb5 32 axb..b2 wins the exchange). Reshevsky still could have had reasonable defensive chances if he had played 39 Nb7 but after 39 Ne4? he lost the d-pawn and his position was lost.|
|Jan-28-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: It's a good game. Certainly a modern looking struggle.|
|Feb-04-10|| ||PeterB: This game was part of a major, totally unexpected disaster for the Americans. Denker on board 1 had been smashed 2-0 by Botwinnik, just like Reshevsky losing 2-0 to Smyslov. Fine had been crushed in a positional masterpiece by Boleslavsky; he eventually scored only o.5-1.5. A very cold shower for the Americans!|
|Feb-04-10|| ||20MovesAhead: Smyslov and Reshevsky played each other,on & off, for ( just over ) 50 years !|
|Apr-01-10|| ||ismet: too late to resign ! US man do not accept loosing early . but vasily had accepted at the beginning !|
|Apr-01-10|| ||ismet: i think resh. 35. move was fault! Bc4 could be more strong for white ?|
|Apr-08-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: |
This game was played at the Game Collection: USA - USSR Radio Match 1945
Smyslov played 2d board, scoring +2 -0 =0 vs. Reshevsky. The USSR won 15.5 - 4.5.
Winter, Edward ed. "World Chess Champions" (Pergamon Press 1981), p156. 152
|Apr-08-14|| ||TheFocus: <WCCEP> You do know that is one of our Historical Pages: USSR - USA Radio Match (1945)?|
|Jul-14-14|| ||1971: I was under the impression Smyslov was a smooth positional player, his slave games are all super sharp!|
|Jul-14-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi 1971,
Get a copy of Smyslov's best games. As it says in the intro there are loads of tactcial games with sacs and attacks on f2 and f7 galore.
All these great players know how to calcualte and get their hands dirty with tactics when the positions demanded it.
It is their ability to squeeze remote wins out of positions that differ from a bog standard kingside hack-sac-attack that makes them great players.
When you play other good players you will not get a sniff at their King unless you are very lucky.
Their skill is in probing and creating a slight weakness, usually with hints and masked threats of tactical play.
They work on the weakness at the same time trying not creating one of their own. Very difficult. Too me much harder than playing a sac-sac mate combo.
If they have too create a weakness in their own camp (remember Fischer's quote: 'To get squares you have to give squares.' ) then they make sure it is not as serious as their opponents.
Then they create another weakness...If material is equal then you usually need two to work on.
Properly done the whole game is a sheer joy to play over.
Trying to play like this without positional judgement and the years it requires to build up this skill and it usually turns into a dog's dinner position where your normal hacker has created that many weakness's in his own position he resorts to two move tricks tactics or a half-cocked attack against a solid King position. (trust me on this.)
Am I in awe of these players who do this...No...I hate them because I can't do it!
|Jul-15-14|| ||WiseWizard: <SallySimpson> I always read all your posts! I will definitely give Smyslov's games a thorough look. This style wins tournaments! Also, I'm a sucker for strong, aesthetic chess.|
I agree 100%, I'll choose watching a deep, positional struggle over sac-sac-mate anyday! Although, after building a superior strategic position, the winning player <must> find the most forcing winning tactical sequence at it's first opportunity! Anything else is weak and tarnishes the beauty of the game..
I am <humbled> by how easy these great masters make the game look. I just listen quietly and try to soak in as much as possible before I play my next game/tournament.
|Jul-15-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Wise Wizard,
Wise words! All too often at our level I have seen a player doing all the correct things and failing to it push it home tactically when the key moment arose.
Or the losing player deciding, quite rightly, that passive holding on defence is no good and starts slinging pawns or the exchange at their opponents. This sudden turn of events throws the winning player off balance and they lose.
Again, at our level, there is nothing worse than having a strategically won game against a player who refuses to lay down and has counter play.
I always enjoy playing over crash-bang-wallop games as I enjoy getting involved in that type of game and I can hold my own.
These converting wins with a slight postional edge games are out of reach. I'll see a trick/trap and go for it. I can't help it. The trouble is often they work.
So somewhere along the line I decided no need to get any better positionally as I can trick my way to wins.
Of course being a pig-headed player with my opions on how the game should be played never helped.
There is a good book by Chernev on Capablanca's endings. A few times I put one of the key positions into a computer and took Capa's side to see if I could convert the win...
....I've turned some of Capa's masterpieces into complete losses within half a dozen or so moves.
I am a crap chess player. No.
Capablanca's opponents were and Capa was actually lost in all these games.