|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jan-09-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen>
<if only the rook on h4 didn't obstruct the white queen's path to h2!>
Good point, my apologies for this mistake. Then perhaps White should change the order with 15...Nd5 16. Ne4, and Black still looks in trouble. |
 |
| Jan-09-05 |
| karlzen: <beatgiant>, well, black is probably much worse even after 15...Nd5 even if we can't find the right line just now. So I guess I'm kind of defending a lost cause but anyway, it's a very interesting idea: 15...Nd5 16.Ne4 f6 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qh6+ Kf7 19.Qh7+ Ke8 20.Qxg6+ Kd7 21.Qxg2 Kc7 22.Qg3+ Kb6 and black is still breathing. Of course it is not easy to consider such a king walk when playing a serious game but all in all, it is probably the best defence. |
|
Jan-09-05
 |
| euripides: <Karlzen, beat> It is indeed an interesting line. The black position looks more compact than after ..Ng4, so it's worth trying to find a clear forcing line for White. One interesting possibility is 15...Nd5 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Nxd5 cd 18 Bxd5 Qxd5 19 Qh6+ Kf6 20 Qxf8. Now White has the exchange for two pawns and appears to have some nasty threats, but Black still has some counterplay e.g. 20...Qc4+ 21 Kd2 Bf5 22 Qh8+ Ke6 23 Qe5+ Kd7 24 Rc1 Qd3+ 25 Ke1 Qf1+ 26 Kd2 Qf2+ 27 Kd1 Qxh4 protecting e7. While this analysis is illustrative only and probably full of holes, it does seem possible that one of the reasons Black lost this game was the falure to activate the white-squared bishop. |
|
| Jan-10-05 |
| karlzen: <euripides>, I appreciate your input. :) However, I still can't seem to find anything better than the line in my original post (which could possibly be OK for black as well). 15...Nd5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Nxd5 cxd5 18.Bxd5? Qxd5 19.Qh6+ Kf6 20.Qxf8 and now: 20...Qc4+? 21.Kb1! looks good for white.
20...Qg5+! 21.Rd2 Qxh4 22.Qxc8 Qh2! and while the kings are equally unsafe black has a major lead in pawns and a strong passer. 23.Kc2 Ra7! and black wins. Perhaps white's 14.Bh6 is simply uneccesarily brute since 14.Nxf3 should be much better for white: 14...Ng4 15.Qe1! (perhaps this is what Spassky missed?) 15...Nxe3?? 16.Qh4!  . |
|
Jan-10-05
|
| euripides: (karlzen) 21 Kb1 was my first thought but 21...Bf5+ seems worth avoiding. All in all the queen excusion to f8 proves less rewarding than it seems. |
|
| Jan-10-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen, euripides>:
In these lines after 15...Nd5, Black's king can get highly exposed, but we haven't found a direct win. This is often a sign that the attacker needs to build up more power before finishing. For example, perhaps simply 15...Nd5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qh6+ Kf6 18. Nh3!, adding the knight and rook to the attack with a lot of threats. A sample line for this idea is 18...Bxh3 19. Rxh3 Ke6 20. Qg5 Ra7 21. Kb1! Kd7 22. Nxd5 cxd5 23. Rc1 Qa5 24. Ba4+! and Black's king fails to escape the attack. |
|
| Jan-11-05 |
| karlzen: <beatgiant>, 15...Nd5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Qh6+ Kf6 18.Nh3 Bxh3 (e6) 19.Rxh3 e6! and I don't see anything clear for white. |
|
| Jan-11-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen>:
<I don't see anything clear for white.>
Obviously there are a lot of possibilities, so I'm only giving samples to form a general picture of the situation.After the continuation 15...Nd5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qh6+ Kf6 18. Nh3 Bxh3 19. Rxh3 e6 20. Qh4+ g5 21. Ne4+ Ke7 22. Nxg5, it's still hard for Black to defend against all the threats. Some tries at that point are 22...Kd6? 23. Nxf7+, or 22...Kd7 23. Bxd5 cxd5 24. Nh7 Qxh4 25. Nxf8+ Ke7 26. Rxh4 Kxf8 27. Rh8+ pinning Black's pieces, or 22...Ke8 23. Bxd5 cxd5 24. Nh7!? Qxh4 25. Rxh4 Nd7 26. Nxf8 Nxf8 27. Rg4, and I think White has strong chances of winning this ending. |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| karlzen: <beatgiant>, <Obviously there are a lot of possibilities, so I'm only giving samples to form a general picture of the situation.> I think we can agree that white is close to winning but that we can't find a really good, clear, winning line. :) 15...Nd5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Qh6+ Kf6 18.Nh3 Bxh3 19.Rxh3 e6 20.Qh4+ g5 (20...Kg7= and we could very well be back at square one) 21.Ne4+ Ke7 22.Nxg5: 22...Kd7 23.Bxd5 cxd5 24.Nh7 Nc6 25.Nxf8+ Qxf8 and black's position is not neccesarily worse. If white tries to win the g2-pawn black has stuff like Rc8, Kb1 Qg7-h7+, Ka1 Nb/d4. 22...Ke8 23.Bxd5 Qxd5! (black has to get some activity) 24.Nh7 Qc4+ 25.Rc3 Qxa2 (Qe2!?) 26.Qh2! Qa1+ 27.Kc2 Qa4+ 28.b3 Qa2+ with double-edged play. |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen>
<we can't find a really good, clear, winning line. :)>
After seeing your resources, I agree. :)
Another try for White is 15...Nd5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qh6+ Kf6 18. Nf3, with scary lines like 18...Ke6 19. Qf4 Bb7 20. Ne5 f6 21. Ne4! or here 20...f5 21. Re1 g5 22. Qxg5 Kd6 23. Bxd5 cxd5 24. Qf4. What do you find against this attack? |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| karlzen: <beatgiant>, I think you are right about the fact that 18.Nf3 Ke6 is real scary for black. 18...e6 19.Ne4+ Ke7 20.Ne5 Ke8 21.Qg7! looks crushing for white as well so black should play 18...Bf5 and again I am at a loss of a really promising continuation. It seems to me that black has to play very exactly in all these lines and it would probably be close to impossible for Evans to survive in practical play. |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| karlzen: A crazy line is 18...Bf5 19.Rh5 Qc8? 20.Nh4 e6 21.Bxd5 cxd5: 22.Nxf5 exf5 23.Qg5+ Ke6 24.Re1+ Kd6 25.Qe7+ Kc6 26.Qc5+ Kb7 27.Re7+ Nd7 and black surivives. Instead white can try: 22.Qg5+ Kg7 23.Qf4! and now: 23...a5 (black is almost in zugzwang here!; Ra7 is also safe though) 26.Nxf5+ gxf5 27.Re1 Nd7= (but not 27...gxh5? and white wins). Best is however, 18.Nf3 Bf5 19.Rh5 Qc8 20.Re1! e6 (20...Nxc3 21.Qf4!!) 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.Qf4 (22.Na4! that is how poor black's position is) 22...Kg7 23.Qe5+ f6 24.Qe7+ Rf7 25.Rh7+ and wins. Instead of 19...Qc8 I can't really consider anything but 19..Ra7. There follows: 20.Nh4 e6 21.Bxd5 cxd5 22.Qg5+ Kg7 23.Nxf5+ exf5 24.Qxg2 with interesting play. I can't really evaluate the position properly but as I don't see anything clearly good for white (again!) I guess black is OK. In every line black just about manages to hold on. |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen>
On 15...Nd5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qh6+ Kf6 18. Nf3 Bf5, simply 19. Re1 cuts off the king's escape. It might continue 19...e6 20. Qg5+ Kg7 21. Qxg2 Rh8 22. Rxh8 Qxh8 23. Rh1 Qd8 24. Ng5, and we are back to the attack down the h-file. |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| karlzen: <beatgiant>, In your latest line, how about on move 23 or 24 ...Nf4!?. In any case I don't think white's is very threatening, Rh7+ Kg8 and then what? :) |
|
| Jan-12-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen>:
<In your latest line, how about on move 23 or 24 ...Nf4!?>(after 15...Nd5 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qh6+ Kf6 18. Nf3 Bf5 19. Re1 e6 20. Qg5+ Kg7 21. Qxg2 Rh8 22. Rxh8 Qxh8 23. Rh1) 23...Nf4 looks bad because of 24. Rxh8 Nxg8 25. Rd8 pinning the back rank. The threat is Nc3-a4-b6, and Black appears to lose back the exchange and a pawn (by defending with ...a5; Nb6 a4; Bxa4 Rxa4). After 23...Qd8 24. Ng5 Nf4 does look good. So White tries first 24. Bxd5 cxd5 25. Ng5. <In any case I don't think white's is very threatening, Rh7+ Kg8 and then what? :)> After 25. Ng5, White threatens 26. Rh7+ Kg8 27. Rh8+. An example is 25...Qc7 26. Qh1 Kf8 27. Nxf7 Ke7 28. Ne5, with a strong attack. |
|
| Jan-13-05 |
| karlzen: 15...Nd5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Qh6+ Kf6 18.Nf3 Bf5 19.Re1 e6 20.Qg5+ Kg7 21.Qxg2 Rh8 22.Rxh8 Qxh8 23.Rh1 Qd8 24.Bxd5 cxd5 25.Ng5 and again I don't see a real threat. Just 25...Ra7 and black is fine. <26. Rh7+ Kg8 27. Rh8+> How do you mean? Are you just giving your rook up for nothing? <25...Qc7 26. Qh1> I thought the rook was at h1? :) |
|
| Jan-13-05 |
| beatgiant: <karlzen>:
Sorry for my errors.
<26. Rh7+ Kg8 27. Rh8+> How do you mean? Are you just giving your rook up for nothing?> Maybe its only a cheap shot of 27...Kxh8 28. Nxf7+ winning the queen, which you easily parry with your suggested 25...Ra7. So I agree Black is fine. You are also right that Qh1 isn't possible in the line I gave. It's a very tough situation. I haven't found anything better than the main line you posted on Jan-12-05. |
|
| Jan-13-05 |
| karlzen: <beatgiant>, don't worry about the errors, you contributed a lot of interesting lines and it's always easier to refute moves then to spring all new ideas. :) |
|
Feb-08-05
 |
| LIFE Master AJ: <zenkarl>
I found a few flaws, mostly slight or very minor, in your analysis.Can I ask you three questions?
# 1.) What is your OTB rating?
# 2.) What analysis engine or program do you use?
# 3.) What platform (computer + OS) do you use? (It does make a big difference with some programs!) --- just curious |
|
Feb-15-05
|
| LIFE Master AJ: <karlzen>
See my last post.
<everyone else>
See my earlier posts about this game.
This game is lovingly annotated by yours truly. (http://www.worldchessacademy.com/Sp...) Please go there, go over the notes. And be sure to tell me what you think. (I corroborated notes from about 8 different books.) If you enjoy the above game, be sure to write the webmaster of WCA, (Dan Thomasson); and thank him for his time and energy. (He continues to be an excellent and caring editor.) |
|
Jun-12-06
 |
| notyetagm: 25  xg6! exploits the <weak back rank>, as Black is mated on the back rank after 25 ...  xg6?? 26 h8+ g8 27 xg8+  f8 28 fxf8#. |
|
Jun-12-06
|
| notyetagm: <Benzol: "This game was generally considered to be the best of the Olympiad..." - Bernard Cafferty in "Spassky's 100 Best Games".> Really? Better than the famous, incredible Tal-Hecht game, also from the 1962 Varna Olympiad? |
|
Jun-12-06
|
| notyetagm: And a lovely finishing move, 26 f8++!, a <DOUBLE CHECK> which accomplishes the tactical goals of <DECOYING> the Black king to f8 and <CLEARING> the a2-g8 diagonal for the White b3-bishop to create the rook and bishop mating pattern that results after 26 ...  xf8 27 xg8#. |
|
| Jun-12-08 |
| mezzieh: 'Bring ya' all pieces in play, dude'! Evans surely forget about that. Commiting himself with 8...bxc4 and 11...dxe4 was premature. Had he left his pawn on d5 and rushed with a-pawn he might have obtained good counter. I heard Evans was known as resourceful defender, who was, however, sometimes greedy with 'Trojan' pawn grabs. Is it true? |
|
| Jun-12-08 |
| Riverbeast: <I heard Evans was known as resourceful defender, who was, however, sometimes greedy with 'Trojan' pawn grabs. Is it true?> I don't know if this was his reputation. Maybe he was trying to emulate Fischer, who was known for taking the material and then defending the vicious attacks like a genius. But as Timman said, genius is impossible to emulate. This is why most players don't play the way Fischer did...They're afraid of falling victim to a demolition derby like this one Incidentally, I wonder what Larry Evans thinks about having his middle name 'Melvyn' written all over his profile and his games. Maybe he doesn't mind it, but if it were mine that's one middle name I would keep under wraps |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
