|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-04-17 | | saturn2: With two banal moves white wins the exchange. I did not see this however. Instead I looked at Rxg7 followed by either Qe5, Qg3, or Be5. |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | kb2ct: 26. Bc7 wins thee exchange, but the whole combo is difficult to see. :0) |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | YouRang: Saturday 26.?
click for larger view
The first thing that popped out to me was the potential of Qe5, threatening Qxg7#. But the threat by itself is easily parried (e.g. ...f6). So, we look for a way to turn that "single threat" into a "double threat", which would give Qe5 some teeth. It didn't take too long to see that <26.Bc7!> does the job nicely.
click for larger view
We threaten to win the exchange by taking the pinned Rb6, prompting black to take the bishop with <26...Rxc7>, and NOW <27.Qe5> has its teeth!
click for larger view
Black must defend against Qxg7#, and so white wins the exchange anyway with 28.Qxc7. Not too hard for a Saturday. :-) |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | ChessHigherCat: Incredibly easy for a Saturday. Bc7 was literally kicking and screaming and wetting its pants to be played! Just kidding, not even close.. |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | drollere: the point at move 32, where the black Q cannot defend the black QB on e8 due to the white N at c3, is especially nice. |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | JimmyRockHound: How does white progress after 27. ...Kf8? |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | BOSTER: When your opponent playing without white bishop, the best strategy to put own pieces on white squares. |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | wtpy: Didnt see Rf7 but Bc7 was not that hard to spot;though did spend a couple of minutes determining that Rg7 didn't work. |
|
Feb-04-17
 | | Jimfromprovidence: If black plays 27...Kf8 then if 28 Qxc7 Bd6 follows, here is the position.
click for larger viewThe bishop skewers rook and queen. Even though white can check with 29 Qd8+ after 29...Be8 (the reason for 27...Kf8) the queen has limited mobility and white's g rook and b pawn are under attack. 
click for larger viewThis does not look like an easy victory. |
|
Feb-04-17
 | | Dionysius1: That's one of the things I like about Spassky's play up to the 80s. Full of basic tactics I can understand but he spots the opportunities and then strings the tactics together with perception and logic. It's as if he's saying "See, chess is simple - I play the same chess you play, it's just that I can string the elements together soo much more than you do". More like he's demonstrating what chess is capable of and inviting me to enjoy it. |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | CountryGirl: Got Bc7, but did not see Rxf7. Powerful stuff, Boris! |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | mel gibson: The computer says:
26.
Bc7 (26. Bc7 (♗f4-c7 ♖c8xc7 ♕e1-e5 ♔g8-f8 a2-a4 ♖c7xc3 ♖c1xc3 ♖b6-d6 h2-h3
♖d6-d1+ ♔h1-h2 ♕a5-b6 ♖c3-c8+ ♗e7-d8 ♕e5xg7+ ♔f8-e7 ♕g7-g5+ ♔e7-f8 ♖c8xd8+
♕b6xd8 ♕g5xd8+ ♖d1xd8 a4xb5 ♖d8-b8 ♖g3-b3 ♔f8-e7 ♔h2-g3 ♔e7-d6 ♔g3-f4
♖b8-b6 g2-g4) +0.92/16 72)
Less than a pawn advantage: +0.92 depth 16.
This is a draw. |
|
| Feb-04-17 | | transpose: Although I saw Qe5, I did not foresee Rxf7 and Qc8, the latter is an amazing demonstration of chess vision, realizing that Black cannot save the bishop with queen or rook. Was it Fischer who said Spassky could lose a piece and you'd never know from his countenance whether he had blundered or sacrificed? Spassky was an attacking genius. |
|
Feb-05-17
| | Dionysius1: Having just played through Keene vs V Kovacevic, 1973 with Keene's comments, I am changing my mind. Not about how much I like Spassky's style but thinking now it probably isn't the one true way to play chess. Spassky's style is so attractive to me because I learnt about tactics in a classical setting and that's what Spassky demonstrates so well.
But Keene's games, which seem so frustrating and ugly to me, only do so (I think) because I haven't learnt to think of chess the way Nimzovitch did. For someone who has studied My System, Keene's way of playing is probably beautiful because it is the often successful demonstration of Nimzovitch's principles.
Maybe then it comes down to whether Nimzovitch or the classical way of looking at chess is more beautiful, but that is almost in the realms of aesthetic philosophy. For the pragmatist I guess the answer to which is the more effective in combat has to be the classical system, because that seems to win more games. |
|
| Feb-19-17 | | Moszkowski012273: 29.Rg4... is substantially stronger. |
|
Feb-20-17
| | Dionysius1: How so <Moszkowski012273>? If you can spare the time, can you summarise? I'm no good at following long lines of notation. Thanks |
|
| Feb-22-17 | | Moszkowski012273: The Bishop can't be saved. After 29...Bf6 we get 30.Rf4,Kg7 31.RxB,KxR 32.Ne4+... which is absolutely crushing. 29...g5 is even worse after 30.Qd8+...
Remember,,,, White is already up an exchange. |
|
| Feb-22-17 | | Moszkowski012273: But,,,of course,,, what was played IS still quite winning. |
|
Feb-23-17
| | Dionysius1: Very nice :-) |
|
| Mar-30-20 | | takchess: The combination starting at Bishop c7 is incredibly slick. I need to look for more of these double attack possibilities . |
|
| Jun-04-20 | | tonsillolith: <takchess: The combination starting at Bishop c7 is incredibly slick. I need to look for more of these double attack possibilities> There's a concept called <tewari analysis> in go, which is how I might try to convince myself it's possible to see a move like Bc7. It refers to considering various reorderings of a sequence you have just calculated, and seeing how that affects the outcome. Of course, it makes perfect sense to talk about it in chess context alone, but I'd never given it a lot of thought. So here, then, <26. Qe5> attacking g7 is a very natural move to consider, but doesn't accomplish much. Considering which moves would be useful to play at <26.> and follow up with <27. Qe5> is what might lead us to consider <26. Bc7>. But that's not quite the same as reordering a move sequence, as the queen would impede the bishop if we reverse the order. I believe the frequency of that type of problem, invalidating moves by reordering them, is what makes talk of tewari analysis less common in chess. So we would just need to make appropriate mental modifications to the technique, but I still think it's possible. Or maybe my whole premise is bunk. |
|
Nov-18-20
 | | LRLeighton: tonsillolith, you are describing retrograde analysis, and it is definitely something that strong players use. In this particular game, the idea is that you would have already seen that the move Qe5 would threaten mate on g7. You recognize that g7 is a tactical target. Once you recognize this, you look for a second potential target, and if one is not present, can you create one? In essence, you recognize that c7 is a potential tactical target, so can you make black move onto that square? If you think about the problem that way, then Bc7 is less hard to find. |
|
Jul-21-24
 | | OhioChessFan: Nice pun, strong game. |
|
Jul-21-24
 | | HeMateMe: Terrific game, love the pun. This is the tournament that Spassky had to win to get back into the good graces of the USSR sports federation after losing the title in '72 to Bobby Fischer. I think Spassky had been banned from international tournaments for a time because of the embarrassing loss to an American. This got Boris's travel privileges reinstated. Unlike Viktor Korchnoi, who also lost travel privileges at one point, Spassky didn't defect. Boris is one of those players that everyone seems to like. That's a nice thing, that we have chessplayers like that. Others that come to mind are: 1. Mikhail Tal. If you don't like the magic of Tal then you shouldn't even be playing chess. Go find a pickleball paddle, dammit. 2. Magnus Carlsen. Some people are of course jealous, envious, dislike his dominance. But Joe chess fan, the 1400 player who likes to look at a few games every now and then loves the sheer dominance of MC, the amazing talent and consistency. 3. Capablanca. A Talesque player, all casual chess players love his talent. A good guy, no weird stuff going on. He died young, unfortunately. 4. Pal Benko. Great chess author, played all of the great players of his era. 5. Alexi Shirov. Not as dominant as Tal, but such a gifted tactician. One gets sheer joy playing through his best games. 6. Yasser Seirawan. YAZ! Fine player, terrific chess author and commentator. Everyone likes the Seattle GM. 7. Judit Polgar. No downside. Just one brilliancy after another. She bucked the system and kicked some ass. Really. Just speak to the victims. 8. John Nunn. Astounding talent, potent longevity. Has written some great books. I own some of them. 9. Fred Reinfield. Not strong enough? Tuff shid. Every kid who got into chess got a hold of the 1,000 tactics book. If such kid got off his ass and was able to solve every problem quickly without sight of the board then he was 1800 and the best player in his school. 10. Emanuel Lasker. What about Lasker? Just a smelly old guy who hung around forever? Lasker was also a master of checkers and backgammon. World champion for 27 years. Taught the Russians a lesson in St. Pete. I like him. |
|
| Jul-21-24 | | morphynoman2: Chess Informant 16/333 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 30.Rxf7