chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing


register now - it's free!
Boris Spassky vs Artur Yusupov
Linares (1990)  ·  Spanish Game: Morphy Defense. Tarrasch Variation (C77)  ·  0-1
To move:
Last move:

explore this opening
find similar games 11 more Spassky/Yusupov games
sac: 16...Rxf3 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Click on the e8 square to see a computer engine analysis of the position.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with the default chess viewer, please see the Pgn4web Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
Oct-08-15  DrGridlock: Before computers, just about anything a grandmaster wrote was accepted as deeply insightful. In this game, Yusupov commented after 18 Nxf3+

At this point I took rather a fainthearted decision - to head for an ending a pawn up, which I was not certain to win. I should of course have carried on with the attack, but unfortunately I miscalculated. It seemed to me that the position after 18 ... Rf8 19 Bxe5 dxe5 20 Qd4 was not entirely clear. But by looking just a little further I could have reached the opposite conclusion: 20 ... Qg5+ 21 Qg4 Qf6, and Black has a fearsome attack. I am afraid the game continuation was much more prosaic.

Analysis by Komodo finds that Black's attack is not so "fearsome":


click for larger view

1. (0.90): 22.Qg3 h5 23.Re3 h4 24.Qxe5 Qg6+ 25.Kf1 Qxc2 26.Qe6+ Kh7 27.Qg4 Qxb2 28.Rd1 Kg8 29.Qe6+ Kh7 30.Qe7 Qf6 31.Qxf6 Rxf6 32.Ke2 Rf7 33.Rd4 g5 34.b4 Kg6 35.Rd8

and that in fact, Black has thrown away his positional advantage so that it is White who now has the significant winning chances.

As a personal observation, it seems that most GM analysis mistakes vs computer analysis seem to over-state the "fearsomeness" of an attack, and do not find a defensive resource that computers seem to find.

Oct-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gypsy: <... As a personal observation, it seems that most GM analysis mistakes vs computer analysis seem to over-state the "fearsomeness" of an attack, and do not find a defensive resource that computers seem to find.>

Thx!

Oct-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Dr Gridlock

As a personal observation, it seems that most GM analysis mistakes vs computer analysis seem to over-state the "fearsomeness" of an attack, and do not find a defensive resource that computers seem to find.>

On the other hand, just because a computer thinks an attack isn't fearsome doesn't mean that a human being won't be scared, and rightly. Computers don't get nervous, they're not bothered by defending difficult positions under constant threat of mate, and they don't make trivial tactical oversights, so of course they are great defenders. Humans, even grandmasters, generally aren't like that.

Oct-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <DrGridlock: Before computers, just about anything a grandmaster wrote was accepted as deeply insightful....>

Sure--by those who cannot, or will not, think for themselves.

The ability to think critically is a vital trait, and not only in chess.

Oct-08-15  DrGridlock: <The ability to think critically is a vital trait, and not only in chess.>

We're in agreement on that point.

Who has thought more critically:
- One who makes a sweeping judgment that, "Black has a fearsome attack" or - One who examines the concrete lines in a particular position to determine whether an attack breaks through or does not?

Think critically before you reply :)

Oct-08-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Looks pretty fearsome to me. (laughs)
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Round One, Game #6
from Linares 1990 by suenteus po 147
14.d4? f5!!
from Legend Yusupov by Gottschalk
Round 1
from Linares 1990 by TheAnalyser


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies