| Jun-18-08 | | mate2900s: final position look at those bishops pawn just marches in for a touchdown |
 |
| Jun-23-08 | | Xeroxx: Black plays a poor marshall.
Nh5 doesnt look too good, instead we would have preferred Ng4. |
|
| Jun-23-08 | | JohnTal: What would Mischa have played against 17... Rae8? Would Tal trade his Q for 2 R's, and allow his opponent to interpose at f1. With a weakened K-side, if Witkowski simply plays the Kt to f6/g4 --- coupled with an undeveloped Q-side, I would like his prospective chances. Instead, I polished off his attacking dreams with my 21st - 23rd moves and gave myself a winning endgame 2 pawns to the good. A nice warmup game before I faced my fellow Mikhail B for the WC. |
|
Sep-28-11
 | | thegoodanarchist: Black lasted longer than some of the more famous players did against Tal in this time period |
|
Feb-07-13
 | | Richard Taylor: Nh5 is the preferred move of my computer.
Black's error is Qh4. Instead Bg4 is about = which means Black has winning chances as he is a pawn down. |
|
Feb-07-13
| | Richard Taylor: But overall it seems if White plays accurately the Marshall is simply not sound. I don't know if Tal ever played it. |
|
Feb-07-13
 | | Shams: <Richard Taylor> The Marshall is doing quite well actually, in theory and practice. Not for nothing did Kasparov play the anti-Marshall lines. Maybe Houdini can win with White but the GMs don't seem able to. |
|
Feb-07-13
 | | Benzol: <Richard> Tal certainly got a lot of experience playing against it with Spassky in their 1965 Candidates match. |
|
| Feb-07-13 | | goldenbear: Spassky's win was more stylish... Spassky vs S Witkowski, 1959 |
|
Feb-10-13
| | Richard Taylor: <Benzol><Shams> I was preparing it for (tonight ie Monday in NZ!) as I have played against it a lot in Blitz and once faced it and did quite well. I also used the anti-Marshall against (two Club opponents) mainly as I think to play against it is more psychologically difficult - hence partly the success of gambits. I think the point (or a point) is that as far as I can recall Tal rarely used Gambits. He just played open lines in the main lines (more or less)in other words he, in fact like Botvinnik and others, attacked from a position of strength. In fact some of the best attacking games I have seen were by Karpov including one where he demolishes Tal (also Timman and Korchnoi et al), and one game where he (unlike Fischer) in the Poison Pawn of the Najdorf won quiet brilliantly in the same line that Fischer did badly against Spassky... Here my computer is dubious of this line but I agree that this line is sharp but I feel that my opponent tonight is relatively o.k. in such positions although I know there are some terrible traps...one being the old Qxf7+ followed by mate on e8 - hence the line where Black cheskc son h2 whihc has caught me out a lot on FICS (3 minute games though!!)... Although I love complications attacks etc as Benzol will confirm I don't like Gambits as I feel they somehow are "wrong". This is more a psychological feeling though as it is irrelevant in a way what computers come up with within limits... |
|
Feb-10-13
| | Richard Taylor: <Benzol> I will have look at that match (as the point is it is Tal who is I presume fighting off the attack) esp. as I think I have it in my book by Wade of the WCs matches or you might have it...I don't see the 1948 WCs as as a group anywhere (on here I mean). I am playing through that as I have the book by Golombek - also some of Capablanca's games. Capa certainly put Marshall in his place even though he omitted Re2...Sarapu used to like talking about how Capa refuted Marshall OTB...although it seems that on the occasion he smelt a rat! |
|
