< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Nov-06-06|| ||makaveli52: im scared. I was just reading the life and game of mikhail tal, and ended on this game. Then i log on click on the game of the day and its the exact same game. The final position is set up on the board behind me. Freaky.|
|Nov-06-06|| ||whatthefat: <ryanpd>
The nice follow up is:
<"And the following day, it was with pleasure that I read in the paper how Mikhail Tal, after carefully thinking over the position for 40 minutes, made an accurately-calculated piece sacrifice...">
|Nov-06-06|| ||Wild Bill: <aw1988: <Is it definitely unsound then?>>|
No; in fact, this one may be sound.
Please keep in mind that Tal's writings are peppered with wit and impish humor. He's very entertaining.
His remark that I quote was just a flippant way of dismissing his critics who found flaws in his sacrifices after extensive analysis.
Tal took a very practical approach to the game and his tactics: if the move confounds one's opponent at the board, it is a good move. In the story Tal tells of his game with Vasiukov, recounted for us be ryanrp, Tal basically came to the conclusion that that he couldn't figure out all the variations, then neither could Vasiukov.
Objectively speaking, <19. Nxg7!> could not have won the game by itself. Black had not yet made a fatal mistake. Fritz, the freeware version (4.01) calls the position before the sacrifice equal; after <25. Kh1>, Fritz still calls the position level, but I am inclined to call it a slight advantage for White in that he has an extra pawn, but Black has the initiative.
Black makes a mistake on his 28th move (<28. -- hxg6>), when he does better with <28. -- Rxe1+ 29. Rxe1 hxg6 30. Kxh2 Bxc4 31. b3 Bg8>, which my silicon sidekick says is equal. After <28. -- hxg6 29. Bxfg+>, Fritz evaluates the position as .
Returning to <19. Nxg7>, the alternatives were <19. Bd3 Nf4 20. Nxf4 Bxf5 21. b4 e5> with equality and <19. Bxd5 exd5 20. b3 Rad8 21. Rxd5 Bb7 22. Rd2 Rfe8 23. Qd1>, which Fritz also calls equal (here I am inclined to agree).
|Nov-06-06|| ||Confuse: to understand the name given to this game, check out <ryanpd> comment on page 2|
good stuff =)
|Nov-06-06|| ||perfidious: <Moonlit> This particular Soviet final
actually began in late 1964 and ended in 1965.
In his work, Tal's 100 Best Games, Bernard Cafferty remarked that on seeing Vasiukov play the Caro-Kann, Tal chose a line which required a great deal of experience to meet successfully, and that in the early middlegame Vasiukov's lack of feel for the opening soon showed, though I don't recall where Cafferty felt Black might have improved. (Obviously old age on my part-haven't looked at that book in many moons)
|Nov-06-06|| ||Peligroso Patzer: In addition to the spectacular Knight sacrifice, this game is wonderful for its instructive technique in winning a Rook plus Bishops-of-Opposite-Color ending.|
|Nov-06-06|| ||think: what is wrong with 19. ... Bxc4?|
|Nov-06-06|| ||kevin86: With so few pieces on the board,Tal manages to tie his opponent in knots. The rook is attacked,the bishop "pinned" and nothing can be done to stop white's pawn.|
|Nov-06-06|| ||aw1988: <think> 19..Bxc4 20. Rc1!|
|Nov-06-06|| ||Morphystyle: Shredder 8 gives 19. Bd3 as +.5 and its second choice is Tal's Nxg7 with -.09. The only real improvement after the sac for black would be 28...rxe1 (+.15) 29. Rxe1 hxg6 30. Kxh2 with Bxc4. This leads to a symetrical pawns structure with material equality with seems difficult to convert to a win. Awesome game.|
|Nov-06-06|| ||dehanne: It's easy to get a hippo out of a marsh. Just put Wayne Newton at the shore and make him sing.|
|Nov-06-06|| ||Andrew Chapman: < makaveli52: im scared >Yes, when we realise there is somebody out there who is able to arrange meaningful coincidences to get our attention for one reason or another, then we have reason to be afraid because for a start he must be a whole lot bigger than us. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom as the bible says. But the Saviour is kind and merciful thank God.|
|Nov-06-06|| ||makaveli52: <Andrew Chapman> I pray that Tal is the savior|
|Nov-07-06|| ||think: 19. ... Bxc4 20. Rc1 Bxe2 21. Rxc7 Bxc7 and black is up a rook. What am I missing?|
|Nov-07-06|| ||Petrocephalon: think: perhaps 19..Bxc4 20.Qd2, threatening either Qh6 (or Rc1 or Nxe6).|
|Nov-07-06|| ||Andrew Chapman: <I pray that Tal is the savior>The Saviour had to be without sin which would rule him out as also you and me.|
|Nov-08-06|| ||aw1988: How does one drag a hippo out of the marsh?
And please, no religious topics...
|Sep-07-07|| ||PolishPentium: Your friendly neighbourhood PP would like to suggest 25... Bxc4. Does not Black then win at least the exchange? Failing that, then, it seems to this duffer that 26 ... Rxe4 would also be better than what was played over the board.
|Mar-23-08|| ||Billy Vaughan: <Andrew Chapman>I would think that an omnipotent, omniscient deity would have better things to do than choreograph everyday coincidences.|
|Mar-24-08|| ||keypusher: <PolishPentium: Your friendly neighbourhood PP would like to suggest 25... Bxc4. Does not Black then win at least the exchange? Failing that, then, it seems to this duffer that 26 ... Rxe4 would also be better than what was played over the board. Comments, anyone? >|
Tal wrote that 25....Bxc4 fails to 26. Qg5, with the threats 27. Bxf6+ and 27. Rd7. If 26....Rxe4 27. Rd7 wins, says Tal.
|Sep-20-08|| ||pom nasayao: White's 57. Bg5 is very sly. Black may think o the immediate mate at his d8, but Tal has other tricks under his sleeve--the move f5.|
|Sep-21-08|| ||Madman99X: <Billy Vaughan: <Andrew Chapman>I would think that an omnipotent, omniscient deity would have better things to do than choreograph everyday coincidences.>|
At the risk of beating a dead horse: If the omnipotent, omniscient deity to which you refer is God about whom I read in the Bible, then he has a sense of humor, and being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and any other omni you can come up with, it would cost Him no effort to choreograph everyday coincidences, and I tend to think He just throws them out there for a good laugh sometimes. (Not that I claim to completely understand God.)
On the side, I'm glad that Tal is not the savior, as he tends to take risks that some would call unsound: 19. Nxg7 makes for very entertaining chess, but I wouldn't want to base the condition of my eternal soul on an intuitive sacrifice that not even *TAL* could calculate though every key variation. :-)
|Jan-16-09|| ||theodor: <keypusher: <PolishPentium: Your friendly neighbourhood PP would like to suggest 25... Bxc4. Does not Black then win at least the exchange? Failing that, then, it seems to this duffer that 26 ... Rxe4 would also be better than what was played over the board. Comments, anyone? >
Tal wrote that 25....Bxc4 fails to 26. Qg5, with the threats 27. Bxf6+ and 27. Rd7. If 26....Rxe4 27. Rd7 wins, says Tal.> hi, dear friends, I think that I've found the respons:
26...Rxe4 27.g3;Qe5(Qc7 28.Qf5!)
|Sep-03-09|| ||hedgeh0g: <19. ... Bxc4 20. Rc1 Bxe2 21. Rxc7 Bxc7 and black is up a rook. What am I missing?>|
I'd have thought the best response to 19...Bxc4 would be 20. Nxe6!, where some desperados follow and White ends up ahead in material with a pleasant position.
|Jun-19-12|| ||Whitehat1963: Typically brilliant attack from Tal. He and Topalov remind me of each other.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·