|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-17-03 | | THE GENERAL: what is four roses? |
|
| Jan-17-03 | | ughaibu: A brand of rye whisky. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | Brian Watson: After 21...Qxc4 (unpinning the knight at e6, defending the knight at c3 and threatening Qxf1#)what does white do next? 22.Rf8+ no longer works. |
|
| Jul-31-03 | | xu fei: <Brian Watson> 21...Qxc4 22.Qxe6+ simply removes the defender of f8 with tempo, and then either recapture allows 23.Rf8+ Rxf8 24.exf8=Q++. |
|
| Aug-01-03 | | Brian Watson: Right, of course, I didn't see that both defenders are gone after 21...Qxc4 22.Qxe6+ |
|
| Mar-20-06 | | zev22407: Tal "sac" his knight' his rook and twice his queen. |
|
| Mar-20-06 | | Jim Bartle: Just from memory, rule #1 with black against Tal: don't let a knight get a shot at the f7 pawn, ever. |
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: Position before 21 ♕e5!!:
click for larger viewAmazing how the White g5-bishop attacks the d8-square through the White e7-pawn along the h4-d8 diagonal while the Black c5-queen defends the f8-square through the White e7-pawn along the a3-f8 diagonal. Tal was just a pure tactical genius.
|
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: <Jim Bartle: Just from memory, rule #1 with black against Tal: don't let a knight get a shot at the f7 pawn, ever.> This game is the subject of an ICC lecture on the topic of ♘xf7 sacrifices. |
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: <Brian Watson: Right, of course, I didn't see that both defenders are gone after 21...Qxc4 22.Qxe6+.>
click for larger viewYes, this variation demonstrates a beautiful example of <ILLUSORY PROTECTION>, a form of <REMOVAL OF THE GUARD>. After 21 ... ♕x♗ 22 ♕x♘+!, neither the Black c8-bishop nor the Black c4-queen which defended the Black e6-knight can perform the defensive task that this knight was performing, that of defending the f8-mating focal point. Dr. Tarrasch referred to this as <ILLUSORY PROTECTION>: the Black c8-bishop and c4-queen protect the Black e6-knight from material loss but they cannot perform the critical defensive task of the piece that they are replacing by recapturing. |
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: <xu fei: <Brian Watson> 21...Qxc4 22.Qxe6+ simply removes the defender of f8 with tempo, and then either recapture allows 23.Rf8+ Rxf8 24.exf8=Q++.> What a beautiful variation that is: 21 ♕e5!! ♕x♗ 22 ♕x♘+! ♗x♕ 23 ♖f8+ ♖x♖ 24 exf8=♖+. |
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: 21 ♕e5!! is one of the best examples of <REMOVE THE GUARD> that I have ever seen. Attack the defender, <REMOVE THE GUARD>. Attack the defender (Black c5-queen) of the f8-mating focal point with a non-mating piece (White e2-queen) from a square not in the defensive complex (e5-square) and attack something else at the same time (undefended Black c3-knight, <DOUBLE ATTACK>). It is very important that 21 ♕e5!! also threatens 22 ♕x♘c3, otherwise Black would just move his c5-queen to a3 or b4, keeping it in contact with the f8-mating focal point (i.e., relocate the defender to another square in the defensive complex). Doing that in this position loses the Black c3-knight to 22 ♕x♘c3!, since the Black queen cannot leavc the a3-f8 diagonal without allowing mate on f8. 21 ♕e5!! ♕a3 22 ♕xc3! ♕x♕? 23 ♖f8+ ♖xf8 24 exf8=♕#
|
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: <xu fei: <Brian Watson> 21...Qxc4 22.Qxe6+ simply removes the defender of f8 with tempo, and then either recapture allows 23.Rf8+ Rxf8 24.exf8=Q++.> I really like this variation. The Black e6-knight does not defend the f8-mating focal point because it is fully <PINNED> to the Black g8-king along the a2-g8 diagonal by the White c4-bishop. The defensive power of a pinned piece is merely illusory; here the Black e6-knight only pretends to defend the f8-square because what it actually does is block the a2-g8 diagonal. With 21 ... ♕xc4, Black breaks this <PIN> by capturing the pinning piece. Now the Black e6-knight does indeed defend the f8-square since it is no longer pinned to the Black king, i.e., it no longer must block the a2-g8 diagonal. White needs this e6-knight -not- to defend the f8-square, so what does he do then since this knight is not pinned anymore? White plays 22 ♕x♘+!, <REMOVING THE GUARD> by illusory protection, and with check to boot. A knight defender must itself be defended by the other knight in order not to have its guard removed by capturing it. Since the Black e6-knight is defended not by another knight but by the Black d7-bishop and c4-queen, no matter how Black recaptures he will have lost a defender of the critical f8-square and mate will result. 21 ♕e5!! ♕xc4 22 ♕xe6+! ♕xe6 23 ♖f8+ ♖xf8 24 exf8=♕# |
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: This game has so many <X-RAYS>. 1) White g5-bishop <X-RAYS> the d8-square through the White e7-pawn 2) Black c5-queen <X-RAYS> the f8-square through the White e7-pawn 3) White d8-rook <X-RAYS> the f8-square through the Black e8-rook 4) Black a8-rook tries to <X-RAY> the f8-square through the White d8-rook but -fails(!)- to do so because the White d8-rook is not forced to go to the f8-square. This fourth point is critical. The White d8-rook <X-RAYS> the f8-square through the Black e8-rook because the Black e8-rook is forced to capture on f8 after 23 ♖f8+ ♖xf8, thereby extending the line of attack of the White d8-rook to f8. But the Black a8-rook does -not- <X-RAY> the f8-square through the White d8-rook because the White d8-rook never actually goes to f8 (which -would- extend the line of action of the Black a8-rook to the f8-square). The White d8-rook just stays put on the d8-square and supports the e7-pawn promoting on f8. |
|
| Jun-18-06 | | notyetagm: This tactical bludgeoning is what it must have been like to play Anderssen. |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | CapablancaFan: <notyetagm> has already analyzed this game extensively, so I won't add to much to it, but to say...wow! Sidenote: The light-squared bishop on c4 played a very critical part to Tal's whole combonation. How far ahead had he seen? |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | Calculon: Wouldn't 17 ... be6 enable black to put up better resistance? |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | Manic: Wow I'm surprised that this game has not been commented on more. This could have been a good puzzle at move 20 or, of course, move 21. I wonder how many people would see 21.Qe5!! in a real game. |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | notyetagm: <CapablancaFan: <notyetagm> has already analyzed this game extensively, so I won't add to much to it, but to say...wow! Sidenote: The light-squared bishop on c4 played a very critical part to Tal's whole combonation. How far ahead had he seen?> Tal was simply a tactical =genius= with tactical skills =far= beyond those of mere mortal GMs. |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | notyetagm: I have not looked at this game since my extensive comments from last year. Having just reviewed this game today, all I can say is "***damn, Tal was a tactical genius!". |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | notyetagm: <Manic: ... I wonder how many people would see 21.Qe5!! in a real game.> Many of the kibitzers here would have spotted 21 ♕e5!! instantly, it is such an obvious move. :-) |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <notyetagm> & <Manic> I think most would see that 21.Bxe6 wins handily, so it would not have been a good puzzle. But indeed, Qe5 is really pleasant. I wonder whether the black really missed seeing the mate in two after QxQ, or did he play this to terminate the lost game quickly (could've refused the sac, after all). |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | gandu: ...and yet, wouldn't have 21 Bxe6+ even better than 21 Qe5 ?? Then 21...Kh8 (taking with the bishop leads to mate) and 22 Qh5. |
|
| Sep-04-07 | | BishopofBlunder: Not since the likes of Morphy has there been a player with the tactical prowess of Tal. |
|
Sep-04-07
 | | Richard Taylor: Incredible game! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 15.Nxf7