|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Feb-27-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: Resignation Trap, thanks for your help, I missed it on my initial search. Tud, Capablanca did play ...c4 but the conditions were nowhere near the same. The pawn structure is completely different and the move, and I emphasize this point, was part of the middle game, and not straight out of the opening, which means that Capablanca did not prematurely commit himself. In that setup, playing ...c4 was a necesity for counterplay on the queenside, here it just shuts it off. |
 |
| Feb-28-04 |
| 731: Lau > I don't know, it looks nice and tactical and clean, that's just my intuitive opinion about the move, I might be wrong, maybe Capablanca had a similiar opinion "this looks nice..."
and the confidence to defend his error if it wasn't so nice later on or something of the sort |
|
| Feb-28-04 |
| Lawrence: Sorry guys but Capa, Fritz, and Junior all think 9...c4 is hunky dory. |
|
| Feb-28-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: Lawrence, I'm not up on slang, what's that supposed to mean? "Hunky" means "brawny" and "dory" is actually the word for a little boat... So Junior says 9...c4 creates a brawny boat for Capa????? |
|
| Feb-28-04 |
| Lawrence: Ben, I also used to think that must be the origin, a really strong rowboat that they would use when fishing for cod at the Grand Banks, but if you put hunky dory origin in Google you'll find something interesting that has to do with our esteemed colleague ughaibu. |
|
| Feb-28-04 |
| Benjamin Lau: Hmmmm... |
|
| Mar-03-04 |
| 731: Hey Lawrence, do you analyse every single possible move three ply deep? or just the two moves that look best? Your clock must tick away, but that's a pretty cool strategy, hard to make simple blunders anyway I guess. |
|
| Mar-03-04 |
| Lawrence: 731, I recommend Dan Heisman's columns in chesscafe.com. First of all you look at the general situation. Any threats? Then you look for your best candidate moves, probably 2 or 3 of them. I move, what are his possible moves, then what can I do? It requires a level of concentration that I have never applied to chess before but it is paying off, I really am getting better. Problem is it's so easy to lose your concentration and slip back into "hopechess" i.e. make a move and pray. |
|
| Mar-03-04 |
| 731: Lawrence, ok I'll have a look at the columns when I have time, but choosing 2 or 3 candidate moves and analysing their continuations is rather elementary is it not? Once in my very first real chess games last year I lost to some 13-year-old polish kid with 2 bad blunders and after that game I made a system which I'd go by which is a bit like yours but I said to myself I'd analyse the functions, threats and outcomes of every move on the board, I think I did so in the next game or something but then I naturally went back to my normal 75% analysis of attack/25% defense, intuitive 1 or 2 candidate move way of playing. But yesterday I made yet another blunder and lost when my opponent sacrificed a knight which after PxN BxN he had a bishop threatening mate and my rook so I thought "NO I lost my rook" but after the game I realised he wasn't threatening mate at all, I just thought he _must_ have been since he wouldn't have sacrificed his knight otherwise, right?
This is typical sacrificial-psychology, which is why objectively unsound eccentric moves often work, but this time I'M the victim zxlcvnz.x,mn.xzvz.xv.z,xm82136912359127863129087631902. |
|
| Mar-03-04 |
| Lawrence: 731, I've got to admit it sounds obvious yet it requires a tremendous mental effort to keep it up move after move after move. I don't play in tournaments or anything but the few friendly games I do play have shown a marked improvement. During my opponent's time I count up every possible move of his on the board so there's not one of his possibilities that I haven't quickly glanced at. Also, exactly 2 years ago I started studying tactics. Before that I didn't know what "opposition" was, for example, and couldn't see a mate in one let alone a mate in two. And just in the past week or two, thanks to all the games I'm studying in chessgames.com, I'm starting to be able to remember just about a complete game. |
|
| Mar-06-04 |
| 731: Lawrence, yes that's nice, I guess mental effort pays off, I think correspondence games are also a way to improve one's chess. |
|
| Nov-28-04 |
| HOTDOG: 8...c5!?(better is 8...c6)
9.Nf3!(9.dxc5 Nxc5 10.Bxf6 Nxd3+ 11.Qxd3 Bxf6 12.Nxd5 Bxb2 is good for Black)
9...c4(if 9...b6 10.Ne5!)
11...g6(11...Nf8? 12.Bxc8 Rxc8 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Qf5 and White is a pawn up.)
14.Bxf6!(good move that weakens the d5 pawn)
15.b3!(threatening 16 bxc4 Rxc4 17.Qb3 and 18.Nd2.if 15...Ne6 16.bxc4 dxc4 17.Rab1)
16.b4!(if now 16...Qxb4? 17.Rab1 Qd6 18.Rxb7)
17.Qa4!(threatening Qxa7 and Qb5)
21.bxa6(21.Rfb1? a5 22.b6 Bb4)
25.Ne5!?(better was 25.Kh1,26.Ng1,27.Nge2 and 28.Nb5 to make pressure on the d5 pawn.the Ne2 will go to c3 or to f4)
26.f4!?(weakening the e3 pawn.however White is still slightly better)
31.Nfd1!(beginning the correct plan indicated in the commentary to White's 25th move)
37...Qe7!(the only move for Black to hang tough)
45...Bxg5?(the losing move.better 45...Qe6! 46.Rd2 Qf5 47.Qe2 with a complex fight)
49.Qxd5!(49.Nxa4? Qd3+ 50.Kc1 Ba3+,or 50.Ke1 Bh4+ and Black wins.after 49.Qxd5 White has a won position.) |
|
| Dec-10-05 |
| aw1988: Reshevsky has to be one of the greatest prodigies ever. |
|
| Mar-25-06 |
| you vs yourself: Kasparov's analysis:
<16.b4!> "White's activity is too dangerous after 16...Qxb4?! 17.Rfb1 Qd6 18.Rxb7 a6 19.Rab1 Re6 20.Qa4. But now it appears that the movement of the pawn from b2 to b4 is advantageous to Black, since he has acquired a potentially dangerous passed c-4 pawn." Source: OMGP IV, page 17.
Does anyone understand why he gave 16.b4 an ! and then decided the position is actually advantageous to black, had black played the dubious 16...Qxb4? |
|
Mar-25-06
 |
| euripides: <you> very hard to say without context, but the way I would interpret your quotation is that 'Now' means 'after 16...Qd8' and 'it appears' means 'it appears but it turns out not to be so'. |
|
| Mar-25-06 |
| you vs yourself: <euripides> You're probably right. BTW, Kasparov was very liberal with the exclamation marks for this game. Which means, this is definitely a game to study. For instance, he gave !s for white's moves 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. |
|
| Mar-29-06 |
| you vs yourself: <25.Ne5!?(better was 25.Kh1,26.Ng1,27.Nge2 and 28.Nb5 to make pressure on the d5 pawn.the Ne2 will go to c3 or to f4)> With <25.Ne5>, white was threatening 26.Nc6! After <25...Qe8>, Kasparov(in OMGP IV, pg: 17, 18) gives <26.f4> a ?. He suggests 26.Rb6, intending 27.Nc6! The line he gives is this: <25...Qe8> 26.Rb6 Na8 27.Nc6! Nxb6 28.Nxa7 Qd8 29.Qb2 Ra8 30.Qxb6 Qxb6 31.Rxb6 Rxa7 32.Kf1 In the above line, if 28...Bd8 29.a5 Nc8 30.Nxc8 Rxc8 31.Nxd5 Qc6 32.e4 Ra8 33.Ne3 c3 34.Nd5 Rxa5 35.Qxc3 Qxc3 36.Nxc3 Ra3 27.Nb5 etc. |
|
| May-02-06 |
| Octavia: John Littlewood discussed 15 - 22 in his "How to play the middle game in chess". He thought that the bl d pawn was the cause of all the trouble. It's interesting to see your comments about the weak 8...c4/9...c5 moves. It seems Capa lost the game because of his bad opening. |
|
| Feb-23-07 |
| shalgo: One of the interesting aspects of this game is its demonstration of Dvoretsky's idea of the "superfluous piece." Here, the battle centers around the d5-pawn. It is hard for white to attack it with both knights (although Nf4 might work at some point). Therefore, he has only one really good square for his knights (c3) and the second one is superfluous. By playing 32.Nb5!, white exchanges off the Black knight that is defending d5 and is ready to replace one knight on c3 with another (34.Nc3) right away. Pachman, in his Complete Chess Strategy, criticizes 25.Ne5 and 26.f4?!, suggesting instead Kh1, Ng1-e2, and then Nb5, carrying out this idea much faster than in the actual game. Because the Black rook is stuck on a7, he can't follow the usual advice in "superfluous piece" situations, by avoiding the exchange. |
|
Mar-17-07
 |
| technical draw: Reshevsky out simplifies Mr. Simplification himself. It's time for me to study Reshevsky who could be the most underated player in history. |
|
| Mar-18-07 |
| CapablancaFan: <technical draw><Reshevsky out simplifies Mr. Simplification himself. It's time for me to study Reshevsky who could be the most underated player in history.> Really? I don't know, but here's a game between them the following year. Reshevsky decides to go into an endgame with Cap...foolishly I might add. Capablanca vs Reshevsky, 1936 |
|
| Aug-09-07 |
| sanyas: After 45.Ke2 Qe6, not 46.Rb5 Qf5 47.Nxd5 Rxb5 48.Rxb5 Qc2+ 49.Ke1 Bxg5 50.Rxb6 Bd8 51.Rb8 Ba5+ 52.Kf1 c3 53.Qe2 Qe4 54.Qg2 Qd3+ 55.Qe2 Qe4. but 46.Kd2 Qf5 (46...Bxg5 47.Rxb6 Qf5 48.Qf1 Bd8 49.R6b5 Rd7 50.e4 Qe6 51.exd5 Qg4 52.d6 Raa7 53.d5 Rf7 54.Qf2 Qxf4+ 55.Qxf4 Rxf4 56.Rb7+ Rxb7 57.Rxb7+ Rf7 58.Rb8 Ba5 59.Rb5 Ra7 60.Kc2 Bxc3 61.Kxc3 h5 62.a5 h4 63.Kxc4 Kf6 64.Rb8 g5 65.Kb5 Ke5 66.Rg8) 47.Qe2 Rd7
(47...Rfa7 48.Rb5 Rxb5 49.Rxb5 Ra5 50.Rb2 Bc7 51.Qf1 Ra8 52.Rb5 Ra5 53.Qb1 Qxb1 54.Rxb1 Kf7 55.Rh1 Kg7 56.Ke2 Bd8 57.Kf3 Bc7 58.Kg4 Bd8 59.f5) (47...Bc7 48.Rb5 Rxb5 49.Rxb5 Rd7 50.Nxd5 Rxd5 51.Qxc4 Rxb5 52.Qxc7+ Kg8 53.axb5 Qxb5 54.Qd8+ Kg7 55.Qf6+ Kg8 56.Qe6+ Kf8 57.d5) 48.Rb5 Bc7
(48...Kg8 49.Qf1 Qe6 50.Rxa5 bxa5 51.Rb5 Be7 52.Qh1) (48...Rxb5 49.Rxb5 Rd6 50.Kc1 Qh3 51.Kc2 Qh1 52.e4 dxe4 53.d5 Rd7 54.Qxc4 Qh2+ 55.Kb3 Qxf4 56.Qd4+ Kg8 57.Nxe4 Bxg5 58.Rxb6 Re7 59.Nf6+ Kf8 60.Qxf4 Bxf4 61.d6 Re3+ 62.Kc4 h5 63.Rb8+ Kf7 64.d7 Bc7 65.Nd5 Re7 66.Rh8) 49.Rxa5 bxa5 50.Rb5 Bd8 51.Qf1 Bxg5 52.Rxa5 Rb7 53.Rb5 Rxb5 54.axb5 Bd8 55.Qb1 Qh3 56.b6 Qg2+ 57.Kc1 Qf1+ 58.Nd1 c3 59.b7 Qe2 60.Nxc3 Qxe3+ 61.Kc2 Bc7 62.Qb5 Qxf4 63.Qd7+ Kh6 64.Qxd5 Bb8 65.Qe4 Qf7 66.Ne2 Qc7+ 67.Kd3 Kg7 68.Ng1 Qf7 69.Nf3 h5 70.Ne5 should win, eg. 70...Qf1+ 71.Kd2 Qg1 72.Nf3 Qf2+ 73.Qe2 Qxe2+ 74.Kxe2 Bc7 75.Ne5 g5 76.Nc6 g4 77.b8=Q Bxb8 78.Nxb8 Kf6 79.Ke3 h4 80.Nd7+ Kf5 81.Nc5 h3 82.Ne4 Ke6 83.Ng3 Kf6 84.Ke4 Ke6 85.d5+. Nevertheless, Reshevsky's play must be deemed imperfect, as there were two clearer wins. On move 45: 45.Qg2! (not 45.Rb5 Bxg5 46.Nxd5 Bh4+ 47.Kf1 Qa3 48.Rxb6 Qd3+ 49.Kg2 c3 and Black might be winning) 45...Rf5 (45...Qe6 46.Rb5 Qf5 47.Qxd5 Qc2+ 48.Kf3. With the Queen on d3 Black is winning, on c2 White wins) 46.Ke2 Qe6 47.Qh3 Kg8 48.Kd2 Qd7 49.Rb5. On move 44: 44.Rb5 Qa3 45.Nxd5 Rxb5 46.Rxb5 Qxa4 47.Rb4 Qa6 48.Qe4 Qa2+ 49.Ke1 Qa1+ 50.Ke2 Qa2+ 51.Kd1 Qa1+ 52.Kc2 Qa2+ 53.Rb2 Qa4+ 54.Kd2 Qc6 55.Nc3 Qd7 56.g5 Re7 57.Qf3 Qf5 58.Qf1 Qe6 59.Qe2 Qf7 60.Qg4 Rd7 61.d5 Rd8 62.Qe2 Rxd5+ 63.Nxd5 Qxd5+ 64.Kc1 b5 65.Qd1 Qc6 66.Qd4+ Kg8 67.Rd2 b4 68.Qd5+ Qxd5 69.Rxd5 c3 70.Kc2 Bb6 71.Rd3 Bc5 72.e4 Be7 73.Rd7 Kf7 74.Rb7 Kf8 75.e5 Kf7 76.Rb6 Bc5 77.Rc6 Be7 78.e6+ Kg7 79.Rc7 Kf8 80.Rb7 zugzwang. |
|
Dec-27-08
 |
| whiteshark: Indeed, after <45...Qe6> it looks like a balanced position. Outcome  
click for larger view |
|
| Aug-11-09 |
| WhiteRook48: outcome" 1-0 |
|
Nov-26-09
|
| sackman: Intriguing king walk by Reshevsky (from h1 to d2 via d3) - his king looks insecure but he demonstrates it is actually quite safe |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
