< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Jul-05-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-...|
My analysis of this game ...
|Aug-09-11|| ||DrMAL: Total dominance, white got squeezed to the edges. Great ending with the runaway e-pawn. Happy Birthday Kavalek!|
|Aug-30-11|| ||SirChrislov: "As far as I'm concerned I do readily admit: There is no life for me without the g7 bishop.|
The reason for this is perhaps a game from the 1962 Student Olympiad in which I fell victim to the g7 bishop.
Before the match USSR-Czechoslovakia, a friendly football game took place in which Kavalek took a beating. This man swore he would get his revenge in the chess match, by beating me!" --E. Gufeld, My life in chess: The search for La Gioconda
|Aug-30-11|| ||SirChrislov: And what revenge!|
|Oct-28-11|| ||Crazychess1: Such a great final position. . .|
|Nov-29-11|| ||Eduardo Bermudez: I like too much 27. Rxc5 !!|
|Dec-27-11|| ||King Death: More than once in this game White must have thought he was consolidating
until his opponent came up with imaginative idea after another. The move 6.Ng5 isn't one I remember seeing before. If I remember right White usually plays 6.Bc6 dc 7.Ne5 or Nfd2.|
|Jan-21-12|| ||Eduardo Bermudez: You know something? Black has all his pawns in the final position !!|
|Mar-18-12|| ||edyedzer: Half century ago !!|
|Sep-14-12|| ||Six66timesGenius: Nice Game!!|
|Sep-14-12|| ||hugogomes: The sac is Rxd2 not Nf6. After Nf6 black gets 3 pawns for the knight, which is not a sacrifice.|
|Dec-03-12|| ||vinidivici: 23...Rxd2 is very plausible move. Very imaginative thought by Kavalek but nothin near marvel or what, it just a very good move. White down a knight, right, but f2 pawn is defended by rook and bishop. And the f2 pawn is now same as strong as a rook soon would be defended by e-pawn, after 23.Ke2, the white knight is a threat bcoz it could move to c4. But only from now, Kavalek considered his pawn as a rook that had to be protected by bishop.
23...Rxd2 and now black f2 pawn strong as hell, b6 bishop could be preserved relentlessly. Say, if white 25.c4 (instead Bf8) then 25...Bd4|
26...Rg4, again Kavalek foresaw the 27.Bc5, and again, to protect the bishop.
So maybe 27...Rxc5 looks very miraculous for some of readers. But again we got the benefits of whatever our predecessors have done/said. They say the connected passed pawns at 6th pawn same strong as rook and we got a pawn chain even better it touches the 7th rank (stronger than rook). After 27...Rxc5 28.bxc5 Bxc5, square e3 defended by bishop and soon the black pawn would go there and thats why white done 31.Rd4 to prevent white dominated the e3 pawn.
But its too late, after 32...Kf4, e3 square dominated by black, and remember connected passed pawns at the 6th rank same as strong as a rook. Beside that white has 3 more pawns compared black 5 pawns. It loss for white.
Of course a GM like Kavalek foresaw those possibilities when 23...Rxd2. But it could be explained by logics and that shows he knows the theory and applied it in the game. He considered f2 pawn as his weapon same as a rook; he didnt mind sacrificed another rook for a bishop (27...Rxc5) because he considered his 7th rank pawn as a rook; he knew to protect his "rook", he had to protect the bishop; and finally at the end of the game, he had more pawns than his opponent, moreover his opponents rook weaker than his "rook" because it touched the 7th rank.
So it really how the way you see your pieces, one of my ex-teachers (2400+ FIDE) always emphasized that kind of thought. So when theres a theory, theres a reason behind that, better we believe those and apply it in the game. Some players failed to be a GM (i know some users though), they just achieved "a weak master" or they changed the profession because they very stubborn to learn it and even they devoured the theories but they underestimated most of them.
|Dec-03-12|| ||perfidious: <vinidivici: 23...Rxd2 is very plausible move. Very imaginative thought by Kavalek but nothin near marvel or what, it just a very good move....>|
Most of us have lower standards for appealing ideas and moves, I suppose.....
<....we got the benefits of whatever our predecessors have done/said....>
Learning in chess, same as many other things in life, may be described the same way.
<....So when theres a theory, theres a reason behind that, better we believe those and apply it in the game. Some players failed to be a GM (i know some users though), they just achieved "a weak master" or they changed the profession because they very stubborn to learn it and even they devoured the theories but they underestimated most of them.>
Is the point of this incoherent mishmash to denigrate those players who have forsaken chess in favour of other things?
The storm flag goes up when I see terms such as 'weak master' or 'weak grandmaster'. Most often these utterings emanate from players who haven't a prayer of getting near such a level themselves, whatever the reason.
My guess is that this player's teacher would never use the phrase 'weak GM'.
This was a marvellous concept by the young Kavalek and anyone would be proud to play such a game, including a weak player such as myself.
|Dec-03-12|| ||vinidivici: <My guess is that this player's teacher would never use the phrase 'weak GM'.>|
I bet he is. He got the big ego, but most of the GMs i know have that kind of manner. For him theres no word such a "weak". Once you are a GM, you are no weak anymore.
I just want to show that if you apply the theory right in the place, you could achieve something incredible like this game. Well, its kind of helping you guys.
|Dec-03-12|| ||vinidivici: <'weak master'>
you see the quotation marks of that word, it purely a satire. i didnt trigger those words. lol...i remember a user considered him/herself as a "weak master".
|Feb-08-13|| ||FSR: It's cool that Kavalek kept all eight of his pawns for the entire game.|
|Dec-25-13|| ||transpose: One of my all-time favorite games. Sac of both rooks--especially the rook lift to g5 followed by its sac for the bishop on c5--and the final position with all 8 pawns--makes for a lasting impression.|
|Jan-26-14|| ||offramp: I have to keep counting the black pawns - it always looks to me as if black has 6 or 7 pawns when in reality he has all 8.|
|Jan-26-14|| ||morfishine: Kavalek's "Immortal"
But the victim, Gufeld, has his "Immortal" too: Bagirov vs Gufeld, 1973
|Jan-26-14|| ||offramp: <morfishine: Kavalek's "Immortal"
But the victim, Gufeld, has his "Immortal" too: Bagirov vs Gufeld, 1973...>|
The difference is that Gufeld <NEVER> stops talking about his game.
|Jan-26-14|| ||morfishine: <offramp> Very funny, accept I sincerely hope he is not taking about his game: He passed away in 2002|
|Feb-12-14|| ||mcgee: For those of you who love chess coincidences, here's Korchnoi also in an Olympiad, also winning with Black on move 32, also with all of his eight pawns on the board, also pieces down.. |
J Diez del Corral vs Korchnoi, 1978
..and then going on to Kavalek in the final round of the same Olympiad to win gold on board one
Korchnoi vs Kavalek, 1978
|Feb-13-14|| ||FSR: <morfishine> Gufeld doesn't brag about this game anymore, what with being dead and all. But my understanding is that yes, he did love talking and writing about it. He called it "La Gioconda" - Italian for "Mona Lisa." That is appropriate, since I've read that da Vinci constantly plugged that painting and told everyone that it was the greatest painting ever.|
|Feb-13-14|| ||morfishine: <FSR> So, the vanity started with Da Vinci! |
I'm sure you know Gufeld's "Immortal" is one of the games in the book "The World's Greatest Chess Games" by Burgess, Nunn and Emms. In the notes it mentions Gufeld's quote on this game: "Every artist dreams of creating his own Mona Lisa, and every chess player of playing his own Immortal Game. No game has given me as much satisfaction as this one. To this day I feel happiness when remembering it. In such moments all my failures at the chessboard are forgotten, leaving only the joy of a dream come true"
Chess is one endeavor that I have no problem whatsoever with someone being proud of one's own great effort. To me, this is justified due to all the inevitable and painful losses incurred along the way. Its funny how one great game can make it all seem worthwhile. I think thats what Gufeld was trying to say
|Feb-13-14|| ||FSR: <morfishine> I'm very fond of this game myself: K Thompson vs F Rhine, 1992|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·