|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-13-03
 | | unclewalter: surely petrosian played BxN in time trouble!? |
 |
Dec-13-03
 | | Chessical: A very well played positional game by Nei topped off with a "!!" thirty-third move. In playing over this game, I belive it shows that (1). Nei was of GM strength but lacked the foreign tournament opportunies, and (2). the Czech Benoni is very hard to play. Perhaps 22...Nf5!? hitting the B was better? |
|
| Dec-13-03 | | euripides: Petrosian gets something like a King's Indian but then turns it back into a true Czech Benoni by the weird manoeuvre Bg7-f6-e7. Can this be right ? |
|
Dec-13-03
| | Chessical: Petrosian wants to play f5 for counterplay. If he retreated his B to h8 to stay on the a1/h8 diagonal, his K would be short of squares. Also, he can redeploy his N on h5 via g7. In a blocked position he has time for slow manoeuvers. |
|
Dec-13-03
 | | kevin86: A Reti-Tartakower remake. Surprizing that Pet-Rock would drop into it. |
|
| Dec-13-03 | | Marnoff Mirlony: I believe that Petrosian saw the attack, but his position was lost anyway. He probably played 32...Bxd3 saying to himself, "Lets see if I can get away with this." |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | pim: It seems to me that 15 .. f5 is the (a) problematic move, since after 17 f4 the knight is hanging and black has no time for e5-e4. So perhaps 15 .. Ng7 is a good way to prepare f5. |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | euripides: Pim - yes, 15...f5 is problematic. But if he had played 13...f5 he would have avoided this problem since the bishop hasn't yet got to e2; and his bishop looks better to me on g7 than it looks on e7 in the game. But sometimes Petrosian seems to choose indirection to keep his opponent guessing as much as anything. |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | pim: True Euripides, although after 13 .. f5 14 ef5: ef5: 15 Bh6 the black squares around black's king will be weakened (and after 15 .. f4 16 Bg7 Kg7 white might attempt breaking through with 17 g3). Perhaps that is why Petrosian relocated his bishop to e7 before playing f5: controling the black squares. |
|
| Oct-31-06 | | syracrophy: Wow! The "positional" king lost by this tactical oversight! What a delight! Believe me that when I saw this position in a book, I thought at the beggining that White was Petrosian. Then, when I checked properly the puzzle I realized that a perfect unknown crushed the former World Champion in a beautiful manner! For more examples of this mate, here are: J Schulten vs Horwitz, 1846 (the original) and Reti vs Tartakower, 1910 (the "copy" of the original) |
|
Jul-22-07
 | | notyetagm: In this game Petrosian (Black) makes an =incredibly= instructive tactical error. Black To Play: 32 ... ?
click for larger viewThis position is a perfect illustration of a tactical point that I call the <PRINCIPLE OF DEPENDS>: you must <DEPEND> upon <=YOUR=> pieces to keep critical lines closed, =not= the opponents pieces. Consider the above diagram from the actual game. Imagine if the Black g6-bishop and White g4-bishop were not on the board, shown below. 
click for larger viewThe White d5-queen on the open d5-g8 diagonal and the White g3-rook on the open g-file converge on the g8-square right next to the Black h8-king, which means that mate on g8 is in the air. So it is pretty clear that Black needs to keep the g-file closed (or the d5-g8 diagonal). It is =very= dangerous for Black to allow =both= of these lines to his h8-king to be open. Now in the actual game position, there are =two= pieces that <BLOCK> the g-file, the Black g6-bishop and White g4-bishop. And like we have stipulated, Black needs to keep the g-file closed. But the White g4-bishop is free to vacate the g-file any time it wants, which means that if Black wants to keep the g-file closed, he will have to keep the g-file <BLOCKED> using <=HIS=> pieces to so. That is, Black must <DEPEND> upon <=HIS=> Black g6-bishop to <BLOCK> the g-file; he cannot <DEPEND> upon the White g4-bishop staying on g4 and <BLOCKING> the White g3-rook forever. What this all means is that Petrosian needed to think really, really hard before playing the blunder 32 ...  g6x d3??, shown below. Position after 32 ... g6xd3??
click for larger view |
|
Jul-22-07
| | notyetagm: CONT'D
The newly-opened g-file is simply screaming "Danger, Will Robinson!" to Petrosian. Petrosian probably thought that he was ok because the White g4-bishop did not have any useful <DISCOVERIES> so that White could not open the g-file with a <GAIN OF TIME (TEMPO)>. Instead the <LOOSENESS> of the g8-square that is <DEFENDED> only by the Black h8-king and the fact that =both= the White g4-bishop and g3-rook can control the g8-square suggests that White might be able to exploit the opening of the g-file by 32 ... g6xd3?? with a <DECOY> into a <DOUBLE CHECK>, 33  d5-g8+!!. Position after 32 ... g6xd3?? 33 d5-g8+!!
click for larger viewPetrosian resigns because he is mated after 33 ...  h8xg8 34 g4-e6++ <double check> g8-h8 35  g3-g8#, shown below. 
click for larger viewIf Petrosian had just kept in mind how important it was for him to <DEPEND> upon <=HIS=> Black g6-bishop to keep the crucial g-file <BLOCKED>, then maybe he would have seen the forced mate in 3 that he overlooked. |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | bumpmobile: How deep is a frog pond?
About "Nei Deep". |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | Once: This is a curiousity - the master defender not spotting a mate in 3. I suppose we all make mistakes from time to time. We patzers make them all the time, and no-one really notices or cares. A world chamopion Petrosian drops the very rare error and we remember it for years afterwards. Nei played well, but you have to think that in a long match Petrosian would not have much trouble in putting him in his place. |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | screwdriver: After looking at the game, I always felt white was winning or at least the one pushing the initiative. Even if white recaptures the bishop on d3, not seeing the queen sac, I'd still like white. |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | whiteshark: <33.Qg8+> was like a bolt from the blue. |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | ounos: Hmm. For some reason, I felt it was very important to play 22. Bxg7 (and right afterwards, Petrosian backs that knight off to e8 - probably he was also concerned about allowing his knight to be exchanged and his king to step forward), but Iivo decided to exchange his bishop for the bishop instead. Subtle. Not sure though if and how it affected the result of the game. The fact is, black was severely outplayed. After 32. d7, there is no resource left apart from waiting from white to give the killing blow. So in a sense, 32. ...Bxd3 *was* black's best try - if white didn't find the combination, suddenly black would be almost ok. (<notyetagm>, don't be so quick assigning "??" to a move for which you can offer no alternative which isn't hopeless). |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | Peligroso Patzer: Overlooking the mate-in-three after <32. … Bxd3> was possibly the second-greatest blunder of Petrosian’s career, although Black stood considerably worse any way (either  or  ) in the position after <32. d7>.Petrosian’s #1 blunder of all time would have to be <36. Ng5> from this game:
Petrosian vs Bronstein, 1956 For those unfamiliar with the story behind the above-linked game (played at a normal time control in a tournament that was to determine Botvinnik’s challenger in the 1957 World Championship match), the explanation for Petosian’s blunder is that he was away from the board when Bronstein played <35. … Nd4-f5>. Returning to the board, Petrosian noticed that the d4-square was vacant and assumed the Knight had gone back to c6, overlooking that with the Knight on f5, Black had the “subtle threat” of 36. NxQ. Most remarkable of all, when Petrosian resigned, the flag on Bronstein’s clock was poised to fall within a second or two. (See comments posted on the above-linked page.) Thus, Petrosian probably could have won on time even after blundering his Queen, but he was so dismayed by his oversight that he immediately resigned. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | Peligroso Patzer: <ounos: Hmm. For some reason, I felt it was very important to play 22. Bxg7 *** > It doesn’t seem that White gets much from 22.Bxg7; for example: 22. ... Kxg7 23.Bxg4 (23.d6? Qxd6  ) 23...Bxg4 24.Qg2 h5  , but that move would have been very strong one move later (after 22. Ne4 [controlling the d6-square] Bf5? [better would have been 22. ... Nf5]), viz., 23.Bxg7 Bxe4 (worse would be 23...Kxg7 24.d6 Bxd6 25.Qg5+ Bg6 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Nxd6 ) 24.Bxe5±. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | Peligroso Patzer: <ounos: *** After 32. d7, there is no resource left apart from waiting [for] white to give the killing blow. So in a sense, 32. ...Bxd3 *was* black's best try - if white didn't find the combination, suddenly black would be almost ok. ***> Interesting point, but I still tend to believe that Petrosian simply overlooked the mate-in-three (rather than the theory that he played 32. … Bxd3 hoping that Nei would somehow overlook the shot). When one faces a myriad of threats that will crush ones position over the next 10-20 moves, it is easy to overlook a simple 1-. 2- or 3-move tactic. Nevertheless, there would have been some logic in playing a move (<32. … Bxd3>) that would have essentially equalized <but for> one killing shot (<33. Qg8+>) that a Class “C” player would probably quickly find if the position were given as the puzzle of the day, but that even a strong GM could overlook. (Compare Shirov vs K Spraggett, 2005, where Shirov admitted that he had not yet found the elementary tactic: <33. Ng6+ hxg6 34. Qh6#>at the moment when his opponent resigned.) |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | ounos: @Peligroso Patzer, if you are able to give a 32. move that doesn't immediately collapse, then you may convince me that 32. ...Bxd3 was not a desperate try but a blunder.
For example an immediate threat to be parried is 33. Nxe5. If 32. ...Bf7, 33. Qxe5. If 32. ...e4, Ne5 all the same. 32. ...h5 33. Bh3 h4 34. Rg2 buys some time, but it is as hopeless as before. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | Once: <ounos> I think you have answered your own question. 32...h5 seems white's best in a losing position. Better to keep the game going in the hope of your opponent making a mistake than to give away an immediate mate in 3. We may never know what Petrosian was thinking when he played 32...Bxd3. But I have found that when you have a choice between cockup and conspiracy, the answer is nearly always cockup. So, NASA did land on the moon, Elvis is dead, Princess Diana's driver was as drunk as a skunk, there are no aliens in Area 51, little green men didn't teach the Incas how to build pyramids and ... ... Petrosian didn't see 38. Qg8+ coming.
Probably. :-) |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | HeMateMe: a Russian Bear got a bear hug! (An Azerbaijan bear?) Doesn't sound the same... |
|
Aug-02-10
| | kevin86: A recurring combination: 1 Queen checks-sac;2 rook and bishop double-check,and 3 rook mates-supported by bishop. |
|
| Apr-12-12 | | Llawdogg: Beautiful queen sacrifice! It would have been classy to play out the last two moves and demonstrate the double check and the checkmate. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
icon.