| Apr-17-04 |
| dippel: An amazing row of attacking moves by the young Francisco Vallejo Pons:
25...Rfb8!! and 26...Nc4!! and 27...Rxa3+!! and 29...Nc2+! Peter Svidler is crushed! |
 |
Aug-05-04
 |
| RonB52734: A nice example of castling opposite and then throwing your pawns (and later, everything else) at the King. |
|
Dec-15-04
 |
| notyetagm: This game by Vallejo Pons just won the prestigious Chess Informant Best Game Prize for games in Chess Informant 90. |
|
| Dec-15-04 |
| ragnar0C: i dont know if this applies to this game, probably not, but when i play i usually castle on the opposite side of teh ooponent. for example like i usually use the scotch opening, and usually black castle kingside, and then i develop queen and queenside castle. Can anyone tell me if there is a disadvantage in doing the opposite of opponent castle? |
|
Dec-20-04
|
| notyetagm: The end is 30 ...  a4+ 31  a3 xa3+! 32 bxa3 b2+ 33  a2 b1=#. It seems that the whole brilliant combination by Vallejo Pons is based on the theme of the <overworked blockader>. In this case it is the White b2 pawn that is overworked, having to blockade the advanced Black b3 pawn by staying on b2 while simultaneously defending the a3 square. And as Chernev used to say, no man can serve two masters.My favorite example of this theme is Spassky's 67 xe6! from Spassky vs Larsen, 1969. Another example of this very same theme is today's Chessgames Daily Puzzle, 29 xg6+! from
M Jadoul vs G Plomp, 2003. |
|
Dec-20-04
|
| notyetagm: <dippel: An amazing row of attacking moves by the young Francisco Vallejo Pons: 25... fb8!! and 26...c4!! and 27...xa3+!! and 29...c2+! Peter Svidler is crushed!>Indeed, not often do you see Peter Svidler go down in flames with White in 30 moves, with a forced mate at that! |
|
| Jun-30-05 |
| coolchess: Beatifull game,paco i wish you could play like this in linares, want to see you imporving you are still young but its time to be in 2700 and making nice games in linares!! |
|
| Oct-14-05 |
| Queens Gambit: Interesting game. |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| BraveUlysses: <ragnarOC> the main disadvantage of castling habitually on the opposite side to your opponent is that, depending on who castled Q side and who has the momentum and/or development advantage, you can easily find yourself faced with a strong middlegame attack. Besides, Q side castling is often simply losing in many openings (e.g Danish as white).
The rule that Q side castling is not as safe for your K, but is more aggressive, still holds. It makes for sharp tactical exchanges and can be great fun, but you better know your openings well. Once people know your little habit they will prepare for it and gain another significant advantage. |
|
Oct-28-09
 |
| Once: <BraveUlysses> Not sure if <ragnarOC> will see your post, as he has been waiting since December 2004 for an answer and hasn't visited the site since 2006! For me, queenside castling has both benefits and disadvantages. If you castle on the opposite side to your opponent you will generally get a lively attacking game where both sides have the chance to go after each other's king with pawn-storms (as in this game). The main problem is that queenside castling is slower than kingside castling. To castle kingside, you need to move one pawn (e or g), a knight and a bishop - 3 moves. To castle queenside you need to move at least one pawn (d), then knight, bishop and queen - 4 moves. But you usually also need to play Kb1/ Kb8 to defend the a pawn. And it can be tricky to develop both the QB and Q with just the d pawn moving. If castling on opposite wings is generally a race, the side which castles queenside effectively starts a couple of paces behind ... On the positive side, 0-0-0 does develop the R to a more aggressive central file than 0-0. But then the kingside castler does sometimes have the option of an f pawn push supported by a Rf1/ Rf8. I suppose it all depends on the opening. 0-0-0 (for white) is much more common in the sicilian than it is in, say, the Spanish. |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| mertangili: Great attack indeed. But it seems that white allowed this great attack by not taking black's light colored bishop in move 25. Thus, after 25. Nxf5 black has an initiative but not more as far as i can see. |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| Starf1re: 24) c6 is a lot better for white. |
|
Oct-28-09
 |
| jahhaj: <mertangili> Don't we get similar variations after 25.Nxf5? E.g. 25.Nxf5 Qxf5+ 26.Ka1 Rfb8 27.Qxc5 Nb5 28.Qxe7 Nxa3 winning. |
|
Oct-28-09
 |
| RandomVisitor: After 23...Qd7:
click for larger view<[+0.35] d=21 24.Rxe7> Qxe7 25.Qb4 Rfc8 26.Nc6 Qd7 27.Nxb3 Nxb3 28.Ka2 Nf5 29.Qxb3 |
|
Oct-28-09
|
| RandomVisitor: 4 minutes per move:
Peter Svidler (2747) - Francisco Vallejo-Pons (2663)
[B90]
13th Melody Amber Rapid Monte Carlo MNC (4), 23.03.2004 [Rybka 3 ]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 b4 13.Ne2 Ne8 14.Kb1 a5 15.Nbc1 a4 0.13/19
16.f4 last book move
16...exf4 0.13/19
17.Bxf4 0.00/17 Nc5= 0.13/18
[Rybka 3 : 17...b3 18.cxb3 axb3 19.a3 Qb6 20.Nd4 Ra4 21.Qe3 Nc7 22.Nce2 Qb7 23.Nc3 Raa8 24.Bxd6 Bxd6 25.Nxe6 Nxe6 26.Rxd6 Qc7 27.Qg3= 0.00/17 ] 18.Bg2= -0.14/19
[Rybka 3 : 18.Qe3 a3 19.b3= 0.13/18 ]
18...b3 -0.14/17
19.cxb3 -0.14/19 axb3 0.00/18
20.a3 -0.31/16 d5= 0.15/18
[Rybka 3 : 20...Bg4 21.h3 Bh5 22.h4 Qb6 23.Qb4 Qa6 24.Nd4 Bxd1 25.Rxd1 Ne6 26.Be3 Nxd4 27.Bxd4 Nc7 28.Bxg7 Rab8 29.Qd2 Kxg7 30.Qc3+  -0.31/16 ] 21.Nd4 0.06/16 Nd6  0.47/20
[Rybka 3 : 21...Qd7 22.Nxe6 Nxe6 23.Bg3 d4 24.Nxb3 Bxg5 25.Qd3 Qb7 26.Rhg1 Rd8 27.e5 Qc7 28.Rgf1= 0.06/16 ] 22.exd5 0.30/19 Bg4 0.40/18
23.Rde1= 0.00/17
[Rybka 3 : 23.Qb4 Bxd1 24.Rxd1 Bxg5 25.Bxg5 Qxg5 26.Qxc5 Qg6+ 27.Ka1 Nb7 28.Qc6 Qxg2 29.Qxb7 Rfb8 30.Qe7 Qxd5 31.Qe2 Re8 32.Qd3 Qe5 33.Qd2 g6 34.Ncxb3 Qd5 35.Qd3 Rad8 0.40/18 ] 23...Qd7 0.30/17
[Rybka 3 : 23...Nc4 24.Qc3 Ra4 25.h3 Bc8 26.Rhg1 Bxg5 27.Bxg5 Qxg5 28.Ncxb3 Nxb3 29.Nxb3 Bf5+ 30.Ka2 Rfa8 31.Na5 R4xa5 32.Be4 Rxa3+ 33.bxa3 Qd2+ 34.Qxd2 Rxa3+ 35.Kb1 Nxd2+ 36.Kb2 Nc4+ 37.Kc2 Bd7 38.Ra1 Ba4 0.00/17 ] 24.Qb4??  -2.59/17
[Rybka 3 : 24.Rxe7 Qxe7 25.Qb4 Nde4 26.Ncxb3 Ra4 0.30/17 ] 24...Bf5+ -2.59/17
25.Ka1? -4.19/19
[Rybka 3 : 25.Nxf5 Qxf5+ 26.Ka1 Rfb8 27.Qxc5 Nc4 28.Be4 Nxa3 29.Nxb3 Qxf4 30.d6 Bxd6 31.Qc1 Ra7 32.Qxf4 Bxf4 33.Rd1 g6 34.Rd3 Nc4+ 35.Kb1 Rxb3 36.Rxb3 Nd2+ 37.Kc2 Nxe4 38.Rb5 Rc7+ 39.Kb3 Bxg5 40.Re1 -2.59/17 ] 25...Rfb8 -4.15/17
26.Qxc5? -10.01/13
[Rybka 3 : 26.Qxb8+ Rxb8 27.Rhf1 Bg6 28.Nc6 Re8 29.Ne5 Qf5 30.Nxg6 Qxg6 31.Bxd6 Qxd6 32.Re3 Qxh2 33.Bh1 Kf8 34.Rfe1 Qd2 35.R3e2 Qf4 36.Re3 Qd4 -4.15/17 ] 26...Nc4 -8.75/14
27.d6 -10.35/13 Rxa3+ -10.12/15
28.Qxa3 -4.76/9 Nxa3 -7.46/15
29.dxe7? -#13/7
[Rybka 3 : 29.Nxf5 Qxf5 -7.46/15 ]
29...Nc2+ -#17/8
30.Nxc2 -#4/3 Qa4+ 0.00/0
0-1 |
|
Oct-28-09
 |
| kevin86: Mate next...delivered by a pawn,ouch! |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| Starf1re: RandomVisitor: You give 24 Qb4 two ?s and suggest instead 24)rxe7. How long did you let the engine run on that? Because my engine (Crafty) analyzes 24) rxe7 as about -1 but evaluates 24) kc6 as + 1.3! Any explanation on why the losing exchange should be undertaken when a better move is available? Or did you just not let it run long or what? |
|
Oct-28-09
 |
| mcguigan97: <Starf1re:>< RandomVisitor...my engine (Crafty) analyzes 24) rxe7 as about -1 but evaluates 24) kc6 as + 1.3! Any explanation on why the losing exchange should be undertaken when a better move is available? Or did you just not let it run long or what?> Three things:
-RandomVisitor is a god.
-Rybka (which RV uses) makes Crafty look like a grammer school student. -RV analyzed to 21 plys. That's is what is important, not the time the engine ran. That does not answer your question but gives some context on RV's post. |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| Starf1re:
-Argument from authority
-Argument ad hom
-Non sequiter
At least you note (at the end!) that none of those answer my question. To respond more substantively to your comments I decided to download Rybka to look at the position. After 24) kc6 Rybka evaluates the position as +.5 for white, after 24) rxe7 it evaluates it as +.35 for white. After leaving Rybka running for 20 minutes it prefers 24)kc6. |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| Smothered Mate: <Starf1re>
We don't care how long you analyzed for.
What ply did you get to? |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: actually just the b-pon |
|
Oct-28-09
 |
| tatarch: <Starf1re>
What is the continuation after 24)Nc6? |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| Starf1re: SmotheredMater:
In order to gain some insight I ran Rybka up to depth 20, which if I recall correcly corresponds to 21 ply. However my hopes of having the original rx vs. nc6 discussion settled were ruined by the fact that at this level it recommends 24)qc3. Depth: 20 Score: +.43
24. Qc3 Na4 25. Qb4 Bf5+ 26. Nxf5 Qxf5+ 27. Be4 Nxe4 28. Qxe4 Qxe4+ 29. Rxe4 Bxa3 30. Be5 Nc5 tatarch:
The immediate bishop threat is clear.
Depth: 15 Score: +.51
24. ... Bf5+ 25. Ka1 Nde4 26. Qd1 Bd6 27. Rhf1 Bxf4 28. Rxf4 Rfe8 29. Bxe4 Bxe4 30. Qd4 Bxd5 31. Rxe8+ |
|
| Oct-28-09 |
| soberknight: Should be "pwned" by Pons! :) |
|
icon.
