< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-01-09|| ||juandie1: beutiful and very agressive!!!|
|Aug-01-09|| ||belgradegambit: <NYRdefenseman: The Who deserve better than this pun...>
You are aware that My Generation was released in 1965, same year as this game.|
|Nov-22-09|| ||Eduardo Leon: I think the mistake was 10...a5. (Yeah, a single tempo loss can be your damnation in the Sicilian.) The standard variation is, <as far as I remember>, 10...0-0 11.g4 d7 12. g5 b5.|
|Apr-09-11|| ||qqdos: This was a historic game during which the legendary Velimirovic unleashed his bolt from the blue 14.Nf5!!. It must have unnerved poor Sofrevski, who also suffered at the hands of Fischer in this opening a couple of years later, with the prospect of an immediate attack down the central files once he accepted the sacrifice of the N on f5. Whether the move is sound still seems to be debatable but it has become thematic and is often seen.|
|Nov-13-11|| ||DrMAL: Computer does not give positional sac justice but this is very common, even Houdini tends to underestimate score, being unable to find definite lines. Here is eval at considerable depth.|
Houdini_20_x64: 31/76 4:18:52 166,343,818,419
0.00 14.h4 b4 15.Na4 Nc5 16.h5 Nxe4 17.g6 0-0
0.00 14.b4 Ne5 15.f4 Nc4 16.Kb1 0-0 17.Bc1 Bd7
-0.07 14.Nf5 exf5 15.Nd5 Qd8 16.exf5 Bb7 17.Kb1
Advantage of sac is that line is very sharp, giving much higher winning chances from inaccuracies. As line hints to, this happened with 16...0-0?! instead of mandatory 16...Bb7 this lost immediately.
Houdini_20_x64: 25/80 18:41 10,483,891,647
+0.07 16. ... Bb7 17.Kb1
-2.22 16. ... Ne5 17.Bb6 Bxg5+ 18.Kb1 Qd7 19.Nc7+
-2.56 16. ... 0-0 17.f6 Nxf6 18.gxf6 Bxf6 19.Bb6
-2.90 16. ... Kf8 17.Rhe1 Bb7 18.f6 Bxd5 19.fxe7+
Velimiroric used sharpening technique that still most used weapon at high level today, 14.Nf5 was indeed "holy smoke" move, but in the hands of lesser player it may not have been proven. His accurate play afterwards turned sac into time bomb it was intended to be.
|Nov-13-11|| ||DrMAL: Subvariation here is useful to compare with more recent subvariation in V Palciauskas vs Vytautas Andriulaitis, 2001 in both cases Nf5 makes game much sharper, but here accepting sac is better whereas in other game declining sac with b5 is better. Nuances in this attack are very important to understand especially if playing black and hoping to survive!|
|Nov-14-11|| ||qqdos: Yes. Instead of 14.Nf5, it looks as though b4 may be best as it prevents 14...b4 by Black. 16...0-0? was a mistake and if Black plays the mandatory 16...Bb7; then I think 17.f6, which was White's actual response to 16...0-0 in the above game, still allows him to fight for equality. As Houdini suggests, 17.Kb1 may even give him more. And finally, have a look at this more recent example J Furhoff vs Balashov, 1992. Balashov was an extremely experienced member of the "old guard", who was playing the White side of this opening way back in 1970!|
|Nov-14-11|| ||DrMAL: <qqdos> Well, computer might give both the same score but 14.Nf5 is much more powerful move. I was never taught that sac is unsound, but thought sac was not always possible. IDK it has been long time since Pioneer Palace school days I must have forgotten. Anyway, I am happy to revisit topic and learn something from you and <SWT> it makes me happy to be on this site.|
Yes, with 16...Bb7 17.f6 in game black is still OK, computer picks this at first, it is nearly as good as line I gave with deeper computation. Fact that double edged position is much more precarious for black shows that move 14.Nf5 greatly favors white. If equal it would be truly double edged with similar slip-up on either side causing similar damage. This is what I mean by looking at character of line, it is much more important than computer score, even Houdini has difficulty with positional sac and underestimates score. I would give (at least) +1.0 for Nf5 score instead, cheers.
|Nov-14-11|| ||qqdos: <DrMAL.> I really like that distinction between a sac not being unsound or not impossible! (too many negatives?!?) On 16...Bb7, although Kb1 is time-hallowed in this line, I feel f6 to be a shade more thematic, in keeping with the the founder's basic attacking outlook and he did choose it himself - probably not the best way to play chess! Delighted that you score the "fear" factor for Nf5 at +1.0. That's why the move's such a beaut! The computers cannot fully fathom it.|
|Nov-14-11|| ||DrMAL: Sorry for wording, as I finally admitted to yesterday I am Russian in fact even though I have been in California for a decade my FIDE card still says Russian player. CG has some (very few, mostly bad ones LOL) of my games it was another reason for anonymity. If one gets list of California masters I am not difficult to figure out, whatever, it was entertaining to see some guesses few months ago. I meant to write I did not think Nf5 would always turn out to be possible option, not sure why I had thought that but thanx again for helping me.|
No argument regarding f6 versus Kb1 both seem perfectly fine. Regarding Nf5, my +1 assessment is based on sharpness and consequences of making mistake, especially if sac is accepted this would be mistake unless player was familiar enough with lines afterward to make sure to get move order correct. Even the best make move order mistake, this was subject behind long drama of posts involving usual trash from Florida Fischer in P Wells vs Shirov, 2006. Maybe someday soon engines will have other scores for sharpness or risk, at present this is big drawback, player using engine can be fooled by score in positions (especially positional sacs) such as here, cheers.
|Nov-15-11|| ||qqdos: <DrMAL> I had guessed from various hints. I am very comfortable with your wording. Cannot resist two more cross-references:-1) Anand vs Salov, 1997 showing Anand trying out the 12. Nf5 sac quite recently. There is a concise post from <plang> about the development of the Velimirovic; and 2)Nakamura vs Van Wely, 2007 without the Nf5 sac but well down the theoretical line and it is much more recent!|
|Nov-15-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: <qqdos>, <DrMal>|
get you're teeth into the Perenyi Attack after this! :o)
Perenyi was an extremely creative, attacking player who was taken away from us too young (a car accident). He introduced a knight sac on f5 on move 7! in the Sicilian.
It's been analysed and tried at the highest level for years -- no conclusive result yet on its soundness!
|Nov-15-11|| ||DrMAL: <SWT> I see you do indeed enjoy sharp attacks LOL, maybe you have something like these Shirovian displays in mind? Shirov vs Van Wely, 2000 and Shirov vs Gelfand, 1996|
|Nov-15-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: ah, got the move number wrong.
There is a lovely Judit win in this line against Anand.
|Nov-16-11|| ||qqdos: <SWT> will do! and thanx. Reverting to the Velimirovic <DrMAL>, the double-edginess which White's Q-side castling induces in Black is a distracting dilemma about his K-safety. Does he castle short (into the attack) or keep his "King in the Middle" (a chapter heading in the Harding/Botteril/Kottenauer Sozin book) and face the dangerous music there "without the services of his KR"? Now for Perenyi and Shirov!|
|Nov-16-11|| ||DrMAL: Well, before we move too far away from it, I would like to express one thing that I think is very important for all players on this site. Just because top GMs choose or do not choose opening does not make it good or bad at different level. Chess is quite different at that level, they are professional players eating, drinking and breathing chess pretty much 24/7 with genius aptitude to begin with.|
Velimirovic attack is fabulous example of very deadly weapon for white, it is one of the best weapons to deeply study and consistently play. Velimirovic attack is both sound and strategic. Nf5 sac usually available or pawn advance g4-g5-h4-g6 (after Na5 as in Nakamura game) teach tempo/initiative and complex tactics, and positions often lead to quick combinative mates so please do not let top GM choices dissuade you from studying and often using Velimirovic attack, cheers.
|Nov-16-11|| ||qqdos: <DrMAL> delighted to find such a whole-hearted enthusiast for this stunning idea introduced by Velimirovic!|
|Nov-17-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
you are absolutely correct on openings. is vital for eg. Carlsen if he hopes to beat Kramnik. Prep is such a vital part of the GM game because the opponent is a maestro of the game too.
At our humble, patzer, level, games go through all evaluations before the last person makes the mistake resulting in the loss! None of us master the erudition, thinking skills of the GM and nor do we possess their talent. The upshot is loads of openings are playable at our amateur level, even completely unsound ones!
|Nov-17-11|| ||DrMAL: <SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
At our humble, patzer, level, games go through all evaluations before the last person makes the mistake resulting in the loss! None of us master the erudition, thinking skills of the GM and nor do we possess their talent. The upshot is loads of openings are playable at our amateur level, even completely unsound ones!> This is not unsound opening I would not promote such a thing, and I am not sure who you are referring to about amateur play. I play GMs and IMs all the time, CG has very poor record of my games but you are welcome to look at example of one in Y Shulman vs A Kretchetov, 2010. I have not asked for your identity or rating, I do not care about either, but if you use "we" and "patzer" or "amateur" please do not refer post to me, thanx.|
|Nov-17-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: Blimey, <DrMal>, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.|
I hope you noted the humour and humility in that post. I am not in the same league as Carlsen or Kramnik. It is quite clear, now you have outed yourself (not that you needed to anyway) that you are not in the same league as them either.
Only FF thinks he is. Why else would he be bitter at losing to Nakamura!
Take a chill pill, as they say, DrMal. I've always got on OK with you and the other one too.
|Nov-17-11|| ||DrMAL: Sorry <SWT> I did not understand humor in your post, I sometimes have difficulty with English as I wrote. Anyway, I am happy to kibitz with you, you always seem to have good information I have learned things from you, much more than I can say about FF, he is only person on site that I wish would disappear! Thanx for fun I look forward to more, cheers.|
|Nov-17-11|| ||DrMAL: <SWT> I was thinking about this and difficulty original DrMAL had, I think it is same problem: AJ syndrome. People on here usually treat others with respect, as anonymous user before I did not feel need to tell rating. High level players are not rating snob only bad AJ-type players are and this is rare. Site is about enjoying games and sharing information together, and AJ syndrome is only big hindrance so I hope it stays confined to basically one idiot. It has been fun with you and <qqdos> among many others kibitzing, you are both clearly good players, rating neither proves or disproves this, cheers.|
|Nov-18-11|| ||DrMAL: BTW <SWT> since you have good taste for sharp openings I'm sure you will appreciate look (or maybe re-look) at Nh6-f5 plan in Dragon against Maróczy bind as in G Ilivitsky vs Keres, 1955 and G Iliwitzki vs Keres, 1955. It is risky but sound, of course like Velimirovic strong player today knows how to deal with it (e.g., Tal vs Kupreichik, 1970), often favorable position for white with bishops advantage gets reached. Depends on how well black can keep disrupting and how well white has both knowledge and nerve. Young Russian IM Nikolai Shukh played it twice recently (last time in Russian Championships A Lastin vs N Shukh, 2011 with bad luck) it is still good surprise weapon. Perhaps most beautiful win is transposition into it during Russian Championship Furman vs Spassky, 1957. Apparently, Furman thought he could survive with 23.Rf2 but Spassky's next move blew him away, cheers.|
|Nov-18-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: I've never played that ...Nh6/...f5 line or studied it much since being put off it by Vladimir Zak way back in the 1980s. He remarked it was a difficult line despite Spassky's attraction to it.|
|Nov-18-11|| ||DrMAL: Hmmm, well, I'm not sure what he meant back then, but it is good, sharp line, why I suggested looking at it, cheers.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·