|Apr-14-05|| ||Erwin: it's a very interesting game ,how old are u at that time ?,nice play |
|Apr-22-05|| ||Eric Schiller: <erwin> I was 26, so it was not a youthful effort. But it was my first time playing abroad, at a series of great Swiss events in England. This game was a major topic of disucssion in the bar for the rest of the tournament, and it was the first game I had published in Chess Informant (v.33). It is an enormously complex game, and remains my favorite. I had the pleasure of going over it with many GMs, including Kaspasrov, at Bugojno 1982, and later with Tal during the Ryekjavik 1986 tournament. |
|Apr-22-05|| ||vonKrolock: A very complex and interesting Game indeed, <Eric>. Paolozzi was a good talent from brazilian Chess (i posted some infos in his page) |
|May-31-05|| ||ewenardus: What happens after 30... Bxc3? I don't see how white can draw..|
|May-31-05|| ||Eric Schiller: <ewandarus> Yes, that was a big improvement for Black. He was already in time pressure.|
|Dec-22-05|| ||THE pawn: This game is absolutely incredible, I could feel the tension during the whole game. Personally there was like three of four moves I didn't understand and my computer didn't help.|
|Dec-23-05|| ||THE pawn: I made my computer evaluate the position just before 20.Rxg6 and he's acting a bit like 24.Rxd4!! in Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999|
He really thought this move had some potential and looked at it for about 5 minutes ( I gave the computer 8 minutes/move) but then he switched to something else and thought Qd2 or Nf3 was better and finally played Qd2 and Rxg6 never came back.
My processor is really good, so that helps, but my program is getting old and all crippled so it might be different on another computer. I wonder if Hydra would play this, because it's mostly intuitional to me.
|Dec-23-05|| ||Eric Schiller: <thepawn> Which moves puzzle you? If they are White's I can explain my thinking. The game was a blend of intuition and calculation. The early sacs were Tal-like, I couldn't work out the details but they felt promising. Later stuff was tactical. Though my opponent failed to spot some things this remains one of my favorite games. It was great fun to analyze it with GMs in 1981 without a computer, and sitting down and looking at it with Kasparov was one of the highlights of my trip to Bugojno 1982.|
|Dec-23-05|| ||THE pawn: The real problem I have is finding intuitional moves. My real weakness is the middlegame, because I always play really safely and hope for an equal endgame, where I usually get better (suprisingly, my strength relies in my endgame skills)so moves like 20.Rxg6 are completely out of range to me. It's mostly the process of finding the moves that is hard for me, but it that case I just didn't understand it.|
|Dec-23-05|| ||Eric Schiller: <thepawn> Well, Rxg6 was a VERY intuitive sac. But I figured that once I grabbed h5 I'd have enough for the investment.|
To find such plans, you might try the technique I teach my students. To find candidate moves:
1. look at all capture-checks
2. look at all other captures and checks
3. look for all threats
4. If there are no good moves in the above, find a piece that isn't doing much and move it to a better position.
Retreats fall into the last category. Never retreat a piece until you have exhausted the other candidates.
It is especially important to look at the top category moves, even if they look stupid (I move there, he takes my piece) because then you can work out a plan to make the move succeed.
No player has the mental discipline to look at all the candidates on every turn. But the more you do it, the better your results will be.
|Aug-28-06|| ||THE pawn: Hey there, I just wanted to thank you for you advices. I focused a lot on the middlegame for the last year and it turns out that it's not my stronger phase of the game. Actually I realised I was bad in endgames and it turns out I'm better with tactics and sacrifices.|
|Aug-28-06|| ||Eric Schiller: <thepawn> as you can see from this game sometimes tactics are used just to get to a favorable endgame. So knowing you're in games will lead you to more winning tactics.|
|Aug-28-06|| ||Eric Schiller: sorry, I meant knowing your endgames leads to spotting winning combinations. Intuitions about endgames sometimes has to substitute for concrete analysys.|
|Mar-17-07|| ||Maynard5: A very interesting tactical fight, and well worth replaying.|
|Mar-14-08|| ||gandu: Great game Eric!
But I have a question: you give two exclamation marks to 29.Qxe6, and yet it seems that White's evaluation drops considerably. Fritz seems to indicate that 29.Qe7 would have been much better for White. After 29.Qxe6 Qxe6 30 Nxe6 Black should have played 30...Bxc3. Then after 31.bxc3 Rxe3 the evaluation appears much better for Black. Comments?
|Mar-14-08|| ||Riverbeast: I remember this guy Paolozzi...He created a bit of a sensation when he lived in NYC and was playing at the Manhattan Chess Club...As I remember he was (under)rated about 2300, and beating IMs and GMs with regularity|
|Oct-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 20 Rxg6?! worthy of Tal|
|Apr-30-18|| ||Richard Taylor: Great game with some fascinating analysis.|