| Sep-06-05 | | dac1990: While the users of this website do not deserve the pun, this is a very lively and interesting game, starting with 11.Ng5. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | mynameisrandy: That move must be Tal's most famous opening theory contribution. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | RookFile: Wasn't Ryan a character in "The Patriot Games"? |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | dzanone: That was Jack Ryan, also in Hunt for Red October, Clear and Present Danger, The Sum of All Fears, and other Clancy books/movies. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | I Pawn You: <dac1990> Whachoo talking about, Willis? The pun is great. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: White's 11. Ng5!? is a fascinating positional piece sacrifice, enabling White to get equality or better after 11...Qxg5 12. Qf3! Fritz 8 (@ 16 depth) indicates Black could have equalized after 12...O-O-O! 13. Qxc6 Qxe5 14. Nf3 Qd6 15. Bxe6+ Qxe6 16. Nxd4 Qxc6 17. Nxc6 Re8 18. Be3 Na4 19. Rab1 Bc5 20. Bxc5 Nxc5 =. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: I suspect that 12. Qf3! is actually a book move and that 12...0-0-0! is apparently the book answer as indicated in the draws in Shirov vs Anand, 2004 and Morozevich vs Ponomariov, 2004. According to the Opening Explorer, out of 11 games played in this line, there were six draws, two White wins and three Black wins. So while 12. Qf3! is an interesting opening book move, the reply 12...Bd7  is not particularly significant, except perhaps to demonstrate the reason for 12..0-0-0. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: Two significant White wins in the 12...0-0-0 line were Kasparov vs Shirov, 2001 and Shirov vs Timman, 1996. A Black win worth noting here was G Sargissian vs A Danilovic, 1997. |
|
Sep-06-05
 | | al wazir: <patzer2>'s analysis implies that black was doomed from move 12 on, but I don't see the outcome as inevitable. For example, as late as move 25 he could have played Kd7. Then after 26. Nf6+ (or Nb6+) 26...Ke6 27. Rxd8 Bxd8, white will lose the e-pawn. If 26. f4 then 26...Rxa8! 27. Nb6+ Kc6 28. Nxa8 Kb7, and the knight is trapped. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | HelaNubo: <al wazir> if 25... Kd7, follows 26. Bc6+!!, Ke6; 27. b4, Na4; 28. a3 and White is clearly superior. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: <al wazir> Sorry if I somehow left you with the impression that I thought Black was lost after 12. Qf3 Bd7  .I simply meant to indicate Black equalizes after 12...0-0-0 = but has a very difficult time achieving equality and surviving after 12...Bd7 . Black may be able to hold after 12...Bd7 , but with a stronger move available in 12...0-0-0= it is not advisable. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | kevin86: DARK HELMeT-Darth Vader's name in SPACEBALLS.Black chases white's rook--and captures it with the bishop. White escapes the pin,threaten the bishop,and prepares to bring his pawn home---all in the final move! |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | who: <patzer2> your equal sign should be under the plus sign not over it (I think) |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: <who> Thanks, I mean to say Black was at a slight disadvantage after 12...Bd7 . |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | who: doesn't = over + mean black is better? |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: Sorry, I did mean 12...Bd2 to indicate White is better and Black is worse. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | psmith: Hey guys, you don't know your chess history. Karpov played 11. Ng5 intending 12. Qf3 in his 1978 match against Korchnoi, 10th game. The line was heavily analyzed at that time. Another early and interesting game involving this line is Timman-Smyslov 1979 in which I think 12... O-O-O was played for the first time. (How do I put links to the games into these comments?) This game is analyzed in Jon Speelman's 1982 book, Best Chess Games 1970-80, which I happen to still own... He claims that in patzer2's Fritz line, Black equalizes with 12...O-O-O! 13. Qxc6 Qxe5 14. Nf3 Qd5!! (instead of Qd6) 15. Bxd5 Bxd5 16. Nxd4 Bxc6 17. Nxc6 Re8. Speelman also mentions 12...Bd7!? and gives 13. Bxf7+ Ke7! 14. Ne4 (14. Bd5 Nxe5 15. Qe2 d3 16. Qe1 c6! unclear, probably good for Black) 14... Nxe4 (14... Qf5 15. Nxc5 Qxf3 16. gxf3 Kxf7 17. Nxd7 Be7 18. cxd4 is also complicated) 15. Bxg5+ Nxg5 16. Qd5 Nxf7 17. e6! with initiative for White. These are Speelman's early 80's annotations, so I don't know how reliable they are. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | who: <psmith> the way to post a link is to copy the http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... link. So, for instance, if you put in the number 1126641 there you get Timman vs Smyslov, 1979 |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | psmith: <who> Got it! Thanks. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | patzer2: <psmith> Thanks for the point about Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978, when Korchnoi managed a draw after 11...dxc3 12. Nxe6 fxe6 = (though 11...Qxg5 12. Qf3!? 0-0-0 = is apparently considered by theory as a better equalizing opportunity for Black). |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | who: I don't know why I am picking on your notation these days - I really don't mean to be annoying, but after 11...Qxg5 12.Qf3 is not !? It's an only move. If you think white has possibly wasted an advantage then you need to go back a few moves and question the move that forced this whole variation. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | patzer2: <who> You're right. I intended 11. Ng5!? Qxg5 12. Qf3! and now that it's theory 11. Ng5 Qxg5 12. Qf3 is the accepted norm. It's definitely an only move, and may only lead to equality, but it's a really good "only move" and I found it interesting. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | who: Sorry again. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 11.Ng5