Ortvin Sarapu vs Jonathan Sarfati (1985)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Ortvin Sarapu vs Jonathan Sarfati
North Island Championship (1985), Havelock North NZL, rd 7, May-24
Spanish Game: Morphy Defense. Tarrasch Variation (C77) · 0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	10 more O Sarapu/J Sarfati games
sac: 31...Rd1+	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: The tournament is found above the game. For the newest chess events, this information may be a link which takes you to the tournament page which includes other games, a crosstable, discussion, etc.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Nov-16-06		Xeeniner: 31 could be a puzzle.

Dec-23-06		Jonathan Sarfati: Thanx. 32 ... Rxg2 was quicker but it hardly matters. Some annotators claimed 28...Bh2 was better but the game line was at least as good IMO. It was ironic that Sarapu, a great admirer of his fellow Estonian Keres, was caught in one of his lines -- cf. G A Thomas vs Keres, 1937

Jan-20-08		Jonathan Adams: Jono, this was a terrific victory. 31...Rd1+ was indeed a killer. Ortvin's opening play was unusally weak and you exploited it marvellously.

Jan-20-08		Benzol: <Jonathan Adams> Is this you? Jonathan Adams

Jan-21-08		Jonathan Sarfati: <Benzol>, you got the right guy. Of course, he won (and wins) plenty of games despite the small sample on this site.

Jan-21-08		Benzol: <Jonathan Sarfati> <<Benzol>, you got the right guy.> Thanks Jonathan. I played a J Adams in the mid 70's but I never found out if his first name was Jonathan though. Could be the same player. Wonder if he ever remembers playing me in Auckland some thirty odd years ago?

May-03-20		Jonathan Sarfati: More from the Computer Sees Everything files: 16...♕d7, missed by all annotators, threatens to win the ♘h4 with ... g5. 17. g4 to support a flight square on f5 is beaten quickly with h5. Arcadios Feneridis suggested 19.♘e2 h4 20.d4 exd3 21.cxd3 on the grounds that it helps White develop, and maybe exchange ♕s on the c-file. But it wouldn't help after 21... g4, e.g. 22.♕c2 (22.hxg4 h3) 22...gxh3 23.d4 ♖h5 24.dxc5 ♖xc5 25.♘c3 h2+ 26.♔h1 h3 27.f3 ♘h5 28.♘f1 ♘g3+ 29.♘xg3 ♕xg3 30.♗e3 ♖g8 23... ♗a7 was good enough, over -3 evaluation, but even stronger and missed by me and all annotators was: 23...♖xg2+ 24.♔xg2 (24.♘xg2 ♘g4) 24...♖g8+ 25.♔h1 ♕g3 26.♘fg4 ♘xg4 27.♕g2 ♕xh4+ 28.♔g1 ♘h6 Zygmunt Frankel and Murray Chandler both suggested 28...♗h2 as stronger. Indeed it does have the highest engine evaluation of -10, e.g. 29.♔e1 ♕xg1+ 30.♕f1 ♘xe3 31.dxe3 ♖xg2 32.♖xg2 ♖d1+ 33.♔xd1 ♕xf1+ But I had already worked out that the game move 28... ♘f4 was a clear cut win. Indeed the engine evaluation is -7. 32...♖xg2 was mate in 6. No matter; I could see that the game move 32...♕xg2+ would win a whole ♕. The engine calculates mate in 9. I missed 32...♖xg2, as did all the annotators, I suspect because we weren't looking for it after seeing that 32...♕xg2+ won quickly. Same principle with missing 28...♗h2 because 28... ♘f4 was good enough. But I admit that 23...♖xg2+ would have been a nice way to finish.

May-05-20		Jonathan Sarfati: PS: there was a note by Zyg on p. 136 of the same issue: "Feneridis and I looked at again at his 19 ♘e2 and have reached the following rather unsatisfactory conclusion: After 19... h4 20 d4 g4 21 hxg3 h3 22 ♘g3 ♖xd4 the position still looks won for White [sic]. Even after 19 ♘e2! h4 20.d4 exd3 21 cxd3 it is still difficult to find a satisfactory defence and this applies even if White manages to exchange queens. Black's position is too superior at this stage. However the point that 19 ♘e2 poses more problems for White and provides better defensive chances than 19 ♕e2 still appears to be valid. Ed." Actually, the engine evaluates 19.♕e2 and 19.♘e2 about the same. It recommends 19.b4 to minimize disadvantage (~ -1).

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.