Jan-08-08
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: Zyg got 7. b5?! from Keres's book, which comes from Spielmann vs J Moeller, 1920. But RS said he did it throw his opponent on his own resources and because the book continuation was good for Black. 7.xf4 g5?! can lead to an interesting parallel game with a more favorable version of this sacrifice Capablanca vs A Chase, 1922 (7...e7 is fine for Black though)If 8... g3+?! 9.hxg3  xh1 10.gxf4 For the exchange, White has a strong centre and lack's is out of play. RS had this variation in mind when he played his 7th. With 9.d2, White is forced to sacrifice his to have any chance. ZF reports that the other leading players were incredulous that Keres had claimed that White had good attacking chances, which implies that any one of them would have played for this. But instead of the tempting 9...g4, Black had a simpler way of playing that casts doubt on this line for White: 9...f5! ZF, following Keres, said this was safer, and RS gave the following line: 10.d3 g3+ 11.hxg3 xd3+ 12.xd3 xh1 13.gxf4 gxf4 RS hinted that it would be difficult for White since Black plays 0-0-0, but it seems just lost 13.h4! Keres' book hadn't gone this far, and although ZF was unaware of RS's analysis ZF found the correct move over the board that RS played. RS pointed out that White has much compensation in his safer  , a solid  structure that offers the B few targets, while lack's s will be shattered and his and will be tormented by White's well coordinated minor pieces. E&K noted that this was one rare example where two minor pieces can make life very difficult for the . RS also pointed out the practical advantage of being the attacker, while the defender is likely to go wrong over the board, as Tal also showed. However, Black's position is not so easy to defend even with unlimited time to analyse, as will be seen. It's also significant that Fritz 4.01 judges Black's position in many variations as still winning because of his material advantage, even when it becomes obvious to a human that his game has collapsed. |
 |
Jan-08-08
| | Jonathan Sarfati: Instead 13...e7 would defend the d5 but d3 would endanger the B--RS;; 15.xd5! is better than E&K's 15.xf4  h5, because they overlooked 15...h6 16.h5 hxg5 17.hxg6  xh1 +) 15...f3 16.gxf3 gxf3 17.f4 f5 18.c4 16... xg5. Court deviates from Møller's play and plays a move recommended as much stronger by RS and E&K. But after Frankel's convincing play, one must wonder whether it helps much. 19.e3 is much better than winning the h7 but exchanging s — ZF 19...d8 loses the by force, but OS pointed out that the recommended d8 would not save Black because his is out of play. Zyg analyzed 19...d8 20.f5+ b8 21.h6 e7 22.e4 g6 23.d5 a7 ow there's a mistake, because Zyg's note says e3 where the bishop is already. To be fair, this was decades before computers could automatically check games scores for accuracy. But the game position after 26.ah1 is essentially the same position Zyg reached. While Fritz is unimpressed, I agree with Zyg that Black's in a bad way because of Whites powerful center pawns and active pieces, but with no obvious forced loss. White will probably win both the h7 and f7 pawns, so Black will be reluctant to empty the second rank by ...c5. |
|
Jan-08-08
| | Jonathan Sarfati: Continuing:
20.d5! g3 (if 20...g7 then 21.h6), and after 21.h3 g4 22.e7+ b8 23.f5, Black's was lost. 27.d5! cuts off lack's movements, and after 27...b7 28.h6!, another piece goes — Black should call it quits here. 41.e6: ZF says he was bewildered why Black was playing on, so made this "meaningless move" to give his opponent the satisfaction of a check, before mating him in a few moves. |
|
Jan-12-09
| | Jonathan Sarfati: Zyg once analysed Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962 in his chess magazine, which also featured a positional sac for +. |
|
| Feb-28-09 | | WhiteRook48: being taken to Court |
|
|
 |
|
