< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-14-10|| ||waustad: Thanks for the Chicago blog link FSR. I'll check it out during tomorrow's games from London.|
|Dec-15-10|| ||WhiteRook48: <SU1989> if white plays 27 Rf2 in the line, planning Re5 and other attacks, what happens?
I'm tired, so I may be too stupid to see the refutation|
|Dec-22-10|| ||FSR: Sorry, I only just now saw that this had been GOTD on the 14th.|
<WhiteRook48> On 26.h3 Ne3 27.Rf2, 27...N3d5 looks solid enough, blocking White's rook from getting to e5.
<Shams> I was happy he played it out until mate. It didn't even take me an extra postcard, since when I played 26...Qxf1+! I sent the mate as an if-move. I think that under these circumstances it was sporting to play it out until mate, a la Donald Byrne in D Byrne vs Fischer, 1956.
<Rook e2> Believe it or not, this is a book line. It's not clear that I would have had better than equality if he'd played 18.Bxb4. He also had better 22nd moves, and wasn't clearly lost until 22.Ra5? Qd3!! As I said earlier, nowadays Black's best is considered 11...c4! 12.dxc4 dxc4 13.Qxd8+ Nxd8! 14.Nxb5 cxb3 15.Nc7+ Kd7 16.Nxa8 bxc2! with advantage, as in Wedberg-Kharlov, Haninge 1992 (0-1, 39) -- Informant 55, game 162; Joe Gallagher, Beating the Anti-Sicilians, p. 36.
|Dec-22-10|| ||sevenseaman: They don't come much better than this!|
|Sep-05-11|| ||perfidious: <FSR> Hadn't seen the game Wedberg-Kharlov since the late 1990s, and it looks convincing as a refutation of the line.|
|Sep-05-11|| ||FSR: <perfidious> Wedberg-Kharlov probably does bust the line. However, the immediate 10.0-0!? c4 11.dxc4 dxc4 12.Qxd8+ is trickier, as I discovered when someone played it against me on FICS. I played 12...Nxd8, a la Wedberg-Kharlov, but it turns out that in this slightly different position that move is weak and 12...Kxd8! is correct. See Opening Explorer|
|Sep-29-11|| ||adhitthana: Hmmm. not bad. I enjoyed playing over this game|
|Dec-15-11|| ||LucB: Wow! That must be so COOL to find this OTB! Great ending!|
|Dec-15-11|| ||rilkefan: I see that my comment of exactly one year ago was nonsensical.|
Stockfish points out to me that g4 was a good move around move 16 or 17. E.g. 17.g4 and black (and white) ought (at a depth of 30, 3.5 Gnodes) to bail with Qc5+/Qd5+ Kh1/Kg1, so it dislikes 16...Qd5. Otherwise it agrees with <FSR> to the extent I poked around.
|Apr-17-12|| ||Llawdogg: Wow! Fantastic finish with a queen sacrifice, double check, and checkmate all while facing a mate in one the other way.|
|Jun-13-12|| ||solskytz: White is leading with one flashy sacrifice after the other, and then it's black who reaps the rewards of this enterprising play. Very amusing!|
|Jun-13-12|| ||solskytz: All of these Qh8s and Qg7s certainly look like white is checkmating, is going to checkmate, is in the process of checkmating... then all of a sudden... |
very very funny indeed
|Jun-22-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: Awesome game, <FSR>!|
|Jun-22-12|| ||FSR: Thanks, <LTJ>! It's my favorite, as you might imagine. I don't know how many games have such an O. Henry-esque finish. The whole game is attack, attack, sac, sac by White, and then comes the mating combination - by Black.|
|Jun-22-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <FSR> Congratulations! It's a well-played, well-fought and memorable game.|
Furthermore, the tactical ideas realized in this game are excellent!
|Sep-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <FSR>: I just looked at this from your link on the Humpy-Sharma page. It is indeed a fine game, and your final combination apparently came as such a psychological shock that White failed to anticipate it even in a correspondence game.|
But it seems to me that you were in real trouble. White's 22. a5? was fatuous. Had he instead played the consistent 22. h4†, g8; 23. xe7, threatening mate, it's hard to see an adequate defense, although I confess I haven't yet exhaustively studied all the options.
Did you have a defense prepared against that line?
|Sep-13-12|| ||OhioChessFan: Even the laziest King flees in the face of a double check.|
|Sep-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <OhioChessFan: Even the laziest King flees in the face of a double check.>|
If it can.
|Sep-13-12|| ||OhioChessFan: 23...Rf7 is an easy defense.|
|Sep-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <OCF>: Good observation. I overlooked that 24. h4, h7; 25. f6 is met by 25. ...f8 with tempo. That does seem to bring White's attack to a standstill.|
On further examination, Black's defense is more resilient than it looks on superficial study. Perhaps White will have to look for improvements earlier.
|Sep-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Still, I'm just stubborn enough to consider 22. h4†, g8; 23. ae1!?, xe1; 24. xe1, when Black's kingside dark-square complex looks ripe for invasion. |
Then, after, say 24. ...d6; 25. xe7, d1†; 26. e1, xe1†; 27. xe1, ae8; 28. c3, e7, the position seems murky, with chances for both sides.
|Sep-13-12|| ||OhioChessFan: 26...Qh5|
|Sep-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Intending to meet 27. d4 with ...f7, I presume. Very resourceful.|
A crazy thought, but could White survive the discovered check if he played 26. f2? It seems awfully improbable, but White can interpose with the bishop on f6, so perhaps it's not as fatal as it looks.
Otherwise, unless there's some mileage in 22. ad1, I'll have to return to the idea that White is already lost.
|Sep-13-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Belay that idea. White is definitely lost if he plays 26. f2?.|
As drafty as Black's kingside looks, his resources appear sufficient.
|May-31-14|| ||Madman99X: 18. cxb4 looks dubious, immobilizing the a3 bishop. Bxb4 doesn't look great, but surely it is better than the text?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·