Jan-29-12
 | | Fusilli: Wild game! It looks like against the Bayonet attack Black has to play very aggressively on the queenside. Otherwise White will get a dangerous attack. Here it didn't work, but here it did:Sax vs H Kestler, 1974. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | rilkefan: Stockfish thinks that white was in real trouble after the calm 14...Be6 (15.b3 Qa5 16.Na4 Rb4 17.a3 Rxa4 18.bxa4 Qa5 and black's queen is very active, or 15..d5 and black gets lots of open lines), worth -1.25 at a depth of 25. After Rxb2 it thinks black is worse but still in the game after 15...Be6. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | rilkefan: At another two ply sf thinks white should instead play 15.Na4 Bxa2 16.b3 Ne8 etc., -1.8. In some lines white picks up the bishop but black gets a bunch of pawns and a continuing attack. After 15.b3 Qa5 it's looking at 16.Rf1 Qa3+ 17.Kd1 Qb2 which is over two pawns worse, or 16...Nd7/Qe5/Qa5 (after white's c3)/Rb4/Rfb8/Nc5 with a three pawn advantage - surprised it's not more. If instead the above 16.Na4 it thinks ...Rb4 is crushing, preferring to just drop the a4 knight after ....Rxa4 to get queens off rather than allow ...Qc5; the line is evaluating at -3.5. I don't see the thematic diagonal-clearing ...Nxe4 getting played but presumably that's in the air too. |
|
Jan-29-12
| | Fusilli: <rilkefan> Thanks for the variations. In one of them (<Stockfish thinks that white was in real trouble after the calm 14...Be6 (15.b3 Qa5 16.Na4 Rb4 17.a3 Rxa4 18.bxa4 Qa5 and black's queen is very active>) you have 18...Qa5 when the queen was already there, but I am content with seeing great possibilities for black after 14...Be6. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | rilkefan: Interestingly, following down the 15.Na4 Bxa2 16.b3 Ne8 line I just see the evaluations getting worse and worse for white. Black has a lot of advantages in this position, and they're worth more than sf realizes at first. Those advantages as I see them are: - domination of the black squares: not just h1-g8 but (after d5/Qe7 or d6) h3-f8 and d8-h4 if white develops Nh3
- breaking through in the center with d5 to make more open lines for the attack
- white's undeveloped kside, with the bishop e2 and the f3 pawn complicating things
- black's secure king
- black's flexibility
The line I've followed deepest is:
17. Nh3 d5 18. Qe3 Nc7 19. e5 Qe7 20. Kb2 Bxb3 21. cxb3 Bxe5+ 22. Ka2 Qb4 23. Rd3 Rfe8 24. Bd1 Na6 25. Qd2 Bd6 26. Qb2 Bf8 27. Nf2 Qf4 and here one sees that white is completely disorganized while black's pieces are all great: -3 per sf. |
|
| Jan-29-12 | | rilkefan: <<Fusilli>: you have 18...Qa5> Oops, that should have been Qe5, thanks. |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | RookFile: White plays Bxd4, Qxd4, and even follows up with 0-0-0. Given black's setup, you almost wonder whether he had a death wish. But, he made some nice defensive moves. |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | Delboy: I am looking forward to Raymond Keene's comments on this one. Fearlessness to the extreme, which against a lesser opponent would have yielded a memorable win. |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | Anjeneyar: Why not 17....Qb4!! Instead of Qc5 played in game?
White no longer has the 18.Nb1 defense as it will be B/Qb2#.
Black will win the N with an attack still raging!
Cheers! |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | morfishine: <Delboy> Don't hold your breath: Keene probably figured out a long time ago he sacrificed too much material leaving him positionally weak and unable to construct a mating net. First 14...Rxb2, then 15...Nxe4, then 21...Bxc3. At this point, Black has sacrificed 3 pieces. Thats a lot of material. True, 22...Rxb1 & 25...Rxe2 recover some material, but its not enough With that said, I too would like to see his comments
***** |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | bcokugras: 21... Bxa2! |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | Once: A wild attacking game. I never really got the sense that black was getting enough for his material investment, but it was fun to watch all the same. And who would have thought that the white king would be safe on f4? His remaining pieces made a castle in the air for him. |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | harshvk5: Such a 'Saxed-up' pun...;) |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | kevin86: I'm sure that Mr. Keene was unhappy with this game, considering according to the pun, he was "violenced." |
|
Sep-09-14
 | | playground player: Like the Zulus at Rorke's Drift, Black ran out of men to sacrifice. |
|
Sep-09-14
 | | Willber G: <Why not 17....Qb4!! Instead of Qc5 played in game?
White no longer has the 18.Nb1 defense as it will be B/Qb2#. Black will win the N with an attack still raging!> Good spot. I don't see how White can avoid mate without giving up his queen. |
|
Sep-09-14
 | | akatombo: What we have here is a splintered pun, a spinoff of "Sax and Violins (on TV)." |
|
Sep-09-14
 | | FSR: I'm surprised that CG.com would use this pun. I certainly don't consider it offensive, but Daniel has previously said that <Let's Talk About Sax> is on his permanent list of puns never to be used. If that's too blue, I don't understand why this one is OK. |
|
Sep-09-14
 | | PawnSac: FSR:
Good point, but i wonder if it had nothing to do with blue, but rather that CG did not in any way want to suggest speaking disrespectfully about the player himself. |
|
Sep-09-14
| | FSR: <PawnSac> I don't think that's it. Here is the exact quote. Judge for yourself. <chessgames.com: <FSR> Ah, the famous "Immoral Game".* Sorry, that kind of humor is a bit too blue for our standards.I guess now is a good time to mention, that we don't really like it when members make juvenile sexual innuendos on player names. You know we love to play word games, but at the same time we should always remember that these are real people. Pretend they were sitting right next to you: would you still make the joke? On a related note, I happen to maintain a secret list I call <Puns We Will Never Use>. Just to give you a tease, one of them is "Let's Talk about Sax." I hope I don't come across as sounding humorless, but I believe it's important to maintain standards.> *He was addressing my suggestion that A Kiss vs H Titz, 1994 would be a good GOTD for Valentine's Day. |
|
Sep-09-14
 | | OhioChessFan: I think the pun is inappropriate and am surprised they used it. |
|
| Sep-09-14 | | Anjeneyar: Willber G: <Why not 17....Qb4!! Instead of Qc5 played in game? White no longer has the 18.Nb1 defense as it will be B/Qb2#. Black will win the N with an attack still raging!>
Good spot. I don't see how White can avoid mate without giving up his queen. Thanks, Wilber.G for agreeing with me.I am surprised that other than us nobody else including engines are discussing this possibility being a direct line in actual play! Is there something we are missing? |
|
Sep-10-14
| | OhioChessFan: <<Why not 17....Qb4!! Instead of Qc5 played in game? White no longer has the 18.Nb1 defense as it will be B/Qb2#. Black will win the N with an attack still raging!> > 17...Qb4 18. Qe3 to creat a flight square for the King, of course not 18. Nb1 opening the long diagonal, and White is still better. Maybe 17. Qb4 18. Qe3 Bxc3 19. Rd3 Qb2+ 20. Kd1 and the White King is safe enough, Black can't afford to exchange Queens when down material and the material plus should eventually prevail. 
click for larger view
But Black is in much better shape than in the game. |
|
Sep-10-14
| | FSR: <Anjeneyar> <Willber G> 17...Qb4! indeed looks like a huge improvement. Keene must have overlooked 17...Qc5? 18.Nb1! |
|
Sep-11-14
| | FSR: <Anjeneyar> <Willber G> 17...Qb4! is definintely a marked improvement on the game continuation, but Houdini 3 says that White still has a big advantage (close to  ) with 18.Qe3! Bxc3 19.Rd3! |
|
Kibitzing
