|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-22-03 | | drukenknight: Jonb: calling on me to clarify the K side pawns? Don't look at me for clarification I can only muddle the waters. Okay somewher in all that sequence I am going to exchange B. Sounds stupid, but then I hope to bring the K into opposition. But lets start:
36...g6 37. b4 f4
so I can get a spot for my K to post up. |
|
| Jun-22-03 | | Jonber: Lol, I didn’t that YOU should clarify the pawns, I mean that by the move g4 White is telling Black how he wants to play the kingside, and that any pawn moves Black makes after that will clarify the kingside pawn structure. The move basically says, “I won’t let you muddy the waters on the kingside anymore!” Sorry if my limited knowledge of English is confusing the debate. But it’s not a bad idea to take it sequence by sequence. After 37…f4 I think that the kingside pawns are sufficiently clarified for White to continue with his plan on the queenside: 36...g6 37.b4 f4 38.Bxc6 bxc6 39.b5 and Black is in serious trouble. |
|
| Jun-22-03 | | sangfroid: whats the point of g6 if your going to f4? it's a wasted move, and makes the base of that pawn chain on a white square... but none the less the position after 35 is very complex. |
|
| Jun-22-03 | | Jonber: The above debate caused me to wonder just where Alatortsev went wrong, so I sat down and analysed the game with the intent to find out. Lot of talk and few variations perhaps, but here’s my analysis if anyone is interested: 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 dxc4 6.Bxc4 c5 7.O-O Nc6 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.Rd1 Be7 10.exd4 O-O 11.Nc3 Nb4 12.Ne5 Nbd5 13.Bg5 <Last book move> 13…h6 <Inaccurate. Better is: 13...Nxc3 14.bxc3 Nd5 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 (Pachman – Yanofsky 1973) Compared with the position after Black lets Botvinnik induces exchanges, this got to be better.> 14.Bh4 Bd7 <Another inaccuracy from Black. Better is: 14...Nxc3 15.bxc3 Qc7 16.Bxf6 Bxf6> 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Ng6 fxg6 18.Bxd5 Rae8 <A beautiful four-move exchange from Botvinnik, which leaves him with a permanent advantage.> 19.Re1 Qb4 20.Bb3 Rf6?! <Black wants to open the a7-g1 diagonal by doubling the rooks along the f-file, forcing White to play f4. A weak choice in my opinion. The movement of Blacks rook is impaired, and the tiny weakness to White position, if indeed it can be called a weakness, is not worth it. Better is: 20...Bc6 21.Rad1 Bd5 22.Rd3 Rc8=> 21.Rad1 Ref8 22.f3 Kh7 23.Qd2 <Being ahead, Botvinnik seeks to exchange off Blacks only active piece.> 23...Qb6 <Pins the centre pawn. A good move.> 24.Re5 Rf4 <Better is: 24...Rf5 25.Qf2 Rc8 26.Re4> 25.Qe3 R8f6 <In my opinion this is the point where Botvinnik sees he can reduce to an advantageous endgame. If White can trade queens on c5, Black will be forced to exchange rooks as well in order to diminish the attack on the pawn on e6, reaching the position we see after move 35. This is a result of Black's badly placed rooks and bishop relating back to move 20.> 26.Qc3 Bc6 27.Qc5 Qxc5 28.dxc5 R4f5 29.Rde1 Rxe5 30.Rxe5 Rf5 31.Rxf5 exf5 <The kings begin their race towards the centre, which Black is predestined to loose.> 32.Kf2 g5 33.Ke3 Kg6 34.Kd4 Kf6 35.Bd5 <Reaching a winning endgame for White.> 35...h5 <Weaker is: 35...g4 36.fxg4 fxg4 37.b4 a6 38.a4 Ke7 39.Bxc6 bxc6 40.Ke5  > 36.h3 g4 <Weaker is: 36...g6 37.b4 a6 38.g4 h4 (38...hxg4 39.hxg4 fxg4 40.fxg4+-) 39.Bxc6 bxc6 40.a3 f4 41.a4 Ke6 42.Kc4 > 37.hxg4 fxg4 38.fxg4 hxg4 39.g3 Kf5 40.b4 Kf6 41.Ke4 Ke7 42.Bxc6 bxc6 43.Kf5 a6 44.a3 Kf7 45.Kxg4 Ke6 46.Kg5 1-0 To sum up: Two inaccurate moves going out of opening book leaves Black on
the receiving end of a beautiful material reducing combination from Botvinnik, giving White an advantage. (Could this combination have been a part of Botvinnik's opening preparation?) Botvinnik strengthens this advantage by keeping his pieces active and seeking to trade off material, while Black fails to activate his pieces. Once the advantage is strong enough, Botvinnik reduces into a winning endgame. If anybody prefers the analysis as .pgn I can provide that to. |
|
Jun-22-03
 | | chessgames.com: Ghengis Pawn II, please observe rule 3: No personal attacks against other users. This includes but is not limited to calling another user "a piece of garbage" or a "rat." Two of your posts were removed pursuant to this rule. |
|
| Jun-22-03 | | sangfroid: 19.Re1 Qb4 20.Bb3 Rf6?! <Black wants to open the a7-g1 diagonal by doubling the rooks along the f-file, forcing White to play f4. A weak choice in my opinion. The movement of Blacks rook is impaired, and the tiny weakness to White position, if indeed it can be called a weakness, is not worth it. Better is: 20...Bc6 21.Rad1 Bd5 22.Rd3 Rc8=> Nice analysis... I agree. I still think black should've traded queens on move 23. though. |
|
| Jun-22-03 | | Ghengis Pawn II: Sorry, I may be schizophrenic. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: I see you point <sangfroid>, and 23…Qxd2 was among the moves I considered here. (I didn’t include moves I considered but found to be weaker in order to conserve space.) I rejected 23…Qxd2 for a couple of reasons: 1. The queen is Black’s only active piece so exchanging her seems to be “poor economics”. 2. As I said, I believe Black’s plan was to open a7-g1 diagonal. Pining the pawn and fixing a target for your pieces to attack therefore seems a natural follow up to this plan. Not very good reasons, I admit. The final grain to tip the scale was that I simply didn’t like the position after 23…Qxd2. No reasons really, it just didn’t feel good. Here are the variations I considered: [23...Qxd2 24.Rxd2 Rc8 25.Kf2 Rc6 (25...g5 26.h3 Rc6 27.Bc2+ g6 28.e4 Rc7) 26.Re5 Rd6 27.Ke3] This position offers Black drawing chances, though nothing more. In fact, I realise now that the reason I didn’t like the position was that is has drawn written all over it. However, at this point in the game I still think Black should fight for more by keeping his queen and activating his other pieces: 23...Qb6 24.Re1 Rf5 25.Qf2 Rc8 26.Re4
Even better off course is to begin this process even earlier: 20...Bc6 21.Rad1 Bd5 22.Rd3 Rc8=
In the topic of isolated pawns (another minefield); take a look at the position at the end of the 23...Qxd2 variation, and see how the White pawn on d4 is an advantage for White, while the Black pawn on e6 is a great liability for him, tying up all his pieces into defence. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: Jonber: touche. Yes I know what you meant by clarify; mine was a pun on words of course. You speak english well. Anyhow I see you are changing up on me. Well I guess I asked for that. Okay so 39...cxb5 in the line we are playing. This is made more difficult because I could not get in f5 w/ a gain of tempo. Had black played 33...f5 w/ check earlier he would not be backed up so much. The importance of 33...f5+ may yet prove to be the fatal blunder if this line does not hold. Anyhow I appreciate the analysis from the other guy. But if I can hold the game at move 36 than all the analysis of previous moves does not matter does it? If it's a draw now, then it was a draw earlier (assuming no blunders were made) by the way: Drunknight II is my alias when I am on the laptop. It is still me. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: After 39...cxb5 I would play 40.Kd5.
If you feel 33.f4+ would improve Black’s position, we can start over from there. I still think it is an easy win for White. By the way, what does “changing up on” mean? |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: "changing up" It was probably originally from american baseball but it's use is very common nowadays. In baseball a "change up" is when the pitcher throws the batter a slower pitch when he is expecting a fast ball. They would call it "a change of pace" "the change up" or simply "the change." Nowadays it is used eveywhere. Like in politics they might say Bill Clinton changed up on the Republicans when instead of calling for a tax increase he...bla bla bla. Do you have a winning line here? Go ahead and post it then. I am resetting the board and may fall asleep. where are you from anyhow? |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: Here’s the winning line in the variation we’re playing: 40.Kd5 Ke7 41.Kc6 Kd8 42.Kb7 g4 43.c6 gxf3 44.c7+ Ke7 45.gxf3 a5 46.c8Q As for 33...f4+ I’m submitting the following line:
33...f4+ 34.Kd4 g4 35.Bd5 Bxd5 36.Kxd5 gxf3 37.gxf3 g5 38.Ke5 a5 39.b3 Kg7 40.a3 Kg6 41.b4 axb4 42.axb4 g4 43.Kxf4 gxf3 44.Kxf3 Kf5 45.b5 Ke5 46.Kg4 Kd5 47.c6 bxc6 48.bxc6 Kxc6 49.Kh5 Kd6 50.Kxh6 Ke5 51.Kg6 You can see if you find any improvements for Black, but I’m pretty sure White can grab the full point. Thanks for the English lesson. We don’t play too much baseball here in Norway. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Larsker: <We don’t play too much baseball here in Norway.> Heja Norge! (And sorry for the squirmish in the Danish newspapers before the football match. Some people will do anything to sell their newspapers. The editor-in-chief of BT just got fired because of it). As to baseball, I simply don't get it. We have it in Europe as a children's game. It's one of those American things that never crossed the pond. It must have drowned on the way :-) |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: Don’t worry, Lasker, the way I see it you must really work hard to find two nations friendlier towards each other then Denmark and Norway, and a bit of banter in the newspapers isn’t going to change that. I feel sorry for the poor fellow losing his job though… Anyway, didn’t baseball start out in England as cricket? No wonder it drowned on its second trip across the seas. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Larsker: <the squirmish> => the skirmish - lol |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Ghengis Pawn II: caseyclyde: After move 31, material is even but the black 4-3 doubled pawns majority on the kingside is worth less than the white 3-2 queenside majority. Jun-22-03
drukenknight: oh come on now. You really believe that? WHy? SHow me a game where the only difference in the two sides is this q side majority thing and one side has a won game.
I would guess there is no game in history that would have such a situation and be a won game. I.e. there is no positional problem; there is no attack on the King and the only material difference is this k side q side thing. Jun-22-03
drukenknight: It is a very funny idea is it not? Has anyone ever said that queen knights were better than king knights?
What about Queen rooks over King rooks?
Or queen pawns over king pawns?
How about Queen Bishops over King bishops?
HOw very odd. THat a queen side maj. be worth more than a king |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: okay jonber. Now I have some challenging lines to work on. I will be back later to see if I can save this. As for baseball, maybe it is not as traditional as cricket but at least we came up with the concept of the foul ball. THat makes a big difference. Rugby is more fun; I saw it once on tv as a child and I got to play it in college. We were not very good, but we had a couple of foreign players to explain "knock ons" and line outs and stuff like that. Great strategic game. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: You played rugby? Cool! I played a couple of matches back in school myself, but it’s not really a big sport here in Norway either. I’ve played a lot of soccer though. I don’t watch sports, but I’ve heard that baseball is a great spectator sport. You can bring your friends and family and really make a day out of it. I’m looking forward to see what you can find in the 33…f4+ line. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: yeah, like I said, it was on ABC wide world of sports (American tv) one day. It was association rules I guess. The versiion where they toe it back after every tackle. We played the other version in colllege: union rules I guess. Or vice versa. It seemed like the perfect expression of territorial aquisition strategy game. Maybe the same could be said for Go? |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: Never played Go, I’m afraid, but what about chess? Acquiring territory is pretty important there too. :-) |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: jonb. in our 36...g6 line why do you have me backing up w/ 41...Kd8? Alatortsev. goes back to his room after the adjournment and looks again at the board. He is now ahead in material, but of course he is worried about the passed pawn. Being ahead in material he thinks "can I exchange?" hmm. if white grabs the b pawn can I grab the c pawn? Hmm. why do I have to retreat all hte way to d8? Sometimes you have to occupy the queening square but not always. I am still in the "box" (the rule to keep the K within distance of the queening square) I am still in the box, the K does not have to occupy the queening square. Then he remembers THe Opposition.
That sure is a nice long line you worked out there Jonber; but.... 41....Ke6 yes? |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: if you grab, the a pawn I will grab the c pawn.
if you grab the b pawn, I will go right next to the c pawn, and you cannot advance the K because the a pawn controls b6. Not even Honza can help you now! |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drunknight II: no no. You are right and I am wrong, 37...f5? loses the game right there. Okay I must reset this back to move 37 in this line. I will get back to the f5+ check line but I want to work this one out first. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | Jonber: Hmm; 41…Ke6 is illegal I’m afraid.
I had you running for d8 to demonstrate that the Black king can’t stop the c-pawn from queening. Being in the box isn’t going to help as long as White’s king (which off course will leave the a-pawn well enough alone) supports the pawn. You can try a few pawn moves instead off course, but I will only lock you down as in the line above, and any other king moves are obviously pointless. No, as you say, 37…f5 loses outright. In fact, I think 36…g6 loses outright. Black simply doesn’t have the time. |
|
| Jun-23-03 | | drukenknight: You are right of course. I cannot hold that line w/ g6. So I will go back to 33...f4+ and see what I can do. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 