|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-08-02 | | Sabatini: This is a game by Mecking against the very powerful Fischer . |
|
| Dec-08-02 | | Sabatini: Mecking trapped the Fischer queen, but Fischer did not falter. If Mecking had played 22. Be2 he could have stood better. Otherwise I think he played very well against a very powerful player. |
|
| Dec-08-02 | | RicardoLamacchia: Mecking is from my Country!!! good mecking |
|
| Dec-09-02 | | ughaibu: In this line I like to play 5.d5 and if black takes the bishop h4 wins the knight. |
|
| Dec-09-02 | | PVS: I think Sabatini is right. Fischer had to find 22...e5, but that ended white's hopes. |
|
| Dec-10-02 | | drukenknight: why Nd2? why not 9 Ng5 in order to harass the oddly positioned B? As it went he grabs a doubled pawn which cant be worth much and then blacks B goes to d5 where it cannot be kicked by e4 but with the N on g5 it could be decentralized by the pawn advance. |
|
Dec-10-02
 | | Sneaky: I have to admit 9 Ng5 looks pretty good. |
|
| Dec-10-02 | | drukenknight: Two agreements in one day?
I warn you agreeing w/ me is liable to make the chess gods very unhappy. You know the odd thing about that B on e6 deal is how much influence it will have on the rest of the game. Perhaps not odd at all. I suppose the initial departures from orthodoxy in any game are liable to have a great impact. Anyhow look at the tour whites N goes on in order to secure that doubled pawn. It winds up on a3 ala sicilian and then it goes to c7 in a futile attempt on the R. I wonder about that move. It looks like black is going to lose ground in the middle of the field w/ e.g. 15 c4. There are other oppurtunities to hit Q or B with pawn pushes here. You another thing about Bd6; remember that Taimanov/Fischer game that we analyzed? He did that in that game too. ANd of course, there is Dake/Alekhine somewher in the database (a CaroKann to be sure) where alek. did that. |
|
Dec-10-02
| | Sneaky: I never actually agreed in that Larsen-Fischer game. I just said it was "unclear" =) |
|
| Dec-10-02 | | drukenknight: you see now, how I am being driven mad? |
|
| Mar-08-04 | | vonKrolock: 22.Be2 would not have changed (at a first glance) nothing... note that Mecking was 17 or 18 years old in those days |
|
Sep-27-04
 | | beatgiant: <why Nd2? why not 9 Ng5 in order to harass the oddly positioned B?> How would you respond to 10. ♘g5 ♗d5 ? Now it is White whose bishop and knight are oddly positioned, and it is hard to recover the pawn. If then 11. e4 h6 12. ed hg 13. ♗xg5 ♕xd5 14. ♗f4 c6 . Or if 11. f3 h6 12. ♘h3 ♕d7 13. e4 ♗e6 13. ♘f2 f5 . <22.Be2 would not have changed (at a first glance) nothing> It would give White time to castle and consolidate. 22...e5 does not then work because of 23. dc . So at least Black must demonstrate some other way to get counterplay. I agree with <Sabatini> who said White was doing well until 22. ♗g3 . |
|
| Jan-23-05 | | JohnnyRambo: Don't understand why 22. Be2 is so
good. As far as I can tell, 22. Be2 e5 23. dc Rxc5
24. Be7 Rxc3 25. Bxf8 Bxf8 26. Qa1 Rxe3 is fine for black. |
|
Jan-23-05
| | beatgiant: <JohnnyRambo>
Very interesting. In your suggested line, Black gets two minor pieces plus three pawns with an active position for the queen. I would improve it with 26. Qb2, but it still looks good enough for Black.For example, 22. Be2 e5 23. dc Rxc5 24. Be7 Rxc3 25. Bxf8 Bxf8 26. Qb2 Rxe3 27. 0-0 Bc5 28. Kh1 Nc4 29. Bxc4 Bxc4 30. Rd1 b5, and to my surprise, I haven't been able to find any clear winning approach for White. |
|
| Jan-23-05 | | aw1988: 9. Ng5? do you mean 10. Ng5? |
|
Jan-23-05
| | beatgiant: <aw1988: 9. Ng5? do you mean 10. Ng5?>
It's been over two years since <Dec-10-02> when <drukenknight> proposed Ng5 and <Sneaky> agreed. My post of <Sep-27-04> assumed they meant 10. Ng5, since move 10 is the only time it's possible. |
|
| Jan-23-05 | | drukenknight: Yeah, I would have to think I meant 10 Ng5 |
|
| Jan-23-05 | | JohnnyRambo: but how do you evaluate the position
after 22. Be2 e5 23. dc Rxc5 24. Be7 Rxc3 25. Bxf8 Bxf8 26. Qb2 Bb4, with
a notion of 27.... Rc2 |
|
Jan-24-05
| | beatgiant: <JohnnyRambo>
Yes, your latest variation looks good for Black too. Now I agree with <vonKrolock: 22.Be2 would not have changed (at a first glance) nothing...> |
|
Jan-24-05
| | beatgiant: Now I am studying 21. dxc5 bxc5 22. Bb5 Rb8 23. Bxc6 Rxc6 24. 0-0 e6. But I don't see many winning chances for White in this line either. |
|
Jan-24-05
| | beatgiant: For someone who knows this opening, I'm curious what theory says about 7. e4 here. |
|
| Jan-24-05 | | Willem Wallekers: <I'm curious what theory says about 7. e4 here.>
The problem with 7. e4 is that black can defend his pawn by 7 ... b5 8. a4 c6.
With 7. e3 this doesn't work because of 9. axb5 cxb5? 10. Qf3. |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | savagerules: To beatgiant- If 21. dxc5 Na5! and Black's probably winning. This was an incredibly complex game and I bet Fischer was happy with the draw, i think 14...Qa4 15 Nb5! caused him some trouble but he got enough counter-play to draw. |
|
| Nov-28-10 | | lefthandsketch: check out notes to this game here:
http://brooklyn64.com/2010/mecking-... |
|
| Jun-07-11 | | joelsontang: Lou Hays says 30...Nc4  . Agree??? |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 