|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-06-06 | | ughaibu: 36.... d4? |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | KingG: <ughaibu> 36...d4 37.Rg5!  |
|
Jun-06-06
 | | keypusher: What is this <creating a second weakness> claptrap anyway? 25. g4 creates a weakness in White's position. That it (possibly) wins by force is a mere detail. |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | KingG: <keypusher> It creates a weakness in White's position that Black has no way of exploiting(so it's not really a weakness). On the other hand, once the pawn reaches h5, it creates a weakness on Black's K-side that White can exploit. |
|
Jun-06-06
| | keypusher: Well, as long as we're throwing jargon around, g4-g5 creates targets, not an enemy weakness as I understand the term. Botvinnik breaks up his own kingside to make Black's king easier to get at. That makes <textbook example of creating a second weakness> a silly way to describe the game IMO. |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | madlydeeply: ooh, look at this game...I gotta new toy! Open the gfile in an IQP position...I can't wait to try it out... Botvinnik won from both sides of the IQP, dominate the center, then start a kingside attack and the opponent collapses... I wonder if Botvinnik would have opened up his kingside of more minor pieces were present...there would be more counterattacking potential if black had some knights, also how about 29... or 30...Rd6 looking to swing over to g6 and start a counterattack...makes the position less rational... thank goodness black played 33...Rb8 covering the all important b pawn, the endgame is never too far away! I mighta played ....Rd6-h6, ...Be6, ...Kf7, ...Rfh8 but hey that's why I'm such a crazy patzer! |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | KingG: < Well, as long as we're throwing jargon around, g4-g5 creates targets, not an enemy weakness as I understand the term. Botvinnik breaks up his own kingside to make Black's king easier to get at. That makes <textbook example of creating a second weakness> a silly way to describe the game IMO.> What is the difference between 'weakness' and 'target'? They seem mean more or less the same thing to me. |
|
Jun-06-06
| | keypusher: The pawn at d5 is a weakness. The pawn at g7 is a target. |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | KingG: <keypusher> They are both weak pawns aren't they? |
|
Jun-06-06
| | keypusher: <KingG> The pawn at d5 is a classic weakness, of course. The pawn at g7 isn't -- it isn't backward (at the moment Botvinnik plays g4-g5), isolated or doubled. It is, rather, relatively easy to attack, and hard to defend. That makes it a target. A small distinction, but a useful one, in my view. |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | KingG: <keypusher> Ok, i see your point. |
|
Jun-06-06
 | | Gypsy: <madlydeeply: ooh, look at this game...I gotta new toy! Open the gfile in an IQP position...I can't wait to try it out...> This g2-g4-g5 is a standard 'can-opener' maneuver. It works of the 'hook' on h6 (or one on f6) for this to work. I am not making the strange rerminology up, the saying goes that you need such a hook to have somethin upon which to hang your attack. If the 'hook' is on g6, then the the standard 'can-opener' maneuver is h2-h4-h5. I reckon that when Botvinnik played the 'escape hatch' move h2-h3, he expected fully well to induce the tit-for-tat reply h7-h6 (or g7-g6). |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | madlydeeply: I've seen Botvinnik lift his rooks in the IQP similar position to go for a king side attack, along with a knight posted in e5 attacking f7, and I have seen lots of games utilising the h6 or g6 hook, those are generally sicilians with opposite side castling or ruy lopez' with e4/d5 vs. e5/d6 center blockage...what is new (for me) about this game is the center is open and airy, so playing g4 is a little more ballsy, weakening f3 and h3 when black has the light squared bishop... and I'm all for strange rerminology! did you make up the word "rerminology"? its a good one! oh, i guess you meant "terminology" no that I think about it, "terminology" is a good name for nuclear weapons, a contraction of "terminal technology". Oh i'm so funny |
|
| Jun-06-06 | | offramp: I think there should be no kibitzing at all for this dull-as-ditchwater game. |
|
Jun-06-06
| | Gypsy: <madlydeeply...what is new (for me) about this game is the center is open and airy, so playing g4 is a little more ballsy, weakening f3 and h3 when black has the light squared bishop...> Two times to play thus: one, when we have all the initiative; two, when we have none. In the first case, we play for the win; in the second, for mixing up things. <did you make up the word "rerminology"?> Lol. I obviously did. Speaking of rook lifts and IQP: This is a duzy Keene vs Miles, 1975. |
|
| Oct-18-07 | | fictionist: I don't understand some of these user's posts that Botvinnik did actually make a weakness by playing 25.g4. I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it is well played as it starts to undermine Black's kingside resulting into a nearly naked kingside for Black. His pieces are indeed active but tied down to their posts and couldn't even react to Botvinnik's "little-by-little" invasion. Black's rooks were already too late to defend. |
|
| Sep-20-08 | | Phoenix: Botvinnik first nails down the IQP, then opens a second front on black's king...the principle of two weaknesses in action. 25.g4 loosens up white's kingside but black cannot take advantage of it, being too tied up with the defense of his d-pawn. This example was a middlegame, whereas Aronian vs Ivanchuk, 2008 was an endgame, but the similarities are clear. Aronian contains the d-pawn with a nice king maneuver and breaks through on the kingside via f4-f5 creating more weaknesses on g6 and b6. Quite instructive. |
|
Oct-16-10
 | | whiteshark: It's called a <Bayonet Attack>. It's a second front to bring the black pieces in disorder. I would rather do it like G.M. Scaevola before I would have allowed my hand to move <29...f5>. |
|
| Feb-15-12 | | Naniwazu: Isolanis aren't always weak, but in this case it is. g4! is a move I would never spot. |
|
| Sep-27-16 | | Howard: The latter part of this game was just analyzed in New in Chess (issue #6). It was in an article about the "g4" pawn stab. Here, it takes place on the 25th move. |
|
Nov-14-17
 | | tpstar: Instructive win over the IQP. White's major pieces ruthlessly exploit the weak dark squares while Black has no counterplay. |
|
Nov-11-20
 | | kingscrusher: Instructive play vs IQP |
|
| Mar-24-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger viewBLACK TO MOVE
In this position Black played the passive 33...Rb8?? defending his attacked b6-pawn, but that move proved to be the losing mistake. He should have sacrificed that pawn for the sake of putting up an active resistance and getting some counterplay. For example: 33...Be8 (33...Rc8 also deserved attention) 34.Qxb6 f4! 35.exf4 (or else 35.Qxa5? fxe3 and Black wins) 35...Rxf4, and as a compensation for the sacrificed pawn Black would have an active defense with good chances of counterplay (diagram):
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-24-21 | | Gaito: Botvinnik played very well in this game but Zagorjansky played passively and defended poorly. After 35.Qh8+ White has a winning attack, but Black played 35...Bg8? which amounted to throwing himself into the water for fear of the rain. He might have tried to escape with the king to the opposite wing with 35...Ke7, etc.
This game was played in 1943, a year when the Soviet Union was involved in a terrible war against Hitler's Wehrmacht. But it was played in April, and I believe that Paulus' Sixth Army in Stalingrad had just been surrendered and forced to capitulate, with nearly a hundred thousand German prisoners. Wasn't it on February 2nd, 1943 when Paulus' sixth army surrendered? I find it curious that in spite of the terrible affairs that were happening in the Soviet Union in April, 1943, chess actrivities hadn't been stopped. I believe that if Botvinnk hadn't been such a good chess player, maybe he would have been called to the army in order to help in the defense against the attacks of the Wehrmacht. The same might be said about other chess masters. Probably being good at chess saved their lives! |
|
Mar-24-21
| | keypusher: <I believe that if Botvinnk hadn't been such a good chess player, maybe he would have been called to the army in order to help in the defense against the attacks of the Wehrmacht. The same might be said about other chess masters. Probably being good at chess saved their lives!> Belavenets was killed in the war. Someone more knowledgeable like BUNA could no doubt name others (some of whom died in the Gulag rather than at the front). Botvinnik didn't sit the war out; he headed a unit that serviced, I understand, high-tension power lines, and boasted of his unit's excellent performance. His only chess events were the Moscow championship and Sverdlosk in 1943 and the XIIIth USSR championship in 1944. His vision was so bad I don't think he could have served in the front lines even if he hadn't been able to play chess at all. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
