|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-31-10
 | | chrisowen: In Soviet Russia...
me se11 House Catfish in tank...
Both Open it door domain...
often traded Guns Ammo... |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | SuperPatzer77: After 65...Bd5+, White resigns in lieu of 66. Kf2 Kf4, 67. Bc1+ Ke4, 68. Kg2 Be6 (Black's bishop has to protect Black's h-pawn), 69. Bb2 Kd3!, 70. d5 h3+, 71. Kg3 Bd7 (blocking the advancing White d-pawn), 72. Be5 Kc2, 73. Kf3 b2, 74. Bxb2 (forced) Kxb2 (now White will eventually lose his own d-pawn and the game) 0-1 SuperPatzer77 |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | Riverbeast: How to win these opposite color B endgames?
This is what Every Russian Schoolboy Knows! |
|
| Jul-26-12 | | vinidivici: <DarthStapler: I didn't get it>
If u know the theory it's quite really simple.
Dvoretsky put this game in one of his book with full explanations.59...g5!!
The point to make sure white bishop CAN'T protect the h4 pawn. So when white 60.fxg5, the king will move to g3 and claim the h4 pawn BUT NOT YET. After 60.fxg5
60...d4+ The point is to protect b3 pawn with bishop
After that white will claim the h4 pawn. Here we goes, black got 2 passed pawns the h5 and b3 pawns. White also has 2 passed pawns but his king obliged to guard black b3 pawn and white bishop guarding the SINGLE g8-h2 DIAGONAL so white passed pawns have no power to make promotion. Thats a common tactics what Botvinnik had done. I myself need to 10 minutes to solve it until move 61 for black only to fall to 61...Kg4 trap. It would be a draw in view 62.d5 Bxd5 63.Bf2 |
|
| Sep-01-14 | | Xeroxx: Monday Puzzle after 59.c5.
Black To Move and Win. |
|
| Dec-03-14 | | pjanda: 61. ... Kg3 (61. ... Kg4? 62. d5 Bd5 63. Bf2= ) |
|
| Nov-08-15 | | zydeco: 41.Qg3 would have been a significant improvement on what Kotov played. If 41....Kf7 then 42.Qh4. |
|
| Nov-09-15 | | Everett: <-26-12 vinidivici: <DarthStapler: I didn't get it> If u know the theory it's quite really simple.
Dvoretsky put this game in one of his book with full explanations.> Oh, I see, it is simple once you have a famous teacher explain it to you in a book. Got it. |
|
| May-13-16 | | tigreton: A beautiful example of how far separated passed pawns are much stronger than other factors -even the own bishop- in this kind of endgames. |
|
| May-13-16 | | Petrosianic: The simple explanation is just "Cut the King off", after which point it becomes a simple Overloaded Piece scenario. |
|
| Jun-05-16 | | Timi Timov: User: Xeroxx that isn't for sure a Monday Puzzle |
|
| Jun-05-16 | | Timi Timov: I guess, the move after 59. Bc5 would be a nice Saturday Puzzle |
|
Jul-17-17
 | | offramp: One of Botvinnik's best games, and an endgame classic. |
|
Aug-30-22
 | | GrahamClayton: In the space of 20 moves, Botvinnik gives a master-class on how to win an opposite bishop ending. |
|
| Jan-31-23 | | LoveThatJoker: Beautiful ending.
LTJ |
|
Feb-01-23
 | | beatgiant: Can someone finish the punch line?
"In Soviet Russia...Botvinnik bashes you!"
"In Soviet Russia...endings with opposite colored bishops are the sharpest positions!" "In Soviet Russia...game of the day pun mocks kibitzer!" |
|
| Feb-01-23 | | stone free or die: I didn't play this one through, but I did play it backwards. Did anybody else notice the "hree time repetition claimable" notice after 37.Qf2? . |
|
Feb-01-23
| | beatgiant: <stone free or die>
See https://chessgames.com/perl/kibitzi... |
|
Feb-01-23
 | | keypusher: < Pawn and Two: <HOTDOG: after 36...Qg6 it's a draw for three-fold repetition>
Botvinnik noted in, "Half A Century of Chess", both players overlooked that Kotov could have claimed the draw before he played 37.Qf2. Botvinnik indicated that in time trouble, and maneuvering first with one piece (the bishop) and then another (the queen), he forgot the repetition of the position.> Kotov vs Botvinnik, 1955 (kibitz #10) |
|
| Feb-01-23 | | stone free or die: Thanks <kp>, <beat>. |
|
| Feb-01-23 | | stone free or die: Here's a technical question -
I thought the <draw by repetition> is valid only for the move where the position is repeated. Using <wiki>: <he relevant rules in the FIDE laws of chess are summarized as:[3] The game is a draw if a position occurs (at least) three times during the game. (Intervening moves do not matter.) It must be claimed by the player with the turn to move. The claim is made:
(a) If the position is about to appear for the third time, the player making the claim first writes their move on their scoresheet and notifies the arbiter that they intend to make this move.
or
(b) If the position has just appeared for the third time, the player with the move can claim the draw.> So, shouldn't <CG>'s playback drop the claim after the move is played and the draw not claimed? (It would be nice to provide notice that a draw wasn't claimed though). Am I correct in assuming the draw claim could be made on another repetition of a position (say 4th, 5th, etc. time)? I think so. Makes the logic a little complicated for Olga. |
|
| Feb-01-23 | | stone free or die: Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three.... Also FIDE rulebook, p13
https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/... |
|
Feb-01-23
| | beatgiant: <stone free or die> You are correct. "In Soviet Russia...threefold repetition overlooks you!" |
|
| Feb-01-23 | | stone free or die: Ha! (and to get <CG> to post) Ha! |
|
Feb-01-23
| | beatgiant: "In America, kibitzer laughs at kibitzer. In Soviet Russia, it's the other way round." |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
