| Nov-18-04 | | HOTDOG: 9.Bd3 (9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.Bd3 Nb6 11.Qc2 Nc4 12.Kf1 Nd6 is equal,Botvinnik-Petrosian 1963,17. of the match)
11.Kf1 (11.0-0!? h5! 12.g5 Ne4 and Black is better)
14...Nd7 (14...Ne4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Bxe4 f5 17.gxf5 Bxf5 18.Qd3)
15.Qc2! (prevents Nd7-b6-c4)
16.f3! (16.g5? Nh5! 17.Bxh7+ Kh8 and the attack is finished)
18.Rae1! (18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Bxh7+ Kh8 and Black has the initiative)
20...Nd7? (20...Qd6 =)
28.Nb2! (the Knight tries to go on the e5 square)
33.g5! (now the dark squares of Black are weak)
37...Qxg5+? (better resistance with 37...Kg7 38.Nf4 Kf7 39.Kg3) |
|
| Mar-21-08 | | Knight13: <11. Kf1> If 11. O-O Black can play stuff like ...Nxg4 followed by ...bxg4 threatening ...cxd4 exd4 Nxd4. |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | tomfoolery: <Knight13> What do you suggest black does after 11. O-O Nxg4 12. hxg4 Bxg4 13. Be2? |
|
| Jul-17-12 | | Ulhumbrus: After 44 Ke5 Botvinnik is playing with an extra king. |
|
| Jul-17-12 | | RookFile: This is an accurate description. What is the playing strength of a king? 3 points or something? Whatever it is, black was basically a piece down, when viewed this way. |
|
| Jul-17-12 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @rookfile
although ascribing a numerical value to the king is frowned on (you lose the game if you lose the king!), I have seen it written the king is almost worth 5 (ie. a rook) in the endgame. |
|
Jun-13-14
 | | offramp: There is a slight puzzle for me in this game.
White plays 14.exd4 and black plays 14...Nf6-d7.
click for larger view
Now white plays 15.Qd1-c2 with the obvious threat to h7.
One thing Petrosian disliked doing was moving the pawns in front of his king. So rather than playing ....h6 or ....g6 he goes back with the knight. 15.Nd7-f6.
click for larger view
The game continues in a normal sort of way. White plays 19.♖e1:e5,
click for larger view
...And now black plays 19....g7-g6.
click for larger view
This game was Petrosian's only loss after game 1. Petrosian won the next game. |
|
| Jun-13-14 | | Olavi: Well, at least there is no black squared bishop anymore to use those holes on the kingside. Petrosian was always a very undogmatic player. :-) |
|
Jun-13-14
| | offramp: < Olavi: Well, at least there is no black squared bishop anymore... > Brilliant. That's it. It's obvious now you point it out. Thanks! |
|
| Feb-26-18 | | tgyuid: 12.Kg2; worth a pawn |
|
| Feb-26-18 | | tgyuid: 16.f3; we are enlightened;; the employ of a reubenstein attack yet based on superior foundation |
|
| Mar-18-18 | | SpaceRunner: King value when in endgame a bit more than a knight = 3.5 Less than Steinitz suggested :
4 points!
Lasker was brilliant to activate the king at the right time -especially in th WC matches against none other than Steinitz !! |
|
| Apr-24-21 | | tbontb: At the time, 54....h4 was recognised as the losing move, with 54....g5 recommended as an improvement. Botvinnik later gave 55.Ra5 as the best try but in fact 55....h4 56.Rxg5 Rxa2 quickly results in a tablebase draw. |
|
| Apr-24-21 | | Petrosianic: <Botvinnik later gave 55.Ra5 as the best try but in fact 55....h4 56.Rxg5 Rxa2 quickly results in a tablebase draw.> Which doesn't contradict the claim that it might in fact be White's best try. |
|
| Apr-24-21 | | SChesshevsky: Get the feeling game's an example of a rare instance where Petrosian misjudged a position badly. Think up through 17. Be5, he knows he's worse with all white aimed at king. Probably wisely looks to relieve some pressure. At 22...Nc4, might still feel worse but relieved to has some counter play. But after 24. Rd2, Petrosian might start believing he's at least equal with possible initiative. Which may be correct. At move 34 with the little N and B dance. At least equal and willing to draw. But after Botvinnik continues, think Petrosian misjudges and thinks he's better and plays for the win. Seems his over optimism soon turns against him. An over optimistic Petrosian doesn't seem to happen a lot. Maybe his earlier wins were a factor? |
|
Jan-19-24
 | | plang: 7 g4 was a new move when introduced in game 12 but Botvinnik had played a similar idea against Alatortsev in 1934 which led to the line being named the Alatortsev variation. In game 12 Botvinnik had played 8 Bd3; here he varied with 8 h3. 14..Rc8 was suggested as an improvement. 18 Bxf6..Qxf6 19 Bxh7+..Kh8 would have given Black good counterplay. 19 dxe..d4 (19..Nh5 20 Qd2) 20 exf..Qxf6 21 Bxh7+..Kh8 would have led to complications that do not appear to favor White. Tal recommended 20..Qd6 with the idea of 21 f4..Ne4. 33 g5 weakened Black on the dark squares which was consistent with White's strong knight versus weak bishop strategy. 34..Bf5 35 gxf..Rxf6 36 Qe5..Rd6 37 Re2 would have led to the loss of Black's d-pawn. The endgame was favorable for White but the alternative 37..Kg7 38 Nf4..Kf7 39 Kg3 would have been tough for Black as well. 38..a4?! led to White getting control of c5 after 40 a5!. 55..Rf2? was the most egregious error in the rook ending after which the game could not be saved. |
|
| Jan-19-24 | | Olavi: <plang: 7 g4 was a new move when introduced in game 12 but Botvinnik had played a similar idea against Alatortsev in 1934 which led to the line being named the Alatortsev variation.> The move that defines it as Alatortsev variation is 3...Be7. |
|
Kibitzing
