|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-24-05 | | patzer2: Black missed a chance to equalize with the defensive possibility 19... Nf4! 20. Qd3 Ne6 21. Bd6 Rc8 22. b3 Qc6 23. Qe3 f6 24. e5 Kf7 25. exf6 gxf6 26. Nh4 Rhd8 27. Nf5 Qc2 28. Qf3 Nf4 29. Ne3 Qxd1+ 30. Nxd1 (not 30. Qxd1?? Rc1! 31. Qxc1 Ne2+ 32. Kf1 Nxc1  ) 30... Rxd6 31. h4 Rc1 32. Qxf4 Rcxd1+ 33. Kh2 h5 34. Qh6 R1d5  . Here Black might even have a slight advantage with two Rooks for the Queen. |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | patzer2: White uses the double attack 21. Rd7! as a decoy to flush out the Black King for a decisive pursuit combination: 21. Rd7! Rc7
[also leading to a quick mate for White is 21... Qa8 22. Rxe7+ Kf8 23. Qf3 Qd5 24. Re6+ Kg8 25. Qxf7+ Kh7 26. Rxh6+ Kxh6 27. Qg6#] 22. Rd8+! Kxd8 23. Nxf7+ Kd7 [23... Kc8 24. Nd6+  ; 23... Ke8 24. Nd6+ ] 24. Qg4+! Kc6 [24... Nf5 25. Qxf5+ Ke8 (25... Kc6 26. Qd5#) 26. Nd6+ ] 25. Qe6+ and Black resigned in lieu of 25...Kxc5 26. Qd6+ Kc4 27.
Ne5# 1-0 |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | schnarre: <Saph> I concur on both counts: the game & today's pun! |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | maxxowar: <Tigepwans> yes, the best way for black to equalize is 17... f6. |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | schnarre: Why not 17...Nxd5 followed by 18...f6? |
|
| Apr-24-05 | | backyard pawn: Yes, patzer2 is correct. Once 22. Rd8+!, then all of black's responses are forced. Black had only to decide which dead end to run down. |
|
Apr-25-05
 | | kevin86: Put your sacs in a sari!!
I really exciting,almost comical game of "run for your life!" by black's king. |
|
| Apr-25-05 | | schnarre: Sort of the "Hello...goodbye" among games, eh?! |
|
| Mar-29-06 | | Chicago Chess Man: This is probably elementary, but can anyone tell me why black doesn't play 8 ... c4 trapping the bishop? Or will that weaken the queen side too much? |
|
| Mar-29-06 | | DP12: It doesn't trap the bishop(Bc2) and yes it weakens the queenside. But perhaps most importantly it loosens blacks control over the center and gives white a free hand to play for e4 without having to worry about black destroying the center by taking on d4. |
|
| Mar-29-06 | | DP12: Patzer2, about 19... Nf4. Let's follow your line because I have a question. 19...Nf4 20. Qe3/Qd2 Ne6 21.Bd6 Rc8 22.b3... Why b3? the plan e5 and Nd2 seems much more sensible to the uniniated. |
|
| Mar-29-06 | | Chicago Chess Man: DP12: good point, i must be blind today or something |
|
Jul-10-06
 | | Eggman: Immediately after the game Boleslavsky revealed to Dzindzichashvili that the whole thing had been home preparation. It had been prepared for Petrosian for his 1966 title defense against Spassky. Spassky never played the QGA in that match, however, and so it was Dzindzi who became the innocent victim here. |
|
| Sep-29-11 | | DrMAL: Seems big fish tale. After earlier mistakes it looks like Roman missed 20...Qc7 and blundered with 20...Rc8? losing (23...Kd7? lost faster, 24..Kc6?? mate in 3). In his video (Roman Lab #2) he states after 14.Rxd5 it was all played hundreds of times before, here is OE tab you decide Opening Explorer LOL. |
|
| Sep-29-11 | | DrMAL: Roman claims in his video that 17.Rd2 was well known theory and 17.Rad1 was part of an opening preparation for 1966 WC match. Look at OE Opening Explorer proving this fish tale as Boleslavsky is not talking. Everyone has their worst games it's only human, no need to make up BS for it. |
|
| Sep-29-11 | | Everyone: I can't remember something of the like. |
|
| Sep-29-11 | | DrMAL: It is in DVD Roman's Lab #2 a friend recently gave me, parts on positional sacrifice and ambitious opening are very good video I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Romans-Lab-Ch... |
|
| Sep-21-13 | | johnkr: According to Fritz Black could get away with 17...Nd5 18 ed5 h6! (not however 18...f6) 19 Bh5 Kf8!? and Black is . But maybe Boleslavsky had n something in mind to meet that. |
|
| Feb-12-15 | | bengalcat47: Nice game by Boleslavsky. So how do you pronounce his opponent's surname? |
|
| Feb-12-15 | | Granny O Doul: Roman himself pronounces it something like "JIN-jee-hash-VEE-lee", at least in talking to Americans. |
|
| Dec-26-18 | | Cibator: According to a report of this game in the UK's "Chess" magazine, it was played in some kind of student event. Which makes Boleslavsky's participation a little odd, to say the least. He was nearly 48 at the time. |
|
Dec-26-18
 | | plang: Still don't understand why Boleslavsky (and Lilienthal) are not listed in the players under Advanced Search - they are better than most of the players listed and deserve more respect. |
|
Dec-26-18
 | | perfidious: Recency bias and all that; the players named were not 2600 in the FIDE-rated epoch, so presumably never existed--never mind that they were dang tough, and two of Botvinnik's opponents from the 1941 match tournament, as well as participants in Budapest Candidates (1950), which featured Boleslavsky coming first ex aequo before losing a playoff to Bronstein. Yes, they could play a little; who could forget Lilienthal vs Capablanca, 1935? |
|
Dec-26-18
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: While it is more than a bit strange that Boleslavsky and Lilienthal aren't in the short list of players, they are both included in the longer list of players that appears if "Longer list of players on homepage" is selected in the User Preferences. |
|
Dec-26-18
| | perfidious: Dayum, they <do> exist after all! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 18.Bxe7