|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-08-04
 | | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
In your earlier line, you gave 29. h4 ♖d3+ 30. ♔c2 ♖d8 31. ♖b2 ♖h8 32. ♖b7 ♖h8 33. ♖c7+ and "You are going to be hard pressed to make progress." What if Black then plays 33...♔b5 34. f4 e5 freeing the rook. A sample continuation like 35. ♔c3 ♗e6 36. ♖xa7 ♖h8 37. fe ♖c8+ 38. ♔d3 ♖c6 39. ♖b7+ ♔xa6 40. ♖b4 ♖b6 41. ♖f4 ♖b2 42. g4 ♖h2 shows Black having no difficulty making progress. You might be right about the other line with 31...♗xa6 . Black probably shouldn't let White save the bishop so easily. |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | drukenknight: well we are now talking two lines; which line do you want to do...? or which line should we do FIRST? |
|
Dec-08-04
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
<well we are now talking two lines; which line do you want to do...? or which line should we do FIRST?>If you are trying to prove White can hold, you have to be prepared to show that against all lines. But I thought it was clear enough that I said you might be right about the other line and
Black probably shouldn't allow it.
So show us why you think Black has difficulty making progress after the end of your original line. |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | drukenknight: just post the line you are talking about. We can do more than one line (I already said as much) I just want to know what you want to do first, before I get confused. |
|
Dec-08-04
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>
<just post the line you are talking about>
At a risk of violating the postig guideline against duplicating posts,<29. h4 ♖d3+ 30. ♔c2 ♖d8 31. ♖b2 ♖h8 32.♖b7 ♖xh7 33. ♖c7+ and "You are going to be hard pressed to make progress." What if Black then plays 33...♔b5 34. f4 e5 freeing the rook. A sample continuation like 35. ♔c3 ♗e6 36. ♖xa7 ♖h8 37. fe ♖c8+ 38. ♔d3 ♖c6 39. ♖b7+ ♔xa6 40. ♖b4 ♖b6 41. ♖f4 ♖b2 42. g4 ♖h2 shows Black having no difficulty making progress.> |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | EnglishOpeningc4: This game reaches the endgame before most games rech the middle game. I wonder if this was a Grandmaster Draw that they decided to play out |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | drukenknight: bg in your last line it looks like whites 34th is a crossroads, I am looking at: 34. e4 (maybe Kd2 is sufficient) Be2
35. Rxa7 Kb6
36. Rd7 Bxa6
37. Rd6+ Kb7 |
|
Dec-08-04
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
Even if we accept your line and don't look for improvements for Black, in the final position Black has a piece for a pawn, there are several pawns left, and White doesn't have any visible counterplay. In the actual game, Alekhine got much closer to a draw by almost succeeding in exchanging off all the pawns. So I don't understand your point. |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | drukenknight: what do you mean we dont look for improvements? I have been dumping this into the crap computer for some time now. Over and over looking for improvements! What the hell else can I do? The line keeps going, do you want to play it or oral debate it? |
|
| Dec-08-04 | | drukenknight: 38 Kd2 I guess, do you want to discuss? |
|
Dec-13-04
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
<38 Kd2 I guess, do you want to discuss?>If you mean to suggest that White may have any drawing chances with 29. h4 ♖d3+ 30. ♔c2 ♖d8 31. ♖b2 ♖h8 32. ♖b7 ♖xh7 33. ♖c7+ ♔b5 34. e4 ♗e2 35. ♖xa7 ♔b6 36. ♖d7 ♗xa6 38. ♔d2 , you have a very heavy burden of proof. The position is quiescent and I don't see any compensation for the big loss of material. You need to explain what you think White is playing for. What Black can do against passive defense is something like the following: he brings his king to the kingside ( ...♗b5-♗d7 and ...♔c7-♔d8-♔e7 for example), brings his rook to the queenside (...♖h5-♖a5-♖a4 for example), and starts attacking White's pawns (could be ♗b5-♗a6-♗b7 depending on how White defends), forcing White to weaken with ♙f3. Next, Black pushes White's king back (for example manuevers ...♗c4 followed by ...♖a2 . Then Black can play ...♗e2, white rook moves to 3rd rank, Black ...♖d2 and forces a trade of rooks with the following ...♖d3. With the rooks off, Black wins easily by advancing his king and attacking White's pawns. White will get in zugzwang because of Black's extra bishop. Of course, White can do things to prevent all that, but it would weaken his pawns in other ways and Black still wins. If you aren't convinced, look in an endgame book or play it out. The winning process is too long and multi-branching for you to expect someone to analyze a line here. World champion players like Alekhine and Euwe don't need to analyze the specific lines beyond this point. This is what's called endgame technique. |
|
| Dec-14-04 | | chessfritz1: Agreeing with bg, i feel that white has his job cut-out trying to defend the position after your discussion's 38. Kd2, but for the sake of improving my endgame, i would like to discuss the lines with you.Lets say, 38..Bf1 39.f4 Kc7 40.e5 Rh8 41.Kc3 now black can attack white's rook 41..Rd8 if the rook moves 42..Bh3 and whites pawns are pinned and helpless and black can bring his king into play targeting g4, any more ideas? |
|
| Dec-14-04 | | drukenknight: Hello chess fritz; in your line 39...Kc7 is not possible since my rook is on d7 (36 Rd7). I hope you will continue this, it might be fun. |
|
Dec-14-04
| | beatgiant: <chessfritz1>:
<Lets say, 38..Bf1 39.f4 Kc7 40.e5 Rh8 41.Kc3 now black can attack white's rook 41..Rd8 if the rook moves 42..Bh3 and whites pawns are pinned and helpless and black can bring his king into play targeting g4, any more ideas?>It looks like you missed a move somewhere in here (maybe 39...Kc6 40. Rd4 was omitted). White's strategy in this kind of ending should be to try to trade off pawns (an extra bishop alone cannot mate) and avoid getting his pawns frozen. So instead of e5 as in your line, White can try f5 or just leave the pawns where they are. Then the win takes longer. I'm a little nonplussed. This poor sideline, much worse than what Alekhine played in the actual game, has become the main focus of the discussion! |
|
| Dec-14-04 | | drukenknight: how do you prove it was worse than what was played? |
|
Dec-14-04
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
<how do you prove it was worse than what was played?>
In the actual game, Alekhine manages to trade off almost all of Euwe's pawns and get a passed pawn himself. In this sideline, Euwe keeps most of his pawns, and Alekhine has no sign of counterplay. |
|
| Dec-15-04 | | chessfritz1: <drunkenknight> would you please give the line from 36. Rd7 is it 36..Bxa6 37.Rd6+ Kb7 and then 38. Kd2 ? |
|
| Dec-16-04 | | drukenknight: yes cf, I think that is it. dont have much time to double check this right now. |
|
| Dec-16-04 | | arifattar: Why not 34. Rxc4? I don't understand this stuff. |
|
| Dec-16-04 | | Cyphelium: <arifattar> 34. Rxc4 Rxf2 is completely hopeless for white. Black will take pawn a6 as well and then it's an easy win. So 34. Rxf7 was a desperate saving attempt. |
|
| Jun-21-15 | | sneaky pete: Game 30, played Thursday December 16, Diergaarde (Zoo) Rotterdam. It's not often that a world champion not named Carlsen loses twice in a row. |
|
| Jun-21-15 | | ughaibu: You piqued my curiosity, was there any world champion who never lost two in a row? |
|
| Jun-22-15 | | Howard: It's a bit hard to believe that Alekhine and Carlsen are the "only" WC's to lose twice in a row. |
|
| Jun-22-15 | | ughaibu: Steinitz: www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl？tid＝５３７８８ Lasker: Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894); Capablance: St Petersburg (1914); Euwe: Game Collection: Euwe-Keres Match 1939/40; Botvinnik: Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Match (1954); Smyslov: Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Return Match (1957); Tal: Curacao Candidates (1962); Petrosian: USSR Championship (1949); Spassky: Fischer - Spassky World Championship Match (1972); Fischer: Second Piatigorsky Cup (1966); Karpov: Karpov - Korchnoi World Championship Match (1978); Kasparov: Karpov - Kasparov World Championship Match (1984); Kramnik: Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match (2008); Anand: Karpov - Anand World Championship Match (1998) |
|
| Jun-22-15 | | ughaibu: Here's a second attempt at the Steinitz link: Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match (1886) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
