|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-28-12 | | King Death: <FSR> Here's another game where we can assume that Black was busted somewhere around move 2 or 3 but fought hard and buffaloed his GM opponent: Kavalek vs Suttles, 1974. This was obviously a giant swindle, Black was lucky to see move 10 alive. |
|
Jan-28-12
 | | FSR: <King Death> I cited that game four comments before yours. :-) |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | King Death: <FSR> Lol, I can't read. |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | SChesshevsky: <<Is the value of one tempo in the Exchange French so great...>> I usually play the French and the Exchange tempo seems to give White pretty good control of the e-file and Black probably doesn't want to lose the dark squared Bishop for a N because e7 is pretty important but it's probably not as decisive as Fine declares. If I remember right, Petrosian was very timid in this match. I was surprised that in this game Fischer was able to double up the rooks on the file without paying anything. |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | King Death: < SChesshevsky: ...If I remember right, Petrosian was very timid in this match...> Through game 5 the match was tied but Fischer was lucky not to be down after he pulled out game 2 and Petrosian let him have a draw by repetition in game 3 when he had the better position. |
|
| Feb-02-12 | | parisattack: <FSR: Similarly, having been raised on Reinfeld, I was shocked to see Fischer playing 7...Qb6 and grabbing White's b-pawn against Spassky in the world championship. Didn't that just lose? Fine in his book on the match, true to form, claims that the Poisoned Pawn Variation is unsound, and that Spassky's 14.Nb1!!! (his punctuation) is the refutation. Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 The Lasker-Pelikan-Sveshnikov Variation of the Sicilian was another shocker to me. Much more recently, 3...h6 in the French: Adams vs Short, 2011 What the hell?> All great examples; thank you. Chess is too deep for such general rules - at least above the beginner level. I played the Pelikan consistently in the early 1970s and had a wonderful plus-score with it - partly because players felt they hole at d5 meant they had an easy win. A tip of the hat to Larsen - I discovered the variation in his book, game against Robatsch. Curiously he had played what is now the Svesnikov ....b5 in the 1950s against Olaffson (trunk game, I believe) only to favor ...Rc8 against Robatsch later. Another example - Chernev. Love to read his books but my take is that the generalization and glossy strategy from move 1 to the end is just not how chess is played most of the time. |
|
| Feb-02-12 | | Petrosianic: Well, that's the key. Above the beginner level. Reinfeld would often tell you that things were bad, when what he meant was that they were bad for a beginner. It's good to try to steer the beginner away from certain things, but bad to put in their minds that such things are really no good for anyone. Because then, when your opponents play things that you thought were bad, you think you're doing something wrong if you don't win quickly, when that may not be the case at all. |
|
| Feb-02-12 | | Petrosianic: <Here's another game where we can assume that Black was busted somewhere around move 2 or 3 but fought hard and buffaloed his GM opponent: Kavalek vs Suttles, 1974. This was obviously a giant swindle, Black was lucky to see move 10 alive.> Absolutely. Here's an example straight from Reinfeld. From <Improving Your Chess>: <The Dangers of Ignoring the CenterHaving an adequate command of the center is a life-and-death matter for Black. What happens if he ignores the center is well illustrated in the following opening: 1. d4 g6? 2. e4 Bg7
Black's fianchetto of his King Bishop is premature. His poor timing has allowed White an overwhelming Pawn center. 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 Nd7? 5. Bc4 e6? 6. O-O Ne7?
Diagram: The Black pieces have no striking power.
Any exert player would dismiss Black's position as lost. White has complete control of the center, while Black has neither center Pawn on the fourth rank. White's Knights are developed aggressively on the third rank; Black's Knights go timidly to the second rank. Black's fianchettoed King Bishop accomplishes nothing, while his other Bishop is already destined to be a "problem child." White's Bishops, on the other hand, will have bold, free diagonals.> He doesn't show you any more moves after this. (Granted, this was written in 1955, before Hedgehog formations became popular.) |
|
| Feb-02-12 | | goldenbear: Of course, 22.dxc4 loses a pawn, but why not 22.dxc4? It seems to me like that would give better chances of counterplay. |
|
| Feb-02-12 | | maxi: <Petrosianic>, <ParisAttack>. Yes, chess is very complex, and also it is played by human beings, who are subject to emotion, states of mind, exhaustion, etc. Simple-minded recipes just don't work. One of my first two books was by Reinfeld, and I remember my bafflement when he said that what is called now a Hedgehog was a lost position. I couldn't see why, but I assumed that was because I had not enough experience. The same thing, but at a deeper level, is happening now, with the help of computers. Many known positions, supposedly understood, are being called into question. |
|
Feb-02-12
| | FSR: <parisattack: ... Chess is too deep for such general rules - at least above the beginner level. ... Another example - Chernev. Love to read his books but my take is that the generalization and glossy strategy from move 1 to the end is just not how chess is played most of the time.> Yes. Part of my growing up as a chessplayer was coming to understand that there are no hard and fast rules beyond the trivial ("checkmate is strong"), and that one very rarely will have an overall strategy that governs how one plays an entire game. And that's not just because one isn't a GM; GMs don't usually play that way either. <maxi: ... One of my first two books was by Reinfeld, and I remember my bafflement when he said that what is called now a Hedgehog was a lost position. I couldn't see why, but I assumed that was because I had not enough experience.> Me too. I thought that once I got stronger I would be able to see how White wins by force in such positions. It turns out that he doesn't. I'm not sure if Reinfeld really believed this stuff or if this was just what he told his readers - assuming that most of them were beginners, and that it was easier for them to deal with definite rules than with subtleties and uncertainties. I think that the dogmatic statements in these old books really stunt one's growth as a player. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | drukenknight: did anyone suggest 34....Rxh3? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | fischer2009: <FSR> Reinfeld and more amazingly even the legendary Victory Korchnoi and not only them but many players of the classical school did believe that the hedgehog was  believing that black has no compensation for the enormous space advantage.It all developed only when players like Adorjan,Ftacnik,Yusupov,Andersson took up the black side and demonstrated convincingly that flexibility and inherent dynamismcoiled spring of available pawnbreaks are a very viable compensation for the space that they lack.Get GARRY KASPAROV'S Opening Revolution in the 1970's and the first chapter is on hedgehog.Chess has grown is all i can say!!! |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | drukenknight: you have nothing to say about my suggestion? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: <drukenknight> <you have nothing to say about my suggestion?> Give us your thoughts and analysis on it. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | King Death: <Petrosianic: He was something that starts with 'p' and ends with 'ant'...> <Shams: Piquant?>
My money's on piquant, -700. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: I thought <pissant>. |
|
Feb-03-12
| | FSR: <TheFocus> That's what I actually figured he meant. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | Shams: <maxi><One of my first two books was by Reinfeld, and I remember my bafflement when he said that what is called now a Hedgehog was a lost position. I couldn't see why, but I assumed that was because I had not enough experience.> Reinfeld wasn't the only one who felt that way, though. He was writing long before this seminal game was played-- read the quote by Adorján on that page. He wasn't the only one amazed to see his countryman, a classical virtuoso, fall to the Hedgehog like he did. Portisch vs Ulf Andersson, 1975 |
|
Feb-03-12
 | | paulalbert: One of the reasons I feel that I never was more successful in chess, other than lack of raw talent which is the ultimate determinant of how far you can go, is that my only early exposure to any instruction was Fred Reinfeld's beginners' books, which made me an unbeatable 10 year old with comparable age opponents, but didn't expose me to real chess thinking. Chernev's books actually would have helped, but ultimately you get to the point where you understand that knowing the general principles expressed by Steinitz, Tarrasch, Nimzowitsch and others ( even though in some cases they disagree ) is useful , and some of the great players may have even had confidence in the universal applicability of general principles; however,finally you realize what Botvinnik,,and others, said a long time ago and John Watson fleshed out in his books: the proper chess move in every position is a matter of concrete analysis, sometimes in accord with, but not determined by general principles. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | drukenknight: "Give us your thoughts and analysis on it."
you dont want to try it? |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | TheFocus: My Spidey-sense says not to play ...Rxh3.
I do hope we are speaking about in this game, and not in some analysis someone posted and I missed. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | maxi: Some spatial advantages are lethal, I know that as a practical chess player. Some do not give the side with space any real advantage. The trick, my friends, is knowing which is which. I was playing a friendly game the other day, and I was able to place my d Pawn on d6, in front of the other d Pawn, with most of the other Pawns still on the board. His Rooks and pieces basically could not go from one side of the board to the other. My opponent was dead meat. It was easy to finish him off. The problem with the search for truth in chess is that there are too many possible positions. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | maxi: The move ...Rxh3 seems suspect at first sight. |
|
| Feb-03-12 | | parisattack: <paulalbert ... the proper chess move in every position is a matter of concrete analysis, sometimes in accord with, but not determined by general principles.> Bingo! IMHO, that skill is a 'either you have it or you don't.' And also of course why computers are 3200 and moving up. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
