| Nov-19-02 | | refutor: this is the game that inspired botvinnik to turn this system in a weapon and use it vs. denker in the 1945 match |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | drukenknight: the anti meran thingie. What about on 14 Bxc4 this would seem to be a weakness in blacks position that a diagonal attacker can get a check in there. |
|
Nov-20-02
 | | Sneaky: 14. Bxc4 is preposterous. |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | drukenknight: yes well show me how stupid I am. |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | refutor: 14. ... bxc4 followed up by ...Nd5. if Bxe7 for white, Qxe7 followed up by castling queenside, pushing ...c5 and attacking down the h-file. i think Bxc4 is just throwing away material personally ;) |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | drukenknight: "if Bxe7..." you are talking about possible moves w/o considering whites next move. 14...bxc4 15 Bxf6 |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | refutor: i'm talking about ideas, not variations...after 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 black's position is even stronger...i was just trying to show some of the reasons why "Bxc4 is preposterous" :) you don't need concrete variations to show that, ideas should suffice |
|
| Nov-20-02 | | drukenknight: 16 Qa4+ |
|
| Nov-04-04 | | refutor: is 16.Qa4+ even a legal move? |
|
| Nov-04-04 | | sneaky pete: <refutor> Not legal and no check. I'm as puzzled as you are. <drukenknight> was obviously looking at 14.axb5 cxb5 15.Bxc4? bxc4 when the white queen can check at a4, but what good would it do? |
|
| Jun-04-05 | | Darknight15: whats the finish? |
|
| Jun-04-05 | | notsodeepthought: <Darknight15> One possibility would be 24 K:g2 Q:h2+ 25 Kf1 Rg8 and mate with ... Rg1 is unstoppable (at best, white can thrown in couple of "spite checks" with R:e6 and R:f7, but afte that it's curtains). I did not analyze in any detail what would happen if white declined the rook sacrifice, but in that case the white king would be open, and black would still have the attack as well as a material advantage. |
|
| Jun-05-05 | | Sydro: 24.Ke3 Qg5+ 25.f4 Rh3+ 26.Qf3 Rxf3 27.Kxf3 Qg4+ 28.Ke3 Qh3+ 29.Ke4 Qd3# If 28.Ke4 Re2+ 29.Rxe2 Qxe2#
or 24.Kxg2 Qxh2+ 25.Kf1 Rg8 26.Rxe6+ fxe6 27.Rf7+ Kxf7 28.Ke1 Rg1# or 24.Kf1 Qxh2 25.Rxe6+ fxe6 26.Rf7+ Kxf7 27.Ke1 Qh1# |
|
| Aug-09-05 | | bomb the bishop: Why didn't white play 16. Nxb5? |
|
| Aug-09-05 | | Shams: <bomb the bishop> his g-pawn was hanging. |
|
| Jan-28-06 | | MathijsJanssen: Has nobody ever played 10...Be7 in this position? I've dobe that once and I got quite nice play. |
|
| Nov-17-10 | | shubhamkuse: the queen is like a sitin duck in this game...... |
|
| Oct-04-11 | | DrMAL: It was Grünfeld who introduced this opening through this game, Botvinnik popularized it. Nothing new there, as we know Moheschunder Bannerjee introduced Grünfeld defense who made it popular particularly in Alekhine vs Gruenfeld, 1922 and Bannerjee was Indian, immortalized that way. After 12.Be2 one of three best moves (12.g3 and 12.h4 are other two) black immediately took 12...Nxf6 sharp move. White played well with 15.Bf3 instead of taking pawn, but exchanges that followed were in black's favor. 20.Re1 (instead of Qd2) was small error because of moves played, where 22.g4 was only move to stay in game. Grünfeld's tactical eye was excellent indeed! |
|
| Jul-25-22 | | unspiek: Gruenfeld was famous as an opening theoretician, but I've never seen any of this monographs. I wonder if other powerful ideas could be found in them. The idea might have been noticed more if his opponent, van Scheltinga, hadn't finished 0-0-7 in the tournament. And Gruenfeld's 1-5-1 wouldn't have electrified chess news either. Gruenfeld apparently never tried this gambit D44 line in any other games. Maybe he viewed it as a one-off line. |
|
Kibitzing
