| Jul-23-03 | | refutor: the position after 9. ... b6 transposes to 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 ♘f6 5.♘c3 e6 6.♘F3 ♗b4 7.♗D3 dxc4 8.♗xc4 O-O 9.O-O b6. the position is good for black i think. the only game of my own i could dig up was a 3-minute game played on the internet about 2 months ago, so the quality is definitely low. [Date "2003.05.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "loggit"]
[Black "refutor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann: Panov-Botvinnik attack"]
[ECO "B13"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. d4 d5 2. e4 c6 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nf3 e6 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Qb3 Bxc3+
8. bxc3 O-O 9. cxd5 Qxd5 10. Qxd5 Nxd5 11. Bd2 Nc6 12. Bd3 Re8 13. O-O e5
14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Rxe5 16. c4 Nf6 17. f4 Re6 18. Rab1 Rd6 19. Rf3 Bf5
20. Bxf5 Rxd2 21. c5 Rad8 22. Rxb7 Rd1+ 23. Rf1 Rxf1+ 24. Kxf1 g6 25. Rxa7
gxf5 26. c6 Rc8 27. Rb7 Rxc6 28. Rb8+ Kg7 29. a4 Ne4 30. Rb4 Nd2+ 31. Ke2
Ne4 32. a5 Ra6 33. Rb5 Nc3+ White resigns 0-1
other moves other than the theoretical 7.Bd3 after 6. ... Bb4 include 7.a3, 7.Bg5, 7.Qb3, 7.Qa4, 7.Bd2, and 7.cxd5, so there are lots of choices for white, but i think that ...Bb4 definitely puts more pressure on white than ...Be7. just my patzer opinion :) |
|
| Jul-23-03 | | refutor: another karpov example (in the caro-kann move order) is Judit Polgar vs Karpov, 1994 |
|
| Nov-25-05 | | hayton3: Great strategy by Karpov. In order to prevent White liberating his position with c4 Karpov plays a positional pawn sacrifice with 17...Rc4! For the rest of the game White's postion is essentially armlocked into submission as Karpov finds the best squares for his pieces before releasing the tension with 34...Nxc3. 38...Rxf3!! is a delightful 'bunker buster' based on the unprotected rook on b2 when White has to weaken his king position. White lost on time but mayhem is imminent as the Black queen and knight teamwork their way around the king's position now turned to rubble by the previous exchange sacrifice. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | psmith: <hayton3> Can you demonstrate a win for Black after 40. d5 (making time control I assume)? |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | psmith: <hayton3> (I intend 40. d5 Nxf3+ 41. Kg3) |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | KingG: I don't think there is a forcing line that wins the game. |
|
Nov-26-05
 | | Benzol: If 40.d5 what's wrong with 40...exd5?
White can't play 40.♖xb6 because of 40...♕c7+ picking up the Rook. 40.♖b3 is possible. 40...♕g5 41.♕f1 ♕f4+ 42.♔g1 ♘xf3+ looks good for Black but is there a clear win? |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | acirce: <If 40.d5 what's wrong with 40...exd5?> Nothing, but then 41.Rb4 and ..Qf4+ is impossible. Black would have to try 41..Qg5 42.Rg4 Qe5+! 43.Qxe5 Nxf3+ 44.Kg3 Nxe5 but it still looks like a draw to me. 40..Qf4+ 41.Kh1 exd5 is another try. Maybe White can still defend here. |
|
Nov-26-05
 | | keypusher: Fritz shows a slight white advantage after 40 d5 Nxf3+ 41 Kg3 Nd4 42 de+ Nxe6. But surprisingly, it shows black maintaining a clear edge with 40...ed! (41 Rb4 Qg5 42 Rg4 Qe5+! 43 Qxe5 Nxf3+ 44 Kg2 Nxe5 45 Rd4 Ke6). So 38...Rxf3 wasn't just a "time pressure gambit" as I originally thought. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | psmith: The point of 40. d5 is that after 40... exd5 White can bring his rook to the 4th rank with 41. Rb4 so that if 41... Qg5+ 42. Rg4. The resulting position is somewhat unclear after 42... Qe5+ 43. Qxe5 Nxf3+ 44. Kg3 Nxe5. |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | hayton3: <psmith: <hayton3> Can you demonstrate a win for Black after 40. d5 (making time control I assume)> No, sorry I can't. To be honest I hadn't seen 40.d5. Still, after this move which is best, White can't hope for more than a draw and Black has all the chances to convert the win with centralised king, knight and pawn mass |
|
| Jun-02-09 | | marknierras: Move 17 sacrifices pawn to create a strong position. Suggested ending by Silman is as follows (nice Queen and Knight mating attack):
40 Rb3 Qg5
41 Qf1 Qf4
42 kh1 nxf3
43 Qg2 Qc1+
44 Qg1 Qxg1 mate |
|
| Aug-08-10 | | whiteshark: <40.Rc2> looks playable, too.
click for larger view-- 40...Qf4+ 41.Kh1
-- 40...Qg5 41.Rc7+ Kf8 42.Rc8+ Ke7 43.Qf1 
click for larger view |
|
| Nov-30-19 | | cunctatorg: A nightmarish "dance of the initiative" from Anatoly's part, to be honest... |
|
Jun-08-20
 | | Richard Taylor: At the end Taimanov lost on time. Markson who wrote a book of Karpov games missed 38. .... Qc7+ which Stockfish says is better. At the end he also recommends: '40. d5 (the only real chance but a difficult move to find)...and he analyses it. I think the position is = at the end but difficult to play for Black especially in time trouble (managing the clock is a chess skill). But a good game by Karpov on the Q-side. |
|
| Jul-18-20 | | Howard: What book was that ? |
|
| Jul-18-20 | | Sally Simpson: ***
Think Richard means Peter Markland's book on Karpov. https://britishchessnews.com/wp-con... Printed 1975. This was one of the first U.K. books printed in long algebraic notation 1.e2-e4 e7-e5. (the games analysis reverts to normal algebraic. 1.e4 e5 ). Was reading a while back that we should no longer refer to it as 'algebraic' notation but 'standard or FIDE notation'. Same article advised that Staunton back in the 1840's and 1850's wanted this system adopted in English publications (his handbook mentions it). Ken Whyld in a BCM Q & Q I was also recently reading thinks that because back then it was called 'German Notation.' this was a non-starter. (possibly 'S' for a Knight also thwarted it - recall reading elsewhere the grumbles about using 'N' for a Knight whenever algebraic/standard notation was put forward to replace descriptive so 'S', which is used in the Problem World was also a hurdle put down by non-conformists.) *** |
|
| Oct-05-20 | | fisayo123: Taimanov must have lost on time |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 38...Rxf3
