| Apr-20-06 | | HamasHamas: Brutal technique by White. This is
Jeremy Silman's opening as White.
Yaz once tried to use it against
Bob Gelfand to bust the King's Indian. Rechecking that game couldn't hurt. |
|
| Apr-20-06 | | Shajmaty: <HamasHamas: This is
Jeremy Silman's opening as White.> After 13. Bd3, Ne4! (instead of 13... Qd7) Black is O.K. |
|
| Apr-23-10 | | WhiteRook48: interesting |
|
| May-14-20 | | Zugzwangovich: Why does Kasparov refuse two exchange offers by not playing 26...Na3 or 33...Bc3? |
|
| May-14-20 | | Zugzwangovich: I cannot understand, first, why Kaspy sacked the exchange and second, why he didn't regain it with either 26...Na3 or 33...Bc3. Small wonder since I'm one of those for whom the loss of an exchange is tantamount to the loss of the game under any circumstances. |
|
| May-16-20 | | cameosis: <Zugzwangovich> »For the record, this game was played in a simul Tal gave on March 11, 1988 at Labate's Chess Center in Anaheim, CA. I was playing in it.« i just saw your post over at Tal vs Jack Miller, 1988 would you still have the score of your game against tal lying around somewhere and would you share it, either here or by email (cameosis@gmx.net)? could you tell me how many boards there were in the simul (maybe even the wins / draws / losses), because i’m trying to fill the information gaps and find as many games as possible that he played during his u.s. tour in 1988 -- but there’s hardly anything at all online about the anaheim simul apart from the miller game. thanks in advance! |
|
| May-17-20 | | Zugzwangovich: <cameosis> Yes, I can share the game score with you and send you details on the two simuls he played in Anaheim--one on March 11 and another the next day. You'll have to give me about a week, though--things are kind of hopping here right now. |
|
| May-17-20 | | cameosis: <zugzwangovich>: wow, awesome! thanks again. no rush, it's been some thirty years before someone really started looking for the games, anyway. :D |
|
| Nov-27-22 | | Zugzwangovich: I asked this once before but got no response so will try again. Can anybody offer me an explanation as to, first, why Kasparov sacked the ox and second, then refused to win it back at least three times (on moves 26, 27, and 33)? Looks to me like this material deficit was ultimately the reason for his loss. |
|
| Mar-23-23 | | goodevans: 35.f6! was a nice zwischenzug, forcing the exchange of Rs three moves later and making the endgame win that much easier. Think I'll submit this for GOTD with yet another variation on the 'veni vidi vici' theme: "Veni, VD Vici" |
|
| Jan-14-25 | | BxChess: <goodevans:> 'veni vidi vici' never gets old. I wonder what it is about Latin that makes such tags pithy, profound, and memorable. |
|
Jan-14-25
 | | OhioChessFan: Nice pun. Major scalp for VD. |
|
Jan-14-25
 | | Teyss: The young Kasparov was over-ambitious, sacking the exchange without much in return. As said above, I don't know why he didn't want to get it back on moves 26, 27 or 33. Maybe he thought he still had chances with N vs R in a closed position and wasn't interested by a tedious R + minor + Ps endgame. The clinical refutation by White of this ambition is somewhat similar to what would happen at the beginning of the 1984 WCC. In any case Kasparov won the tournament with +11 -2 =4, the only other loss being E Mochalov vs Kasparov, 1978 Good fitting pun. Don't know why it's "Venit" and "Vicit" with a "t" (he instead of I), maybe User: goodevans can enlighten us. |
|
| Jan-14-25 | | goodevans: Foreign languages were always a struggle for me at school and Latin was the worst. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe <venit> and <vicit> are the correct third person, perfect forms of the verbs as in <He came, etc.>. |
|
Jan-14-25
 | | MissScarlett: Garry suffered a venerable decease. |
|
Jan-14-25
| | Teyss: Hi goodevans,
You're right, that's what I meant in bad English by "he instead of I". So the third person is intentional. Good pun anyhow. |
|
Jan-14-25
 | | beatgiant: <Zugzwangovich>,<Teyss>
If Black wins back the exchange on moves 26 or 27, it looks like White still has a big advantage from the pressure on the queenside and the center. For example 26...Na3+ 27. Kb3 Nxb1 28. Rxb1 Rb8 29. Kc4 Bf6 30. a5 Bd8 <31. Bf4> and Black can't cover all the weak spots. If Black takes the exchange on move 33, while his knight is offside handling the queenside threat, White can switch to the kingside with his pieces and f-pawn, and it again looks like a big advantage. For example 33...Nxc3 34. Kxc3 Na5 <35. f6> Rd7 36. Rg1 and the h-pawn will soon fall. |
|
Jan-14-25
| | Teyss: Hi beatgiant,
Thanks for the analysis, makes sense. It's interesting because frequently the side who has benefited from the sac (White) has to give back material at some stage to avoid disaster, and still remain worse off since the side who has sacked (Black) has improved his position. Here it's not the case, White remained on top of the game. |
|
| Jan-14-25 | | N0B0DY: <N0b0dy> speaks Latin: veni vidi fugi |
|
Kibitzing
