Aug-09-11
 | | ToTheDeath: Strange play by black... Beliavsky equalized without difficulty, even seemed a bit better out of the opening, then made some inaccurate moves (21...Nd4? and 22...Nb3? ) and went down in flames. |
|
| Aug-09-11 | | DrMAL: By itself 21...Nd4 was OK, maybe not objectively best but not even dubious (let alone a question mark). 22...e6 would have preserved the pawn for basically an equal game. Apparently, Beliavsky miscalculated with 22...Nb3 it not only lost the e-pawn but also (since check) after 23...Kh7 24.Be3 preserved white's bishop (on an active spot) embarrassing the knight on b3. It seems black forgot 23.Nxe7+ was also a check. I guess when realizing it Beliavsky got upset with himself and blundered 24...Bxe5 (instead of, say, 24...Rb5) losing quickly. |
|
Aug-09-11
| | ToTheDeath: No, 21...Nd4 is definitely dubious- it loses a pawn almost by force. After 22...e6 23.Qxd4 exd5 24.f4 Black cannot defend d5. Best was 21...Qc7! = |
|
| Aug-09-11 | | DrMAL: <ToTheDeath> After this line, black does not need to defend the e-pawn, the only thing gained materially is a backward b-pawn anyway, if taken it's a good positional sac. The line you gave is fine but the game is still equal. After 21...Nd4 (a move that would only deserve "dubious" as part of the plan to make mistake 22...Nb3 afterwards) 22.Nd5 e6 23.Qxd4 exd5 24.f4 Re8 taking the pawn 25.Qxd5 is countered by 25...Bf8 for equality as a quick look on the computer shows: Houdini_15a_x64: 24/58 06:40 1,564,574,162
+0.12 26.Qc6 Re6 27.Qf3 Bc5+ 28.Kh2 Bd4
+0.12 26.Rd2 Qb6+ 27.Kh2 Bc5 28.Qc6 Red8
+0.11 26.Kh2 Qxd5 27.Bxd5 Red8 28.Bc6 Bc5
If you think a computer evaluation of 0.1 (versus 0.0) makes a move "dubious" or position significantly different from "equal" I can only suggest not using a computer since it can be misleading. The reason why I wrote "22...e6 would have preserved the pawn" is that white may (likely) go for a different move from several options here. For example, even the exchange sac 23.Rxd3 cxd3 24.Qxd4 exd4 25.Qxd3 gives similar but different equal chances that 0.1 or 0.2 in computer evaluation does not reveal. |
|
| Nov-01-18 | | laskereshevsky: Eyewitness this game...
Was my first live sight of GAZA.. and was very impressive his tenacy and fury clearly showed by his glances and body language on the board... even by how he turned around the table like a predator hawk waiting for the opponent's move, wich instaed unconsciously interpreted the role of the sacrificial victim, not even daring to challenge the gazes of Baku's ogre ... and I do not exaggerate! At the time was the strongest tournaments ever... Toghether with Kasparov & Beliavsky the likes of Karpov the eternal rival, and Anand, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Salov, Khalifman, all top Gms in the 90's, and just a couple of year before his departure the mitical Polugayevsky... M. Gurevich was not in the Elo's top ten, but to achieve 4/9 (+2-3=4) in such a tournament is sign of an important strenght, considering that a defeat was against Kasparov, without a big fight....
( for the whome he was working with at the time, so probably all the Gurevich's opening secrets where well know by the world champion ....) The winner was Anand, who got the scalp of Kasparov For this I and a chess friend took a long car trip to see the giants at work |
|
| Nov-01-18 | | Howard: We owe a debt of thanks to "suenteus" (see below) for assembling all the games under one heading. A minor issue about chessgames is that they separate the 1991 games from the 1992 ones. This event, in other words, straddled two different calendar years. IMO, all the games should be grouped under the same year since they were, naturally, all played in the same event. Polugaevsky, incidentally, left us just three years after this tournament. But, considering his age, his 50% score was actually rather impressive. |
|
Nov-01-18
 | | perfidious: The same difficulty plagues the Hastings tournaments. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
icon.