May-31-05
 | | keypusher: <iron maiden>, here is another one for your zugzwang collection, also from Zurich 1953. It's hard to believe that Najdorf could get himself into such a straitjacket. |
|
| May-31-05 | | iron maiden: Indeed it is, thank you. |
|
| May-31-05 | | Kangaroo: Look at
Euwe vs Averbakh, 1953
for another example of fine techniques |
|
| Oct-26-05 | | patzer2: I like this game for an example of utilizing the deflection and the pin tactic, which is used here in conjunction with the zugzwang theme. After <35...f5!> all piece moves enable Black to obtain a decisive advantage as in the game or after the possibility 36. Rd3 Nb2 37. Rb3 Nd1  , when Black wins a piece (as in the following position). 
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-26-05 | | patzer2: The simple double attack 40...Rc4! wins without any need for subtle zugzwang-like maneuvers. |
|
Feb-20-10
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: <patzer2>, what's the hurry? ...♖c4 is coming soon enough, but first Black stops any possibility of White's ♖ using the c-file to penetrate to c6 and attack the ♙a6 while Black grabs ♙s. By stopping any chance of White counterplay, Black convinced White to resign sooner. |
|
Feb-08-11
 | | NM JRousselle: Maybe time control was move 40 and Black wanted to eliminate even the slightest counter play by White. Rc4 is not going away. |
|
| Feb-08-11 | | bubuli55: Nice game. For me 35...f5 is difficult to see |
|
| Oct-30-13 | | zydeco: Amazing that black's winning virtually out of the opening. According to Bronstein, white's chance for defense was 21.Nd3 followed by Rfc1. |
|
| Nov-30-14 | | Delboy: Instructive example on the need to avoid a bad bishop. |
|
Nov-30-14
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: It all came down to the square c4. Averbakh only needed one square to win this game. Truly world-class play. |
|
| Nov-30-14 | | Swedish Logician: <An Englishman>, the game reminded me of the great square c4 classic H K Mattison vs Nimzowitsch, 1929 . |
|
Nov-30-14
 | | perfidious: What surprised me, come to this game, that this was neither the first nor last time the dubious and illogical 9.bxc3 was essayed. Small wonder White soon comes into difficulties over the defence of c4, though Najdorf's play was nothing if not acquiescent. |
|
| Nov-30-14 | | morfishine: Fascinating positional study. White's position is rendered incredibly weak in all aspects: mobility, piece coordination, prospects, etc. Wait, thats pretty much the definition of zugzwang: Practically any move by White makes his position even weaker |
|
| Nov-30-14 | | goodevans: <zydeco: ... According to Bronstein, white's chance for defense was 21.Nd3 followed by Rfc1.> You don't need to be one of the world's great players to see that <21.Bd2 Nc4 22.Be1> is going to leave white's position highly compromised. I know because I'd worked that much out myself. 21.Bd2? was a truly horrible error of judgement for a top GM to have made. |
|
Nov-30-14
| | perfidious: <goodevans: You don't need to be one of the world's great players to see that <21.Bd2 Nc4 22.Be1> is going to leave white's position highly compromised....> While I certainly agree, and should likely have plumped for Bronstein's suggestion myself--a logical one in my view--after 21.Nd3 b5 22.Rfc1 Nc4, Najdorf's game would not have been a bed of roses either; that bishop at f4 cuts a miserable figure and is likely the reason he rejected the line. |
|
| Nov-30-14 | | Lparker: What about 29.Rc5? |
|
Nov-30-14
 | | Once: A delightful positional squeeze. I must admit that I don't see a zugzwang here. White is tied down almost totally, but he hasn't been run out of moves so that he is forced to play a move than ruins his position. At some point in the future black is going to play Rc4 and win either the white b or d pawns. The black king on d7 prevents the white rook from having any entry squares along the c file. |
|
| Nov-30-14 | | morfishine: <Once> I was wondering about 41...Kd7 thinking it was more of a waiting move, but you are right! |
|
Dec-01-14
 | | kevin86: White doesn't have the bad bishop...it is ugly! |
|
Feb-27-19
 | | plang: 10 Ne5 led to nothing for White; 10 Nd2 followed by Nb3 looks more logical aimed at keeping the black knight from a5 where it hits the weakness on c4. 19..bxc 20 Na6 would have given White good counterplay. 21 Nd3 was an alternative avoiding the "good knight versus bad bishop" ending although after 21 Nd3..b5 22 Rfc1..Ba3 23 Rc2..Nc4 Black would have had a clear positional edge. 22..Bxb4 was a good example of trading one advantage for another. 31..Rb2 32 Rc1..Rxb4 33 Rc7 would have given White unnecessary counterplay. |
|
Kibitzing
