| Oct-03-05 | | Kriegspiel: Odd that Seirawan, in annotating this game (or a part of it, from move 41 forward), should end his annotation after 53.Ne4 with the comment "Black resigns because both of his g-pawns will soon fall by the wayside"; whereas Black doesn't resign until after 61.e6 when the queening of White's pawn becomes inevitable. Also, this game is said there to have taken place in the USSR, whereas Chessgames.com says Italy. Which is correct? The Seirawan book has a lot of typos in it, so perhaps this is another one. Kriegspiel
|
|
| Oct-06-05 | | capatal: The new G pawn transforms the E pawn into
a passer, Yasser Seirawan.
|
|
Oct-06-05
 | | keypusher: <Also, this game is said there to have taken place in the USSR, whereas Chessgames.com says Italy. Which is correct?> Seirawan, unless the Soviet championship (and the city of Riga) was moved to Italy that year. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Calli: "it" means International Tournament
|
|
| Oct-09-05 | | Kriegspiel: <Calli> Doesn't say "it" -- says "It". I was looking at the list of seven games between the two, where it says "Event/Locale" which is ambiguous. Obviously on the score card it says that Riga is the site, but I didn't notice that at the time of my original post. Note that "It" is not a proper acronym: either capitalize both letters (preferred) or neither, but not just the initial letter since that looks like a (place) name. Kriegspiel
|
|
| Oct-09-05 | | Calli: Its all pretty sloppy. I've seen enough PGN files to know anything goes. Seen "it" and "IT" and "It" Others are "Nt" is National tournament "Izt" for Interzonal tt for team tournament cc for corres "m" for match etc. To top is off, this is a Soviet Ch and "Nt" would seem more logical. |
|
| Oct-09-05 | | who: I can't imagine a worse opening choice against Petrosian. With 5...g6 Bannik gives up any chance of counterplay and settles for a long hard positional struggle in which at best he has the harder half of a draw. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | stanleys: Bannik missed the draw on the 40th move - he had just to declare the threefold repetition |
|
| Mar-11-08 | | ChessSafari: This game is analyzed in detail in Mastering the Endgame, Vol. 2, by Shereshevsky & Slutsky (1992), pages 31-34. A draw by repitition was never possible. Petrosian repeated x2 just to get to the sealed move. |
|
| Jul-13-08 | | stanleys: <ChessSafari:> <A draw by repitition was never possible. Petrosian repeated x2 just to get to the sealed move.> You have the same position after black's 35th, 37th and 39th move.Bannik could have declared the draw before playing 39...Ke8.Apparently they were both in time trouble |
|
Aug-13-08
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: A very fine game. Especially noteworthy is Petrosian's refusal to go into a ♘ v bad ♗ endgame with 18. ♗xb6+. Instead, he insightfully realized that the bad ♗ holds Black's ♙s. So he removed it with 18. ♗c5. Black's ♘ was a much weaker defender because it can fall into Zugzwang, as after 50. ♔d5. |
|
| Aug-14-08 | | arsen387: In the endgame all decide the active pieces. Stupenduous technique by Petrosian |
|
Sep-24-08
| | Jonathan Sarfati: Vereslav Eingorn says that 17.b3 was unnecessary, and immediate 17.♗c5 was better since Black could have prevented it with 17... ♘d7. http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatson... |
|
| May-29-10 | | whiteshark: Both players analysing the game: http://www.tabladeflandes.com/frank... |
|
| Sep-09-16 | | zydeco: After 49.h6! black is in horrible zugzwang. If 49...Ne6 50.Kf5 Ke7 51.Nc3 and 52.Nd5 wins. |
|
Kibitzing
