|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-29-16 | | The Kings Domain: Nezhmetdinov is one of the finest attacking players of the game. His patient, confident counter against Polugayevsky's exercise in positional masochism is impressive. |
|
| Aug-21-16 | | andrea volponi: 20 Axe5!= |
|
| Feb-26-17 | | bkpov: 27. a4??, although much damage had already taken place the fighting way was Rh7 followed by Qh1+ and capturing the rook. Game was lost for white even then but not this insulting |
|
| Oct-12-17 | | Catur Proklamasi: Good Rashid ! |
|
| May-20-18 | | ChessHigherCat: Really beautiful mating net. |
|
Dec-14-18
 | | Open Defence: Im not sure if 20.Bxe5 was discussed.
click for larger view and now after 20...Nxe5 21. Kf2 Qh2+ 22. Ke3
click for larger view Perhaps they should settle for a perpetual with 22... Qh3 23. Kf2 Qh2+ Play can continue 23.Kd2 Bxd5 24. exd5 Nxd3
click for larger view when the attack has petered out but Black is probably better after 25.Kxd3 but there is no immediate forcing combination that I can see e.g. 25...Qg2 26. Rh1 Qf3+ 27.Kd2 Rae8 28.Rxh6 Qe3+ 29. Kc2 Qxe2+ 30.Qd2 Qf3 31.Re1 Qxg3 32.Rhe6 
click for larger view I am not sure if the extra pawn is really enough though White may not like to be defending against the h and g pawns 25. Rh1 is interesting but perhaps not the best for White and I will post about this later |
|
| Jan-05-19 | | thegoodanarchist: Giblet was THE MAN! I affectionately call him Giblet. |
|
| May-24-19 | | Boomie: Polugaevsky was a little depressed after this game but perhaps better than anyone else, he understood its brilliance. He said "I must have beaten him a dozen times but I would trade them all for this one game." |
|
May-07-20
 | | PawnSac: Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov
first middle last (name and letters)
R T V
cool nickname..
RTV.. anyone who played him was in for a rough ride. |
|
| Sep-02-20 | | thegoodanarchist: < Boomie: Polugaevsky was a little depressed after this game but perhaps better than anyone else, he understood its brilliance. He said "I must have beaten him a dozen times but I would trade them all for this one game."> This wasn't even his best game!
IMO, this one is:
Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962 |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger view This is a position from the opening. White had just played the dubious 10.Nge2?! (correct was 10.O-O-O!⩲) and Black replied with 10...Qh4!? (Stockfish 14 believes that 10...Nce5!⩱ was more accurate). From the diagram, White played 11.Ng3?, a move that did not deserve any comment in the Russian book of Nezhmedinov's best games by Damsky, but the engine SF14 thinks it is a clear mistake (evaluation: -3.15, i.e., Black is losing after 11.Ng3?). According to the engine (SF14) White ought to have played 11.g3! with equality.
After 11.Ng3? Black played 11...Nge5?! a move that was given an exclamation mark by Damsky in the above mentioned book on Nezhmetdinov's best games. According to the engine SF14, the best move for Black was 11...f5!, a move that was not even mentioned in the referred book, but which Black played on his next turn with less effect. |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger view A likely continuation after the hypothetical move 11...f5! (which Black missed) would have been something like this (SF14 vs. SF14, depth 36): From the diagram: 11...f5! 12.exf5 Nb4 13.Be4 Bxf5 14.Nxf5 gxf5 15.Bd5+ Nxd5 16.Nxd5 Bh6! 17.Qd4 Rae8+ 18.Kf1 Re5 19.g3 Qh3+ 20.Kg1 f4, and White is busted (evaluation by SF14: -6.13) (See diagram below):
click for larger view |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: After the move 12.O-O (better 12.Be2! according to the engine) Black replied with 12...f5 but that advance had lost punch now, on account of 13.exf5! with equality; but Black was lucky that White played instead 13.f3? which gave Black again a winning attack after 13...Bh6! (− +). In the Russian book on Nezhmetdinov's games, the author (Damsky) gives an exclamation mark to 13.f3? This is only a typical case of modern computer engines making analysis of old chess books look ridiculous. |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: The critical moment of the game was probably in the position of the diagram:
click for larger view
WHITE TO MOVE
20.Bc2?? (− +)
It is true that Lev Polugaevsky was not yet the mature grandmaster (he was 23 years old when this game was played). Of course, at the age of 23 Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov or Magnus Carlsen were already the best players walking the planet, but Polu reached his peak after he was 30 years old. I believe that the mature grandmaster would not have played the move 20.Bc2? But we must be grateful that Polu made this weak move (among several other weak moves and mistakes), as this allowed Nezhmetdinov to shine in the following moves, creating one of the most brilliant attacking masterpieces of all time. |
|
| Sep-26-21 | | no handlebars: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/... After losing the game, Polugaevsky famously said “I understand I was to say goodbye to all hope, and that I was losing a game that would be spread all over the world.” As he had feared, a painting was commissioned depicting the two players and “the board of destiny.” |
|
| Jan-06-22 | | probabilitytheorist: In my opinion, the greatest game ever played. |
|
| Jan-06-22 | | Messiah: <probabilitytheorist: In my opinion, the greatest game ever played.> Yes, very good. I wonder how harshly and beautifully Nezhmetdinov would have beaten Justin. |
|
| May-06-22 | | against: yasser seirawan provides best commentary |
|
May-06-22
 | | offramp: <Jan-06-22 <probabilitytheorist>: In my opinion, the greatest game ever played.> The same people listing this as the same game by the same player. The same old cliched game, with the same sententious comment.... I suppose there are a few other games to be chucked straight into the Great Games list. |
|
May-06-22
 | | perfidious: <Gaito....This is only a typical case of modern computer engines making analysis of old chess books look ridiculous.> Speaking of sententious nonsense.... |
|
May-07-22
 | | fredthebear: A typical Janus-faced response of no worthwhile contribution, and tardy at that. Gaito is way more informative, interesting and useful to readers. You see, Gaito's post contains reference to actual chess reading material -- he is graciously sharing chess information with us, so he's entitled to give his opinion of the written word. Somebody just might appreciate the info on said 11th, 12th and 13th moves. Not many drink your sour vinegar, perfi. |
|
| May-07-22 | | Olavi: <fredthebear> Yeah, but with such a famous game it makes sense to look beyond Damsky, whose books have gathered terrible reviews over the decades. A quick look at my shelves shows that all the improvements on the 11th, 12th and 13th moves were discussed in the 60s (and no doubt the analysis was improved in later non-computer years). This time Damsky was too lazy to copy existing information. |
|
May-07-22
| | fredthebear: Well said <Olavi>. I do like Damsky's book "The Heavy Pieces in Action." |
|
| Jul-08-23 | | Mathematicar: I think that the highest of goals of a chess player is to create an art, a picture. Rashid played like a maniac, but he created some really wild and fun pictures. This is one of them. |
|
Jul-26-24
 | | WTHarvey: Black mates in 3.
click for larger view32. ... ? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 24...Rxf4
