|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-14-05 | | Gypsy: <MarkN: ... Every day for the puzzles there are always people telling us how easy they found it. Does anbody care who found it easy? ...> Actually, I do care. It gives me frames of reference. (Of course, I try to mode out those kibitsers whose reports are dubious or meaningless.) Here is an example from another sport, xc-skiing. For several years in Jan-Mar, I would each Wednesday after work "race" in a local time trial. Now the snow conditions were never the same, waxing was never the same, and the composition of the field was from teeanagers, to national level skiers, to 70+ old Swedes, men women, all of us together. Every time somebody was missing, somerbody else has just returned from being bed bound or a business trip, the teenagers were improving like mad, and so on. Averaging various performances was the only way to get some frames of reference and realy see whether one was geting better or completely out of shape. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | patzer2: For those who found the daily puzzle too easy, try the Bird vs Morphy, 1858, game of the day to find a win for Black after 22. Kc1! Both Kasparov and Karpov have analyzed it. However, as far as I know, after over 140 years of analysis, no one has definitely proven whether it is a forced win for Black or if White can force a draw. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | ajile: The point is that after RxC3 Black has crushing pressure on the A1-H8 diagonal and all he had to do was give up the exchange. The move I was looking at was 26 RdG1 chasing the Queen. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | Montreal1666: <Sneaky> Ok, no problem. <Gypsy> I agree with your points as well. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | sharpnova: patzer2. it's move 17, not move 22. and it's 0-0-0 not Kc1. and though i feel that Rxf2 is probabyl winning for black. the more straightforward Bg4 is much stronger and easily proved to be a win. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | Jatayu: <MarkN - Every day for the puzzles there are always people telling us how easy they found it. Does anbody care who found it easy?> Although I sympathize, I find it useful to see who has found it easy and who not. It gives you a little bit of a reference point. Even though the people differ each time, it's still helplful. |
|
Aug-14-05
 | | Sneaky: <patzer2. it's move 17, not move 22. and it's 0-0-0 not Kc1.> No, patzer2 had it right the first time. The question is how do you continue after 22.Kc1 instead of the text move? |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | patzer2: <sharpnova> Thanks for checking out and confirming 17...Bg4 in Bird versus Morphy, 1858, as a winning try for Black, and also for correcting my error in calling it a win for White (I must be color blind today). <Sneaky> Thanks for clarifying. Bird obviously blundered with 22. Kb2??, since 22. Kc1! puts up a difficult defense. However, it is amazing that after over 140 years, there is still a debate and disagreement among top players and analysts as to whether White can draw or loses after 22. Kc1! in Bird versus Morphy, 1858. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | Rama: Smyslov clears the diagonal brilliantly, but white played into it. His whole sequence starting with 22 Bc3 is weak. Has 22 Ne3 ... been analyzed? Played in Moscow in 1942, in the middle of WWII, not exactly great conditions. |
|
| Aug-14-05 | | fizixgeek: Do you think Smyslov really worked out all the variations, or did he just see that activating his bishop on the long diagonal was worth more than the exchange he gives up? |
|
Aug-14-05
| | Sneaky: < However, it is amazing that after over 140 years, there is still a debate> Yeah, really, whats the big deal? Give it to Fritz overnight and whatever it says in the morning is gospel, right? ;-) <fizixgeek> It's almost impossible to work out ALL the variations, but I think you'd be amazed at the number of depth of variations a GM can look over in a short amount of time. My guess is that he saw a bunch of the main variations we've been talking about, and what's more, I bet he saw the final position after 32...Qe5, since that's what really brings home the bacon. |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | littlekarpovhorrors: I find it helpful to go to the game and play through the moves until you get the position on the "puzzle" screen. I find you get a feel for the game and what each player is trying to accomplish. When I got to the "puzzle" position, I could see Rxc3, and I thought it was the right move, but I couldn't see all the variations confirming it was. |
|
Aug-15-05
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: TheSlid has a good question about the role luck. Here's a good one back at you: how do you know it was luck? What if you go back and study all the Sunday puzzles you found easy? If the overwhelming majority of these involved, for one example, underpromotion, maybe it wasn't luck at all. |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | patzer2: <Give it to Fritz overnight and whatever it says in the morning is gospel, right? ;-)> I think not in this case. Strong correspondence players are still regularly beating the best computer programs, and the complexity of positions like the one in question (22. Kc1) seem to be beyond the capability of even the best programs to come up with a definitive solution. As a weak analogy, it may be like asking a GM or a computer to determine if 1. e4 leads to a win or a draw |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | euripides: It seems the young Smyslov was quite a pioneer with the King's Indian. After the early 1940s he rarely played it as Black, except in the world championship matches against Botvinnik. |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | EverydayJoe: Hello, can you please stop arguing on what's easy and what's not and please help me out: what happens if white plays 28. Qc7 to prevent the black rook from getting into action. Thanks. |
|
| Aug-15-05 | | Gypsy: < An Englishman: Good Evening: TheSlid has a good question about the role luck. Here's a good one back at you: how do you know it was luck? What if you go back and study all the Sunday puzzles you found easy? If the overwhelming majority of these involved, for one example, underpromotion, maybe it wasn't luck at all.> I have done exactly that at one point -- with the Vol.1 of Livchitz. And I did observe, that several puzzles that I clearly remembered as being eather easy or medium on the first go, were suddenly hard and my mind kept embarasingly slipping and could not take a hold. -- I must admit that I was particularly puzzled that I did not remember the solution!! -- Once the solution of these "embarasing, easy to hard" puzzles sank in for the second time, however, then I remembered the solution from that point on. So a third go at these became an excercise in memory, not in solving. A remark to <chessgames.com>: I purposefully misspelled <Li@#$%z> name, for it otherwise came up as shown. :-) |
|
Aug-15-05
 | | WannaBe: <EverydayJoe> How does Q get to c7 on move 28? I look at the position and white to move, the Q is on b4. |
|
| Aug-16-05 | | EverydayJoe: my apologies. I meant 28. Qb7 |
|
| Aug-16-05 | | patzer2: <WannaBe> I suspect <EverydayJoe> intended to ask what happens after 28. Qb7? If so, then Black wins after 28...Nxa3+! 29. bxa3 Qxe4+! 30. Kc1 Qf4+ 31. Kb1 (31. Rd2 Bc3 32. Rhd1 Bxd2+ 33. Rxd2 Re1+ 34.
Kc2 Qc4+ 35. Kb2 Qc1+  ) 31...Qf5+ 32. Kc1 Bh6+ 33. Kb2 Re2+ 34. Ka1 Bg7+ . |
|
| Jul-31-09 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: White wins 2P, but his K and minor pieces are misplaced, has no attack and the Q is isolated at Qside. Smyslov regain his P back and open Kposition using his KB and Q conjugated. White observes the disaster. Obviously white superestimates his 2P advantage and neglects black strong diagonal attack. |
|
| Mar-30-18 | | tigreton: I can't understand why Smyslov didn't include this beautiful game in his book Best Games I. It's nice to see the power of Black bishop on the long diagonal, creating all kind of threats over the White king. |
|
Mar-30-18
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi tigreton,
It could be in the original book on Smyslov's Best Games. Like me you may have the 1935-1957 Best Games collection by Peter Clarke. In the intro Clarke says he left out 11 games from the 1951 edition , written by Smyslov and added 18 games to bring it up to date. So this game could well have been in the original but Peter left it out.. Alatortsev was Smyslov trainer from 1946 to 1953 when according to here: https://www.chess.com/article/view/... "On the eve of the 1953 Candidates tournament, he received a telephone
call from the USSR Sports Committee and was ordered to have
Vladimir Simagin (1919-1968) replace Vladimir Alatortsev (1909-1987), Smyslov's second since 1946." |
|
Mar-30-18
| | Sally Simpson: Hi tigreton, (part II)
See above. Just checked the Clarke book again, this time ignoring the games index. This Alatortsev game is actually given a honourable mention and a diagram in the Clarke book by Romanovsky who does the bio on Smyslov. Clarke says Romanovsky's piece is from the original 1951 edition. 
click for larger viewSo it is there in part. |
|
| Apr-02-18 | | tigreton: Hi Sally,
You're right, I've got this volume I Best Games 1935-1957, edited in 2003 by Moravian Chess, and a fragment from this game appears in the introduction, exactly after 25. Qd4. That's why it isn't included in the index.
This section called "Fragments" begins with a note, apparently from the own Smyslov, about his wish to show some fragments that have not found their way into this book.
Thanks for the information. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 25...Rxc3