| Mar-28-04 | | Benjamin Lau: This is one of my two favorite Yusupov games, the other one is the more famous "all or nothing" attack against Ivanchuk in their 1991 match. The sudden shift in resources and the fluid coordination of the attacking pieces is mind blowing. |
|
| Mar-28-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Some annotations by John Watson (there are more but I don't have the time to type them all out, here are the most interesting ones):
11 Qd2
"11 Ndb4 Qb8 12 Rc1 a6 13 Na3 Re8 14 Qb3" runs into "14...d5! 15 exd5 Bd6! 16 h3 exd5 17 Bf2! d4! 18 Bxd4 Nh5 19 Bf2 Nf4 20 Rfe1 Re6 21 Ne4 Rg6 with an overwhelming attack, K. Grigorian-Psahis, Frunze 1979." 16 Kh1
"White has succeeded in suppressing both of the breaks ...b4 and ...d5, but it doesn't seem to be doing him much good. Suba talks about this as the problem of a 'good position which can't be improved' versus 'a bad position that can be substantially improved'. White's pieces are in a sense ideally placed, preventing Black's counterplay and 'fixing' the weaknesses on b6 and d6, but almost any committal move he makes (b4, Nc2, Nb3) allows Black to free his game. For his part, Black is stuck on the first three ranks, but has continuous threats of breaking out with advantage via ...b5 or ...d5, and lacking those, can proceed to improve the position of his pieces." 16...Bd8!?
"A creative strategy, designed to harass the white kingside by ...Bc7 (threatening ...d5) and at the same time protecting the two weaknesses on b6 and d6. Also playable was 16...Bf8 17 b3 b5 with equality." 17. Nb3?!
"It would be nice to reorganize by b4 and Nb3, but 17 b4?! Ne5 18 Na4 d5! is too strong." 17...Bc7 18 Qg1
"Again, refusing to accede to weaknesses along either long diagonal, as would result from 18 h3 or 18 g3." "How can Black now proceed?"
18...Kh8! 19 Rc2 Rg8!
24...g4
"Precise timing, since now 25 f4 g3 26 h3 e5 wins the e-pawn. So White has to allow the opening of the g-file." 31 Qxf2 Bxe4
"Winning a pawn and the game. The rest is just a matter of directing all of Black's forces against the king." |
|
Jul-30-04
 | | Honza Cervenka: Very nice game of Yusupov. He could have won it even earlier playing 33...Bd3! 34.Re1 Bxf1 35.Rxf1 (35.Qxf1 is bad for 35...Qh6 with double attack against Rd2 and Ng3; after 35.Nxf1 black can play 35...Rxg2 with decisive advantage.) 35...Rxg3! 36.hxg3 Qh6+ 37.Kg1 Ne4 38.Qe2 Nxd2  |
|
Jul-30-04
| | Honza Cervenka: Taimanov could have defended his position much longer playing 38.Rxd6. Then 38...f6 with idea 39...Rh6 seems to be insufficient for 39.Rd8 with excellent counterplay of white (39...Rh6 40.Rxg8+ Kxg8 41.Rd2 Qxh2+ 42.Kf2 Nh3+ 43.Ke2 Nf4+ 44.Kd1! Qxg3 45.Rd8+ Kg7 46.Qc7+ Kg6 47.Rg8+ and white wins.). I don't see there anything better than 38...Nh3+ 39.gxh3 Rxg3+ 40.hxg3 Qxg3+, but it seems to be okay for white after 41.Rg2! Bxg2 42.Qf2! |
|
Jul-24-05
 | | Gypsy: <Honza> If 38.Rxd6, then immediate 38...Rxg3 perhaps. I. 39.g3 Nh3+ 40.gxh3 Qxg3+ (or 40.Kh2 Qxg3+; or 40.Kh1 Nxf2++) 41.Bg2 Bxg2 (or 41.Rg2 Bxg2) ... II. 39.Rxf4 Rxg2+ 40.Bxg2 Qe1+ 41.Rf1 Rxg2+ 42.Kh1 Qxf1# III. 39.Rh6!? Nh3+ 40.Kh1 Nxf2+ 41.Kg1 Nh3+ (41.Qxf2 Qxh6) 42.Kh1 Rxg2 43.Rxh4 Rg1# IV. 39.Rd8 Nh3+ ... etc.
All in all, it seems that Black does have too strong a position. |
|
| Aug-23-05 | | RookFile: So, you guys understand, that Yusupov
is playing Bobby Fischer' plan, with the color's reversed, right? Kasparov makes this book in OMGP IV.See this game:
Fischer vs Ulf Andersson, 1970
|
|
| Aug-16-07 | | think: I like how the Bishop on a8 just sits there, first on b7, then on a8, simply waiting for the correct moment to pounce! |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | apple pi: And I've always assumed his name was Arthur - Thanks cg.com for the revealing pun! |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | RandomVisitor: 38.Rxd6 might equalize for white:
1: Mark Taimanov - Artur Yusupov, USSR 1982
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.3.2a mp up:
(20-ply)
1. (0.35): 38...Rxg3 <39.hxg3> Qxg3 40.Rxf4 Bxg2 41.Qf2 Be4+ 42.Qxg3 Rxg3+ 43.Kf2 exf4 44.c5 Kg7 45.c6 2. (0.46): 38...Nh3+ 39.gxh3 Rxg3+ 40.hxg3 Qxg3+ 41.Rg2 Bxg2 42.Qf2 Bxf1+ 43.Qxg3 Rxg3+ 44.Kxf1 Rxh3 45.Rxa6 3. (0.75): 38...Qg5 39.Rxg6 Rxg6 40.Qa7 Bc6 41.Qb8+ Kg7 42.Bd3 Rf6 43.Qd8 h6 44.Be2 Nxe2+ 45.Nxe2 |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | ounos: Hey, this game is very similar to a recent loss of Anand (with Black) against an opponent around 2400 ELO. Can one provide a link to that one? And I thought that g5 and this particular manoeuvring was something original, in that game. It is copied at least from this one! |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | WarrenHam: I used to like Yusupov in the eighties. Now, he has this gray long hair and beard, which does not look to attractive. These days, I like Svidler. |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | Skylark: If we all liked GMs based on their appearance... we wouldn't like many GMs lol. |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | Spartaco: The game ounos is asking for:
P Charbonneau vs Anand, 2006
|
|
Aug-16-07
 | | kevin86: It almost seemed fromthe opening gun that black was going to win this one. He quickly aimed his forces at black's king via the h-file and the long diagonal. Finally,he added the g-file and it was over quickly.
White tried to attack through the center,but it was blocked. In desperation,he tried to guard the second row,but black's three line attack was too strong. |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | Jack Kerouac: I love it when bishops are on R1 squares and laser all the way across the board. |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | twin phoenix: 41. Rxg2! is really a splendid move. wish i could say i've done that to someone else but unfortunately i was the victim. it is not too surprising that white was worse. his opening play was very tedious. |
|
Aug-16-07
 | | fm avari viraf: In the initial phase of the game both the players were desperately trying to gain command of the vital squares but it was Yusupov who suddenly shifted his well co-ordinated forces on the King-side where Taimanov seems to be a mere spectator of his own game. A very instructive & entertaining game! |
|
| Aug-16-07 | | patrikey: <ounos: "And I thought that g5 and this particular manoeuvring was something original, in that game. It is copied at least from this one!"> In his book “My Great Predecessors” (Vol. 4) Kasparov announces Robert Fischer as the author of this idea thanks to the game Fischer vs Ulf Andersson, 1970.
According to Kasparov that’s how “the opening revolution of 70s” started! |
|
| Mar-28-11 | | noah913: i saw Rxg2+!! Yes!! |
|
| Nov-18-11 | | Everett: <patrikey: <ounos: "And I thought that g5 and this particular manoeuvring was something original, in that game. It is copied at least from this one!"> In his book “My Great Predecessors” (Vol. 4) Kasparov announces Robert Fischer as the author of this idea thanks to the game Fischer vs Ulf Andersson, 1970. According to Kasparov that’s how “the opening revolution of 70s” started!> Fischer was a great student of the sport, and surely did not miss this game. Paulsen vs Morphy, 1857 |
|
| Jan-26-16 | | whiteshark: I think it was this game which made the regrouping (aka <The Nievergelt Manoeuvre> ♔h8/♖g8/♙g5) more widely known. Certainly in Hedgehog positions it has become a well-known means of gaining space on the kingside, though by now dangerous counter-reactions have been found for White. |
|
Sep-14-18
 | | fiercebadger: I love the way Yuso doesnt rush first attacks h2 then g2 improves pieces exchanges the odd pawn, then Ker BOOM as we say in russia! |
|
| Sep-14-18 | | WorstPlayerEver: 17. b3 is obviously the more flexible move. In this stage of the game, you want to keep all supply lines of the pieces well coordinated and therefore the pieces most active.
17. b3 releases Bf1 from defending c4, thus more flexible (active). Because 17. b3 also makes a possible move as Nd7-c5/e5 weaker. Also it keeps Nd4 in an attacking position.
click for larger view17. Nb3
click for larger viewMeant to set pressure on d6, which is not a bad idea, of course, but 17... Bc7 18. Qg1= does not give White an advantage. Therefore White had to compromise their position even more, with 18. g3, which gives White still something to dream about. NB both 18th moves are meant to defend h2 against Black's b8-c7 battery. 
click for larger viewNeedless to state, but these considerations are crucial in the middle game; the hardest phase to coordinate the pieces. |
|
| Sep-14-18 | | WorstPlayerEver: "In this stage of the game, you want to keep all supply lines of the pieces well coordinated and therefore the pieces most active." Obviously this counts for every phase of the game, sorry. I meant, in this phase, assumed the opening phase is about given theory, it comes mostly down to exclusive planning; the hardest part to understand IMHO. While in the endgame, theory is also more important than in the middle game. Hope it makes some sense. At some point one of the players, assumed, they have both played correctly, according to the current state of affairs, they, must at least sac a pawn during the middle game. To be able to defend/attack the position. It all seems crickets, I know, but I haven't seen any definition, such as my minimal sac proposition here, which came from a sound, logical derivation. However, since a sac enters tactical territory, I noticed that Leela Zero misses such tactics -especially pawn sacs where the opponent stops defending a pawn at a given situation to create a more active position for themselves- tactics, which are part of Stockfish's strategic portefeuille. ~~~~
Reminds me... There's a famous game, according to some, where the opponent grabs a pawn. Whether this -the grab of the deliberately abandoned pawn- is crucial for the outcome of the game, or not, is still a matter of debate. But that the pawn grab is the root of defeat leaves no doubt IMO However, I did not analyze -in-depth- that part of the game yet. Somehow, don't ask my why, the eminence, of the players involved, is debated too, better said: their ability to create miracles. But that's just the usual background noise generated anywhere on the net. Nothing to worry about. Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 |
|
| Sep-14-18 | | 1d410: I prefer Taimanov |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 41...Rxg2+