< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-23-05|| ||babakova: That isnt torture, I would feel very calm with black since the position is easily winning in any case. In fact I think its very relaxing to play positions where only I have the chances to win.|
|Sep-03-05|| ||aw1988: Well, OK, I admit that was a stupid idea.|
|Sep-03-05|| ||perfidious: <babakova> Your remarks recall one of the primary criticisms of Fischer by the Soviet Machine: according to them, he liked to play positions 'without an opponent'.|
|Sep-04-05|| ||WMD: And this was a criticism?|
|Sep-04-05|| ||perfidious: <WMD> It seems that playing to restrict the opponent's possibilities
didn't quite measure up to the ideal of the Soviet School of chess: playing to win in a bold, uncompromising manner, as Soviet Man should.|
For 'examples' of such play, see
The Soviet School of Chess, by Kotov and Yudovich Sr, written in the fifties- a nice little polemic if a copy can be found nowadays.
|Dec-17-05|| ||DeepBlade: Also White's pawns are scattered, Black's pawns are relative chained.|
|Aug-02-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I wonder where Rosas, (the tournament site); was?
|Aug-02-06|| ||WannaBe: Rosas (Spain) Southern city, borders France, http://www.wannadive.net/spot/Europ...|
Also see, Flohr vs Koblents, 1935
|Aug-03-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Wannabe> Thanks. |
This is also like "Game Seven" in the most excellent book, "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played," By Irving Chernev.
|Aug-04-06|| ||TheSlid: <"The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played," By Irving Chernev> Mine is printed by Faber in 1973. A great book, albeit in English narrative notation.|
|Aug-08-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <TheSlid>
Yeah, David McKay once asked me to redo the book in algebraic, but that fell through. (I have no real idea, why.)
|Aug-11-06|| ||TheSlid: <LIFE Master AJ> <et al> Is there no algebraic version? Would there be a market for such, today, do we think?|
Perhaps books are just something old people like, now.
|Aug-12-06|| ||oao2102: Not sure what the Kramnik variation is here...|
|Aug-12-06|| ||Sneaky: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 must be called the Kramnik variation by some people, because of Kramnik vs Kasparov, 1994.|
|Aug-16-06|| ||LIFE Master AJ: < Aug-11-06 TheSlid: <LIFE Master AJ> <et al> Is there no algebraic version? Would there be a market for such, today, do we think? Perhaps books are just something old people like, now. > |
I think there would be a definite market for it. And there would be two ways to go:
# 1.) A simple conversion to algebraic and perhaps an elimination of any tactical errors. (I have personally found just a few, one line seems to have a move pair left out. I have deeply analyzed just about all of these games.)
# 2.) A totally revised edition.
I would love to take on such a project, but - unfortunately - it has not been done. Sadly, I think that because sales remained decent, publishers have decided not to do this ... simply because they can make more money by allowing things to remain just as they are.
|Jun-05-08|| ||ezmerin: That's funny. Kramnik variation at 1935. It might be 'Kramnik's Grandpa Variation'.|
|Jun-05-08|| ||percyblakeney: <That's funny. Kramnik variation at 1935>|
I could understand if it was called the Malakhov variation since he has played it more than 20 times (and with classical time controls). Of the older players Tartakower and Alekhine have played it several times. Kramnik only seems to have played it once, in a rapid game.
|Jun-05-08|| ||suenteus po 147: It's a little like the Taimanov variation of the Sicilian being played in 1882.|
|Jan-06-09|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the position after 24 Rxd1 Flohr does not play the move...Nb3 at once ( to be followed by exchanges of the N and R on d2) but prepares this move by playing first the manoeuvre ..Nc5-e6-d4 so as to induce the advance f4-f5-f6 which makes White's pawns vulnerable to attack from Black's King.|
|Apr-21-13|| ||Everett: <perfidious: <WMD> It seems that playing to restrict the opponent's possibilities didn't quite measure up to the ideal of the Soviet School of chess: playing to win in a bold, uncompromising manner, as Soviet Man should.
For 'examples' of such play, see
The Soviet School of Chess, by Kotov and Yudovich Sr, written in the fifties- a nice little polemic if a copy can be found nowadays>.
Perhaps this is why many comrades of Karpov did not like his style, why Bronstein called him dull, and Spassky struggled to understand what Karpov "wanted" on the chess-board.
|Jul-18-13|| ||lalla: why does black retreat the knight to d7 in the opening? why move a piece twice?|
|Jul-18-13|| ||Nerwal: <why does black retreat the knight to d7 in the opening? why move a piece twice?>|
Black plays this because the ♘ does not have great prospects at f6; it has nowhere to go. The same could be said of the dark-squared bishop : e7 would not be a great square to put it. So black formulated the strategic plan of exchanging the good bishop at e3 for black's bad bishop at f8, with ♘d7 and ♗c5. Another point is that black avoids the routine move ♗e6, because after ♘d7-c5 this square could be more effectively used by the knight, and the light-squared bishop might find a better square elsewhere : black only plays moves connected to a strategic plan, and does not waste time on moves that would be useful "in general". In the game black nevertheless played ♗e6 later on, but that's because he already had a better plan than ♘c5-e6-d4 available : invading the weak d3 square. For this the ♘ stands perfectly at c5, and he played ♗e6 just to connect the rooks as quickly as possible.
The principles of openings like not moving a piece twice in the opening are only of limited use; they do not apply equally well in every situation. Here, we have a strategic position with a fairly limited number of opened lines. The d file is open, but nobody can threaten an invasion there at first because all the entry squares are well covered by bishops. There is also no good pawn break to change the structure and make good use of a lead in development (f4 is possible but very poor). To sum it up, this is not a position where tempo play is the most important factor. This is a type of position where what matters is where your pieces will be best placed, which ones to keep and which ones to exchange. Looking at the game we can see trading dark-squared bishops and putting the ♘ at c5 almost won the game by itself.
|Jul-21-13|| ||lalla: Why let black double his rooks on the d file? I think 18. Nf1 in order to exchange rooks on the file would have left both sides with a bishop and knight where white has nothing to fear.|
|Jul-21-13|| ||Nerwal: 18. ♘f1 doesn't solve all the problems because of 18... ♖d4.|
|Nov-08-19|| ||kostich in time: One of Flohr's little known masterpieces. A fine example of playing actively in a simplified position|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·