|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-11-04 | | popski: Is there any better line for black after 14. ♘f5? |
|
| Aug-12-04 | | tomh72000: 17...♘xf6, returning the piece, may be better, e.g. 18.gxf6 ♗xf6, but perhaps stronger for white is 18.♗b6!, where black's best is probably the queen sacrifice 18...♘xd5!? 19.♗xd8 ♗xd8 20.♖xd5 20...♗b7. The compensation is probably not enough though. |
|
| Aug-15-06 | | Albertan: If Sofrevski had played:
18... Re8
He would have run into:
19. gxf6 Bxf6 20. Rhg1+ Bg5+ 21. Qd2 h6 22. f4 f6 23. fxg5 fxg5 24. Qd3 Re6 25.Rgf1 Ne5 26.Bxe5 dxe5 27.Nf6+!  |
|
| Oct-10-07 | | avidfan: 24...Kxe7 25.Rxg7+ Ke6 26.Qe2+ Kf5 27. Qg5+ <27...f5 28.Re1+ <<<<<<(28...Kf6 29.Qg5#)>>>>>> Kd6 29.Rd1+
click for larger view
<29...Ke6 30.Qe2+ Kf6 31.Rxd8 <<31...Rxd8 32.Qe7#>> 31...Kxg7 32.Qe5+ Kf7 33.Qd5+ Be6 34.Qxa8 > Kc6
30.Qf3+ Kb6 31.Rxd8 Rxd8 32.Qxa8 wins>
27...Ke5 28.f4+ Ke4 29.f5+ Ke3 30.Re1+ Kf2 31.Qe2#
|
|
Jun-24-09
 | | Stonehenge: 16...0-0 is a mistake, better ...Bb7 to attack the knight. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | dx9293: Velimirovic games are always enjoyable! He wasn't a "legendary" player, but he created many, many beautiful games (like this one) that will live forever. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | RandomVisitor: 16...Bb7 17.Rhe1 Bxd5 18.Rxd5 0-0 19.f6 Bxf6 20.gxf6 Nxf6 and white is down a pawn and has a diminished attack. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | RandomVisitor: 18.gxf6 Bxf6 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6 20.f4! might win faster |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | belgradegambit: Hey, they used my pun!!
I saw this game in Byrne's New York Times column as a kid. Made a major impression on me. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | whiteshark: Catchy pun and a completely rounded attack. wow. |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | Chess Carnival: My favourite pun, for sure!! |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | Eisenheim: he always had a sacrifical approach to dismantling the sicilian. its just eerie that his name is the same as the attack he used. |
|
Aug-01-09
 | | keypusher: Loooooove the pun. The game isn't bad.... :-) |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | kevin86: A nice finish! |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | NYRdefenseman: The Who deserve better than this pun... |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: no it's an attack |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | juandie1: beutiful and very agressive!!! |
|
| Aug-01-09 | | belgradegambit: <NYRdefenseman: The Who deserve better than this pun...>
You are aware that My Generation was released in 1965, same year as this game. |
|
| Nov-22-09 | | Eduardo Leon: I think the mistake was 10...♘a5. (Yeah, a single tempo loss can be your damnation in the Sicilian.) The standard variation is, <as far as I remember>, 10...0-0 11.g4 ♘d7 12. g5 b5. |
|
| Apr-09-11 | | qqdos: This was a historic game during which the legendary Velimirovic unleashed his bolt from the blue 14.Nf5!!. It must have unnerved poor Sofrevski, who also suffered at the hands of Fischer in this opening a couple of years later, with the prospect of an immediate attack down the central files once he accepted the sacrifice of the N on f5. Whether the move is sound still seems to be debatable but it has become thematic and is often seen. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | DrMAL: Computer does not give positional sac justice but this is very common, even Houdini tends to underestimate score, being unable to find definite lines. Here is eval at considerable depth. Houdini_20_x64: 31/76 4:18:52 166,343,818,419
0.00 14.h4 b4 15.Na4 Nc5 16.h5 Nxe4 17.g6 0-0
0.00 14.b4 Ne5 15.f4 Nc4 16.Kb1 0-0 17.Bc1 Bd7
-0.07 14.Nf5 exf5 15.Nd5 Qd8 16.exf5 Bb7 17.Kb1
Advantage of sac is that line is very sharp, giving much higher winning chances from inaccuracies. As line hints to, this happened with 16...0-0?! instead of mandatory 16...Bb7 this lost immediately. Houdini_20_x64: 25/80 18:41 10,483,891,647
+0.07 16. ... Bb7 17.Kb1
-2.22 16. ... Ne5 17.Bb6 Bxg5+ 18.Kb1 Qd7 19.Nc7+
-2.56 16. ... 0-0 17.f6 Nxf6 18.gxf6 Bxf6 19.Bb6
-2.90 16. ... Kf8 17.Rhe1 Bb7 18.f6 Bxd5 19.fxe7+
Velimiroric used sharpening technique that still most used weapon at high level today, 14.Nf5 was indeed "holy smoke" move, but in the hands of lesser player it may not have been proven. His accurate play afterwards turned sac into time bomb it was intended to be. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | DrMAL: Subvariation here is useful to compare with more recent subvariation in V Palciauskas vs Vytautas Andriulaitis, 2001 in both cases Nf5 makes game much sharper, but here accepting sac is better whereas in other game declining sac with b5 is better. Nuances in this attack are very important to understand especially if playing black and hoping to survive! |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | qqdos: Yes. Instead of 14.Nf5, it looks as though b4 may be best as it prevents 14...b4 by Black. 16...0-0? was a mistake and if Black plays the mandatory 16...Bb7; then I think 17.f6, which was White's actual response to 16...0-0 in the above game, still allows him to fight for equality. As Houdini suggests, 17.Kb1 may even give him more. And finally, have a look at this more recent example J Furhoff vs Balashov, 1992. Balashov was an extremely experienced member of the "old guard", who was playing the White side of this opening way back in 1970! |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | DrMAL: <qqdos> Well, computer might give both the same score but 14.Nf5 is much more powerful move. I was never taught that sac is unsound, but thought sac was not always possible. IDK it has been long time since Pioneer Palace school days I must have forgotten. Anyway, I am happy to revisit topic and learn something from you and <SWT> it makes me happy to be on this site. Yes, with 16...Bb7 17.f6 in game black is still OK, computer picks this at first, it is nearly as good as line I gave with deeper computation. Fact that double edged position is much more precarious for black shows that move 14.Nf5 greatly favors white. If equal it would be truly double edged with similar slip-up on either side causing similar damage. This is what I mean by looking at character of line, it is much more important than computer score, even Houdini has difficulty with positional sac and underestimates score. I would give (at least) +1.0 for Nf5 score instead, cheers. |
|
| Nov-14-11 | | qqdos: <DrMAL.> I really like that distinction between a sac not being unsound or not impossible! (too many negatives?!?) On 16...Bb7, although Kb1 is time-hallowed in this line, I feel f6 to be a shade more thematic, in keeping with the the founder's basic attacking outlook and he did choose it himself - probably not the best way to play chess! Delighted that you score the "fear" factor for Nf5 at +1.0. That's why the move's such a beaut! The computers cannot fully fathom it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 14.Nf5