| Jul-02-04 | | Eatman: Nice finish! Neither of the rooks is touchable because of eventual mate with Rh8X |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | themindset: i believe this variation is actually called the Velimirovic attack, a close cousin of the fischer-sozin. |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | BlazingArrow56: Like magic. If Rxg5 then Rh6++ Kg8 Rh8# While Nxf6 falls to Bxf6+ Kh7 Rxh5# |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | xqdashi: <Blazing Arrow> Nxf6 Bxf6+ Kxh7 Rxh5+
Kg8 Rh8# |
|
Jul-02-04
 | | kevin86: Was white's horse,a Trojan horse?
Don't the bishop and rook work well together? YES |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | mack: Very nice. |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | dac1990: 12. Nf5!! is probably a move none of us would even consider. I'm still recovering from the shock. |
|
| Jul-02-04 | | talchess2003: yes, a fantastic move, it puts spring and fire into white's attack |
|
| Jul-06-04 | | Hanzo Steel: <xqdashi> Nxf6 Bxf6+ Kh7 Rxh5+ Kg8 Rh8# |
|
| Aug-02-04 | | Dick Brain: <dac1990> 12. Nf5 does not really deserve double exclam because it's probably not a winner (other moves have been played in this position). But the game was brilliant. |
|
| Dec-02-04 | | Backward Development: was the sac really correct? or was there greater defense? |
|
| Mar-18-05 | | milanez: what about 23...Rg8 for black? all i see for white afterwards is 24 Rxg8+ Kxg8 25. fxe5 dxe5 where black is still a pawn up |
|
| Apr-15-06 | | dakgootje: Was the knight sac really worth the postional advantage, i mean, wasnt there a much more effective defence for black? |
|
| Jul-16-09 | | TheBish: Great game. Bookmarking this one for future reference! |
|
| Jul-17-09 | | Keith Dow: The losing move for black was:
28 ... Rg4?
This leads to mate in 7 moves.
The correct moves are:
28 ... Kh7
29 Bxf6 Nxf6
30 Rxf6 Re1+
31Kd2 Re7
32 Rxh5+ Kg7
33 Rb6
And black has a slight advantage. |
|
| Jul-17-09 | | chillowack: Much as I love Velimirovic and swashbuckling chess, I don't think Black lost this game because of White's brilliance: I think he lost it because he chose not to develop his queenside. He could have opted for a plan like ...Rb8, ...b5, and ...Bb7, rather than wasting time moving his knights over and over. That said: the Nf5 sac definitely accomplished some useful practical things, like controlling e6 for instance. And it was definitely a gutsy and creative idea! |
|
| Apr-30-11 | | qqdos: In 1965 Velimirovic unleashed his stunning sacrifice Nf5! against Sofrevski on move 14. He won a brilliant game. In 1970, Velimirovic was appalled to see Fischer play 12.h4?! against Larsen, who in turn won a brilliant game against Fischer then at the height of his form! In the aftermath Velimirovic no doubt experimented "creatively" and thought he might be able to play (get away with!?!) the sacrifice 2 moves early, 12.Nf5?! A year later (1971) he decided to try it out against Bukal (probably a weaker opponent) in the above game and was fairly lucky to win. Both players made mistakes. Bukal's 18...Nxd5?? (better 18...Rg8  ) followed by White's 19.Rxd5? (much better 19.Rxg7!  ). I agree with <Keith Dow> that 28...Rg4?? was a tragedy allowing #7 by 29.Rxf6!! After the correct 28...Kh7! 29.Bxf6 Nxf6 30.Rxf6 (here ironically) Rg4! is best (not 30...Re1+?) and would have given Bukal every chance of victory! Thus on balance I think it fair to describe 12.Nf5?! as dubious although gutsy and creative! <chillowack>. |
|
| May-02-11 | | qqdos: P.S. According to David Levy, at p.26 of his 1974 book Sacrifices in the Sicilian, Velimirovic at the time described Fischer's move 12.h4? in his 1970 game v. Larsen as 'criminal'! Velimirovic then was recommending 12.g5. Levy was in Belgrade only a week or so after the (1971) Bukal game and everyone there tried to convince him that Velimirovic's novelty 12.Nf5?! was unsound but were unable to produce a refutation. Nunn tried it out a couple of times, but with best play was unable to secure more than equality (e.g. against Liberzon, Hastings 1978-9). |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 12.Nf5
icon.