Lubomir Kavalek vs Bent Larsen (1979)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Lubomir Kavalek vs Bent Larsen
Montreal (1979), Montreal CAN, rd 15, May-01
Sicilian Defense: Richter-Rauzer. Neo-Modern Variation Early deviations (B62) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	29 more Kavalek/Larsen games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: Games that have been used in game collections will have a section at the bottom which shows collections which include it. For more information, see "What are Game Collections?" on our Help Page.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Sep-08-06		LivBlockade: Nice game. Somewhere around the final 5 or 6 moves might make a nice daily puzzle. If I recall, Kavalek had a miserable start to the Montreal 1979 tournament, but really came on in the 2nd half of the double round robin. Too bad the database only has two of these wins so far.

Aug-19-09		tibone: what was larsen´s mistake?

Aug-19-09		laskereshevsky: At a first glance I cant notice big mistakes by Larsen's side... A tipical Sicilian game... Attack, Counter, both alterning suddendly blow of active playing with moments of big pressure by the opponent.... Maybe Kavalek was, at least in this game, just a little more faster and sharper then Larsen

Aug-19-09		slomarko: with my natural GM-chess understanding i immediately notice that g6 was a big blunder by Larsen.

Aug-19-09		laskereshevsky: <with my natural GM-chess understanding i immediately notice that...> of course U mean <whit my Fritz working on I immediatly notice that......>

Aug-19-09		tibone: <slomarko: with my natural GM-chess understanding i immediately notice that g6 was a big blunder by Larsen.> In my opinion it was already lost at that point. White is too fast as laskereshevsky already said. I think h6 and Rd8 were mistakes.

Aug-20-09		laskereshevsky: Assuming that the white is maybe not winning, but already enough on the edge, after 20. ♙g5... logically must be searched an improvment for the Black before this point... Without giving many variations, (first because i want to follow the "not forced lines moves but ideas first" Capablanca's and Lasker's advice, and last but not least because in this period im too much lazy...) i noticed that maybe the rook a8 arrived in c8 too late. I suggest to play 16. ... ♖ac8 in place of 16. ... ♙b4 Beside the correct <tbone>'s suggestion ♙h6 and ♖d8 wich are not so charming moves ( but more or less not so bad at all ), i have same doubt about the effectivness of 18. ... ♕c5. the White♕ was forced to place herself in a good square g2, taking "contact" with the open H line, putting pressure on the G line almost forcing the not great move ♙g6, and supporting the ♗f3 on the great h1-a8 diagonal... Its a fantastic offensive-defensive placement, i dont think its worth to give all this to the white in change of the Black centralized ♕... Its a well know fact that when i force my opponent to do a move he would like to do it, I just lost a tempo. More, when the white♘ moved to the absolutly essential d3 square, the Black lost another vital tempo... Maybe, adding all those not really mistakens, but innacurancyes by the black, ♖d8, ♙h6, ♙b4, ♕c5, we found the "Larsen's mistake"!... (♙g6 is not nice, but IMHO almost forced, so we cant consider it a real bad choice) P.S.: not yet checked, the main line in case the Black accept the ♗g5 sacrifice... But I could believe in a grand-master like Kavalek Judment.. (Did U see?! another pragmatic actitude in a tipical Lasker's style by my side...:) )

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.