|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-23-05 | | yeats1939: Interestingly enough, Lahno as white beat Polovnikova in 2004 <Lahno vs E Polovnikova, 2004; with the same moves up to 14. b5, but Polovnikova didn't sacrifice the N on a6. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Montreal1666: <yeats1939:> 14....Qh5 is supposed to be a new move in this database. How many games are there that go till the move 14)b5? |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | yeats1939: Two games go to 14 b5. A third, in which Bluhvshtein beat Lahno (see above) she did 14. c5. So of the three, he was in two, and she was in two. He won both of his, beating her and Shirov, and she won one as white when Plovnikova as black took the b5 pawn instead of sacrificing the N (also see above for game link). |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | FinKing: 11.Nbd2 meets threat Bxf3. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | yeats1939: There are four games in the database where 11. Nbd2, and black wins three of them. Two end up with black Q on the h4 spot and white pawn moving to f4, thus essentially mimicing the N sac on h4 that folks were clamoring for above; of the two, black and white split the wins. The big difference in this game is that even after the Nh4 sac, here Bluhvshtein would still hold e4, demanding an exchange, whereas in the 2 database games where white moves to f4, that space is clear and white completely owns it. Even so black wins one of those two games. For now I'm sticking with my suggested exchange on e4 at move 11. Perhaps someone can run it in a program and see how it works out. I don't got none. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Montreal1666: <yeats1939:> Thanks. So there are no other games here that continue till 14)b5 other than the ones that were mentioned before. You realize that according to Chessbase article, 16)Nh4 is supposed to be the refutation for 14)...Qh5. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | yeats1939: There's one game in the database where 11. Bxe4 but then flees from the black pawn rather than holding the e-file thereafter with Qxe4, which I suspect is stronger. That's the sequence I'd love to see played out.
white could pull his Q back to e2, move his rook to e1, and go on with his pawn assault from there. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | yeats1939: <Montreal 1666> <You realize that according to Chessbase article, 16)Nh4 is supposed to be the refutation for 14)...Qh5.>
My problem is no one has actually put the line of play in that shows how that works and I am too dumb to figure it out. Q takes h4, has the bishop beside her, and still owns e4. As said above, even in that position WITHOUT the N on e4 black wins one of two in the chessgames.com database. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Montreal1666: <yeats1939:> Yes I agree, Someone will have to prove it. I don't have the resources either. It will come up soon!. I am sure there will be deep analysis of this game on chess websites by GM's. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | acirce: Someone mentioned 10.a3 which is fine, the main line and virtually the only move played (apart from 10.Bxe4?! giving Black good play in form of development and the bishop pair). I encountered this as Black in a recent tournament, but deviated into another sharp line giving me the exchange. After the normal 17.Bh6 he would have had good compensation, as it was it became good for me but I started seeing ghosts and failed to convert. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. c4 c6 9. Qc2 Na6 10. a3 Bg4 11. Ne5 Bxe5 12. dxe5 Nac5 13. f3 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Nc5 15. Qd4 Nb3 16. Qxg4 Nxa1 17. Nc3 Qc8 18. Qh4 Qe6 19. Bg5 Nb3 20. Re1 h6 21. Be3 Na5 22. cxd5 cxd5 23. Nb5 Qxe5 24. b4 Nc4 25. Bc5 Qf5 26. Bxf8 Rxf8 27. Qd4 a6 28. Nc3 Rd8 29. Nxd5 Rxd5 30. Qxc4 Qd7 31. Qe4 Rd3 32. Re3 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Montreal1666: <acirce:> Nice game. Your game deviates at 11)...Bxe5. What was your opponent's rating?
|
|
Jul-23-05
 | | samvega: <yeats1939> I haven't waded through the previous kibitzing, or read any analysis, but isn't the point of 16.Nh4 to set up the pawn fork: 16.Nh4 Qxh4 17.g3 Q~ 18.f3? |
|
Jul-23-05
 | | TheAlchemist: <samvega> Chessbase give 16.Nh4 Qxh4 17.f4 as the best way to defend. |
|
Jul-23-05
| | samvega: <TheAlchemist> oops, I was about to delete my previous, since it's nonsense (17..Qh4) |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Ezzy: It seems that the biggest blunder in this game is 24 Resigns?? I am surprised that in 3 pages of kibitzing, nobody has noticed that Shirov still has a lot of fight left in the position!! As chessbase news points out - 23...Rf3 and Black wins. The threat is 24...Qh1+ 25.Ke2 Rxe3+ 26.Kxe3 [26.fxe3 Qxe1#] 26...Qxe1+ 27.Qe2 Bxf2+ 28.Kf4 Rf8+ 29.Kxe4 [or 29.Ke5 Qa5+ 30.d5 Qc7+ 31.Kxe4 Rf4+ 32.Kd3 Rd4#] 29...Re8+ 30.Kf3 Re3+ 31.Qxe3 Qxe3+. 0-1. BUT WAIT!! White doesn't have to play 27 Qe2 White can play 28 Re2 after he gains a move with 24 Qb3+! Instead of resigning?? Shirov should play 24 Qb3+ Kh1 25 Nc3 Qh1+ 26 Ke2 Rxe3+ 27 Kxe3 Qxe1+ and now with the queen on b3, white can play 28 Re2! Bxf2+ 29 Kxe4 Qh1+ 30 Kd3 Qf3+ 31 Kc2 Rc8 32 Qc4 Qf8 33 Qb4 Qf5+ 34 Kb2 bxa6 And black has an advantage, but there is a lot of chess to be played, and hardly worth resigning? I am perplexed! Did Shirov miss this defence, or is my analysis with computer friends, completely flawed! I think 24 Resigns is a blunder. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | acirce: <Montreal1666> Thanks. It was 2188 (FIDE), 2247 (Swedish rating), but I don't think he played quite at that level. Anyway, sorry about trying to divert attention from this great game by Bluvshtein. I find it incredibly hard to analyze, but 16.Nh4 does seem an improvement. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Ezzy: Hi acirce! What do you think of my post.
Do I have a point! |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Montreal1666: <acirce:> I think your game is close enough to be posted here. Draw is a very good result for you. Yes the Shriov-Bluvshtein is very complicated. Fantastic result for Bluvshtein against a 2700 player. There will be GM analysis soon. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | yeats1939: The whole discussion started because someone said that by 15... Bg4, the game was lost for white, and therefore the "mistake" had to be earlier than that. Everything was fine at 8, after the castling, so where's the alleged blunder? While Nh4 sac might salvage a bad situation at move 16, it still seems to me the bad situation could have been avoided entirely at 11 by getting that black N out of the way on e4. Everything white does from 8 to 16 seems predicated on a refusal to exchange the B at d3 for that N on e4. <Ezzy> there's a discussion early in the kibbitz on whether the resignation was justified. Start at the top; as I remember it's pretty early on. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | sharpnova: <Ezzy> since you're so intent on a review of your analysis, consider 27. ... Bf4+ which is better than 27. ... Qxe1+ (a lot better.. instantly winning better) but following your silly little line all the way to the end, we reach a position with black up two pawns and with a bishop vs. a knight in an extremely open position (not to mention white's king completely exposed, and black's king still with an intact pawn shield.) white's a pawn can make no progress and the d pawn is isolated. to begin with, your line was bad because Bf4+ was so extremely much stronger than Qxe1+ which throws your bad analysis in the garbage. |
|
| Jul-23-05 | | Ezzy: <sharpnova> I was doing some more analysis, when 27..Bf4+ smacked me right between the eyes!! I came back to this page ready to admit that I had completely 'balls'd up' my analysis, when I saw your post!! Yes, I will take my medicine and admit the analysis wasn't very thorough, and I completely missed 27..Bf4+ My next chess lesson - Must take more care with analysis! |
|
Jul-23-05
 | | OhioChessFan: <While Nh4 sac might salvage a bad situation at move 16, it still seems to me the bad situation could have been avoided entirely at 11 by getting that black N out of the way on e4. Everything white does from 8 to 16 seems predicated on a refusal to exchange the B at d3 for that N on e4.> <Yeats>, we apparently are the only ones who think the mistake was earlier. I still see Qc2 as a very poor move. My guess is that it was intended as a prelude to exchanging the d3 bishop for the e4 knight. And the Queen putting pressure on the subsequent e4 pawn. But the Queen on c2 opened the way for the counterattack beginning with Na6. It also removed the Queen as a defender of the f3 Knight. Unless a person is not persuaded of Black's superiority after Bg4, there's a big mistake somewhere. The only other move I see offhand that might be an improvement would be c3 instead of c4. As for your suggestion of 11 Bxe4, I have to agree. Once White made the Queen move to c2, he had to go ahead and make the exchange. So for the blunder in the range of 9th through 16th move, I will toss out the ideas of c3 instead of c4, Qc2 being a bad move period, and Bxe4 instead of Ne5 |
|
| Jul-24-05 | | yeats1939: Well given the outcome I'm ready to agree with you but do keep in mind everything up through 10... Bg4 is textbook in many Petrov games in the database. So is 11. Ne5, though the winning percentages for white are not v. high. But we certainly agree that once the Q goes to c2 it's pointless not to do the Bxe4 or some other sequence that clears the Q for action. (It's occurred to me since yesterday that Shirov might have expected Bluvshtein to take the N on e5 which is a frequent reply to 11; this generally results in opening the c and d files and the Q moving up; Shirov might have had his eye on a Q-side attack all along, given his pawns. But if so he was well thwarted.) Meanwhile, for the record, someone said h3; there are two games in the database in which white moves 11. h3 and white wins both. |
|
| Jul-25-05 | | Boomie: In Fritz's database there is only one other game with 11. b4 Bf5 12. b4. In Shirov vs Adams, 2000, the game continued 12...Qh4 13. Nc3. Notice that if white can play Nc3, the black attack is neutalized. Of the alternatives to 14. b5, only Re1 shows promise. 14. Re1 Qh5 15. cxd5 cxd5 16. Qb3 Qf7 17. Nc3 0.55/13 14. Nc3 seems plausible but fails to a nice combo.
14. Nc3 Bxb4 15. axb4 Nxb4 16. Qe2 Nxc3 17. Qxe8 Rfxe8 -0.54/13 An alternative to 14...Qh5 leads to a slight advantage for white. 14...cxb5 15. c5 Bc7 16. Nc3 Rd8
(16...Nxc3 17. Bxf5 Ne2+ 18. Kh1 g6 19. Re1 gxf5 20. Rxe2 Qd7 0.73/13)
17. Nxb5 Bb8 18. Nc3 0.34/13
Nh4 appears to be an improvement over 16. Re1.
16. Nh4 Qxh4 17. f4
(17. g3 Qh5 18. axb7 Rae8 19. Qb3 Qh3 20. Nd2 -1.13/12)
17...b6 18. cxd5 cxd5 19. Qc6 Nc5 20. dxc5 Bxc5+ 21. Kh1 1.28/13 16. Ne5 leads to an even game.
23. Ra2 is a losing move. The game is equal after:
23. axb7 Rae8 24. Ra2 Rf3 25. Qb3+ Kh8 26. Rc2 Bxf2 27. Rxf2 Qh3+ 28. Ke2 Rxf2+ 29. Kd1 -0.17/13 Someone asked how the game might continue.
24. Qc4+ Kh8 25. Nc3 Qh3+ 26. Ke2 Bxf2 27. Bxf2 Rxc3 28. axb7 Rf8 29. Qxc3 Qxc3 30. Kf1 -3.56/15} |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | Montreal1666: So this is the line <Boomie:> is giving: 16. Nh4 Qxh4 17. f4 b6 18. cxd5 cxd5 19. Qc6 Nc5 20. dxc5 Bxc5+ 21. Kh1 1.28/13 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 14...Qh5