|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-30-06 | | notyetagm: <whatthefat: 22.Rxf6 is stunning.> Yes, like I said, a modern classic for the IQP literature. |
|
May-02-06
 | | pawn to QB4: I'll chance outraging fellow old timers by comparing it to Larsen vs Petrosian, 1966 and saying that it shows how chess moves on: that game was rightly hailed as a modern day Evergreen that would give "endless delight...as long as books exist"; yet I'd think a modern player would be at least as likely to find Larsen's ideas as Shak's "pyrotechnic series of blows" (Speelman) here. |
|
| May-04-06 | | notyetagm: <pawn to QB4> Yes, and IM Andrew Martin just covered this game in his playchess.com program. An instant classic indeed.
Do you have a link to Speelman's analysis of this game where he references the now famous "pyrotechnic series of blows"? Thanks. |
|
| May-04-06 | | notyetagm: 22 ♖xf6!! |
|
May-05-06
| | pawn to QB4: Hi, notyetagm: got that quote from Speelman's column in UK paper "The Independent" for May 2nd. Some typically hard-working analysis from JS that day and he really enthused about this game. I don't think his columns get put on internet: I'd be grateful if anyone could tell me different as I paid 70p for that rag and the rest of it was a damn dull read... |
|
| May-05-06 | | pashton: Forgive me, I'm a novice in these matters. Why can't Black play on? |
|
| May-05-06 | | notyetagm: <pashton: Forgive me, I'm a novice in these matters. Why can't Black play on?> White will have two bishops on adjacent diagonals (<Horowitz bishops>) raking the Black kingside shortly after ♗c3. White also has a 7th-rank rook to attack the Black king. The threat of 27 ♗c3 and 28 ♖xg7 or 28 ♗xg7+ is simple but effective. How does Black defend his kingside, especially his critical dark square g7? The queen is too valuable to defend it and if he moves his g7-pawn, then the Black king will be murdered by the White bishop pair on the now open kingside diagonals. In addition, White has a very dangerous passed d5-pawn then can be well supported by the White bishops and rook. The advance of this pawn will cost Black his only minor piece, his light-squared bishop. Then White will have two bishops and a rook attacking the Black king while Black can defend with only his queen and again the queen is too valuable to use as a defender. Between the passed White d5-pawn and violently active White pieces pointing at the Black king, Black is totally lost. That's why he resigned. Even I could beat a GM easily from this position. White needs only watch out for his back rank and the safety of his 7th-rank rook and the game is in the bag. |
|
| May-05-06 | | notyetagm: <pashton> Also note that if Black trades his queen and g7-pawn for the White rook and dark-squared bishop, in order to save his king, then he will be three(!) pawns down in an ending with same-colored bishops, which is a dead lost endgame. |
|
| May-05-06 | | pashton: Thank you! Much appreciated. |
|
| May-05-06 | | notyetagm: <pashton> You're welcome. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | syracrophy: Amazing! For a similar game Botvinnik vs Vidmar, 1936 |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | Tenderfoot: At first I saw Shahk instead of Shakh and I felt clever with the pun "Shahk and awe." If only. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | James Bowman: I noticed that shahk faught very hard to get an isolated pawn rather than prevent it right from the beginning of the game, unusual but obviously sound when ideas and plans are prepared around it. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | ahmadov: <unusual but obviously sound when ideas and plans are prepared around it.> unusual and difficult even for many GMs with much experience. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | euripides: <james> this is normal play for White in the QGA. The central control and open lines give White a good position despite the slight weakness. The idea of playing with an isolated d pawn goes back to Tarrasch's defence against the queen's gambit for Black (1d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5) and became absolutely mainstream when Botvinnik won some great games with the isolated d pawn as White in the 1930s, for instance Botvinnik vs Vidmar, 1936. See also the Karpov-Korchnoi match of 1974 for a string of games where Korchnoi as Black successfully holds positions with the isolated d pawn , in a line where Karpov had previously won some excellent games. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | thegoodanarchist: Fritz 8 slightly prefers 21...Bd7, but has Black already lost in any event. It appears from Fritz that the losing move was 19...Qd6, but it takes quite some time for Fritz to realize it! Deep play by Shakh. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | aerohacedor: NxF7 for the win! |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | sucaba: <notyetagm>: <(...)two bishops on adjacent diagonals (<Horowitz bishops>) raking the Black kingside(...)>.
I read that the term "Horrwitz-Bishops" was coined by Aron Nimzowitsch in "my System", who derived it from a study by Bernhard Horwitz. Perhaps Black could try 20. _ ♕xd4, for example 21. ♘h6+ ♔h8 22. ♗c3 ♕a7. |
|
Nov-21-06
 | | Peligroso Patzer: Wonderful attack! |
|
Nov-21-06
 | | kevin86: How's this for an unusual idea:white captures in consecutive moves-e6,f6,f7,e7-with the same rook! He also makes two more captures in the sequence-a total of six. While it is no record-it certainly opens black's position like a can opener. |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | BlackNightmare: simply the only right move at the right timing ...beautifull |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | Bare Beginner: that tactical knight sac looked like a Tal combo! |
|
| Nov-21-06 | | Albertan: The move 11.Rc1 is a rarely played continuation. The main continuation is 11.Re1 and play most often continues: 11...b5 12.d5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 exd5 14.Qxd5 Qxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Nxd5 Bb7= I agree with sucaba.Kharlov should have played 20...Qxd4 instead of 20...Rxf7. If 20...Qxd4 then play might have continued: 21.Qxd4 Bxd4 22.Bxe6 Rxf7!? 23.Bxf7+ Kxf7 24.Rc7+ Re8 25.Bb4 Bf6 26.Rxb7 Bc4 and Black has some compensation for the pawn (Black would have the two bishops although the pressure against Black's knight is somewhat concerning.)
Karlov's mistake in this game was on move 22.Instead of 22...Rc8? he should have played 22...Rf8 and play might have continued 23.d5 Qf5 24.Be3 Qd3 25.Rxb7 Qf5 26.Be3 Qf6  One possible continuation which shows Black is lost in this game is Rybka's: 26...Qf5 26.Bc3 Qb1+ 27.Re1 Qd3 28.h3 h5 29.Re7 Kh7 30.Rxg7+ Kh6 31.d6! h4 (Not 32...Qxd6? due to 33.Rg3 Be8 34.Bc2 h4 33.Bg7+ Kh5 34.Re3 Bf7 35.b3 Bg6 36.Re5+ which forces 36...Qxe5 37.Bd1+ Kg5 38. Bxe5 ) 32.Rf7 b6 33.Rf6+ Kh7 34.Rf4 Kh6 35.Bf7 Qd1+ 36.Kh2 Qxd6 37.g3 hxg3+ 38.fxg3 Qd1 39.Rh4+ Kg5 40.Rh5+ which forces 40...Qxh5 and after 41.Bd2+ Kf5 42.Bxh5 White's material advantage is decisive. |
|
| Nov-22-06 | | euripides: <The main continuation is 11.Re1> 11.Rc1 is unusual, but I think most thoretical attention has been focused on 11.Qd2, aiming for Qf4, since the high-profile game Kramnik vs Anand, 2001. Maybe Moiseenko's natural 11...Nd5 in A Moiseenko vs Kharlov, 2006 causes a problem for 11.Qd2, which might explain Mamed's 11.Rc1 here. |
|
| Dec-07-06 | | James Bowman: <euripides> Thanx for informative and instructive kibitzing. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 22.Rxf6