|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-18-10 | | messachess: This would definitely appear to be the Shirov of old, wouldn't it? |
|
| Jan-18-10 | | Ulhumbrus: My last message corrected. Suppose that instead of 21 Ra4 White plays 21 Bb2 Qe3 22 Ra5. Then one way for Black to lose is by 22...Bd5? 23 Rxd5! exd5 24 Re2 pinning and winning Black's Queen. |
|
| Jan-18-10 | | euripides: I think I've seen an game annotated by Tiviakov where he uses the 2.c3 Sicilian when to win a tournament, so perhaps he specialises in non-Open Sicilians. Can be a risky business against a crocodile: Tiviakov vs Kasparov, 2001 |
|
| Jan-18-10 | | JohnBoy: It seemed to me during the game that 23.Qxh7 was a big mistake - diverting the queen and not trying to reestablish piece coordination. I like 23.Qe2 better. If 23...cd3 24.Qxd3(! - rather than 24.Rxd4 de2+ 25.Rxe2 Bxg2+ (!)) Qxa4 25.Qxd5 and this is an interesting game. |
|
| Jan-18-10 | | TalStudent: Shirov the magician is back!! |
|
| Jan-19-10 | | Eyal: <WBP: <25.Rxg2 Rxg2 26.Kxg2 Rg8+> I looked at this, too, but thought that 27 Bg5 might hold...> No, there's 27...Qg4+! Another nice line mentioned by Shirov at the post-game review is 27.Kf3 e4+ 28.dxe4 Qd1+ 29.Kf2 Qg1+ 30.Kf3 Qf1+ 31.Ke3 Qxc1+ and Qxh6. <Marmot PFL: 24 f6 seems almost forced, guarding d3 and allowing Qf5+> Apparently it wouldn't have been enough either, considering the combined pressure Black can generate along the open files of both Q-side and K-side: 24.f6 Rab8! And now e.g. 25.Qh3+ Kc7 26.Qe3 Rb1 27.Qe1 Qg4! 28.g3 (28.Qxe5+ Kc8 and there's no continuation to the attack; 28.Qd2 Qg5! 29.Ke2 [29.Qa5+ Kd6] Qh5+ 30.Ke1 [30.Ke3 Rxg2! 31.Rxg2 Qf3#] Qxh2) 28...Qh3+ 29.Ke2 (29.Kg1 Rxg3+! 30.hxg3 Qh1#) 29...Qh5+ 30.Kd2 (30.Kf1 Rxg3! 31.hxg3 Rxc1 32.Qxc1 Qh1+ 33.Ke2 Qxc1; 30.Ke3 Qg5+ 31.Ke2 Qxc1) 30...Qg5+ 31.Qe3 Qxe3+ 32.Kxe3 Rxc1. |
|
| Jan-19-10 | | goodevans: <24 ... Bxg2+> is a neat, almost puzzle-like move, and after <25 Ke1 Bd5> white creates a threat of his own with <26 Ba3>. But would he have been better off just shuffling back with <26 Kf1>? |
|
| Jan-19-10 | | sambo: <<WBP: <25.Rxg2 Rxg2 26.Kxg2 Rg8+> I looked at this, too, but thought that 27 Bg5 might hold...> No, there's 27...Qg4+! > I'm sorry, but what after 28. h4? |
|
| Jan-19-10 | | Eyal: <goodevans: But would he have been better off just shuffling back with <26 Kf1>?> No, this isn't a real defence against 26...Rg1+! (27.Kxg1 Qg4+ and mate next move). <sambo: [25.Rxg2 Rxg2 26.Kxg2 Rg8+ 27 Bg5 Qg4+!] I'm sorry, but what after 28. h4?> I'm sorry, but this is an illegal move (the white king is in check). |
|
| Jan-19-10 | | Eyal: Btw, a good example of an attack with opposite colored bishops (which might have become a drawing factor had White gone for the endgame with 22.Qe5) - at the final stage of the game White's dark-square bishop is completely useless. |
|
Jan-20-10
 | | IMlday: I didn't like 19.Qh5 as Black gets to gambit for action. Cement seems the blockading 19.c2-c4 guarding g2 again while ..Rd8 or ..0-0-0 can be answered Rad2 followed by Bb2. |
|
| Jan-20-10 | | sambo: <I'm sorry, but this is an illegal move (the white king is in check).> Woops; I had moved 27. Qf4. I was wondering why it got an exclamation point. |
|
| Jan-22-10 | | patzer2: With 11...d4!? and the follow-up leading to 15...Bxc3! Shirov embarks on a fascinating attacking positional sacrifice. |
|
| Jan-22-10 | | patzer2: Tivakov defends pretty well, but finaly blunders under Shirov's relentless pressure with 24. Qh6??, which allows the winning demolition 24...Bxg2+ with a decisive attack on the now helpless White King position. If 25. Rxg2, then 25...Rxg2 26. Kxg2 Rg8+ Bg5 27. Qg5+  puts White in a mating web. |
|
| Jan-22-10 | | meng143: wow!nice game! |
|
| Jan-22-10 | | Eyal: <patzer2: Tivakov defends pretty well, but finaly blunders under Shirov's relentless pressure with 24. Qh6??> I'd say the critical losing move is actually 23.Qxh7 (which, ironically, Tiviakov played rather quickly compared with his long think over move 24). After 23...Kd7! White is basically lost whatever he does, the point being that he can't withstand Black's combined pressure on both wings (in the Q-side via Rab8-B1), as I demonstrated in a previous post with regard to 24.f6; 24.Qh6 just allows a quicker finish. Shirov himself, btw, seems to think so as well according to his press conference (http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/l...). |
|
| Jan-22-10 | | patzer2: <Eyal> I ran Fritz to 20 depth and it indicates Shirov's suggestion of 23. Qh6 = (0.00) should hold, along with 23. Re2 = (0.00) and 23. g6 = (0.00). From a practical standpoint Shirov's suggestion looks best. Excellent Video analysis by Shirov. I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link! Interestingly Fritz asseses 23. Qxh7?! as equal until about 19 depth, when the evaluations start to go down. So perhaps Tivakov should not be faulted for not seeing that far ahead in OTB competition. |
|
| Jan-23-10 | | butilikefur: <29...Rd1+ 30. Ke3 Qd4+ 31. Ke2 cxd3+ 32. Kxd1 dxc2+ 33. Kxc2> 33. Kc1 Qd1+ 34. Kb2 Qb1+ (34...c1=Q+ 35. Qxc1 Qb3+ 36. Ka1 Qxa4 37. Rd1) 35. Kc3 Rc8+ wins <33...Rc8+> mates |
|
| Mar-08-10 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: Tactical target can be a TACTICAL MOTIF Tiviakov vs Shirov, 2010 16 ... Qd8-d4 forks undef c3-knight, *PINS* f2-rook to g1-king |
|
| Dec-12-10 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: TACTICAL TARGET can be a TACTICAL MOTIF Tiviakov vs Shirov, 2010 16 ... Qd8-d4 forks undef c3-knight, *PINS* f2-rook to g1-king |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | jmboutiere: 23.Re2 seems better than 23.Qh7
24.f6 better than 24.Qh6 |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | jmboutiere: 26.Ba3 is a blunder, preferable 26.Qe3 or 26.Rf1 |
|
| Jan-09-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: Rxg7!, ... Rxg2! sacrifices Tiviakov vs Shirov, 2010 24 ... Bd5xg2+! prepares 25 ... Rg8xRg2 and 26 ... Ra8-g8+ |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | notyetagm: God how I love 15 ... ♗g7xc3!!. |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: TACTICAL TARGET DETERMINES TACTICAL BASE-DD,DDD |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
