|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 88 OF 129 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-13-07
 | | TheAlchemist: Well, it's not like anything else is much better. That just popped in my head, probably I missed something, don't worry too much. |
|
| May-13-07 | | Marco65: <chessmoron> Well, are you telling me you looked at my analyses of ...a5 only now? Time-out :-) Let's not worry, they have never replied as we expected! Anyway we can't go on this way, the only serious discussion about this move happened after the deadline, with 2 members whose vote was not clear. If it has too happen again I propose to resign just because we can't keep our team together |
|
| May-13-07 | | Marco65: And now, at last, good night. And thank you for the analysis |
|
May-13-07
| | TheAlchemist: I'm really sorry, it's just that I got so angry with some of my classmates whose work I had to completely redo for a group project we are supposed to complete until tomorrow and I wanted to kill them, I completely forgot about the deadline. It's not a justification, just an explanation. I really try to do as much as I can. About the resignation, they will force us to do so, we don't need to worry about that :-) |
|
| May-14-07 | | Marco65: <TheAlchemist> No problem, if you came in earlier you'd see chessmoron and me discussing and nothing decided yet. It's been a typical zeitnot situation. The good point of ...a5 is that we won't be killed slowly in an inferior endgame. Either they kill us in the next 6-7 moves or they don't any more. Pity I didn't have time to examine 29...gxh7 so I didn't even proposed it, it seems risky but maybe was not |
|
| May-14-07 | | Zebra: Very sorry for missing the deadline and the last-minute discussion. I am once again very busy with deadlines, and will be today and tomorrow. |
|
| May-14-07 | | Marco65: <chessmoron> Why are you deleting your posts? Now I understand why some discussions involving you are not understandable, see page 77 mckmac writing something to you "You and I have been 'team mates' since page 65", I've been wondering why he wrote that since then... |
|
| May-14-07 | | Marco65: So my previous analysis on 29...a5 was:
30.Rg1 g6 [30...Bg6 31.Ba4 ] 31.Bf4 (now Ba4 is a threat) Bxd5 32.Bxd5 Rc8 33.Qd4 Qf8 I'm afraid it can go worse than that:
30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 Bxd5 32.Bxd5 Rc8 33.Bxd6
click for larger view
Threatening both Qd4 and Rf1, and we are hopeless:
a)33...Bf6 34.Rf1 Qd8 35.Qf4 
b) 33...Bb6 34.Re1 Qb5 (also 34...Qa4 and 34...Qd7 are met by 35.Re7) 35.Re7 Qf1+ 36.Qd1 Qxd1+ 37.Kxd1 Rf8 38.Bxf7+ Rxf7 39.Re8+ So alternatives must be found as earlier as move 31 imho. |
|
| May-14-07 | | Marco65: After 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4, alternatives:
a)31...Qf8
click for larger view
Our queen will end there anyway, so why not now? We can play ...Bf5 later on to close the f-file, apart from that I don't see any active play for us, but maybe we can hold b)31...Bxd5 32.Bxd5 Ra6 33.Qd4 [33.Bb7?! Rb6 or 34.Bxd6? Rxd6 34.Bxf7+ Kxf7 35.Qxd6 Qe3+  ] 33...Qf8 34.Rf1 Bb6 35.Qc4 Ra7
click for larger view
holding somehow, but how long? |
|
| May-15-07 | | Marco65: <Team> Gentlemen, I urge everybody to analyse their most critical reply 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 now, some days before that position appears on the board, rather than discussing it at the last minute |
|
| May-15-07 | | Elixir of Life: <Marco65: <Team> Gentlemen, I urge everybody to analyse their most critical reply 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 now, some days before that position appears on the board, rather than discussing it at the last minute> You can count on me! I'm gonna set my board up right now! |
|
| May-15-07 | | Elixir of Life: Hey guys: what about
30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 <Kh8> ??? How about that? |
|
| May-15-07 | | Elixir of Life: A sample line:
30. Rg1 g6 31. Bf4 <Kh8> 32. Ba4 <32. Qd4+ !? Ne5> Bxd5 33. Qxd5 <33. Bxc6? Qxc6> Rc5 
click for larger viewNow there's no need to fear this:
34. Bxe8 Rxd5 35. Bxf7 Rf5! with fork
click for larger view |
|
| May-15-07 | | Elixir of Life: Please point out any improvements though. I'm horrible at tactics. |
|
| May-15-07 | | Marco65: <Elixir of Life> The idea is good, unfortunately 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 Kh8 32.Qd4+ Ne5 33.Qxe4 wins a piece imo |
|
| May-15-07 | | Marco65: <Elixir of Life> Also your idea of unpinning the Rc6 by ...Bxd5 and ...Rc5 attacking their queen can work in some variations but here fails to Qxc5, and since our queen can't give any check our best reply is ...Qxa4, losing the exchange all the same at the end. I'm afraid Bf4 poses us immediately the problem of saving the exchange, that's why I only considered moving our queen or our rook (with the possible intermezzo of ...Bxd5). But don't be restrained in your research by what I said, nobody is a master here and your effort to find alternatives, even if it shouldn't succeed, helps us be sure we are choosing the best line and not forgetting anything. Btw, I suspect now that your proposed 29...Kh8 was better than 29...Rc8 or 29...a5 as we discussed at the deadline! But I won't waste time in retro-analysis |
|
| May-15-07 | | Elixir of Life: Ah, nevermind. My mind is not working right now I guess. Kh8 is dismissed then |
|
| May-15-07 | | Elixir of Life: <Marco65> We have a material advantage, so is it reasonable to try to achieve a draw by trading down? |
|
May-15-07
| | TheAlchemist: My biggest fear was 30.Bf4 right away, intending 31.Re1 pinning the Be4. The problem was that moving the bishop away, say 30...Bg6 was met by 31.Re1 Qf8 32.Ba4 and if the rook moves, say 32...Rc8, 33.Re8:
click for larger viewThis is what I originally saw. But here, if we go into the following line, maybe we can salvage something, provided I haven't made any big mistakes: 33...Qxe8! 34.Bxe8 Rxc2 35.Qxc2 Bxc2 36.Bxf7 Kxf7 37.Kxc2 gxh6 we get 
click for larger viewDo we lose from here? The best part is also that white's bishop is of the wrong colour, should it ever simplify to a-pawn + B |
|
May-15-07
| | TheAlchemist: Also, after 30.Bf4, 30...Rc8 fails to 31.Qd4 gxh6 32.Re1, that was the idea behind 30.Bf4, I erroneously wrote "31.Re1", when I meant simply "Re1" |
|
| May-15-07 | | Marco65: <Elixir of Life> Of course we'd like exchanges! <TheAlchemist> 30.Bf4 Bg6 is also refuted by the immediate 31.Ba4 since we don't have anymore the ...Bxd5 trick isn't it? Anyway 30.Bf4 and 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 are very similar, the latter is worse for us because we don't have the ...gxh7 resource any more. In fact I think what I found against the latter can also be used against your line. I mean 30.Bf4 Qf8 or 30.Bf4 Bxd5 31.Bxd5 Ra6 |
|
| May-15-07 | | Marco65: <TheAlchemist> While your variations let me find a bug in what I proposed: 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 Qf8?! 32.Re1! Bf5 [32...Bxd5 33.Qxd5 Rc7 (33...Rc5 34.Qxf7+ Qxf7 35.Re8#) 34.Bxd6 Rd7 35.Bxf8 Rxd5 36.Re8 ] 33.Ba4 Rc8 34.Re8 Rxc2+ 35.Qxc2 Qxe8 36.Bxe8 Bxc2 37.Bxf7+ Kxf7 38.Kxc2
click for larger view
similar to your diagram but worse because there is still a pawn in h6 |
|
May-15-07
| | TheAlchemist: <Marco> I like your 30.Rg1 g6 31.Bf4 Qf8 line for now, it's a little passive, but seems to hold (for now). 32.Qd4 seems tricky, with the idea of Ba4 and Re1 once the bishop moves, but 32...Bxd5 33.Bxd5 Bb6 seems to be ok
click for larger viewYou're right about 30.Bf4 Bg6 31.Ba4, maybe 31...gxh6. Here, 32.Qg2 seems good at first glance, eyeing the Rc6, but after 32...Kg7 33.Nxb4 Rxc2 34.Bxc2 axb4 we get 
click for larger viewDoes white have any improvements over 32.Qg2? I'm sure he does, maybe 32.Re1 Qd7 and now 33.Qg2 or is it the same? I'm not sure. Or another discovery with the knight? I don't know why anything else would be better, after all, this does win a pawn. |
|
May-15-07
| | TheAlchemist: Aha, I guess I missed 32.Re1 as well. In that diagram we are simply losing I think. |
|
| May-15-07 | | Marco65: <TheAlchemist> I checked what you foresee for 30.Bf4 Bg6 31.Ba4 and it doesn't end so bad after all, but I'm afraid they will play 30.Rg1 first. In all cases, we should still have 30.Bf4 Bxd5 31.Bxd5 Ra6 working... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 88 OF 129 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
