|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-09-11
 | | sevenseaman: 14...Rh1 is an astounding move! It is human thought at its creative best, and looks obviously engendered by the characteristics of the position. The computer could find better or comparable moves but the fact that Spassky played it OTB merits celebration. |
 |
| Jun-09-11 | | Everett: <Dr.MAL> see your point, but my points remain. "Value" is understood in many ways, and I didnt care for the way you went about it, specifically what Spassky saw as "irrelevant" in regards to what you've put together. You are still arguing "best" with pure numbers, and I simply disagree with the wording and approach. Regarding 1.b3, Petrosian and others have played it since this game and it is just fine. As <Parisattack> says, 1.g3 seems better. I recommend looking at none other than Larsen's games for his treatment of 1.g3, which he played much more often than 1.b3. Also, for 1.g3, check out Tomasz Markowski. His entire white repertoire is based on it, with good results. There is also a recent book on 1.b3, though I imagine you have it already. |
|
| Jun-09-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: In discussions about objectively best moves, discovered after a game by analysis, I am always reminded of David Bronstein, the great artist. To ad-lib him: "It is hard for lovers of chess to agree. Moves like 14...Rh1 are not easily forgotten." |
|
Jun-10-11
 | | FSR: <SimonWebbsTiger>/<Bronstein> Well said. Also, when we're talking about high-level chess, it doesn't matter whether Rybka assesses a move as leading to an advantage of 7.39, 7.75, or 13.18. Any of those - more than two pieces - would be way more than sufficient to induce Larsen to resign. If there had been a way for Larsen to end up only (say) two pawns down after 14...Rh1, and the other moves led to a far greater advantage, you could say that ...Rh1 was inferior. But -7.39, -7.75, and -13.18 all translate to "0-1." |
|
| Jun-10-11 | | DrMAL: Everett, perhaps I did not use correct wording, as it was misunderstood. "Irrelevant" refers to the value of discussing what Spassky saw versus what I saw or Rybka saw, etc. My discussion did not and tries not to address this at all...I purposely avoided it as it was NOT what I was interested in discussing regarding this game. No one knows what Spassky saw. To try and ascertain his innermost thoughts is futile unless Spassky wrote it all down or was here to tell us. What is important is what he played. 14...Rh1 is a brilliant move, as I wrote over and over from the start. A minor question I was looking at, where I brought in Rybka for help, was that I thought 14...Bxe3 was also good. I see I should not have exposed too much extraneous personal thinking into my discussion, as it has somehow become distorted into being some sort of important point, while the real points seem to be missed or ignored. My discussion was primarily about two things, one of course was the beauty of this game, obvious to anyone reasonably strong in chess. Its main point was to NOT erroneously use this game as some sort of "representative" example to condemn the Nimzo-Larsen Attack. To do this is wrong and misleading. As pointed out above and of course I agree, when the game is already lost it does not really matter what course is taken to finish it the result is still the same. 14...Rh1 was of course a beautiful and spectacular way to do it. For myself I try to increase my understanding and appreciation of what WAS played by examining what COULD HAVE been played. I also did this on move 11 where, when playing out this game, 11...Rd3 or 11...Rhg8 seemed as viable alternatives so I stuck them on Rybka to get more insight. I guess I should not have put so many small points into one big public kibitz, perhaps I carried away while playing out this game. What I intended was to: (1) of course express appreciation of this game, especially it's finish hallmarked by 14...Rh1 that I stated as a beautiful and surprising move; (2) point out that this game should NOT be used as a "typical" example to condemn 1.b3 aka Nimzo-Larsen as so many do! It was NOT my intention to somehow demonstrate that a computer could find a "better" move. In fact, I only brought Rybka into deep analysis here because while playing the game out I, not a computer, found 11...Rd3 and 11...Rhg8 as interesting alternatives to 11...h5 and I, not a computer, found 14...Bxe3 and 14...Qh4 as interesting alternatives to 14...Rh1 and you probably did too. Probably any reasonably strong player would see all six of these moves. Of course Spassky and Larsen both saw them, and how they treated them was given in their play. It was NOT my intention to open up some discussion why Spassky played what he did, hence my remark about his innermost thoughts, a true unknown, as "irrelevant" his actions demonstrated OTB showed what he decided on. To better appreciate moves that WERE played it most certainly helps to understand what COULD HAVE been played! This sort of understanding should not detract from but instead ADD TO appreciating the brilliance in this game. As I stated several times in my original discussion, 14...Rh1 is a brilliant move, lets hope that by considering alternatives we all better gain insight as to why. A move that is calculated through variations as "objectively best" is not necessarily "best" in a game, humans are involved. Morphy demonstrated this amazingly well in his day it remains a central tenant to chess. Strong players frequently play different, "less than objectively best" moves based on more complex decisions factoring in human behavior. I did not and do not want to get into that discussion, hence, again, my use of the word "irrelevant" because it IS irrelevant to the points I was trying to make. I will be more careful to be briefer and less personal about my thoughts on moves should I decide to share any analysis on this board again. Thanx for your inputs, cheers |
|
| Jun-10-11 | | DrMAL: As for a book on 1.b3, thanx but in all honesty with so much theory today I restrict myself to ONLY playing 1.d4 Not kidding, I prefer to be a specialist 1.d4 is my own personal favorite, sue me or better yet beat me LOL cheers :-) |
|
| Jun-10-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: In the discussion of what Spassky might or not be thinking.... The classic Batsford book by Cafferty of Spassky's Games gives the amount of time for each move - Bronstein was noting the times. 11...h5 (18)
12. h3 (6) h4 (6)
13. hxg4 (53) hxg3 (1)
14. Rg1 (0) Rh1 (17)
15. Rxh1 (4) g2 (3)
16. Rf1 (4) Qh4 (1)
I hope this provides interesting insight. |
|
| Jun-10-11 | | Everett: <Dr.MAL>Yes, I understood what you wanted the discussion to be about from the beginning. |
|
| Jun-10-11 | | Dr. Pipit Wagtail: <DrMal> The main thrust of your argument- that this game best not be used to condemn the Nimzo-Larsen opening - is well made and it has led to interesting thoughts and clear discussion. Thank you for generating that. Possibly, any offense you may have felt here could be a result of the limitations of the medium itself and not the intentions of the commentators. I hope you will post again. |
|
Jun-10-11
 | | parisattack: <Everett:> Thanks for the tip on Markowski! (Styles of chess players intrigues me, also.) |
|
| Jun-11-11 | | DrMAL: Thanx, much appreciated. I should have kept it much shorter, and left out that after much analysis that I felt objectively "Actually, 14...Rh1 IS black's third best move." It is too strong a statement with its wording, and knowing how beautiful and shocking 14...Rh1 is anyway. When playing this game out it seemed natural to attack on the kingside. But it was even stronger to attack in the center. I still think 11...Rd3 is the best (and most shocking!) move, and I still think that although 14...Rh1 is more consistent with 11...h5 and a total shocker, 14...Bxe3 was quicker if not "better" and that Spassky himself would have appreciated both inputs while I was busy admiring his amazing brilliance. :-) |
|
Jul-05-11
 | | LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-... |
|
| Jul-19-11 | | solskytz: ...Bxe3 instead of ...Rh1 is a typical computer move. Delicate and unoffensive, but simply tears the W position to shreds - whether the B is taken (creating a wall on the D-file for the white King) or not (so it can participate in weaving the net against the King in another way...) Heavy material losses are imperative... it's so hard to see (to almost quote a favorite song - which one?) but so insidious in its influence. ...Rh1 is a typical forcing and aesthetic human move - you always examine a flashy move like this... but to see ...Bxe3 - Mon Dieu ! ! ! sometimes you simply want to be a computer, n'est-ce pas? |
|
| Jul-19-11 | | solskytz: Much to learn from posters such as DrMal. A genuine strong player, with clarity of vision and thinking, knowledge of a lot of ideas, and sheer strength. He also uses Rybka, but always lets you know when he does and when he doesn't. If I were you I wouldn't spend so much time explaining why I said this or that, or apologizing... just keep contributing. I'm happy that you do, and sometimes I manage to learn something. |
|
Jul-20-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: (see my forum)
User <Ghuzultyy> told me that he liked my work. (My web page - with my analysis of this game.) This motivated me to re-do the web page ... the copyright date had not been changed since 2006. I also found a few errors in grammar, busted links, etc. (Fixed it!) See my last post ... for a link to the web page! |
|
Jul-23-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-... Re-did my web page ... one more time ... hopefully now all the links and verbiage are corrected. Also added a free counter to the page ... the old one had stopped working. |
|
| Aug-12-11 | | DrMAL: Merci Itzhak, and thanx for your website too (the intro is a personal favorite classical piano masterpiece). I learned to put "trollers" on IGNORE. IDK if Bxe3 was a computer move or not, it seemed at first more natural to attack from the flank but then even stronger to just blast through white's center. In the past I used engines for mainly an opponent and had recently bought Rybka for better verification. Since it's scandal I switched to Houdini it's free and seems even more powerful. To use any engine properly, one needs to understand chess well anyway, seems like you do too! |
|
Aug-12-11
 | | whiteshark: What a disaster-hit. |
|
Sep-01-11
 | | hedgeh0g: 12...h4!! was a stroke of pure genius. Spassky must have already envisioned the end of the game when he played it. |
|
Sep-07-11
| | FSR: 6.Nf5!? Rybka vs Fruit, 2008 |
|
| Oct-20-11 | | DrMAL: <FSR: 6.Nf5!?> This game is worth revisit it is has unusual opening and historically fabulous play by Spassky, instructive at many levels from basic development lesson (K safety matters, as do getting pieces into game practically all W pieces remain spectators) to various attacking technique (flank vs. center both are good with potentially spectacular finishes). Move 5.Nd4?! was already provocative Larsen, one of world top players then ignores fundamental rule and moves piece twice without necessity very early in game. In doing so, white is asking for trouble from 5...e4! very strong move played. 6.Nf5!? seems to underline error making third move with same piece, but this actually computes as best move, probably because f5 is extremely strong square for white N in general and, more importantly in specifics here, alternative 6.Nxc6 loses one tempo (3 vs. 2 after re-take). Thanx for reference to Rybka game. I think maybe there is bit too much hyperbole around attack, Spassky played great plan beforehand to castle long, making B on b2 not dangerous. Idea of flank attack with 11...h5 is obvious, not to detract from Spassky it is great and clearly strong move but also basic technique. White K is in center so idea of center attack is also quite obvious, especially with P on d2 but not as clear-cut. In fact Houdini computes 11...Rxd2! sac as best, probably already winning, maybe both moves are already decisive. Once Spassky decided on flank, with 12.g3? instead of obvious 12.h4 to best defend 12...h4! was extremely strong, winning. Some credit for gorgeous finish should go to Larsen, his unusually bad play made it all the more possible, particularly 13.hxg4? follow-up to artificial threat of 12.g3? this awful plan set up entire timelessly brilliant combination Spassky played. |
|
| Dec-10-11 | | rilkefan: <<FSR>: Any of those - more than two pieces> Amusingly I read this far and wrote a reply in my head - what if ...Rh1 won two pawns - a decisive edge at this level? Anyway I'm sympathetic to <Dr. Mal>'s stance here. Form ever follows function. |
|
May-10-12
 | | offramp: Pawns can move in 5 different ways. In this game the h-pawn does 4 of them.
click for larger view
A double-move, 11...h7-h5
click for larger view
A single move, 12...h5-h4
click for larger view
A capture, 13...hxg3
click for larger view
A promotion, 17...gxf1Q+
click for larger viewThe other move a pawn can make is an en passant capture. In all my many years I have never come across a game where a single pawn has made all five different moves... |
|
| May-31-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Larsen vs Spassky, 1970.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF SPASSKY.
Your score: 47 (par = 32)
LTJ |
|
| Aug-29-12 | | Everett: <offramp: Pawns can move in 5 different ways. In this game the h-pawn does 4 of them... In all my many years I have never come across a game where a single pawn has made all five different moves...> What an interesting and cool observation. To make the possibility even more difficult, you can add capturing on both diagonals. This gets me thinking. Is there a game out there that has every single possible chess rule expressed in it? I'm guessing no, if only because four promotions in one game are nigh impossible to find, but the game would have to have the following: -Castling on opposite wings
-The prevention of castling at certain moments
-Rooks moving in all four directions of different lengths
-Bishops moving in all four directions of different lengths
-Queens moving as bishops and rooks above
-Knights moving in all directions
-Pawn moves as <offramp> listed above
-Finishes in mate or stalemate (can't be both, but this can perhaps be shown in a variation)
- etc.
In this game, one would not learn that rooks can move horizontally, or that queens can move like a rook, or that bishops can move backwards, or that k-side castling is possible, etc. It's an interesting find to catch a game that fulfills as many rules as possible... I wonder in how few games we kibitzers can demonstrate all the rules at the board... |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
+ sac: 12...h4
icon.