< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Oct-30-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Nimzowitsch vs Tartakower, 1929 after 10...Nc5 11 Bg5!! Tartakower seems to lack time to arrange the advance ...f5 after playing what would be otherwise a natural developing move, namely, the move 11...Bd7.|
In the event of h4 and g4- as played in the game - Black will want to move his N on f6 and play then ...f5. However the move ...Ne8 can be answered by Be7 trapping the Rook on f8.
In that case Black will want his Queen on e8. However then d7 is the only square left for the N.
Therefore Black has to keep the square d7 free for the KN, but 11...Nf6-d7 invites the attack 12 Nb5.
Moving the King to h8 and freeing the square g8 for the KN as in the game does not work because White plays h4 and h5 before Black can play ...Ng8. On 14 h5 Ng8 15 hxg6 the h7 pawn is pinned and cannot recapture on g6.
All this suggests that instead of 10...Nc5, 10...Ne8 is better.
However this is not the end of the story, for Black has at least one alternative left still.
Instead of 11...Bd7 Black can play the eccentric looking 11...Qd7!! obstructing his own QB, as Nimzovich did in the famous game P F Johner vs Nimzowitsch, 1926
The move 11...Qd7! both unpins the N on f6 and defends the c7 pawn on the event of Nb5, and now the advance ...f5 becomes possible.
This suggests that in at least one instance the right reply to Nimzovich's play is to play a Nimzovich type eccentric looking move.
|Nov-14-11|| ||JoergWalter: <ulhumbrus> still owe you the open letter Spielmann wrote to Alekhine.|
Here it is (in german)
Through extra conditions Alekhine excluded Capablanca from tournaments in Bled and San Remo. Also, Spielmann mentions Nimzowitsch who was not invited to London and Bern.
Here is the letter:
<Sehr geehrter Herr Weltmeister Dr. Aljechin! Sie werden wohl staunen, Herr Weltmeister, über meine Unverfrorenheit, die selbst vor den Stufen des erhabenen Weltmeisterthrons kein Halt kennt. Aber ich klage an! Natürlich nicht Ihr geniales Spiel, für das ich als Schachenthusiast nur Hochachtung und Bewunderung übrig habe. Nein, meine Klage gilt nicht dem Weltmeister Dr. Aljechin, sondern dem Kollegen Dr. Aljechin...Sie haben in San Remo 1930 und Bad Bled 1931 neben dem Extrahonorar noch besondere Bedingungen gestellt und dadurch Capablanca von diesen Turnieren praktisch ausgeschaltet. Natürlich haben Sie Capablanca nicht direkt abgelehnt, sondern einen viel versteckteren Weg gewählt, der aber nichts an den Sachverhalt ändert, den ich als Branchenkundiger wohl zu durchschauen vermag. Muß denn Capablanca für seinen überlegenen Sieg in New York 1927 so arg büßen? Aber lassen wir die Vergangenheit begraben sein und befassen uns lieber mit Ihrem Kollegen Nimzowitsch, der doch nach Ihnen und Capablanca der erfolgreichste Meister der Gegenwart sein dürfte. Scheint es nicht auffallend, daß er weder nach London 1932 noch jetzt nach Bern eine Einladung erhalten hat? Mindestens wäre es für Sie leicht gewesen, eine Einladung an Nimzowitsch durchzusetzen. Als Dr.jur. wird Ihnen der "dolus eventualis" (bewußte Fahrlässigkeit, d.A.) bekannt sein... Mein lieber Weltmeister, verdreschen Sie weiter Ihre Gegner, möge Ihnen zum Entzücken der ganzen Schachwelt noch viele Großtaten gelingen, nur gewöhnen Sie sich das Kommandieren ab, sonst müßte ich Ihnen das bibliche Wort des Propheten Hosea, frei nach Marco zurufen: Wind säet er, und Sturm wird er ernten. Das Maß ist voll, jenseits und diesseits des Ozeans mehren sich die Stimmen, die sich gegen die Diktatur des Weltmeisters auflehnen.>
|Nov-14-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: <JoergWalter: <ulhumbrus> still owe you the open letter Spielmann wrote to Alekhine. Here it is (in german)> |
Thank you for the letter.I do not speak German, but here is the google translation:
<Dear Dr. Alekhine World Championship! You will be amazed well, Mr. World Champion, on my audacity that knows even before the steps of the grand champion throne no maintenance. But I Accuse! Of course, not your brilliant game for which I have left as Schachenthusiast only respect and admiration. No, my complaint is not the world champion Dr Alekhine, but his colleague Dr. Alekhine ... do you have in San Remo 1930 and Bled 1931 bathroom next to the extra fee or meet special conditions and thereby eliminated from this tournament Capablanca practical. Of course you have not directly rejected Capablanca, but chose a much more hidden way, but this does not change the fact that I as an industry Lore probably can see through. Must atone for Capablanca for his convincing victory in New York, 1927 so bad? But let the past be buried, and deal better with your colleagues Nimzowitsch, but probably the most successful masters of the present for you and Capablanca. Does it not seem strange that he has neither to London in 1932 still receive an invitation to Bern? At least it would have been easy for you to enforce an invitation to Nimzowitsch. As Dr. jur. will the "dolus eventualis" (conscious negligence, dA) be known ... My dear champion, you beat up on your opponent, you may be able to delight the whole chess world for many exploits, only you get used to the commanding off, or else I would have you to bibliche word of the prophet Hosea, free call to Marco: wind he sows, storm and shall he also reap. The cup is full, the other side and this side of the ocean, there are increasing voices who rise up against the dictatorship of the world champion.>
|Dec-04-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Adams vs Anand, 2011 it may be that with the move 15 Nc1 Adams wants to creep up on to the square d5 in the manner of Karpov by playing the knight to b4 as in the game Karpov vs Nunn, 1985|
If so, Anand pre-empts all that by the pawn sacrifice 15...d5!! To begin with, White's N on c3 is overworked. If takes the d5 pawn it cannot then defend the e4 pawn. On 16 exd5 Bb4 17 d6 Qd7 ( Black can't allow 18 d7 and 19 d7-d8/Q) the d6 pawn is going to fall.
If the move 25...e4 leads to no more than a draw, this suggests 25...f4 instead or else playing the advance ....f4 at some earlier point or playing for the advance ...f4 at some earlier point eg instead of 23...Nd7 23...f4, or instead of 24...Nxb6 either 24...f4 or perhaps 24...Nf6 followed by ...f4
|Dec-07-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Carlsen vs Nakamura, 2011 it may be that with best play White has by no means such an overwhelming advantage as some remarks of a one sided win may suggest. In fact with best play White may have little or no advantage at all. |
It may take no more than a few tiny adjustments to Black's play to transform the evaluation of the position from a one sided looking win for White into little or no advantage for White.
After the move 13 Nh4 it is true that it seems much easier for White to play the pawn advance f2-f4 than it seems easy for Black to play the pawn advance ...f7-f5.
This is because it is much easier for White to free his f2 pawn by playing the move Nh4 than it is easy for Black to free the f7 pawn to move by playing the move ...Nh5.
However can Black do nothing else that is useful with his king's knight?
One answer is that the N on f6 supports the counter-advance 13...d5! If Black can play safely this advance this may defuse any prospects for a successful White king side attack arising out of the pawn advance f2-f4.
This suggests that the move 13 Nh4 does make one concession to Black: it takes pressure off Black's e5 pawn.
|Dec-09-11|| ||Penguincw: < Ulhumbrus >
What about Adams and Howell? Any sign of them? And where's Magnus?
|Dec-09-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: <Penguincw: < Ulhumbrus > |
What about Adams and Howell? Any sign of them? And where's Magnus?> I would guess that they all appeared in the commentary box after their games, or the majority of them did. Howell would have appeared with the opponent he played with. Another thing is that one of the players gets a bye in each round and may appear in the commentary box by himself.
|Dec-13-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Kramnik vs Carlsen, 2011 Kramnik's main mistake may have been 18 c5. Here is the argument.|
It is understandable that with Black deprived of counterplay and backward in development Kramnik should have wanted to attack quickly by c5.
However Black has not only been deprived of counterplay on the King side, White has in fact taken the initiaive there from Black, so that White has the initiative on both wings.
Now on either wing, the greater the advantage which White has over Black there, the better the chances of success are for his attack
White can muster in fact a greater superiority of material force over Black on the King side than he can arrange on the Queen side.
Therefore it is on the King side that White must proceed energetically and on the Queen side where he must play more conservatively.
Therefore 18 c5? followed the wrong policy. On the Queen side it was better to play more cautiously and to attack the King side instead.
So I thought before.
However the analysis given by <Hesam7> suggests another possibility.
What if the Queen side attack c5 assists White's King side attack instead of diverting resources away from it?
If the analysis given by <Hesam7> is right, this suggests that Kramnik's mistake was not 18 c5 but 20 Qh5 instead of 20 Qg4 and for this reason: Because it is after 20 Qg4 that White's Queen side attack is able to assist properly White's King side attack.
It is after the move 20 Qg4 that White's Queen side attack which includes moves such c5 and Rb1 followed by the sacrifice Rxb7! is able to act properly in concert with White's King side attack which includes moves such as fxg6.
In other words, it is the choice of the move 20 Qg4 instead of 20 Qh5 which enables White's Queen side attack to cooperate properly with White's King side attack.
I am not sure yet whether the analysis given by <Hesam7> is right or not. It may be. The position warrants examining further.
|Jan-07-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Lasker vs Salwe, 1909 in the position reached after 27...Qe8 two points brought out by Nimzovich's notes are as follows.|
1. Black's Rook on e8 is potentially overworked. If it has go to to g8 in reply to Rg4 it cannot then tie White's Queen's Rook to the defence of the e4 pawn so that this Rook becomes free to go to d1 to attack Black's d6 pawn.
2. Black's N on f7 is potentially overworked. If it has to go to h6 in order to obstruct the h file in reply to Nf4 it cannot then defend the d6 pawn.
|Jan-18-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Carlsen vs Aronian, 2012 the move 12...a5 may be the losing mistake because it makes the position more dangerous for Black's King in every part of the board.|
On the chessdom website GM Naiditsch says of the position after Carlsen has set up a pawn centre that Aronian has no counterplay at all.
This gives us an indication of the explanation for Aronian's defeat.
After White has set up his pawn centre, Aronian has, by playing the flank pawn advances ...h5 and ...a5, made it more difficult for Black to play the pawn advances ...f7-f5 or ...c7-c5 so as to attack White's centre.
Another thing is that after 15 e4 the move 15...dxe4 concedes the centre and an advantage in space to White. It is a suboptimal move according to the chessdom analysis. An alternative to 15...dxe4 is to try to hold on to the centre by eg 15...Nb6.
It is true that whatever Black does choose at move 15, by having played the flank pawn advances ...h5 and ...c5 he has made it more difficult for himself to play the pawn advances ...f7-f5 or ...c7-c5 or ....f7-f6 against White's centre.
|Mar-25-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Bisguier vs Reshevsky, 1957 Reshevsky's comment on the move 18...Nac5 is < 18...Nac5! Black offers a pawn which White unwisely accepts>|
On the move 19 gxh5 to quote from his remarks < 19 gxh5? Correct is 19 Ba2 and Black has to play very precisely to keep out of trouble...>
Reshevsky's comment on the move 22...Ne5 is < By giving up a pawn, Black has the initiative. The two bishops and the exposed position of the White King are more than sufficient compensation for the pawn sacrificed>
This suggests the following question: Why does White's acceptance of the pawn transfer the initiative to Black?
If we look at the position after the move 22...Ne5 we can see that Black has removed White's king's bishop so that it no longer controls the square g8.
Black's King enjoys therefore the use of the square g8 as a flight square, so that the check Qh4+ is no longer much of a threat.
With White's KB controlling the square g8, the move Qh4+ would indeed be a threat.
Thus the loss of potential control of just one flight square around Black's King - an important flight square, however, as it is the only one Black's King has - has the effect of transferring the initiative from White to Black.
|Jul-15-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game J Gustafsson vs Kramnik, 2012 Black has not played the move ...Nbd7 before he makes the exchange 8...exd4.|
One point of this is that after 9 Nxd4 Re8 10 f3 Black's queen is not obstructed on the d file by a knight on d7 and so she is able to support the pawn advance 10...d5. This seems useful to know about.
|Jul-28-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Bacrot vs Wang Hao, 2012 if instead of the advances 15 e4 and 16 d5 as played White prepares and plays the pawn advances c4 and d5 this will keep his d5 pawn in contact with his greater pawn mass and at the same time preserve the greater pawn mass. Can one suggest a justification for this?|
One answer is that if we look at the position reached in the game after 17 exd5, the d5 pawn is not only isolated but also not very strong. Black in fact ends up winning it and gains a draw.
If in the position after 17 exd5 we transfer the c3 pawn to e3 we can see that the d5 pawn can be supported by the advance e4.
That is not all. It is true that after 17 exd5 as in the game white has a c pawn which may advance to c4. However it is opposed by a Black c pawn and in fact Black plays ...c4 and prevent c4. An e3 pawn would lack a black opponent to obstruct the advance e3-e4.
All this suggests a reason why Philidor advises capturing so as to preserve the greater pawn mass. It is that that the greater pawn mass lacks opposing pawns which may obstruct a supportive pawn advance.
|Aug-20-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Botvinnik vs Chekhover, 1935 the following comments in parentheses are by Max Euwe from his book <Meet the masters> (translated by L Prins and B H Wood from Euwe's book <Zoo schaken zij>)|
Before the move 19 Nd1: < A very familiar type of position has been reached. White has <hanging> pawns at d4 and c4 and is more or less compelled to play for a King'a side attack, which has, however, under the circumstances,every chance of succeeding. White usually works for d4-d5 or f4-f5 in such positions. Botvinnik tackles the problem in an altogether different way: he brings his QKt over to the King's wing, where it decisively strengthens the attack. Each of his next few moves deserves an exclamation mark.>
On the move 22 Ng5: <The piano of the opening passed into a crescendo in the middle game and now becomes a fortissimo of attack. Throughout the next ten moves sacrificial combinations are always in the air; the black king's stronghold is smashed open with titanic power>
At the end of the game Euwe remarks < Though Botvinnik is primarily a position player, and though his construction of the game differs vastly from that of Alekhine, his play reveals, in his discernment of attacking chances, the greatest possible resemblance to the brilliant style of the world champion.>
An alternative to 19...Ra7 is the pawn sacrifice 19...b5! 20 cxb5 axb5 21 Bxb5 Ba3. There are three justifications for this:
1. White's a pawn and d4 pawn are both isolated and this gives Black at least partial compensation for the pawn.
2. White's 19th move Nd1 withdraws the knight to the back rank and disconnects the rooks, and this suggests Black's opening lines
3. This is at any rate preferable by far to having Black's King succumb to a mating attack including a king hunt as in the game.
|Dec-30-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Verlinsky vs Lasker, 1925 in his manual of chess Lasker gives the move 6...Na6 an exclamation mark. |
In the position after 14...Rad8 White has the bishop pair.
Lasker manages however to bring about a position in which White's bishop pair counts for nothing.
Lasker does this in the following way: After the black squared bishops are exchanged following the advance ...c5 White's king's bishop enjoys no scope.
This suggests the double question of how the player facing the bishop pair may bring about such a state of affairs, and how the player possessing the bishop pair may prevent it.
It is conceivable that just one or two corrections may make all the difference to the side which can manage them.
For example suppose that taking the sequence of moves 13-16 as played in the game, White can manage the move Bf4 in place of the move Be3 and perhaps the move Kh1 in place of the move f3, while Black plays the same moves.
Then one variation is 13 Rfd1 Qa5 14 Bf4 Rad8 15 Kh1 c5 and now 16 Nb5 threatens 17 Bc7 or 17 Nd6 while 16 dxc5 Bxc5 17 Nb5 threatens 18 Bc7 and 18 Nd6.
That is a beginning.
|Jan-26-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: This is a link to the live games page on the TWIC website: http://www.theweekinchess.com/live|
|Feb-02-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Carlsen vs Nakamura, 2013 one point which may be instructive as well as interesting is that Carlsen won without opening either central file.|
In the final position both of the files remain obstructed.
It is along the diagonals h5-e8, a2-g8 and h4-d8 that Black's king has become subjected to attack.
This suggests that in order to gain a winning attack against an opposing king in the centre it may be not necessary to open a central file.
The opening instead of diagonals leading to the king may be sufficient.
|Mar-21-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: This is a link to the Houdini analysis page of the official website for the 2013 London candidates' tournament:
|Apr-21-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: This is a link to the live games page for the 2013 Alekhine memorial tournament which begins today in the Louvre:|
|May-03-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: In the game Aronian vs M Vachier-Lagrave, 2013 if after 9...Nc6 White is able to play 10 d5, this suggests the exchange 9...cd 10 cd Nc6 after which, according to Fine, this pawn formation is always favourable for Black.|
Fine says that every exchange of pieces takes the game closer to an endgame which favours Black's queen side pawn majority.
Recent games have indicated however a problem with this.
In the ending Black has indeed a queen side pawn majority. but White has more space.
White's advantage in space may result in White's king gaining a considerable lead in development over Black's king. In fact White may end up playing with an extra king.
What the eventual judgment of history is remains to be seen.
|May-09-13|| ||Eggman: Hello, Ulhumbrus. Thanks for responding to my query about that Robert Byrne quote. I've never heard of his book about the 1974 Candidates. Does this book cover all the candidates matches, or just those 3 matches in which Karpov was involved?|
|May-10-13|| ||Monocle: In the game Carlsen vs Anand, 2013 you said:|
<The move 11...h6 is open to question, as it moves a pawn in the opening. White's king's knight is going to head for e3 to control d5. Can Black afford to do nothing to hinder the manoeuvre? Suppose that Black tries instead 11..Qc7. Then on 12 0-0 Black has the skewer 12..Bc4>
I would like to point out that 11...h6 contributes to the fight for control of the d5 square. Black would like to play ...Nf6, but white can play Bg5 followed by Bxf6 and Nd5, and black will be unable to contest the d5 square with his bad dark squared bishop, which is a common theme in this type of structure. In the game, after 11...h6 Anand is able to conserve his knight and exchange the dark squared bishops.
I don't think the plan of ...Qc7 and ...Bc4 really does much to stop white's plans, or increase black's control of d5. The queen is exposed on c7, and the bishop can easily be driven away from c4, e.g. 11... Qc7 12. Be3 Bc4 13. Qd2, and white can follow up with b3, driving the bishop back to e6, and then Rc1, whereupon black will have to move his queen as well. Then, in order to play ...Nf6, black will have to play ...h6 anyway. So it seems that ...Qc7 and ...Bc4 will just lose time, compared to playing ...h6 straight away.
|May-11-13|| ||xanadu: Hi Ulhumbrus: in the game Anand vs Topalov (Norway 2013), you made a critical comment to Black 12...b5, since it does not prepear counter attack in the centre (d5). Do you prefear 12...Qc7 or 12...Nb6 instead? My difficult in that position when playing Black is that Queen-side attack looks slow and centre breaking only possible if sacrifying the d-pawn (you mentioned something related to that also). I would like to know your opinion, if you have time. Thanks!!|
|May-11-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: <Eggman: Hello, Ulhumbrus. Thanks for responding to my query about that Robert Byrne quote. I've never heard of his book about the 1974 Candidates. Does this book cover all the candidates matches, or just those 3 matches in which Karpov was involved?> It covers all of the candidates matches for that cycle.|
|May-11-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: <xanadu: Hi Ulhumbrus: in the game Anand vs Topalov (Norway 2013), you made a critical comment to Black 12...b5, since it does not prepear counter attack in the centre (d5). Do you prefear 12...Qc7 or 12...Nb6 instead? My difficult in that position when playing Black is that Queen-side attack looks slow and centre breaking only possible if sacrifying the d-pawn (you mentioned something related to that also). I would like to know your opinion, if you have time. Thanks!!> I made not a critical comment but an observation to the effect that White could make a type of response to a flank pawn advance ( play in the centre) which Black could not make. I will have to take a further look at the game to see whether Black can prepare action in the centre if he cannot take it immediately|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Deep Fritz 13