May-13-11
 | | Oginschile: White's 50th move is a nice puzzle move. Difficult for me to understand at first, but completely winning. Looks suicidal to take the knight's eye off d2, but it's black's knight at f3 that is keeping white from queening the pawn on e7. White would like to play Kd7 protecting the queening square, but black can play Ne5+ and the position is drawn. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | cfountain: Yes, 50. Nxg5+ (threatening 59...Nxg5 60. Kd7, with 61. e8=Q to follow) is an elegant move |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | ndg2: Black mistreated the endgame. Had to go for The e-pawn first |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | morfishine: An intriguing maneuver game. Is there anything wrong with 44...Kf6 (instead of 44...Ne5) aiming to eliminate the advanced e-pawn at once? |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | pedro99: I thought black was better for much of this game (note white's meaningless Q shift on moves 15/16.) Not quite sure where black messed up. Perhaps 27...Nd7 is better than swapping rooks and letting White stir things up with a passed pawn. I know Larsen was fond of knights but that protected passed d-pawn is a big asset and I think once the rooks are off on Black's terms he can liberate his bishop with ..h6 and g5. Larsen was into his dominant period here so psychological factors may have been an issue. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | BwanaVa: I will note for the record that in fact this IS NOT a Kings Indian Attack-this is the Botvinnik variation in the English Opening. In the KIA the KN goes to f3, the Qn to d2, and the white c-pawn either doesn't move in the opening or more typically goes to c3. Sadly, this is not the first time this opening has been mislabeled on chessgames. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | sfm: Black probably can't win after 33.-,NxN 34.KxN,Kf6 - and winning is what he wants.
In Larsen's words: "To win, you must take the risk of losing."
So that's what Black did here. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | Castleinthesky: [Pedro 99] I think the purpose of white's queen move is defensive as it prevents pawn advancement on black's kingside. A well played "knights vs. bishops" game. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | Longview: <morfishine> would the reply to 44...Kf6 not have been 45. Kb5 to get pawn back and offering the exchange of Knight for Bishop. This would still leave White with the 3 passed pawns, especially the outside one for an advance to Q with the King in the path of Black's attempt to interrupt with the Knight and King. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | kevin86: Black will have to give up the bishop for the c-pawn, then, the others can queen. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | Everett: <BwanaVa: I will note for the record that in fact this IS NOT a Kings Indian Attack-this is the Botvinnik variation in the English Opening. In the KIA the KN goes to f3, the Qn to d2, and the white c-pawn either doesn't move in the opening or more typically goes to c3. Sadly, this is not the first time this opening has been mislabeled on chessgames.> You can also note that you are being a pedant. Anything with a "king's house" can be considered a Formation: KIA, which is what it says up top. I would argue that the Botvinnik Formation (I call it a Q-side Stonewall, but no one cares about my nomenclature) is simply a member in the family of KIA structures. IMHO g3, Bg3, d3 and e4 (mirrored as Black) are what makes the structure. Where the Ns, Q, and other pawns go, is beside the point. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | Andrijadj: Horrendeous endgame play by black. Ng4-e3-f1-h2 maneuver is simply wrong. I wonder if this was a blitz game or something... |
|
Dec-15-14
 | | keypusher: <Andrijadj: Horrendeous endgame play by black. Ng4-e3-f1-h2 maneuver is simply wrong. I wonder if this was a blitz game or something...> You can't be wondering too hard, because there's a hyperlinked notation at the top of the page indicating that the game was played in the Sousse Interzonal in 1967. Congratulations on being so much better at endings than an international grandmaster; my sympathies on your functional illiteracy. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | tatarch: <keypusher> Haha. Harsh |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | Everett: <keypusher> I've grown to really appreciate your intolerance. With complete sincerity, please keep it up. |
|
| Dec-15-14 | | morfishine: <Longview> Excellent point, but one must take into consideration Black's passers too, despite the material deficiency: 44...Kf6 45.Kb5 Kxe6 46.a5 Kd7 47.a6 Kc8 48.Kc6 Bb8
49.Kxc5 Ng1 50.Kxd4 Ne2+ 51.Kd5 Bxg3
***** |
|
| Dec-29-14 | | Andrijadj: Keypusher, with all due respect, your comment is moronic. I might not be better in endgames than Ivkov, but that doesn't change the fact that his play in this endgame is extremely bad. I don't know if your comment is simply the consequence of you being a moron or a pathetic attempt to draw attention to yourself. |
|
Dec-29-14
| | keypusher: <I don't know if your comment is simply the consequence of you being a moron or a pathetic attempt to draw attention to yourself.> I don't lack for attention here, <andrijadj>. I was trying to draw attention -- unfavorable attention -- to you. It seems to have worked. |
|
| Dec-29-14 | | parisattack: <BwanaVa: I will note for the record that in fact this IS NOT a Kings Indian Attack-this is the Botvinnik variation in the English Opening. In the KIA the KN goes to f3, the Qn to d2, and the white c-pawn either doesn't move in the opening or more typically goes to c3. Sadly, this is not the first time this opening has been mislabeled on chessgames.> Fully agree. Interesting transposition, however.
Not quite sure where CG.com gets some of its naming conventions... |
|
| Dec-29-14 | | Everett: <premium
membersfm: Black probably can't win after 33.-,NxN 34.KxN,Kf6 - and winning is what he wants. In Larsen's words: "To win, you must take the risk of losing." So that's what Black did here.>0-6 in 1971 is a perfect example of Larsen's statement. |
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 