| Dec-25-04 | | GreenDayGuy: If
51. f5 Kg5
52. g3 Kf6
53. Kf4 Kf7
54. Kg5, etc. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | PinkPanther: This is the Petrosian Variation, right? |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | maoam: <PinkPanther> Yes, after the 11.Bxc4 the position is the Petrosian variation of the neo-orthodox QGD. |
|
| Oct-18-05 | | Poisonpawns: This is gm 6 of a canidates reserve match betwwen the two i think Tal was ranked 3 in the world at this time.Thes game is funny because Tal is too anxious to draw 26..Qe4!? played with the idea of 27.Qxd7? Qf4+ 28.Kg1 Qc1+ etc with an easy draw...but The "magician" from riga runs into the stunning 27.Bxf7! losing a vital pawn and now the endgame is andersson`s specialty and he grinds Tal down in a neat endgame. |
|
Oct-19-05
 | | Mateo: <Poisonpawns> I don't see the point of your !? after 26... Qe4, because there is nothing better for Tal. It is obvious that the magician foreseen 27. Bf7. What else could he play? The only alternative I see would be 26... b5, but after 27. Qa5, Andersson has a won position anyway. For instance 27... Qe4 28. Qd8 Kh7 29. Qb8! Qd4 30. Bf7 Bc8 31. f4!  . |
|
Oct-20-05
| | Mateo: The point of no return for Tal was 25... a5? Better for instance 26... Be6. If 27. Be6 fe6 28. Qc7 Qf8!  . |
|
| Nov-09-08 | | AnalyzeThis: Excellent comments by Mateo. |
|
| Dec-02-10 | | Ulhumbrus: 5...h6?! disturbs the King side pawns without necessity. 6 Bxf6?! concedes the bishop pair, and although White has won repeatedly after doing so, that may be because Black has not found the best course yet. |
|
Dec-03-10
 | | perfidious: <Ulhumbrus> Really? Is this some sort of level? The move 5....h6 was introduced long ago to create a bolt-hole for Black's king. As to 6.Bxf6, in these middlegames, master practice has shown that Black's knight is often more useful than the bishop. |
|
| Dec-04-10 | | Ulhumbrus: <perfidious> The best play may show eventually that ...h6 and Bxf6 are both inadvisable, but the best play for either side may be yet to be found. |
|
Dec-04-10
| | perfidious: <ulhumbrus> What exactly is your point? On the assumption that your statement is correct, then we don't really know that 5....h6 or 6.Bxf6 deserve the ?! against them, either. As noted, both moves were found to be useful long ago by strong grandmasters. In particular, your dogmatic comment re 5....h6 sounds more like one of the great Tarrasch's pronouncements-the difference is that he was a top-class player and writer who helped blaze his share of trails in the early days. |
|
| Dec-05-10 | | aktajha: <Ulhumbrus> I've often encountered posts of yours with dogmatic comment as "disturbs the king side pawns without necessity". Indeed, we learn our chess-playing children some ground rules so they won't falter quickly. However, after gaining some experience position analysis can't be cut down into such simple things (thank God) and many things have to be considered. In the current opening, both h6 and Bxf6 have proven to be (very) fruitful. Stating things is ok, but being so authoritive on it, without reason is not; try to be a bit more flexible with your offerings and many players weaker than yourself may be helped. Now it's possible you're only holding them back by dogmas |
|
| Dec-05-10 | | Ulhumbrus: <perfidious: <ulhumbrus> What exactly is your point? On the assumption that your statement is correct, then we don't really know that 5....h6 or 6.Bxf6 deserve the ?! against them, either. As noted, both moves were found to be useful long ago by strong grandmasters. In particular, your dogmatic comment re 5....h6 sounds more like one of the great Tarrasch's pronouncements-the difference is that he was a top-class player and writer who helped blaze his share of trails in the early days.> <aktajha: <Ulhumbrus> I've often encountered posts of yours with dogmatic comment as "disturbs the king side pawns without necessity". Indeed, we learn our chess-playing children some ground rules so they won't falter quickly.
However, after gaining some experience position analysis can't be cut down into such simple things (thank God) and many things have to be considered. In the current opening, both h6 and Bxf6 have proven to be (very) fruitful. Stating things is ok, but being so authoritive on it, without reason is not; try to be a bit more flexible with your offerings and many players weaker than yourself may be helped. Now it's possible you're only holding them back by dogmas> I draw your attention to two things.
1. I have not given the moves ...h6 and Bxf6 question marks and stated them to be mistaken. I have instead given them a question mark followed by an exclamation mark and described them as dubious. 2. I have not said that the best play will show them in the end to be mistaken. I have said instead that the best play may show them in the end to be mistaken. |
|
| Dec-05-10 | | Marmot PFL: Can't make any sense of 25...a5. Why not the natural 25...Be6? |
|
| Jul-28-23 | | generror: <Ulhumbrus: <I have said instead that the best play may show them in the end to be mistaken.>> But then you could actually given each and every opening move a "?!". Best play *could* show <1.e4> to be mistaken, who knows? The other guys are right thought. Yes both moves break general guidelines, but unlike patzers like us, masters know when to break these guidelines. And both Stockfish and practical results don't indicate anything wrong with these moves. |
|
Jul-28-23
| | perfidious: <generror....Best play *could* show <1.e4> to be mistaken, who knows?> Breyer's view on that move is well known. |
|
Kibitzing
