Jan-14-04 | | ughaibu: This game 6 is quite an efficient slaughter. |
|
Jan-15-04 | | Catfriend: When I analysed some games from world-matches, I chose this one to represent the 1957 match. It's very deep BTW |
|
Jan-15-04 | | Catfriend: for a nice game between the two go to
Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1945 |
|
Sep-22-06 | | slomarko: i think Nc4 is wrong. (f4!?) |
|
Sep-22-06 | | Alexander I: <slomarko: i think Nc4 is wrong. (f4!?)> 15...f4?! 16.Nxf4 Bxe5 17.Ne6 looks much better for white. |
|
Sep-22-06 | | slomarko: what about 15...f4 16.Nf4 Nc4 ? |
|
Sep-22-06 | | nikolaas: <slomarko> 15...f4 16.Nf4 Nc4 17.Bc4+ |
|
Sep-22-06 | | slomarko: yeah that seems to be the refutation |
|
Sep-22-06 | | slomarko: then maybe 16....Na4? |
|
Sep-22-06 | | Alexander I: <slomarko: then maybe 16....Na4?> 17.Ne6 with Bb5 to follow is practically winning for White. |
|
Sep-22-06 | | slomarko: ok then 11...Qc5? is a mistake correct is 11....Qd5 and if 12.Nc3 then Qc5 13.dc5 f4 |
|
Apr-24-07 | | Pacificknight: Botvinnik employs Smyslov's own variation. Is there anything in the literature about this psychological ploy? Smyslov played 1 d4 twice in the match. Once here and again in game 14 which transposed to a French. Why didn't Smyslov attempt to challenge this variation more often? Smyslov's 9 0-0-0 remains a strong attacking option today. |
|
Mar-20-08 | | Knight13: 18...Nb4 sucks. Letting White take on c6 would be better since his bishop's a lot stronger, and knight on c6 can take on d4 if White's knight ever go there and then lock it up with ...c6. |
|
Oct-30-08 | | dwavechess: 23/28 Smyslov`s moves concur with Rybka 3 w32 at 3 minutes per move. |
|
Mar-25-09 | | notyetagm: <Pacificknight: Botvinnik employs Smyslov's own variation. Is there anything in the literature about this psychological ploy? Smyslov played 1 d4 twice in the match. Once here and again in game 14 which transposed to a French. Why didn't Smyslov attempt to challenge this variation more often? <<<Smyslov's 9 0-0-0 remains a strong attacking option today.>>>> Looks like a good plan. |
|
Mar-25-09 | | parisattack: <<<<Smyslov's 9 0-0-0 remains a strong attacking option today.>>>>> According to Golombek (in the book of the match) the move was discovered by a Soviet master, Oossi who had played it recently against Simagin. He also gives if 18. ...e6; 19. Bc6:,bc:; 20. Nd4 'with an easily won game for White.' |
|
Jun-18-11 | | AVRO38: The moral of this story:
Don't play the Smyslov variation against Smyslov! |
|
May-15-13 | | dmvdc: <Pacificknight: Botvinnik employs Smyslov's own variation. Is there anything in the literature about this psychological ploy?> Here's what Smyslov himself had to say about Botvinnik's choice, in his annotation after 7...Bg4 (from p. 108 of Smyslov's 125 Selected Games): <<One of the most sharp and problematic variations in modern opening theory. I have to admit that the choice of this opening system on the part of Botvinnik came as a surprise to me, since up till then he had normally preferred to play this variation as White, whereas I had been willing to try to vindicate the plan of piece development for Black. Now the roles were reversed, and I had to seek a way of countering my own theoretical weapon.>> |
|
Sep-15-13 | | zydeco: Smyslov lists three mistakes/inaccuracies by black: i. 10....Nb6 (instead of Nc6) would have forced white's queen backwards without allowing the possibility of Qc5; ii. 14.....Qd5 would have been much better than the game continuation -- if 15.Nc3 Qxc5 16.dxc5, black can play 16.....f4; iii. 16....Rad8 would bring the queen's rook out of harm's way and give black the option of 19....Nd3+ 20.Kc2 Nxc5. |
|