| Aug-12-03 | | Helloween: A very pretty game played by White. Black is on the defensive the entire game. Instructive game for portraying the speed of attack in opposite-winged Sicilian races. |
|
| Jan-07-05 | | csmath: Absolutely stunning and precise attack by Ljubojevic. There are no blunders here until 26. ... gxh6 when DeFirmian is already on the ropes. Ljubojevic demonstrates amazing ability to find the right way to demolish the stubborn defence. |
|
| Jan-07-05 | | Shams: <csmath> you mean 26...gxh5 but does black have anything else? 26...Ne4 27.hxg6 followed by 28.Rh8+ mates. I don`t see a defense to that threat. is 17...e5 really necessary? |
|
| Jan-07-05 | | fred lennox: <is 17...e5 really necessary?> I don't know if it is, the e pawn on e6 is being threatened with 18.Bh3 and Nxe6. |
|
| Jan-07-05 | | JohnBoy: <Shams - <csmath> you mean 26...gxh5 but does black have anything else?> I imagine Dif missed the cute 28...Qg6, but 26...Qg5 27.Ng5 Kg8 28.hg6 creates a brutal bind from which black will not escape. White will probably try to double on the h file for the kiss of death. Hey - maybe Dif did see 28.Qg6 and thought it was a beautiful way to get out of this mess. The only mistake (in historical hindsight) was not playing 13...Bg5+, as I believe the lines there lead through thickets of bramble to rough equality. Is not the deep analysis in this line one of the reasons why the Najdorf has been taking a back seat to the Lasker-Pelikan-Schveznikov (sp?) in the past years? |
|
| Jan-07-05 | | drukenknight: 20...Nxe4 |
|
Jan-07-05
 | | beatgiant: <drukenknight: 20...Nxe4> On 20...Nxe4 21. Nxe4 Qxc4 22. Qh5 h6 23. Nxh6, White breaks through the kingside. |
|
Jan-07-05
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
On second thought, maybe you mean 20...Nxe4 21. Nxe4 Rxf5 22. Qxf5 Qxc4, with a counterattack.I also couldn't quickly find a win for White 20...Nxe4 21. Qh5 Nf6 22. Qh6 Rg8. |
|
Jan-07-05
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>: I think White's attack gets in first after 20...Nxe4 21. Nxe4 Rxf5 22. Qxf5 Qxc4 23. Ng5! If then 23...Qxa2 or 23...Bxh1, White has 24. Nf7+ Kg8 25. gxh7+. Or if 23...Bxg5 24. hxg5 Bxh1 25. Rxh1 and I don't see a defense against White's kingside attack. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | JohnBoy: <beatgiant> - Here's another variation after <drunken>'s 20...Nxe4 21.Nxe4. One try is 21...hg6 instead, but after 22.Qg4 Rf5 23.Qg6 Raf8 24.Ng5 black is in hot water. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | drukenknight: bg what the hell is wrong w/: 21...Nxe4 22. Nxe4 Bxe4? What am I missing now?
(johnboy): rethink that. |
|
Jan-12-05
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight: bg what the hell is wrong w/: 21...Nxe4 22. Nxe4 Bxe4?> Looks like White breaks through on the kingside again with 21...Nxe4 22. Qxg6 Rxf5 23. Qxf5 d5 24. Nxe4 Qxc4 25. Ng5 Bxg5 26. hxg5+ Kg8 27. g6. Am I missing something here? |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | drukenknight: its prolly me that's missing but...let me reset this. Have you seen the Two Knights I am working on at present? |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | drukenknight: well go back, Beat-G you have messed up the numbering system in your line. I think you mean 23 Qxg6..??? |
|
Jan-12-05
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>
<I think you mean 23 Qxg6..???> I'm not sure what you mean. You gave 21...Nxe4. White replies immediately with 22. Qxg6, threatening Qxg7# and Qh5#. Then 22...Rxf5 is forced, and White plays 23. Qxf5. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | drukenknight: well you have me confused, in which post on what day did you suggest the line; 21...Nxe4 22 Qxg6? |
|
Jan-12-05
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>:
<well you have me confused, in which post on what day did you suggest the line; 21...Nxe4 22 Qxg6?>To clarify, you first posted:
<Jan-12-05 drukenknight: bg what the hell is wrong w/: 21...Nxe4 22. Nxe4 Bxe4?> I replied <Jan-12-05 Looks like White breaks through on the kingside again with 21...Nxe4 22. Qxg6> followed by a line. My point is that 22. Qxg6 is stronger than 22. Nxe4. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | drukenknight: you replied to my line? my line w/ 22 Nxe4? Do you see why I am confused? Okay so really you are posting an ENTIRELY NEW alternative for white's 22nd move? WHy didnt you say that in the first place? Is it natural to assume that when I saw you that you had replied to my post w a new black 22nd, I naturally assumed you were taking me up on my line, not your own... SO we are going back and starting over w/ 21...Nxe4 22 Qxg6? Are we together on this? |
|
Jan-12-05
| | beatgiant: <drukenknight>
Sorry if my earlier post was not clear. Yes, I think White's strongest reply to the suggested 21...Nxe4 is 22. Qxg6. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | drukenknight: Okay then. I take black pieces and play the crap pc as white,here goes...it's pretty interesting; 21...Nxe4
22. Qxg6 Rxf5
23. Rdg1 Bf8
24. Qxf5 Nf6
25. Rh2 d5
26. Bb3 e4 |
|
| Jan-13-05 | | JohnBoy: <drunken, beat>: If I come close to following what you guys are going on about (he he...), I still think this is still very good for white. Thanks, drunken, for pushing for clarity. May you bust my suggestion. Game up to 21.Qg4. Then 21...Nxe4 22.Qxg6 Rxf5 23.Rdg1 (maybe 23.Rhg1 Bg8 24.Qxf5 Nf6 25.Rg6 - I'd take white in a heartbeat) Bf8 24.Qxf5 Nf6 25.Rh2 d5 26.Bb3 e4 27.h5 - can black weather this storm? |
|
| Jan-13-05 | | drukenknight: well I sure hope so, I have the black pieces, right?? |
|
Kibitzing
