|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-09-04 | | Catfriend: I did that... He analysed, saw it gives him certain chances, but he didn't bother to check if it's an absolutely right move. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | drukenknight: it looks like 48 Qf3 may be the last chance to save the game. Either that or a better 49th move. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: Catfriend: If you're proposing that Alekhine, in a world championship match, just casually gives his opponent a piece for shock effect and without bothering to calculate it I think it's meaningless to discuss the motivations of Lasker or Tal. Nobody except possibly Fischer has ever taken chess as seriously as Alekhine so if Alekhine behaved as you say, necessarily all other players also do and there's nothing to point to in the play of Lasker or Tal on this question. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: Drukenknight: 48.Qf3 doesn't look very good, I think it's probably lost by then as the bishop is much more effective than the knight, particularly at supporting the queen. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | drukenknight: you got any moves ugi or is it just N vs B bla bla bla black square complex bla bla...? |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: I dont need any moves, black won. Against Qf3 I'll take it with the bishop, if you want to carry that on it's your move. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | drukenknight: Nxe6+ |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: No, you're probably okay in that one. 48....Qa1 49.Qf1 Qd4 50.Qf2 Qb4? |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | drukenknight: look at all the damage black does with the Q at the end and white Q is just doing her nails or something. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: My line's not much good.....51.Na6 |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: How about 48....Qa1 49.Qf1 Qf1 50.Kf1 e5? |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | drukenknight: 51 Be3 now what? |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: Bc4.... |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | Catfriend: <ughaibu> It wasn't <casually> and he calculated, but there is a difference between calculating in a game and really analysing. He did regard that move as a risky one, and he was aware of the possible complications. In his writing he refers to it as a surprise weapon. You"ll agree with me - he'd never use that move again! |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: The capture on b2 was pointed out later, I dont remember how much later, by a different commentator, maybe Riumin. Alekhine hadn't realised that it was a bad move, so this also is not an example of a player intentionally choosing a bad continuation for psychological reasons. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | Catfriend: Not a bad one for sure, maybe, but one that can be bad and surely is VERY risky. |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | Catfriend: And do you know when Alekhin found this move? While playing the previous game! He didn't even use a board to analyse, only his imagination. And as I said before, he'd NEVER repeat the ♘ again! |
|
| Feb-10-04 | | ughaibu: Here's the previous game Euwe vs Alekhine, 1937 completely different opening. Of course he didn't play it again, someone pointed out it was no good. He didn't know it was no good when he played it. Had he known it was no good when he played it then he may well have played it again. But he didn't play moves that he knew were no good, why would he? If he did is it likely he'd become world champion. Almost all moves played in a game of chess are analysed just in the imagination. You still haven't shown me Lasker or Tal intentionally choosing a bad move over a good one for psychological reasons, never mind Alekhine. |
|
| Feb-11-04 | | Catfriend: He knew it was no good.. Too risky. And most openings aren't analysed by imagination. As to the previous game, he says that during the last moves of the game, why didn't he resign? Because he thought about a suprising-move... And how could he be a WC if using such moves? That's the whole point of surprise!!!! Use it when appropriate! |
|
Jul-31-08
 | | keypusher: 48. Qf3 was a hell of an idea from <drukenknight>. Neither Tarrasch (1914 tournament book), nor Reinfeld/Fine, nor Kmoch, nor Robert Maxham (who edited the Dale Brandreth edition of the tournament book I have) considered it. The best response seems to be 48....Kc6 (Shredder) and Black is still better, but after 49. Qf3 the game is a long way from over. |
|
Aug-01-08
| | keypusher: Sorry, that was supposed to be 49. Qa3 in my last sentence above. I'll try to get around to transcribing the notes from the Brandreth book one of these days. It's funny how Janowski winds up with a knight and a really bad dark-square bishop, just as in Janowski vs Capablanca, 1916 . Wasn't Janowski supposed to be passionately fond of the bishop pair? |
|
| Aug-10-08 | | drukenknight: thanks for compliments keypush. I dont know how I came up with that but I know I used logic. I think one way is the idea of "corresponding squares" in Dvoretsky's book, but I look at it now and I think, blacks B is pinned why break that pin? ANd why not use the threat of the N fork? Janowski's actual move removes both of these. so it makes no sense. |
|
| Jan-23-14 | | ughaibu: What does white do against 48.Qf3 Qb2? |
|
Aug-05-15
 | | plang: Tarrasch suggested 17 f5..exf 18 Bxf5..Rce8 19 Rae1 with the threat of 20 Bxh7+. 17..f5! severely diminishes Whites attacking chances not worrying about the backwards e-pawn created. Lasker avoided 23..Nxb4 24 axb..Bxb4 25 Rxe6!..Bxd2 26 Rxe7..Bxa5 27 Ba2+..Kh8 28 d5..Bc3 29 Bxc3..Rxc3 30 Rd1 and the passed e- pawn is very dangerous. After 33 Ra1 the bishop ends up on the wrong diagonal weakening the f-pawn; better was 33 Bc1. 36..g5! is quite impressive as Lasker had to foresee that the White counterattack was not dangerous and that the endgames were favorable due to the 2 bishops and the weak White b-pawn. |
|
Nov-29-19
| | keypusher: <ughaibu: What does white do against 48.Qf3 Qb2?> 49.Qf2 with a probably lost ending. White's in bad shape, and there is no panacea. But 48.Qf3 is still an incredible idea and his best chance. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
