|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-10-04
 | | ray keene: i watched this game being played-it is a real classic -all present were deeply impressed by the way keres fought for the win with his exchange sacrifice. |
|
Mar-26-12
 | | Honza Cervenka: 49.g3!? looks like a last chance for white to resist. White's moves 50-52 were successful solution of a helpmate problem. |
|
May-27-25
 | | gezafan: If you want to learn how to win from the black side of the Ruy Lopez study the games of Keres! |
|
| Jul-19-25 | | HealTheWorld: Gameplay aside, I've always wondered what Paul Pyotrovich Keres identified himself as - Estonian, or Russian? He is referred to as Russian by Bobby Fischer in "My 60 memorable games" and as Estonian by Yasser Seirawan in "Play Winning Chess", but sadly because Paul Pyotrovich is no longer with us, we'll probably never hear from his mouth what nationality he identified as... |
|
| Jul-20-25 | | HealTheWorld: On that note, after Keres's last move, there will and must follow 53 K-N4, B-K7#. |
|
| Jul-20-25 | | sudoplatov: A rough check of Keres' performances with the Black side of the Ruy gives: 229 total games, 100 Keres wins, 26 losses, 103 draws. Somewhere I posted his wins against the Sicilian; I think this was even more favorable. |
|
| Jul-20-25 | | ewan14: " I was unlucky , like my country " Paul Keres I do not think he was a Soviet ! |
|
| Jul-20-25 | | HealTheWorld: @ewan14 Thanks for the heads-up! It's a pity Paul was taken from us way too soon at such an absurdly young age. :'( And @sudoplatov I also love Paul's gameplay in the Caro-Kann Two Knights. Check out the one they call the "Immortal Crying Game", where he demolishes Fischer with rampaging black knights. :) |
|
| Jul-21-25 | | phantasmagorium: I wonder if 30. Re2 is really the beginning of the doom. Would 30. Bd2 have been better? |
|
| Jul-21-25 | | HealTheWorld: @phantasmagorium *translates comments into Descriptive Notation for better understanding* Gligoric's 30 R-K2 was probably to activate his rook, which is being hemmed in by the knight at QB1. The problem with this was that after sacrificing his own rook (30...RxB!!), Keres then begins chasing Gligoric's rook around, making the latter waste time moving his rook to safety - with a skewer by the bishop (31...B-QN4!) and then a two-move chase by the black knight. After Keres moved 34...NxQP!, that's where Gligoric may have gone wrong - he forgets that his bishop is en prise. Trading his bishop for Keres's knight simplifies the position but White's rook is not as active as Black's two bishops. As to your question about 30 B-Q2, chasing the annoying Black rook away, a likely continuation would be 30...R-QR6; 31 R-K3, NxKP!; 32 B-QN4, R-QR8! and White has to kiss his knight good-bye. |
|
| Jul-21-25 | | Olavi: I remember 35.Nb4 was recommended, to get the knight to d5, or 35...Nxb4 36.Rb2 d5 37.Bd2. |
|
| Jul-21-25 | | ewan14: 16 ... Be6 is quite a move ! |
|
| Jul-21-25 | | HealTheWorld: @Olavi To follow your line (I'll use DN again): After 35 N-QN4, NxN; 36 R-QN2, P-Q4; 37 B-Q2, Black must lose a knight. However, his king-bishop is now active and after 37...B-QB4! he is starting a kingside attack. @ewan14 Keres's 16...B-K3 activates his queen-bishop and prepares for an attack on both sides by the bishops. But Gligoric's mistake was to delay what would have been a better move 17 P-Q5!, which forks the knight and bishop, by three moves. By the time Gligoric actually moved his pawn to Queen 5, the knight was already gone to safety, and the bishop was able to retreat safely as well. |
|
| Jul-22-25 | | phantasmagorium: <HealTheWorld> i c.
Still, there is something I don't understand. After 30. B-Q2, R-QR6 31. R-K3, NxKP, why cannot white just take the knight with 32. BxN? |
|
| Jul-22-25 | | sudoplatov: The local Stockfish doesn't seem to understand the game that well. It does show that 49 Nb6 is bad and prefers 49 g3. It's searching around 20 plies. |
|
| Jul-22-25 | | HealTheWorld: @phantasmagorium Because Black will reply with 32...RxR!; 33 BxR and the position looks like a dead draw. |
|
| Jul-22-25 | | HealTheWorld: @sudoplatov Can't seem to access Stockfish for this game without a subscription (I don't have that kind of money sadly), but in my opinion at least, 49 N-QN6 and 49 P-KN3 are both equally passive. After 49 P-KN3, P-KB5!; 50 NPxP, PxP! and White cannot recapture at once because of 51...B-Q5+! after which he has to kiss his rook good-bye. |
|
| Jul-23-25 | | Petrosianic: <HealTheWorld>: <in my opinion at least, 49 N-QN6 and 49 P-KN3 are both equally passive.> Passive isn't necessarily bad. 49. P-N3 is probably the best move, as it inhibits B-R5 and P-B5. N-N6 isn't passive, it tries to get the Knight off the Rim and into action, and even threatens N-Q7 in some lines. <After 49 P-KN3, P-KB5!; 50 NPxP, PxP! and White cannot recapture at once because of 51...B-Q5+! after which he has to kiss his rook good-bye.> He doesn't capture at once, he plays 51. R-R3, 52. PxP, and the game is fairly even, though Black is still for choice. |
|
| Jul-24-25 | | FM David H. Levin: <<HealTheWorld>: [...snip...] But Gligoric's mistake was to delay what would have been a better move 17 P-Q5!, which forks the knight and bishop, by three moves.> The possibility of 17. P-Q5 (and how Black could meet it) was addressed by <Chessical> on Jul-10-04. I've noticed that your kibitzes don't seem to credit grandmasters with having much tactical ability. |
|
| Jul-24-25 | | HealTheWorld: @FM_David_H._Levin My apologies that I don't really read older comments. My bad, I'm new to this forum so I didn't know that there was a rule about crediting GMs with tactical ability..? :O |
|
| Jul-24-25 | | FM David H. Levin: <<HealTheWorld>: @FM_David_H._Levin [...snip...] My bad, I'm new to this forum so I didn't know that there was a rule about crediting GMs with tactical ability..? :O > I guess I need to be more explicit. I feel that if a kibitzer is going to claim that a player, especially a grandmaster, made a blunder that would be avoided by anyone who had progressed beyond beginner, the kibitzer should take pains to make sure (s)he is correct. If in playing through a game, I come across a move that strikes me as a blunder but the opponent doesn't reply with what I'd consider the refutation, I look for a hidden resource that would justify the supposed blunder. If this exercise leaves me convinced that the move is a gross error and I decide to post a kibitz about it, I make sure to express my uncertainty, as in, "I'm not seeing why <move X> doesn't lose to <move Y>." I know of no rule prohibiting posts such as yours at A Nimzowitsch vs Tarrasch, 1923 asserting that Tarrasch blundered his queen (a suggestion that I found so preposterous, I wondered whether you were being facetious). But I trust you'll understand if I cease replying to such posts and try not to even read them. |
|
| Jul-24-25 | | HealTheWorld: @FM_David_H._Levin I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I make any comments saying that a certain player made a mistake, it is just my observation, from my own analysis, and (therefore) my opinion. Other players/users may have different opinions from their respective analyses. In the above instance you mentioned, where the doctor sacrificed his queen early in the game - I found that move to be rather unconventional - as author Irving Chernev used to say, sacrificing material should only be done when there is a bigger plan in wait e.g. a mating net (from An Invitation To Chess, 1945), so, in my opinion at least, I assumed the doctor's move to be a blunder because he did not have any apparently bigger plans as Chernev makes so clear in his book, which after I analyzed the game seems to indicate to me that that was what made the rest of the game difficult for him. That's just my opinion. You may have a different winning line, I dunno, but I'm all ears if you wanna share, and I can analyze it myself thereafter. Maybe it is just how I was taught to play, but yeah, it's your right to not reply if you dun want to, and I'll respect that right. |
|
| Jul-24-25 | | Petrosianic: <HealTheWorld>: <I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I make any comments saying that a certain player made a mistake, it is just my observation, from my own analysis, and (therefore) my opinion.> You misunderstood him. It was <his> opinion that your opinion that Tarrasch had blundered his queen was preposterous. Your right under board rules to <be> preposterous was never challenged, nor was the honesty of the mistake challenged, nor was whether or not the same move coming from you would have been an oversight. You didn't play it, Tarrasch did. You see a lot of that kind of thing. Even today, it's common to see Beginners who believe that Fischer played 29...BxKRP against Spassky because he had simply overlooked 30. P-N3. You've got to give GM's credit for a little more smarts than that. The actual mistake was much more subtle. |
|
| Jul-25-25 | | HealTheWorld: @Petrosianic My bad. Thanks for pointing that out. What I was trying to say was that I don't see situations like that everyday - normally most players won't sacrifice material unless they have a bigger plan, usually a mating net. I mean, speak for myself - if I were in that position and I suddenly lost my Queen, while my opponent still had theirs, wouldn't I be tempted to resign at once? Wouldn't anyone? And now that you mentioned Fischer's 29... BxKRP?? in that first match game, I can safely let you know that most annotators I've read who have annotated that game give that move two question marks, and yes, they even say that Fischer "overlooked" or "miscalculated" - if you want I can even show you the evidence that proves this. |
|
| Jul-28-25 | | Petrosianic: <HealTheWorld>: <And now that you mentioned Fischer's 29... BxKRP?? in that first match game, I can safely let you know that most annotators I've read who have annotated that game give that move two question marks, and yes, they even say that Fischer "overlooked" or "miscalculated" - if you want I can even show you the evidence that proves this.> He <did> miscalculate, he just didn't overlook 30. P-N3. You see no end of beginners saying "I'm only a beginner, and even I saw that." So did Fischer. His mistake came later. After 30. P-N3 P-KR4 31. K-K2 P-R5 32. K-B3 P-R6 33. K-N4 B-N8 34. KxP BxP 35. B-Q2!!, and the Bishop is still trapped. B-Q2 is what Fischer overlooked. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 30...Rxd3