| Sep-20-08 | | PeterB: Great game - vintage Korchnoi. All tactics, all the time! |
|
| Aug-11-10 | | M.D. Wilson: During one of the Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974 games Korchnoi asked the arbiter if he could legally castle when his rook was attacked. He talks about this incident in "Chess Is My Life". Almost the same situation arose in this game, but his rook wasn't being threatened. |
|
| Mar-13-13 | | Everett: <MD> I think that story is utter garbage, Korchnoi playing games. |
|
| Mar-13-13 | | andrewjsacks: Great win by a great player. Larsen was plenty good but not THAT good. Ask Fischer. |
|
| Mar-13-13 | | Everett: < andrewjsacks: Great win by a great player. Larsen was plenty good but not THAT good. Ask Fischer.> I would rather go over all the great games Larsen played in the Interzonals from 73-79, still fighting and going after wins against the best players willing to play. |
|
Mar-13-13
 | | perfidious: This game is annotated by Korchnoi in the tournament book; round about 22....Rxf4, he discusses an alternative to the move played at length, but I do not recall the analysis. |
|
| Apr-09-18 | | Adenosina: It is a nice game, in fact Korchnoi got the initiative with the Black pieces with an interesting exchange sacrifice which did unbalance the game. Furthermore, the resulting position is quite typical of different color bishops where the intiative (in this case, it was in Korchnoi hands) is a major factor. |
|
| Sep-18-19 | | Ulhumbrus: After 17...fxe6 White has the bishop pair and Black's pawns are dislocated. It may seem at first sight that White can expect an overwhelming win. However the opposite happens. Black wins.
Moreover it is not easy to say how White should play differently so as to show that he has an overwhelming advantage. One example of an answer is that there is in fact no way for White to play differently so as to show that he has an overwhelming advantage, because White's advantage is in fact an illusion. White's c4 square is weak and his king is exposed to attack. Black's pawn weaknesses are also illusory as White can't get at them in time. White's queen's bishop only appears to be a weapon but is in fact a target. So the true evaluation is that it is Black who has the advantage instead of White. This suggests that one can learn a few things about the art of evaluation from this game |
|
| May-03-24 | | Albion 1959: This game between two of the greatest chess fighters of the 1970's & 1980's produces a position that defies conventional chess logic. Korchnoi with 16: O-O-O!? Allows Larsen to have the bishop pair, have pawns on d4 & e4 with a strong pawn centre and weaken his own kingside pawns. In return he gets active piece play, especially the knights. And instead of trying to win an endgame with the extra pawn, Korchnoi goes for tactics to win a piece: |
|
| May-03-24 | | Murky: <perfidious: This game is annotated by Korchnoi in the tournament book>... Not quite. I have that tournament book and the annotations are by I. Zaitsev in Russian. Annotations are quite detailed, running 3.5 pages. A few abbreviated comments here. Instead of 8.h3, 8. Qc2 is recommended. Instead of 10. Qc2, 10. d3 ed 11. e4 is suggested. 16. Rad1 is recommended instead of the played 16. Nc5. As for the combination starting with 22...Rxf4, Zaitsev claims that Larsen could have survived with 23. gxf4 Nxf4+ 24. Kf3 Rf8 25. Kg3 Ne3 26. Rd2 Nxh3 27. Re2!. Having missed that shot, Larsen is just losing. At game's end Zaitsev' writes (my translation): "This duel between the two tournament favorites had an extraordinary impact on the players themselves. Korchnoi with this victory continued to play with boosted confidence and never lost his place leading the tournament. For the Danish grandmaster the loss had the effect of making him despondent, after which he lost several games. |
|
May-03-24
| | perfidious: See <World Championship Interzonals> by Wade, Blackstock and Kotov for this game, which was, as stated above, annotated by Korchnoi, pp 80-82. |
|
| May-03-24 | | Murky: <Perfidious> I also have the book by Wade, Blackstock and Kotov. After the move 22..Rxf4, Korchnoi defers to Zaitsev's analysis, as detailed in my first comment. |
|
Oct-27-24
 | | kingscrusher: <Ulhumbrus> The thing is with evaluations is that they can be super-sensitive to the finesse of the position, and can change rapidly with a specific move played. It seems in this game, Black's structure was indeed a wreck, and it does seem if White played 18.Ne2
click for larger viewWhite should be clearly better both in theory and in practice. Concretely White sometimes now threatens d5 after preparation like h4 against g5. The a3 move by contrast literally changes the evaluation in one move after Be7 where black's threats include Rxd4 and sometimes g5. The g5 threat is supercharged with Rhf8. Chess is hard! |
|
Apr-06-25
| | perfidious: <Murky....After the move 22..Rxf4, Korchnoi defers to Zaitsev's analysis, as detailed in my first comment.> Within the comment only; to imply that is this true thereafter is disingenuous. |
|
Kibitzing
