|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-23-09 | | ROO.BOOKAROO: Superb notes. The clearest commentary on a full game I have so far read on this site. So much more incisive and direct than so many of the long-winded elucubrations so often offered by the kibitzers. Nothing better than being invited to get into the player's mind and share his actual thinking and analysis OTB. This Yusupov deserves respect and kudos. |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | Loque7771: Indeed, black doesn't need to b1, for those two king-murderous monster bishops have taken care of everything:) |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | WhiteRook48: please, this was the pun before! |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | jahhaj: <Yusopov: The same thing has cropped up more than once before in the games we have examined; one superficial decision leads to another, and the result is that pieces already developed have to move several times. White's difficulties are in a sense 'pre-programmed'; they result from 8. Qd2 and perhaps even from 7. Bxf6.> That's quite profound. |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | lzromeu: I like very much this pun. The irony of the game, simplicity, universality... and I waste a several seconds to see. Needs understand chess, the game, and a litle of english. |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | fref: <<sultanmir>: Amazing pun !! I am surprised this did not get into the top 10 (which frankly in my opinion had lot of lame puns)...> Maybe it's because lots of people checked "didn't catch the pun". |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | whatthefat: 7.Bxf6/8.Qd2 was a truly awful decision. |
|
Jun-23-09
 | | Eggman: Amazing game. Looks like a 1900 player (if that) against a GM - a total disaster for White. This is Yusupov in his prime, winning the 1985 Tunisia Interzonal without losing a game (and beating Gavrikov, Sosonko, Miles, and Portisch along the way), and going on to win the Montpellier Candidates tournament, to boot. <<Tpstar>> Do you work for Batsford Publishing? Because you couldn't have done a better job of selling Yusupov's book! Thanks so much for the effort! Great annotations! |
|
Jun-23-09
 | | keypusher: I like the pun. But I love Yusupov's notes. Thanks <tpstar>! |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | xrt999: The self-deprecating tone of the first part of the notes is odd; it seems as if Yusupov wants us to think that he is thrown into a firestorm of unkown territory....on move 2. I dont follow the logic, given that the game transposes into the Panov, which is quite commonplace. |
|
Jun-23-09
| | Eggman: <<xrt999>> It's one thing to be familiar with the Panov, which no doubt Yusupov was, but it's quite another thing to know the Panov as well as one's super GM opposition, which apparently Yusupov did not. |
|
| Nov-12-11 | | Refused: <freshstart: It's not a good game from Miles' point of view - he appears to be really outclassed here. Yusupov is a well-regarded GM, but surely Miles should have put up a better fight. His moves from 6 to 12 look like a dreadful plan. He simply invites black into the attack.> Credit, where credit is due.
Yusupov was actually one of the strongest GMs in the 1980s, but like so many strong players of the 1980s, he was doomed to stay in the shadows of the big Ks. |
|
| Jan-08-12 | | Refused: <kevin86: The irony of this finish is that black wins-not necessarily by promotion at b1,but winning white's queen:25 f2 (otherwise b1= is the move!) d2+ 26 e2 xg2. White's only escape is to ALLOW b1 
A line from Frasier: Frasier was once chosen by his existentialism club as "The most likely to BE">Why would I want to play 25...Qd2 after 25.Kf2?
I have other ideas to mate you quickly with 25...Qxc5+ then
26.Ke2 (or e1, doesn't matter)
26...Qe3+
27.Randompiece e2 b1#
Or 26.Kf1 b1Q
27.Bd1 Qxd1# or 27.Ke2 Qe3#
King hunt is so much more fun than collecting a mere Queen. Note 25.Ke2 Qb5+ prolongs the suffering for a move. :) |
|
| May-01-15 | | offramp: Is the 1965 Botvinnik-Flohr game in the database yet? |
|
May-01-15
 | | perfidious: <Eggman: <<xrt999>> It's one thing to be familiar with the Panov, which no doubt Yusupov was, but it's quite another thing to know the Panov as well as one's super GM opposition, which apparently Yusupov did not.> One cannot be au courant with everything--a Kasparov-Seirawan encounter saw Black get a cold shower when his great opponent transposed from a Pirc to a Saemisch KID setup. To Seirawan's credit, he managed to draw the game despite his lack of experience from that side of the board. |
|
| May-01-15 | | Howard: At the 1985 interzonal, Miles scored only one draw against the four Soviet grandmasters. On top of that, his three losses were all basically decided in the opening. |
|
May-01-15
| | keypusher: < Howard: At the 1985 interzonal, Miles scored only one draw against the four Soviet grandmasters.
On top of that, his three losses were all basically decided in the opening.> From Yusupov's notes, kindly supplied by <tpstar>. <1. c4 c6 <The Slav Defence was part of my repertoire at the time, and that is what I intended to play against Miles. But to my horror, Miles replied in a wholly unexpected way.> 2. e4! <Of course, the exclamation mark is not for the strength of the move but for the psychologically acute choice. The point is that I don't play the Caro-Kann in reply to 1. e4 - but now I am forced to. In preparing for the game I had carelessly overlooked this simple transposition.> d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 <When up against an unfamiliar system, you naturally want to steer towards something you more or less know. I had some idea of the variations arising from 6. Nf3 Bg4, but alas, Miles played differently.> 6. Bg5 <My opening knowledge came to an end here. What was I to do?> The funny thing is, <Chess Life> gave this game as an example of how thoroughly the Soviets had prepared for Tony. |
|
May-01-15
| | perfidious: At the time this game was played, 6....Qa5 was all the rage; this poster played at least one game with that sortie at the time. If I were to go in for 5....Nc6 against the Panov nowadays, I should more than likely plump for 6...Be6 instead. |
|
| May-01-15 | | zanzibar: Is this a case of a GM "improving" his play when publishing/analyzing a game? Or do <NIC>, <Carolus>, <CB> all have the wrong score? All three of these other databases give 20...Bg7 as the move played, not the stronger 20...Bxf4+. If they all have it wrong, how did that happen?
(If <CG> has it wrong, it's because Yusupov may have published the stronger line, which is at least understandable) |
|
| May-01-15 | | Retireborn: <z> I do not know what to say about this one. In my main collection the move is 20...Bg7; I'm sure this was copied from an old NiC magazine. On the other hand, in Informator it is 20...Bxf4+ as annotated by Yusupov himself. And further evidence for 20...Bxf4+ is this report from Ray Keene, who was (or was he?) actually there:- http://archive.spectator.co.uk/arti... Certainly ...Bxf4+ is the more natural move. |
|
Jul-21-17
| | keypusher: <offramp> Guessing Yusupov (or Miles) is misremembering and this is the game. Nezhmetdinov vs Flohr, 1965 Things were different before databases. |
|
| Jul-21-17 | | Howard: What does THAT game have to do with this discussion ? |
|
Jul-21-17
| | keypusher: <Howard>. From Yusupov's notes to this game, which <tpstar> posted back in 2008: < 7. Bxf6 <There was no need to hurry with this exchange; White could have played 7. Nf3, for example. But it turned out that Miles was following a theoretical recommendation based on Botvinnik-Flohr, Moscow 1965 [not in database]. In that game, after 7. Bxf6 exf6 8. c5, White acquired a positional advantage thanks to his superior pawn structure.> I'm guessing that the game I posted was what Yusupov had in mind, even though Bxf6 was played a move later. But I could be wrong. |
|
| Jul-07-18 | | SpiritedReposte: Black just crawls through whites position. |
|
Jun-03-20
 | | Fusilli: Pedagogical game to work on the classic principle that if you neglect development, you pay heavy consequences. In this interzonal, Yusupov ended undefeated. He also drew five games in less than 20 moves (four of them in less than 12!) I wonder if he sat down to play Miles with the idea of drawing quickly and then found himself gladly surprised. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
