Dec-02-02
 | | Sneaky: Although this game is a Queen's Gambit I usually see the position at move 10 arising out of the Nimzo Indian w/ ...c5 10...Be7 is one of those weird GM moves that makes most players say "why??" Black is certainly not afraid of the b4 fork in light of Qxa3+. But 10...Rd8 is strongly met with 11.Nb5! where the threat of b4 comes alive, along with the threat of Bc7. The Speelman reveals his T.N. (theoretical novelty) 11.g4!! The point is that the menacing g-pawn is immune from capture: 11...dxc4 12.Bxc4 Nxg4? 13.Rg1 Nf6 14.Bh6 Ne8 15.Rxg7+! Nxg7 16.Rg1 Bf6 17.Ne4 Qd8 18.Neg5! and Black has no defense. |
|
| Dec-02-02 | | PVS: I enjoy Speelman's games. This is the third game of a Candidates match which he won +2=3. In 1991 Short defeated Speelman in a Candidates match +3=4-2. I thought 10. 0-0-0 was the new move. |
|
| Dec-02-02 | | Kenneth Sterling: Apparently Speelman's regular second begged off under pressure from Short for whom he also worked on occasion. The girlfriend of his replacement, Jonathan Tisdall, picked up a Norwegian newspaper on her way to the match in London. In the chess column they found the new move in a Gurevich-Sokolov game from a fortnight before. |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | drukenknight: it looks like 23...Re7 would be more solid |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | drukenknight: sneaky I dont follow your opening analysis, what if he takes right off the bat? 11...Nxg4 12 Rg1 e5 |
|
Dec-03-02
| | Sneaky: It's not my analysis, it comes courtesy of IM Otto Borik. In any case the ...e5 move is something to consider; I don't have an answer right now although I have some ideas. In addition to your line 11...Nxg4 12 Rg1 e5 there is also this to be considered 11...dxc4 12 Bxc4 Nxg4 13 Rg1 e5 I will resist the temptation to blurt out my initial hunch and get back to you with my conclusion on defenses based on ...e5 |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | PVS: 13...e5 was surely a mistake when it was finally played. 13...b5 seems more Short's style. Maybe he was hoping Speelman would play 14 cxb5. . |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | Sabatini: I would think if 11...dxc4 12 Bxc4 is played, the reply is 12...b5. |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | drukenknight: PVS re: 13...e5 It's like battle of the dueling desperado pawns. But black backs off this line. What if black tosses in 14...Nb4 15 axb4 Qa1+ 16 Qb1 QxQ 17 KxQ Bf5+ then what 18 e4? then what |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | PVS: <I would think if 11...dxc4 12 Bxc4 is played, the reply is 12...b5> 12…e5 is more Short's style, but I think your move is the natural one. |
|
| Dec-03-02 | | PVS: <What if black tosses in 14...Nb4?> Wouldn't he be better off with 14...Nh5? |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | BabyJ: For some reason I'm desperately
tired today. |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | BabyJ: Not understanding the Bogo too much,
I figured out on my own that there
was a difference in which White piece
the Black KB traded off for: A B on d2, or White's knight on c3 or d2. Yesterday's posting (notes on Miles-Andersson {Niksic '83], Vaganian-Andersson [Naestved '85], Karpov-
Andersson [Skelleftea '89] with a '3a'
game of Nowak-Makarichev [Frunze '86])
was actually just the middle portion
of notes on the Bogo.
Prior to that were comments including
three games: Rubinstein-Boguljubow
(Sweden 1920 [M. Game #10]) Prezpiorka-Nimzovich (Kecskemet 1927)
and Vidmar-Nimzovich (New York 1927).
Just to boil down to the 'summary' I
had written: 'When the KB trades for
White's bishop, White has greater
control of e4. Therefore it is difficult for Black to adopt the plan
of ...Ne4 and ...f5 as in the Nimzovich
games. He is virtually forced to play
...c5 in order to head off White's plan of establishing a central bind
(like the kind Korchnoi got in his '83
game with Andersson, before blowing it - this is exactly the bind that
Rubinstein could have gotten against
Boguljubow had he played d5! at move
6 or 12, instead of allowing ...cd
to be played.) |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | BabyJ: There was of course an 'Addendum':
'Black may force the QN to recapture on d2 (when his KB trades for the bishop) with the following modern
move order (which, however, dispenses
with the idea of ...b6 and confines
Black to ...d6 and ...e5).
1 d4 Nf6
2 c4 e6
3 Nf3 Bb4+
4 Bd2 Qe7
5 g3 Nc6
6 Bg2 Bxd2+
(Imp. to do this now. The knight's
pressure on the d-pawn now compels:)
7 Nbxd2 d6
8 0-0
(Also 8 e4!)
8 ... a5!
(more accurate now than merely
castling).
9 e4 e5!
Just in time!
10 d5
(Yes, White sets up the binding pawns,
and even with gain of time. The difference is that Black has left
his b-pawn at home, so that later
when he breaks with the important ...c6!, the recapture dc by
White will not leave Black positionally bankrupt.)
10 ,,, Nb8
11 Ne1 0-0
12 Nd3 c6!
An important move to get in! If
White later plays Qe2 and f4, Black
can respond with ...ef and ...cd and
...Nxd5! (the Q is loose on e2).
White needs to find a way to get f4
in and not allow this.
Summary: (of Addendum) This addendum
line looks rather defective for
Black.' |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | BabyJ: But is that true? This was written
way back AFTER I had looked at several
of MAX DLUGY'S games against the Bogo,
where he was blasting even when Black
used the modern move order and he
was forced to retake on d2.
HOWEVER, I may have MYSELF improved
with this 12...c6! move, which may
not have been played by Dlugy's
opponents!
Once again, these ARE just my own
notes ( I may have been initially
consulting Ribli's excellent book on'
the Queen's Indian).
So I need to go check Max Dlugy's
games again AS WELL as that Boris
Gelfand game where he defeated
the very structure I'm recommending
from the Nimzovich games (this would
be where the B trades for the knight).
Will I find everything today?
|
|
Apr-07-23
 | | GrahamClayton: <Kenneth Sterling>
In the chess column they found the new move in a Gurevich-Sokolov game from a fortnight before. <Kenneth Sterling>,
And Sokolov fared even worse than Short did!
M Gurevich vs A Sokolov, 1988 |
|
| Feb-25-24 | | whiteshark: Due to <10...dxc4 11.Bxc4> M Gurevich vs A Sokolov, 1988 is not the predecessor game even if it is much more entertaining and the g4 motif also already appears. Actually it is M Gurevich vs A V Kharitonov, 1988 played only a week before. |
|
| Feb-26-24 | | Olavi: The Sokolov game was the first outing of 10.0-0-0, and the Speelman camp did not know that there had alreay been the second game. |
|
Kibitzing
