|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-04-09 | | kellmano: The white strategy of letting the queen in and hoping it can't get away is a nice one. Like so many things, it would be good but for the fact ot doesn't work. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | newzild: ...now I see the point of Ryka's 31.Ra3. If you look at the position after 32.Nxe2, the rook is defending against the check on f3. 34.Qxe2, allowing the fork, wasn't necessary. White could have played a delayed 34.Ra3! However, after 34...f3+ 35.Rxf3 Rxf3 36.Kxf3 Rf8+ 37.Kxe2 Rxf2+ black simplifies to a bishop ending where he is up "just" a pawn. For another example of a startling Tal combo leading to a pawn-up ending, check out this under-rated classic: Tal vs Hecht, 1962 |
|
Dec-04-09
 | | Honza Cervenka: Tal's magic worked nicely here. Instead of draw by repetition he simply sacs the Queen and wins. Unfortunately, any reasonable altermative to cooperative 31.Be2? would have made it much harder. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | tivrfoa: tal tal tal tal!!!!
why his games are so exciting? xD |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | chillowack: This is why Tal is my favorite player! |
|
Dec-04-09
 | | Fusilli: Current Benoni theory sustains that the Nb4 misplaces the knight. It should go to c7 to support the b5 advance. But here White helped Black unnecessarily kicking the Knight out, after which Tal took it to its proper square. But, of course, it was 1953. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | Jim Bartle: Oh come on, that's criminal (28...Bxg4). In older times they might have tossed him in a pool to see if he floated. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | RandomVisitor: 24...Bxg4! 25.fxg4 f3!  is more Tal-like than what Tal played...1: Isaak Birbrager - Mikhail Tal, Kharkov 1953
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 : <18-ply> <1. (-2.21): 26.Re3> Qxg4 27.b3 Nf4 28.Qd1 Ne2 29.Raxe2 Bxe3 30.Bxe3 fxe2 31.Qxe2 Qxe2 32.Bxe2 Rxe4 33.Bxa6 Rf8 34.Bg1 Re1 35.Kg2 Rc1 36.Nd2 Rc2 37.Be3 Kg7 38.Bb5 h6 39.h4 Rc3 40.Nc4 Rxb3 41.Bc1 2. (-2.49): 26.Rf2 c4 27.Be3 Bxe3 28.Rxf3 Qxg4 29.Rxe3 cxd3 30.Qxd3 Nf4 31.Qd2 Rxe4 32.Raa3 Rxe3 33.Rxe3 Rf8 34.Rg3 Qf5 35.Rf3 Qe4 36.Qe3 Qxa4 37.Qxb6 Qc2 38.Qf2 Qxf2 39.Rxf2 Nxd5 40.Kg1 Rxf2 41.Kxf2 |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | shishio71: Props to Tal for 28... Bxg4! and the ensuing combination... If it weren't for 31. Be2? The game would be more or less even |
|
Dec-04-09
 | | kevin86: After the tornado of sacs and exchanges, white ends a pawn down-with another pawn to fall,regardless of who takes bishops first. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | lzromeu: < kevin86: After the tornado of sacs and exchanges, white ends a pawn down-with another pawn to fall>
Idd: 2 pawns up against 2 isolated pawns. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | psmith: <RandomVisitor> What is Rybka's analysis of 24...Bxg4 25.fxg4 f3 26. gxh5? |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | YetAnotherAmateur: I have to say, I'm wondering about 18. Ra2. That plus the c1 bishop never moving means that white is effectively operating with a 2-piece disadvantage the entire time. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | RandomVisitor: <psmith><What is Rybka's analysis of 24...Bxg4 25.fxg4 f3 26. gxh5?> Analysis by Rybka 3 :
<[-2.79] d=19 26.gxh5> fxe2 27.Qxe2 c4 28.Bxc4 Rxe4 29.Be3 Bxe3 30.Nxe3 Rbe8 31.Ra3 Qf4 32.hxg6 hxg6 33.Qf1 Qxf1+ 34.Bxf1 Rxe3 35.b3 a5 36.Bc4 R8e5 37.Ra2 Kf7 38.Rf2+ Rf5 39.Ra2 Kf6 40.Rd2 Rf4 41.Bd3 |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | psmith: Thanks! |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | WhiteRook48: 31 e5?! provides a counterattack |
|
| Dec-05-09 | | RandomVisitor: After 29...Bxf3, white has:
1: Isaak Birbrager - Mikhail Tal, Kharkov 1953
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 : <20-ply> 1. ± (1.20): 30.h4 Rb7 31.b3 Rf7 32.Qc4 Bxg2+ 33.Rxg2 f3 34.Rg4 b5 35.axb5 axb5 36.Qxb5 Ra8 37.Bh6 Be5 38.Kg1 Ng3 39.Rxg3 Bxg3 40.b4 cxb4 41.Qxb4 Rfa7 42.Bb1 Rf7 43.Kf1 Rc7 44.h5 <this line is 21-ply> 2. ± (1.23): 30.Ra3 Re5 31.h4 Rf8
3. ± (0.73): 30.Ra1 Re5 31.h4 Rbe8
32.Ra3 Rxe4 33.Bxe4 Ng3+ 34.Kh2 Nf1+ 35.Kh3 Bxe4 36.Bxf4 Bxc2 37.Rxc2 Re3+ 38.Bxe3 Nxe3 39.a5 bxa5 40.Rh2 Nxd5 41.Rxa5 Nb4 42.Re2 Be5 43.Kg4 Kg7 44.Rd2 |
|
| Nov-30-10 | | thickhead: < talchess2003: No way this can have been sound. First off, h4 was a blunder. Although I see where it is coming from, the threat of Re5 followed by Ng3+. Nevertheless, black does not have enough time to do this.
e.g.: 30. Be2 Re5? 31. Bxf3 Ng3+ 32. Rxg3! fxg3 33. h3 Rh5 34. Bg2 and I do not see any improvement for black.. > After 30Be2(instead of h4) Black plays 30....Rxe4!! White has no option but 31Qxe4 (if 31 Bxf3 Re1+)Bxe4 32 Bxh5 Kh8 and white is helpless |
|
| Dec-13-13 | | jonie: Tal's combination in this game is deep enough for his opponent not to see.. |
|
| Nov-25-14 | | MindCtrol9: I like 21. ...f4 restricting the white Knight movement, the Bishop and may be preparing a future sacrifice on the square g3. |
|
| May-06-18 | | jabinjikanza: Caught napping |
|
May-29-19
 | | Messiah: Truly spectacular! |
|
Mar-09-20
 | | scutigera: One of the things I've always loved about Tal was his talent for putting on fireworks-laden tactics for barely-sufficient-for-victory payoffs: here, a Q-sac six moves deep to end up with an extra pawn. It's one thing to dump the lady with your opponent's king on the line, another to invest so much for the sake of a small profit. Tal would have made a killing on Wall Street. |
|
May-24-20
 | | Bishoprick: Whenever there's a sacrifice, by Tal or anyone else, there are always kibitzers, wise people, who will find a hole in the combination. That is not difficult to do with all the time in the world, and a possible assist from a computer. But at the board, with the clock ticking, it is an entirely different story. The sac doesn't have to be perfect, because the opponent also has that clock ticking. |
|
May-24-20
 | | perfidious: Far more interesting to play through games without computer assistance; I much prefer to think for myself. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 28...Bxg4