| Nov-08-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: What a sneaky mate! Dosent 32. ...fxe6 save black? |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Saruman: <IBM> 33.Rxe3 wins easily. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | skushnir: <Saruman> I don't see the win after 32. ..fxe6 33. Rxe3. Black is still up the exchange, and seems to have attacking possibilities on the back rank. Black must have been aware of the mate on d7 for his 31st move, so I can't understand why he threw the game away by taking the bishop on his 32nd. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Saruman: <skushnir>If you had analyzed the continuation a bit deeper you might have found;33.Rxe3! Qg4 34.Qa4+ Kd8 35.h4 Rd1+ 36.Kh2 Rd2 37.Qc6 and white is better. Because he threatens Rg3 followed by Bxd2 etc. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Eatman: I believe after 33. Rxe3 white still has a strong attack (have to watch that back rank though). |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Saruman: <Eatman> I see that we agree :-) |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | acirce: Do you two "agree"? "wins easily" and "still has a strong attack (have to watch that back rank though)" is hardly the same.. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Saruman: <acirce> hehe we do agree. Maybe "wins easily" was not the most exact comment. However if white plays correctly he should win. BTW the backrank needs to be protected too. Which in turn was demonstrated in my line. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | acirce: <33.Rxe3! Qg4 34.Qa4+ Kd8 35.h4 Rd1+ 36.Kh2 Rd2 37.Qc6 and white is better.> Well, 33..Qg4 is not forced, but even so Black can force a draw with for example 35..Rxg5 in that line. 36.hxg5 Qd1+ 37.Kh2 Rh8+ 38.Kg3 Qd6+/Qd5 -- it's going to be a perpetual So I think Black has at least a draw after 33.Rxe3. Probably after 33.Bxe3 too but that I haven't checked. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Saruman: arrgh I overlooked 35.-Rxg5 thx <acirce> |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | skushnir: Huh. I've busy been analysing 33. Rxe3 Qc2 (I also missed the draw after 35. ..Rxg5) and it turns out that I needn't have bothered. For what its worth, 33. ..Qc2 looked like it was also at least leading to a draw after 34. Qa4+ Kd8 35. Qxb4 Rd1+ 36. Re1 Rxe1+ 37. Qxe1, though there might be better moves in that line than white's 34th. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | Saruman: <skushnir> <acirce> has shown that my line is incorrect but 33.-Qc2 is bad. 34.Qa4+ Kd8 35.Qxb4 Rd1 36.Re1 Rxe1+ 37.Qxe1 Qxb2 38.Qa5+ if Ke8 39.Qa4+ Kf7 40.Qxa7+ Kg6;when white wins with Qg7+ and g4+. |
|
| Nov-08-04 | | clocked: <Saruman> "bad...if" well then don't play Ke8 |
|
| Nov-09-04 | | Saruman: <Do you two "agree"? "wins easily" and "still has a strong attack (have to watch that back rank though)" is hardly the same..><acirce> strong attack usually means winning advantage! And besides you dont know all of my thoughts. |
|
| Nov-11-04 | | clocked: <Saruman> strong attack does not mean winning advantage, it doesn't even mean clear advantage, nor does it even suggest any advantage. I can sac a piece for tremendous initiative and a strong attack. My opponent could defend this attack and eventually prove that I had no advantage at all. "you dont know all of my thoughts" this didn't stop you from claiming agreement with <Eatman> |
|
| Nov-13-04 | | Saruman: <clocked> To clarify a bit;I did not reveal all of my thoughts. Secondly for instance Kasparov has on several occasions refered to a better position when he said that "white has a strong attack". I also ask myself how an attack can be strong if the position does not allow it. |
|
| Nov-13-04 | | RisingChamp: Well this is rather semantic,but it occurs to me that how is an attack "strong" if it doesnt lead to any advantage whatsoever?I mean one doesnt call a move is strong just because it is optically impressive the same should apply to an attack. |
|
| Nov-13-04 | | clocked: The same does apply. Someone in a LOSING position can make a strong move. Tal had many strong attacks that with perfect play could be refuted. Thus, the "position does not allow it". The "advantage" that the attack may have is a <practical> rather than absolute one. Kasparov often has a strong attack that even if perfectly defended will not lose for him. Therefore, he can conclude that he has a better position. |
|
| Nov-13-04 | | acirce: <RisingChamp> Or the attack itself can be strong but since other aspects of the position weigh up for it, there might not be an advantage after all. For example "strong" attack vs "strong" pieces (material advantage) |
|
| Aug-30-05 | | kozo: it’s not every day you see a GM game followed through to a mate. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 26.Rxb3