|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-12-16 | | drollere: the triple knight fork at move 30 -- that made me laugh out loud. i wonder what chernikov's rating was at the time. i believe he thought 11. ... Bf6 would lead to a draw by repetition. |
|
| Jul-12-16 | | PhilFeeley: What is the computer evaluation of 12. Qxf6? Do any of the engines even suggest it? |
|
Jul-13-16
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Phil,
Of course the poe-faced engineers have been here and declared the whole game a train wreck. Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962 (kibitz #142) Read on from there.
Apparently 12.Qxf6 is 4th choice of the top boxes and Black can defend better. The discussion then goes onto the difference between exact perfect error free chess (which is what the bot users crave - I call them <the Stepford Chess Players.>) against the value of a surprise sacrifice which gives an opponent a series of OTB problems to solve. This is a key aspect of human v human chess - choosing a moment not to play the best move. Chess players can see the beauty in it. No other player in the tournament submitted a game of theirs for the brilliancy prize. They knew it was a foregone conclusion. |
|
Jul-13-16
 | | perfidious: <UdayanOwen....The sacrifice was an extraordinary conception... I don't think quoting a "book" evaluation based on non OTB hindsight is sufficient to undermine the ingenuity and brilliance of this move....> I'll sign that. |
|
| Mar-07-17 | | bkpov: What would have happened if black had exchanged his rook with Knight after White's 21st move. Black surely had tried to continue with pin and win the exchange by advancing g pawn which can be countered by black's g and h pawn. B e2 after that. Position was still bad for black but at least worth a fight. If exchange were accepted to start with even then.. Or I missed something |
|
| Mar-07-17 | | morfishine: The dry question about engines finding draws means nothing here. Why? because there is no surprise factor involved in engine analysis If you were playing Black OTB and were hit with the Queen sac, how would you react? And could you settle yourself down enough to find a drawing line? I didn't think so
Thats the difference and thats what makes chess still so alluring: the human vs human factor ***** |
|
| Dec-12-17 | | GT3RS: This is probably the greatest Queen Sac in history. If you wanted to introduce someone to an attacker then it would be Super Nez. |
|
| Dec-12-17 | | dhotts: Wow, how did Nez do it? Where do you find games like this? Amazing! |
|
| Mar-04-18 | | ACMEKINGKRUSHER: Wow!
What a Game! I was Amazed at The 11 FULL Pages of Comments from 5FEB03 to 12DEC17! There are a few VIDEOS, an Annotated version, and I even watched YASSER talk about QUEEN SACS. Whew... After all of this I learned The Following...
1. It is NOT Important what you see Leaving the Board! What is important is, what is Left On The Board!2. My Friends RAY, CALVEN, LYNN, DAVE, MIKE, and I are Correct! When Playing, we have discussed that No Game is PERFECT! That old saying that The WINNER of A CHESS Game Is The ONE that makes the Next To LAST Mistake. Also that... 3. Computers, while a VITAL Tool that Can soon Always WIN against Man, is NOT the Point. A Game between 2 Humans is NEVER Totally Predictable! Anyone can WIN on Any Day. 4. Psychology, Health, Knowledge about the Game, TIME, Age, and Probably Many More Factors Determine the Outcome of a Game! 5. Sacs are NOT Always Sound! If they work and you WIN! OK! 6. Sometimes there is no way to predict a WINNER! Some games are just a matter of "Playing Them Out" to their perhaps predetermined conclusion! 7. Lastly, I've been a FAN of SUPER NEZH for awhile Now. He is AMAZING! I have looked at many of his 314 available Games and will someday look at ALL of them. He is Never Predictable! Eventually I will also have to get a couple of his books! You could do well to Study Rashid's Games and LEARN HOW TO WIN! Finally I wonder if "UD's" daughter is playing CHESS now? He mentioned her NYE Birth during this LONG Discussion! She should be about 10 by now! Has he told her about SUPER NEZH! yet?? |
|
| Mar-13-18 | | bkpov: Black should have exchanged pieces at move 21. After that it was rather equal game. |
|
| Apr-28-18 | | Vladimir Zukhar: In this game, 21...Rc8 keeps the draw. Now Nxh7 is not strong because of RxB |
|
| May-18-18 | | ajile: 
click for larger view Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit : 22 ply
1. = (-0.09): 14...d6 15.Nd5 Be6 16.Nxf6+ Kg7 17.Bd4 Rfc8 18.c3 h6 19.Rfe1 Qa6 20.f3 Bxb3 21.axb3 Qd3 22.Ne8+ Kf8 23.Nxd6 Rc7 24.Nc4 Qc2 25.Nb6 Rd8 26.Nd5 2. = (-0.09): 14...Re8 15.Nd5 Re6 16.Bd4 d6 17.Nxf6+ Rxf6 18.Bxf6 Be6 19.Rad1 Qb6 20.Rfe1 Re8 21.Bc3 Bxb3 22.axb3 Re6 23.Rd5 f6 24.Red1 g5 25.h3 Pretty much an equal position. Black's material advantage is balanced by White's positional plusses. |
|
| Jun-26-18 | | ThirdPawn: I ran across this game in YouTube and all I can say is wow! But since the sacrifice was part of the opening, could it have been ‘prepared’? I only ask since every move by Black thereafter was near perfect with no immediate gain, other than a draw. Stockfish 9 at depth 31 lists the game as a draw after White’s 14th move. AlphaZero also did some drawish looking sacrifices having no immediate gain. But for AlphaZero, the moves were prepared! Could that be the case here? |
|
| Jun-26-18 | | ThirdPawn: Whoops, I meant ‘every move by White* thereafter was near perfect...’. |
|
| Jun-26-18 | | Lovuschka: @ThirdPawn: The sacrifice was not prepared. As Yakov Neistadt wrote in his book on queen sacrifices ("Damenopfer", Sportverlag Berlin, probably never translated into English) Nezhmetdinov thought for about 45 minutes and then played 12.Q:f6. After the game, the variation - which was a theoretical draw by threefold repetition - was seen as won for White. |
|
| Sep-08-18 | | Whitehat1963: Stockfish analysis: =0.00 (27 ply) 17...Rc6 18.Rd3 d6 19.Bxf6+ Kf8 20.Bc3 Qd8 21.Bf6 Qa5 |
|
| Oct-10-18 | | prezi84: Amazing sacrifice. However, black should also play bolder. Why not 18... Re5! If 19. N:f6! Be6! Most likely with a draw. At least black is starting to play smth. And I have a feeling in this game black was only a background. They did not try to take advantage. |
|
Dec-31-18
 | | Alex Schindler: I come back to this page a few times a year. Each time, I wonder if this time I will see the sacrifice and think "yes, the compensation seems adequate." Each time, I leave wondering how this game was played by human beings. |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger view
BLACK TO MOVE
Apparently this was the critical moment of the game. The only good move for Black, according to engine Stockfish 14, is 21...Rc8!⩲ with computer evaluation +0.75. Capturing the rook on f1 would be a suicide: 21...Bxf1?? 22.Ng4+ Kg8 23.Bxe6! (+ −) with a crushing attack (evaluation +10.53).
In the actual game White played 21...Be2? which is also a bad move, though the Russian book on Nezhmetdinov's best games (by Damsky) does not mention that it is a bad move. Only the engines believe that it loses.
Nezhmetdinov's queen sacrifice shows an outstanding judgment and a very deep understanding of the position. He must have been a real genius. What compensation did White obtain for the sacrificed queen? In the first place White got superior development, and in addition two powerful bishops with free diagonals pointing to the black King, and number three: the possibility to exploit the weaknesses of the squares f6 and h6, which are critical squares. But it requires the mind of a true genius to understand that those facts are more than enough compensation for the sacrificed queen. |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger viewBlack's King is in check. What should he do?
If 22...Kxh7 23.Rxf7+ Kh6 (if 23...Kg8 24.Bxe6 with an overwhelming attack) 24.Bxe6! (equally strong is 24.Bd2+ as suggested by Damsky in the Russian book referred to above, though both moves could transpose to the same position) 24...Qe8 25.Bd2+ g5 26.Rf6+ Kh7 27.Bf5+ Kg8 28.Re1 Bc4 29.Re3 Rc8 30.Rg3, and Black's game has long ago been resignable. Computer evaluation: +11.47 (see diagram below): 
click for larger view |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: I am certain that Nezhmetdinov's highest gift was his ability to calculate variations quickly and accurately in his head, just like modern engines. As detective Monk would have said: "it was a gift, and a curse". |
|
| Jul-15-21 | | Gaito: I find it very amusing that the book on Nezhmetdinov's life and best games by Damsky contains not only his best chess games, but his best checkers games as well! He was a very strong master of the game of checkers or draughts (8x8 board). Honestly I don't understand checkers, but some of his games have lots of moves with exclamation marks.
I believe that also Spassky's younger sister was a female champion of the game of checkers, possibly a female world champion.
When I was young I lived and studied in Kiev for three years or more, and I remember that the people there were not only chess fans for also fans of the game of checkers. Ivanchuk is also a very good player of the game of checkers. |
|
Dec-03-21
 | | Messiah: This game is far beyond my mortal human comprehension. How Rashid Gibiatovich came up with the core idea is a tremendous baffling mystery that will haunt me until my last breath. |
|
| Feb-05-22 | | Chesgambit: 14..Qd8 or after Bd4 Qd8 white have f4 f5 idea |
|
| Feb-13-22 | | Whitehat1963: Easily one of the greatest tactical masterpieces I have ever seen. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 12.Qxf6