| Nov-27-07 | | notyetagm: Gheorghiu vs Beliavsky, 1982 White to play: 34 ?
click for larger viewHere Gheorghiu (White) accomplishes a major strategic goal by using tactics: he liquidates his weak White
b3-pawn by playing 34 b3-b4!.
Position after 34 b3-b4!:
click for larger viewDoesn't this move just give away a pawn for nothing? N-O NO! After 34 ... c5xb4, White has the <PIN>(!)
35 ♕e2-d2.
Position after 34 ... c5xb4 35 ♕e2-d2 <pin>:
click for larger viewGheorgiu's brilliant(!) tactical point is that the sequence 34 b3-b4! c5xb4 allows him to create a <PIN> on the Black b4-pawn against the <UNDEFENDED> Black a5-queen that is sufficiently <REINFORCED> to allow him to recover his pawn! This is one of the best examples I have ever seen of the tactical idea I call <YOU CAN OCCUPY ANY SQUARE ON THE LINE OF YOUR OPPONENT'S KING OR QUEEN>, if your opponent capturing on this square results in a <PIN> that can be exploited. It is also a simply -outstanding- example of using <TACTICS> to achieve <POSITIONAL> goals. In the initial position White would like to rid himself of his weak isolated White b3-pawn and does so with 34 b3-b4!, using the <PINNING> tactic to accomplish this highly-desirable <STRATEGIC> goal and not lose material in the process. Brilliant. |
|
| Nov-27-07 | | notyetagm: Gheorghiu vs Beliavsky, 1982 Black to play: 47 ... ?
click for larger viewHere the tactical liability for White is the <LOOSE> White a2-knight, which is defended only by the White e2-queen. So Beliavsky (Black) simply played 47 ... ♘c4-b2! and <BLOCKED THE CORRIDOR (LINE-CLOSING)> a2-e2, cutting off the line of life-giving force from the White e2-queen to the White a2-knight. Position after 47 ... ♘c4-b2! 0-1:
click for larger viewWhy did White resign? The only way he can save his White a2-knight is with 48 ♘a2-c1, placing it on a square where it is <UNDEFENDED> and subject to the <QUEEN FORK> 48 ... ♕a3-c5+. To meet the <DOUBLE ATTACK> against his f2-king and c1-knight White can try 49 ♕e2-e3
click for larger viewbut that runs into the crushing tactic 49 ... ♕c5x♘c1! 
click for larger viewas the <KNIGHT FORK> 50 ♕e3x♕c1 ♘b2-d3+ regains the queen for Black, leaving him ahead by a piece. 
click for larger viewSince this line is forced, White has no way to avoid losing a piece and resigned. |
|
| Nov-27-07 | | notyetagm: Gheorghiu vs Beliavsky, 1982 47 ... ♘c4-b2! is a great example of <LINE-CLOSING> as opposed to <INTERFERENCE>, which is <BLOCKING> a line -and- threatening something else at the same time (like simultaneously giving <CHECK>). With 47 ... ♘c4-b2! Black threatens only the White a2-knight by cutting off the line of life-giving force from the White e2-queen but that single threat is -sufficient- to win material because White has no adequate reply to this one threat. Hence Black does not need to <BLOCK> the line a2-e2 -and- threaten something else at the same time (<INTERFERENCE>) because simply closing the line (<LINE-CLOSING>) creates a threat which cannot be met. |
|
| Jan-28-08 | | notyetagm: Gheorghiu vs Beliavsky, 1982 34 b3-b4! is simply -outstanding- tactical play,
click for larger viewmy favorite example in my Game Collection: You can take anything lined up with king, queen. |
|
| May-17-08 | | LivBlockade: After 48. Nc1 Qc5+; 49. Qe3
click for larger view<notyetagm - but that runs into the crushing tactic 49 ... ♕c5x♘c1!> While 49...♕xc1 is nice, 49...♘d1+ seems simpler and stronger. |
|
| May-17-08 | | LivBlockade: White to play after 39...Rb8
click for larger viewInstead of 40. ♖b2, how does Black meet the simple 40. ♘c6 ♖e8; 41. ♖a7 which seems to win a pawn? |
|
| May-17-08 | | mistreaver: <Livblockade>
I think black would give up the e7 pawn to continue with the pressure against white's kingside pawns with for example 40...Rc3 and further Ne5 with pressure against f3? |
|
| May-17-08 | | LivBlockade: <mistreaver> You have a good point that (after 39...Rb8; 40. Nc6!?) that 40...Re8? is a mistake. However, I think Black has to continue 40...Rb1 when it looks like the threats of ...Qf1+ or (if White's queen prevents that) ...Qc1 doubling on the 1st rank, Black's attack seems winning even though White has the dangerous looking 41. Ra8+ (hoping for 41...Kh7? 42. Rh8+ Kxh8??; 43. Qh6+ Kg8; 44. Nxe7 mate), Black has resources such as 41...Nf8; 42. Rxf8+ Kg7! seems very strong for Black. |
|
| Sep-03-10 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: DECOYS: ALIGNMENT:SAFETY IS NOT JUST COUNTING |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: PINS AGAINST UNDEFENDED PIECES (UPMP) |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: UNDEFENDED PIECE: DECOY (FPDDT) |
|
| Apr-08-19 | | saintdufus: <LivBlockade: After 48. Nc1 Qc5+; 49. Qe3 <notyetagm - but that runs into the crushing tactic 49 ... ♕c5x♘c1!> While 49...♕xc1 is nice, 49...♘d1+ seems simpler and stronger.> Sorry, but I have to side with notyetagm on this one: why settle for a mere queen when you can instead win a whole knight? |
|
Apr-08-19
 | | Honza Cervenka: <LivBlockade: <mistreaver> You have a good point that (after 39...Rb8; 40. Nc6!?) that 40...Re8? is a mistake. However, I think Black has to continue 40...Rb1 when it looks like the threats of ...Qf1+ or (if White's queen prevents that) ...Qc1 doubling on the 1st rank, Black's attack seems winning even though White has the dangerous looking 41. Ra8+ (hoping for 41...Kh7? 42. Rh8+ Kxh8??; 43. Qh6+ Kg8; 44. Nxe7 mate), Black has resources such as 41...Nf8; 42. Rxf8+ Kg7! seems very strong for Black.> After 40.Nc6 Rb1 41.Ra8+ Nf8 white cannot play 42.Rxf8+? for 42...Kg7! but after quiet 42.Kh2! white position seems to hold, for example 42...Qf1 43.Nxe7+ Kg7 44.Qg2 Qc1 45.Rc8 Qa3 46.Rc2 etc. |
|
Sep-07-19
 | | keypusher: A gutty game by Beliavsky in Round 13, the last round of the Moscow Interzonal. The top two finishers would qualify for the Candidates matches. Kasparov had first place wrapped up. In Round 12, Beliavsky had lost horribly, swindled by Van der Wiel. Beliavsky vs Van der Wiel, 1982 As a result, going into Round 13 five players were tied for the last qualifying slot: Beliavsky, Andersson, Tal, Geller, and Garcia. Beliavsky somehow pulled himself together and won this game. Garcia and Geller both lost, and Andersson and Tal played a pallid 16-move draw. Ruben Rodriguez vs G Garcia Gonzalez, 1982 Sax vs Geller, 1982 Ulf Andersson vs Tal, 1982 Of the five contenders, only Andersson had white. It's hard not to blame him for making no effort to win. Beliavsky's "reward":
Game Collection: WCC Index (Kasparov-Beliavsky 1983) |
|
Kibitzing
icon.