| Oct-23-05 | | sneaky pete: What may black have imagined when he played 11... Ne4? |
|
| Mar-19-06 | | DarienR: Probably to get rid of the bishop at the price of a pawn, which to Reti may have seemed worth it, a piece for position. The bishop was a threat and Reti eliminated it, but it really was pointless, I agree with you. I think the worst move though was 20. Bc7
Thousands of games have told us that blocking off a piece from attack is the worst way to stave it off. |
|
| Mar-19-06 | | CapablancaFan: <DarienR> Don't you find it curious though that Reti would play 11...Ne4? Yes, pawn sacrafices are made all the time to either gain a tempo, open lines, gain more space etc. but I don't see the need for it here, especially considering who he is playing. I have played through countless Capablanca games and have seen too many examples of Capa picking up a pawn in the middle game and holding on to it all the way to the endgame! Strange that Reti would take a chance like that. |
|
| Mar-19-06 | | Assassinater: <I think the worst move though was 20. Bc7 Thousands of games have told us that blocking off a piece from attack is the worst way to stave it off.> It's not like the Rook was hanging and the bishoop was blocking an unprotected piece. And sometimes, it's alright to self-impose a pin... |
|
Mar-19-06
 | | keypusher: <Thousands of games have told us that blocking off a piece from attack is the worst way to stave it off.> I guess no one told Karpov. Karpov vs Unzicker, 1974 |
|
| Mar-19-06 | | CapablancaFan: <DarienR><keypusher> Actually, my personal belief in this game and the one cited by keypusher, is that in both examples the bishop was used to close the (a)Karpov and (c)Capablanca files to prevent incursion by enemy rooks as in both cases the bishops weren't really pinned. |
|
| Jun-28-08 | | depraved: In my opinion, this was simply a blunder on Reti's part. Omitting the moves of the a-pawns and substituting ....h6 and Bh4, I had (I think) this position in A Shaw-Jenkins, Tanglewood Open 1978; after Black played ....Ne4, I looked for the longest time and managed not to find
the simple 1.Bxe4 dxe4 2.Qxe4 for the win of a pawn in another way, and I was already over 1900 at the time! |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | Ulhumbrus: 6 a3?! spends a move on moving a pawn in the opening. This suggests the move ...Ne4 for Black. If Black plays it at move 8 as a pawn sacrifice, on 8...Ne4 9 Bxe7 Qxe77 10 Nxe4 dxe4 11 Qxe4 the a3 pawn prevents the check 11...Qb4+. This suggests playing the move ..Ne4 a move earlier, at move 7. On 7...Ne4 8 Bxe7 Qxe7 9 Nd2 f5 10 f3 ef 11 Qxf3 c5! Black may stand not too badly. |
|
| Mar-12-13 | | RookFile: 6. a3 is a perfectly good move. It is designed to avoid the Cambridge Springs Defense. a3 is sometimes played in openings like the Queen's Indian by white, to neutralize black's counterplay - Petrosian created a system there which Kasparov took and ran with. Here we see Capa, having played and lost the match against Alekhine (where Alekhine did use the Cambridge Springs) saying that life is a lot simpler with 6. a3. Maybe he should have been playing 6. a3 against Alekhine. |
|
| Apr-01-13 | | Archswindler: <RookFile> Ulhumbrus hates all pawn moves in the opening. Especially a3. |
|
| Feb-27-15 | | Ulhumbrus: Perhaps Reti had thought that Capablanca could not deprive him of his bishop pair - his main compensation for the pawn - save by accepting bishops of opposite colours. If so, Capablanca ended up succeeding in doing so by the move 27 Na5 |
|
Jun-02-21
 | | Espinacov10: I think ...Ne4 was just a blunder. Reti forgot about Bxe4. Or maybe it was just a 'cheapolito', if White plays 12.Nxe4 then ...dxe4 and Black wins a piece! |
|
Kibitzing
