Nov-27-05
 | | Honza Cervenka: Common move is 9...Qa3 and 10...Qa3 looks possible too. 11...Nc5 is a decisive mistake, although the position is already quite difficult for black. After 11...Qa3 12.Bxb5 axb5 13.Nxb5 is possible and also other continuations look quite promising for white. 13...c4 doesn't save black for 14.Be2 gxf6 15.a3! and the Queen is trapped but 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Nxc5 could have been slightly more accurate or at least easier order of moves of Beliavsky to avoid this possibility. In the final position after 15...axb5 16.Bxb5+ Ke7 17.Rfd1 there is no reasonable defence against 18.Qd6 or 18.Qd8 mate. |
|
| Jul-21-18 | | wordfunph: nice 15.Nxb5!
1-0 |
|
Jul-22-18
 | | Dionysius1: I really like 16 ♗xb5! It not only gives the B power, it unlocks the Q as well and there are so many unguarded entry points on the d file that mate follows quickly. That dual value move, which is hard to see, is the kind of move that lifts my heart - like the first time someone showed me the Q sacrifice smothered mate technique. Ah chess is fun! |
|
| Jul-22-18 | | areknames: To me it seems almost incomprehensible that a GM of Stean's strength could succumb so easily in what at the time would have been one of the most extensively analyzed opening variations. His attempt to get out of book so early certainly backfired, perhaps he was already quite weary of competitive chess? |
|
Dec-21-18
 | | Plaskett: Indeed, Arekames.
That, apart from a few games in the Dutch league, was the last game he played,.
15 move trouncing and the man had had enough and so "retired hurt".
He told me at the start of 1982, "I want to play an Interzonal! I mean; I´m not going to make it to the Candidates, am I?"
"You tell me", I responded.
"Oh, I´d be there by now!"
The story is that, having failed by a hair´s breadth to qualify, via a play off held in Holland, for the Interzonal he was gutted.
Took up the law and did very nicely, too. I would often bump into him on the tube in the early 1990s as his workplace and mine were near each other. |
|
Sep-06-20
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
Hi areknames,
"<His [Stean's] attempt to get out of book so early certainly backfired..."> In 1982 Stean had just published a book on the Najdorf, http://britishchessnews.com/wp-cont... *** |
|
Oct-28-24
 | | keypusher: < Sally Simpson: ***
Hi areknames,
"<His [Stean's] attempt to get out of book so early certainly backfired..."> In 1982 Stean had just published a book on the Najdorf, http://britishchessnews.com/wp-cont... That is not quite fair, the book came out in 1976. https://www.amazon.com/Sicilian-Naj... Publishing openings books was a hazardous enterprise in pre-engine days. Spassky vs D Levy, 1974 (kibitz #7) |
|
| Oct-28-24 | | stone free or die: <<kp> Publishing openings books was a hazardous enterprise in pre-engine days> It's still a hazardous business, but at least the lines are now computer checked. (But perhaps even then there's a caveat, for when AlphaZero becomes the desktop standard!) |
|
Oct-28-24
 | | perfidious: All one need have done before the rise of <fishie> and its ancestors was, especially in such labyrinths as this, to revert to the odd use of that old chestnut 'unclear' when stumped for an obvious continuation in a complex position. |
|
Oct-28-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi K.P.
It was slightly unfair because I miss-linked to wrong the book. This is the 1982 edition.
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-ed... of course Michael can blame John and visa versa. I have that book somewhere, I'll see if this line is covered. That was fun in the old days, looking for holes and I reckon it did you good burning oil looking for flaws. Now computers rule do you really need an opening book. All you need is a good D.B. and a reasonable computer. If you nudge one up towards a move that it does not rate but looks interesting it will find all kinds tricky variations for you to explore and maybe give a gamble OTB. |
|
| Oct-28-24 | | stone free or die: <Now computers rule do you really need an opening book.> (? intended I assume) Yes, opening books are still useful. I can still recommend Watson's multi-volume series, and Van Der Sterren's FCO. https://www.amazon.com/FCO-Fundamen... What's unneeded these days are the largely unannotated monographs which just spews line after line in an opening tree with reference games sources. SCID with its opening tree window view is perfectly equal, if not even better in many ways. Even <CG>'s opening explorer is helpful. Wonder if Esserman thinks the same? |
|
Oct-28-24
| | Sally Simpson: I've seen some of those computer print outs with very little human input. Awful. These days you wonder who wrote the book. The computer should have it's name on the cover. I honestly cannot remember the last time I bought 'new' an opening book to study it.. Probably Miles and Moscow's Yugoslav Attack. (1979). I now have 100's of the things (opening books) from 2nd hand shop, most unread and not even opened, buying any chess book just because it is cheap and on chess! must be some kind of OCD. I tell you who has written some very good books in general (forget opening books) but never seems to get mentioned when good authors crop up. Steve Giddins. |
|
| Oct-29-24 | | stone free or die: As I said, I like Watson's "Mastering Chess Openings" and Van Der Sterren's "Fundamental Chess Openings". They're both published in this millennium, so that makes them fairly modern. There were always opening books of old that looked like they were published by a computer - lots and lots of moves with almost no commentary. I'll have to look up Steve Giddins, it's a name that I associate more with jazz reviews than chess. (For jazz, it's Gary Giddins...
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripboo...) |
|
Kibitzing
