|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-28-07
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Why is this called the Yates Defense? It looks like a Panno formation to me. Nice bit of tactics, though, no matter what you call this line. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | James Bowman: <somitra> I will try and give an answer although I am just a member, I usually click on the players Bio at the top of the game and at least get their highest Fide rating, in this case they are both around 2600. Hope that helps a little. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Ashram64: just because their highest rating is 2600 doesn't mean that's the current rating of the player...as we all progressively better or worse with these pesky numbers. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | tatarch: These guys were both GMs when this game was played, so there's nothing 'audacious' about the attack. And in my opinion, it's one of the better KID attacks I've seen... |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Jack Kerouac: Lubomir conducts this gem with verve and precision. A scintilating middle game. |
|
Feb-28-07
 | | Phony Benoni: <somitra> While I agree with you that ratings are an interesting datum to include in a game score, I would caution against judging sacrifces (or even games in general) by the ratings of the players. Speculative sacrifices are often used at the highest levels. You don't have to look at many Tal games to realize that even the best players sometimes sacrifice on faith and feel rather than cold, complete calculation. Also, in this particular game, the combination is spectacular but is based on well-known themes. Many players below the level of grandmaster would be able to spot the idea and do the calculations. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | nimzo knight: Any comments on 17. Qd3 in order to hold on to e4.
17..Nxb2 18. Qc2 ? |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | kevin86: Black is all over white like white on rice-Incredible attack!!! |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | solstys: Is 23. Kh1 better than the move in the game? I don't see a good continuation. |
|
Feb-28-07
 | | fm avari viraf: It's nice to see the pyrotechnics of Lubomir where Florin was literally outplayed! A beautiful & thrilling game till the very end. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Jack Kerouac: Scintilating..... |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Happypuppet: <Phony Benoni> Any explanation on these well known themes? After a long look I sort of understand the ideas behind the sacrifice, but all of it looks original to me. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Nulo: I don't understand 20. Qxc7. Seems like suicide to me (two super-bishops against two harmless knights). What's wrong with 20. Tfe1? |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | YouRang: It looks like white may have been better with the less-intuitive looking 23. Kh1, giving his rook a "breathing room" square at f1. He might still be lost though. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Albertan: <An Englishman: Good Evening: Why is this called the Yates Defense? It looks like a Panno formation to me.> Good Evening A. E, you are correct,this is a Panno formation, my chessbase 9 classifies this opening as King's Indian Defense:Samisch Panno |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Albertan: <nimzo knight: Any comments on 17. Qd3 in order to hold on to e4.> I agree with you Nimzo and so does Rybka 2.3 If 17.Qd3 then play might have continued: 17... Nxb2 18.Qc2 Nxd1 19.Kxd1 Qd7 20.Nxc7 Qg4+ however after 21.Ne2 Rxe4 22.Qd2 Bb7 Black is still in command. <solstys: Is 23. Kh1 better than the move in the game? I don't see a good continuation.> Yes I think it is too. After 23.Kh1 then play might have continued: 23...Bg4 24.Rf1 Bxb2 25.h3 Bd7 26.Nd3 Bg7 27.Rb1  according to the evaluation of Rybka 2.3 |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | Slink: To me the losing move is 10.Nc1. Note how after this move, the knight stays lost and abandoned on c1, remaining utterly useless for the rest of the game. Clearly, the better choice is 10.Ng3. A knight on g3 fortifies e4 early and makes Black's attack, as played, impossible. |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | ALEXIN: I think that white was too "slow" in developing his pieces. A lot of white moves seems unnecessaries ! |
|
| Feb-28-07 | | RandomVisitor: 11.d5 might be a better move for white:
11.d5 Nd4 12.N1e2 c5 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Bxd4 exd4 15.Nxd4 Nh5 16.Nxc6 Qh4+ 17.g3 Nxg3
= (0.00) Depth: 19
14.Nxb5 might hold for white:
14.Nxb5 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3 Nxe4 16.fxe4 Qh4+ 17.Bf2 Qxe4 18.Qd5 Qb4+ 19.Kf1 Bh3+ 20.Kg1 Rxe2
= (0.00) Depth: 17 |
|
| Mar-01-07 | | Nulo: Sorry, I meant, what's wrong with 20. Rde1 instead of 20. Qxc7? |
|
| Nov-15-08 | | jerseybob: To An Englishman concerning your Feb 07 posting: I'd never heard Yates' name associated with this line either. The only K.I.D. line I'd ever heard called Yates Variation was a line from the Orthodox variation where black retreats his queen knight to b8(after the advance d5) instead of the modern Ne7. Yates actually beat Alekhine once with that line, due more to his native genius than the variation. As to this being the Panno formation, to me that connotes a line where white's advance d5 is met with a black Na5, not the case here. |
|
| Mar-18-09 | | Xeroxx: What happens after 17.Bg5
....?? |
|
| Jun-23-09 | | jerseybob: Does 17..Qd7 work? |
|
| Jul-06-09 | | Xeroxx: "What happens after 17.Bg5
....??" ??? |
|
| Sep-11-10 | | sevenseaman: In the modern day business wheeling dealing 14. Nxe4 is like paying a 'facilitation fee'. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 15...Rxb5