|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-02-07 | | whiteshark: Why not (the killer-move) <26.e6!!> to top it all ?
click for larger view |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | willyfly: Cool looking position - 21 ♗xh7+ and show me the rest -----
good guess |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | znprdx: <whiteshark: 26.e6> You should get the brilliancy prize - the actual text is rather feeble by comparison. Of course I'm not convinced that Kg8 was forced - surely at least f6. This is why I chose the more matter of fact approach - blocading the 'f' file, once the queen had h5. I'm pleased so many agree that this study is somewhat not up to standard.... |
|
Dec-02-07
 | | Jimfromprovidence: I’ll play devil’s advocate with these variations by replacing the proposed lines with highlighted better alternatives for black. (For review). <Calli> <Wouldn't 24.Qf3, with the idea Qh3-Qh7, be faster? For instance, 24...Nf5 25.Qh3 Bg7 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Ba3+ Nc5 28.Ne4> 24...Nf5 25.Qh3 <<Bh6>> <tallinn> <I continued with 24. Qg4 Bh6 25. Nxe6 and got a winning position after Rc6 26 Nxd8 Qxd8 27. e6 Rxe6 28. Qd4 f6 29. Ng4 Rxe1 30. Nxh6+ Kg7 31. Rxe1 Nc6 (Kxh6 Qe3+) against Fritz.> 24. Qg4 <<Bg7>> 25. Nxe6 <<Bxe5>> <whiteshark> <Why not (the killer-move) 26.e6!! to top it all ?> What about after 26…. Qf4 ?
|
|
| Dec-02-07 | | whiteshark: <Jimfromprovidence: <whiteshark> <Why not (the killer-move) 26.e6!! to top it all ?> What about after 26…. Qf4 ? > After <26.e6 Qf4 27.exd7> and if <27...Qxg4 28.Qe5 Qh5 29.dxc8Q Rxc8 30.Ne6!>  
click for larger view or if
<27...fxg4 28.dxc8Q Rxc8 29.Ne4!>, e.g. <29...Be7 30.Rf1 Qh6 31.Nf2> 
click for larger view and 32... Nxg4
|
|
| Dec-02-07 | | stanleys: Another beautiful game from Krum - hope to see it the database soon: [Event "Paris NAO GM 2nd"]
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "2003.06.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Vachier Lagrave,Maxime"]
[Black "Georgiev,Krum"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "B80"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bd7 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 e6 8.Nde2 Rc8
9.0-0 Ne5 10.h3 h5 11.b3 h4 12.g4 Nfxg4 13.f4 Qb6+ 14.Kh1 Ne3 15.Bxe3 Qxe3 16.fxe5 Rxc3
17.Rf3 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Rxf3 19.Qd4 Bc6 20.Kg2 Rf5 21.exd6 Rh6 22.Kh2 Rg6 23.exf5 Rg2+ 24.Kh1 Rg6+
25.Kh2 Rg2+ 26.Kh1 Rg4+ 27.Kh2 Rxd4 28.Nxd4 Bxd6+ 29.Kg1 Bc5 30.c3 e5 31.Re1 f6 32.Kf1 Bd7
33.b4 Bb6 34.Ne6 g6 35.c4 gxf5 36.c5 Bxe6 37.cxb6 axb6 38.a4 f4 39.Kf2 Ke7 40.a5 bxa5
41.bxa5 Kd6 42.Rb1 Bd5 43.Rb6+ Bc6 44.a6 bxa6 45.Rxa6 e4 46.Ra5 Bd5 47.Ra7 Ke5 48.Ra4 f5
49.Ra7 f3 50.Rh7 f4 51.Re7+ Kd4 52.Rd7 e3+ 53.Kf1 Ke5 0-1 |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | minasina: "Sicilian Defense: French Variation. Westerinen Attack" Westerinen Attack? Is it Heikki M J Westerinen and why? |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | Calli: <Jimfromprovidence> 24...Nf5 25.Qh3 <<Bh6>> 26.Rxf5 Bxg5 27.Rxg5 and with Nf5 or Nd5 in the air. Black can't last too long. |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | DarthStapler: I kept looking at Bxh7+ Kxh7 Qh5+ Kg8 Rf3 |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | whitebeach: <whiteshark:
After 26.e6 Qf4 27.exd7 and if
27...Qxg4 28.Qe5 Qh5 29.dxc8Q Rxc8 30.Ne6!> In this line I don’t see a clear, quick, forced win for white after 30 . . . f4. Certainly he wins a pawn by either 31. Qxh5 gxh5 32. Nxf4 f5 or 31. Nxf4 Qxe5 32. Bxe5, but black at least has the two bishops and can perhaps hope for an opposite-bishops ending. <or if 27...fxg4 28.dxc8Q Rxc8 29.Ne4!>, e.g. <29...Be7 30.Rf1 Qh6 31.Nf2 and 32... Nxg4> And here, after 31 . . . g3, it’s again not clear that white has an immediate forced win. For instance, after 32. Ng4 then 32 . . . Qg5 or Qh4 seems to hold at least for the moment, and even 32 . . . Qh5 needs looking at. But admittedly I’ve only glanced at these positions, roughly as in over-the-board play, and haven’t consulted my computer. |
|
Dec-02-07
| | Jimfromprovidence: <whiteshark> <After 26.e6 Qf4 27.exd7 and if
27...Qxg4 28.Qe5 Qh5 29.dxc8Q Rxc8 30.Ne6!> Black’s 28th move would be Qh4, not Qh5. Your continuation if unchanged would lose a piece with 30…fxe6 <Calli> <24...Nf5 25.Qh3 <<Bh6>> 26.Rxf5 Bxg5 27.Rxg5 and with Nf5 or Nd5 in the air. Black can't last too long.> I made a mistake. I meant to write 24… Bh6 in-lieu of Nf5. My position still stands for black against your line. |
|
Dec-02-07
 | | OBIT: Personally, I think 21. Ncd5 is better, not to mention more interesting, than that stock sacrifice Bxh7+. If Black takes the knight, then 21...exd5 22. Nexd5, threatening e6 to bring the b2 bishop into the attack. Look at White's position now: both bishops are bearing in on the castled king, the knight is strongly posted on d5, both rooks are on open files, and the queen has several good squares to pressure the king. In short, every White piece is attacking, while Black's defense is disorganized. I'll be surprised if Black lasts ten more moves. |
|
Dec-03-07
 | | kevin86: I really love,how at move 21,how the pieces are paired together. With the exception of the white knights that have an empty square between them,five pairs of pieces are next to their twin. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | whiteshark: <whitebeach: <whiteshark: After 26.e6 Qf4 27.exd7 and if 27...Qxg4 28.Qe5 Qh5 29.dxc8Q Rxc8 30.Ne6!> In this line I don’t see a clear, quick, forced win for white after 30 . . . f4. Certainly he wins a pawn by either 31. Qxh5 gxh5 32. Nxf4 f5 or 31. Nxf4 Qxe5 32. Bxe5, but black at least has the two bishops and can perhaps hope for an opposite-bishops ending.> It's <31.Qf6!> after your suggested move 30...f4:
click for larger viewe.g. <31...Rc6 32.Nxf4 Rxf6 33.Nxh5> and after a rook move 34.Nf6+ will force black to give up the exchange.
If <31...fxe6 32.Qxe6+ Bf7 33.Qxc8> white is again exchange (+♙) up. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | whiteshark: <whitebeach: <or if 27...fxg4 28.dxc8Q Rxc8 29.Ne4!>, e.g. <29...Be7 30.Rf1 Qh6 31.Nf2 and 32... Nxg4> And here, after 31 . . . g3, it’s again not clear that white has an immediate forced win. For instance, after 32. Ng4 then 32 . . . Qg5 or Qh4 seems to hold at least for the moment, and even 32 . . . Qh5 needs looking at.> After <31...g3 32.Ng4 Qg5 33.Bf6 Bxf6 34.Nxf6+ Kh8 35.Nxe8> white is a piece up and still attacking.
More worse for black is <31...g3 32.Ng4 Qh4> as 33.Qe5 threats 34.Qg7# and if 33...Bf8 to prevent it 34.Rxf7 Bxf7 35.Nf6+ Qxf6 36.Qxf6 Be8 37.Qe6+
Last <32...Qh5??> loses immediately after 32.Qxe7, threating 33.Nf6+ Best seems to be <32...Qf8 33.Qe5 Kh7>
click for larger viewwhere 34.Qxg3 Rc5 35.Re1 or 34.Ba3 Bxa3 35.Nf6+ Kh8 36.Nxe8+ looks quite promising. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | whiteshark: <Jimfromprovidence: <whiteshark> <After 26.e6 Qf4 27.exd7 and if 27...Qxg4 28.Qe5 Qh5 29.dxc8Q Rxc8 30.Ne6!> Black’s 28th move would be Qh4, not Qh5. Your continuation if unchanged would lose a piece with 30…fxe6> You are right that the unchanged variation will lose, but there is no need to play 30.Ne6 anymore as Bc3 (or Bd4) will give a small advantage. But after the suggested <28...Qh4> the direct attack <29. Nf3!> makes blacks problem obvious. The queen can't leave the h-file, move e.g. <29...Qh6>. Thereafter white offers a queensac with <30.Qxe8>. 
click for larger viewI have to stop here now / t.o. |
|
Dec-03-07
| | Jimfromprovidence: <whiteshark> <But after the suggested <28...Qh4> the direct attack <29. Nf3!> makes blacks problem obvious. The queen can't leave the h-file, move e.g. <29...Qh6>. Thereafter white offers a queensac with <30.Qxe8>.> I did not see 29 Nf3! coming. I now have to move my queen and lose my back rank mate threat, so your rook can now move up. After your 30 Qxe8 no matter what I do you will follow up with 31 Re7 and I’m done. I tip my cap to you. That’s a great combination beginning with 26 e6. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | belgradegambit: As noted by others, 21 Bxh7+ was actually forced since Black was threatening Ng6 followed by Nh8 and
then Nb6 followed by Na8 with harmonious piece placement.
Seriously the immortal retreat game for 2007 is N Kosintseva vs E Berg, 2007 |
|
Dec-03-07
| | patzer2: Either Geiorgiev was a very strong OTB tactician or he prepared for this line with an extremely deep demolition of pawn structure combination, starting with 21. Bxh7+!!, which was the solution to yesterday's very difficult Sunday puzzle. The first three follow-up moves, with the patient positioning of the Knights for the final King-side assault are particularly difficult to find. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | whiteshark: Tkx <Jimfromprovidence>, I really enjoyed that you take the hard/pleasant task as devil’s advocate. So we together could highlightening some deeper lines which would never happend w/o your stimulus. :D BUT: <Calli's line <24.Qf3>> is still in dispute. I'm currently looking at <24...Bh6 25.Nxf7> 
click for larger view which is also quite complicated... |
|
Dec-03-07
| | patzer2: For the finish, 49. Qe6+! initiates an instructive double attack combination. The alternative 49...Kb8 is met with another winning double attack after 49...Kb8 50. Qe8+ Ka7 51. b6+ Bxb6 52. cxb6+ Kxb6? (other moves drag it out longer but still lose) 53. Qe6+ , picking off Black's pieces first with a pawn fork and then a follow-up Queen fork. |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | whitebeach: <Jimfromprovidence and whiteshark> Good stuff. |
|
| Dec-04-07 | | virginmind: <sanyas> lol |
|
Dec-04-07
 | | gawain: I really loved your ironical comment, <Sanyas> My sentiments exactly! From Bxh7+ onwards Georgiev finds moves that the machine analyst (Hiarcs 10, here) initially rejects and then, only after much churning, finally endorses. What deep and inventive thinking by Georgiev! |
|
| May-24-08 | | DarthStapler: hahahahaha pwned |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 21.Bxh7+