|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-20-07 | | beginner64: 40..f6.
That has got to be time pressure.
40. ..Rf1 seems fine to me. Can white continue an attack from there? |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | CapablancaFan: Rogers for some reason thinks he's Petrosian. An exchange sac here (21.Rxd6!) an exchange sac there (23.Rxb6) and when all the superficial layers of black's defense is peeled back, the reality of the situation sets in. And believe it or not after 35.g4! The game is virtually unwinnable for black. Go ahead, check it out. |
|
Aug-20-07
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Fascinating game. Double Exchange sacrifices are quite rare, esp. when they are as speculative as this one: the attack on the King develops slowly, and Black has a variety of ways to defend. This game deserves a thorough computer analysis to dig up all of its intricacies. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | crafty: 40...♖f1 41. ♘f5 ♕xf5+ 42. gxf5 ♖xf5+ 43. ♕xf5 exf5 44. ♘f6+  (eval 8.03; depth 16 ply; 500M nodes) |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | tatarch: The two exchange sacs really caught me by surprise, mostly because the position looks so pedestrian at that point. Are there any similar games I wonder? |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | CapablancaFan: <beginner64: 40..f6.
That has got to be time pressure.
40. ..Rf1 seems fine to me. Can white continue an attack from there?> Crafty's post answered your question. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | Judah: Wow, playing through the game, the sacrifices seem to be utterly unjustified. Yet he wins it... |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | mcgrath999: don u think dis games a bit long? |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | dabearsrock1010: this is one of the best game of the days in a while...just extremely unique |
|
Aug-20-07
 | | FSR: Very cool game! |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | TheaN: And once again it is proven that the exchange is only a difference in value, not material: the pieces do not seem as good after the exchanges giving sacs than they are around move 40. Brilliant play. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | Manic: Wow. I can't believe that the double exchange sacrifice was sound. Rogers conjures something out of nothing here. It is a pity that he retired last month due to an ailment of some sort. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | Chesscomedian: @tatarch: Check out Toplaov's 2005 and 2006 games. The double exchange sac was his signature surprise then. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | Chesscomedian: @tatarch: Have a look at this. It's one my favorites, just a double exchange sac against an average club player: Topalov vs Aronian, 2006 |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | firmamentalfalcon: The white knight and pawns create a solid wall on the d-file on move 31. Somehow getting the knight at b6 was worth the two rooks. Qf6-g5-e5 was cool too. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | sanyas: <<TheaN> And once again it is proven that the exchange is only a difference in value, not material> What do you mean? Of course we measure material by its value, not its number, that's the main pont in exchanging pieces. <Chesscomedian> That one was different, the relatively common theme of liberating pawns to advance in the center. This is something completely differnt - The knights are actually more valuable, as minor pieces are often better than rooks in a kingside attack, and White gains complete control of the center, cutting off the Black pieces from the defense. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | kevin86: At several points,white had the chance to capture rook for knight and he refused. In fact,the knight is stronger than the rook in this case. Of course,to blindly think that a rook is about 2 pawns better than a knight costs many a player. Chess is far move a game of judgment and TOTAL value-as opposed to plain material value. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | sanyas: <kevin86> It is perhaps valuable to make the distinction between Material, the number of pieces that exist on the board ranked according to their power on an empty board, and Force, the physical effect of all the pieces in a given situation. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | sanyas: Or, <thing you pick up> material piece, <ability to move the piece> force of the piece. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | sanyas: <CapablancaFan> Actually, I would say he does it better than Petrosian. Don't you agree that this is better than Petrosian vs Guimard, 1955? |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | sanyas: The key thing is that while the White knights can just hop over to the kingside and create decisive threats, the black rooks cannot assume a good defensive posture and must take part in a futile counterattack. Also nice to note that White's long diagonal pressure pays direct dividends. An enormous conception. He must have worked everything out from the beginning, all the way to the queen getting stuck on a7, and trusted that his kingside attack would work even though his pieces were so far away. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | belgradegambit: Ian Rogers is one of my favorite players. He is well known to be an "attacking maniac" Too bad he retired for health reasons. |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | zb2cr: Given that White gets a compensating Pawn for each sacrifice, the 2X exchange sacrifice is not as large as it might seem. Wasn't it Spielmann who claimed that if you sacrificed a Rook for a minor piece + a Pawn, that was the equivalent of only a 1/2 Pawn deficit? |
|
| Aug-20-07 | | Kublo: a double sac in such a short time!
the Knight in b6 is so much better then a rock.
its a shame that Berznish screwed the game up with the blunder f6.
I would like to have seen what Rogers could have done if he didnt do 40...f6. |
|
| Apr-09-09 | | JaneEyre: Can Black save his bacon with 35...Qd3+ 36.Kg2 f6 37.Qxf6 Qe4+ 38.Kg3
Rc1 39.h3 Rg1+ 40.Kh4 Rh1 41.Qg5+ Kh8 42.Nd7 Qg2 43.Qe5+ Kg8 44.Qg3 Qxg3+
45.Kxg3? Probably not. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 21.Rxd6