|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-08-04 | | refutor: would anyone care to do some analysis? i just finished a correspondence game at schemingmind.com and white avoided ivanchuk's 21.Qg7?!?! any opinions on improvements for either side? i haven't annofritzed it yet :p shirov recommended 23. ...Rhd8 in the notes to his game v. ivanchuk (where ivanchuk played 21.Qg7 instead of this move) but i'm not shirov :) NN - Refutor D44 Schemingmind.com ½-½
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5
9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3 c5 13. d5 Qb6 14. Bg2 O-O-O 15. O-O b4
16. Na4 Qb5 17. a3 exd5 18. axb4 cxb4 19. Be3 Nc5 20. Qg4+ Rd7 21. Nxc5 Bxc5 22. Bxc5 Qxc5
23. Bh3 Bc6 24. Rfe1 Kc7 25. Qf4+ Kb7 26. Bxd7 Bxd7 27. Qe3 Qxe3 28. Rxe3 Be6 29. f4 Rh6 30. Ra4 b3 31.
Re1 Rxf6 32. Rea1 Kc6 33. Rxa7 Kc5 34. Re1 Kd4 35. Raa1 Kc5 36. Kf2 Kd4 37. h4 Kc5 38. Rh1 Rh6 39. Rag1 Bg4
40. Re1 f5 41. Re5 Kc6 42. Ree1 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Oct-08-04 | | tex: this is one amazing coincidence :) |
|
Oct-08-04
 | | chessgames.com: Vischer <Chessgames.com, if I press 17.exf8=Q+ in
Opening Explorer it won't work. > Mea culpa, it was working for us, but the URL on the page was not technically correct. Try it again, I think we have it fixed. |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | refutor: i played in a tournament on the weekend and faced a decent novelty on move 15 in the botwinnik system...i haven't seen this move before and either has the opening explorer or megabase ;) <i was white> 1.♘f3 ♘f6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 c6 4.♘c3 e6 5.♗g5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.♗h4 g5 9.♘xg5 hxg5 10.♗xg5 ♘bd7 11.exf6 ♗b7 12.g3 c5 13.d5 ♕b6 14.♗g2 O-O-O 15.O-O and instead of the usual 15. ...b4 my opponent uncorked 15. ...♘e4!? trying to take advantage of the pin on the d-file (which he did in the game actually). post mortem analysis shows 16.♕e2 ♘d3 17.exd6 trying to put pressure on the e-file was a decent idea against it...any semi-slavvers with different ideas? for either side? |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | acirce: <post mortem analysis shows 16.Qe2 Nd3 17.exd6 trying to put pressure on the e-file was a decent idea against it...> Yes, that seems correct. (You mean 15..Ne5 and 17.dxe6 of course) Fritz likes it, Khalifman recommends it in "Opening for White according to Kramnik", and it looks good -- 3 out of 3 is not bad :-) |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | refutor: any chance of posting the passage out of "opening for White according to Kramnik"? any game fragments? |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | acirce: <After 15..Ne5 16.Qe2 Nd3 17.dxe6 Bxg2 (in case of 17..fxe6 18.Bxb7+ Kxb7, played in the game Potomak-Snopek, Ostrava 2002, White could by 19.b3!  obtain an obvious advantage) 18.Kxg2 fxe6 19.b3 b4 20.Ne4 c3 21.a3 White's advantage was beyond doubt in the game De Haan-Swinkels, Soest 1995.>That's all, but it's impressive that they mention such rare sidelines at all. |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | Shams: <refutor> chesslive.de has 9 games with 15...Ne5, with white scoring 5 wins and 2 draws. Perez-Cela - Pinedo Lerma, 2000 saw white deviate with 16.h4 but he soon pulled the queen back to e2. here's one of the pretty black wins:
[Event "Groningen SO-ON op A"]
[Site "Groningen"]
[Date "2001.12.22"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Hummel,Joop"]
[Black "Zuiderweg,Edwin"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "D44"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5
9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7 11.exf6 Qb6 12.g3 Bb7 13.Bg2 0-0-0 14.0-0 c5 15.d5 Ne5 16.Qe2 Nd3
17.dxe6 fxe6 18.Bxb7+ Kxb7 19.a4 b4 20.a5 Qc6 21.Ne4 Nxb2 22.f7 Rd4 23.Qxb2 Qxe4 24.Bf6 Rh7
25.Bxd4 cxd4 26.Rfe1 Qd5 27.a6+ Kc7 28.Rad1 c3 29.Qc2 Rxf7 30.Qa4 d3 31.Qe8 Qd7 32.Qa8 Kb6
33.Qb8+ Kc6 34.Re5 Bc5 35.Qa8+ Kb5 36.Qb8+ Kc4 37.Re4+ Kb3 38.Rb1+ Kc2 39.Rexb4 Bxf2+ 40.Kg2 Qd5+
41.Kh3 Rh7+ 42.Rh4 Rxh4+ 43.Kxh4 d2 0-1
|
|
| Jun-14-05 | | refutor: <it's impressive that they mention such rare sidelines at all> i agree...thanks a lot Acirce, i really appreciate it. do you feel the Khalifman books are worth purchasing? |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | acirce: <do you feel the Khalifman books are worth purchasing?> No doubt about it. Of course it depends on what you're after, level of ambition, etc. They are not "Starting Out:" books. But they are very rich in content and helps you very well to understand the finer points in the openings. BTW I can just as easily recommend his similar "..according to Anand" series based on 1.e4, at least from my experience from the first two volumes. Especially the second one, about the Ruy Lopez with 3..a6, is one of the best opening books I have ever seen. Very thorough and instructive. |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | refutor: thank you, i'm always looking for good books...complete game scores in them? |
|
| Jun-14-05 | | acirce: Some, but not many. This is not a big problem in the era of online databases though :-) |
|
Oct-22-05
 | | Sneaky: It is my great joy to share with you what I consider to be one of the best games I've ever played. Background: In 2003 Garry Kasparov played a match of games against X3D Fritz (Computer). It was on television, and there was a lot of interest in the match. Right around that time, a friend of mine stopped by and gave me a dusty old toy he picked up at a garage sale. It was Radio Shack's "Talking e-Chess", en electronic handheld chess toy. It played at roughly a 1700-2000 level. With that in mind, inspired by Kasparov, I set out to play a match against talking e-Chess. Usually when I play computers it is very informal, but not this time. I agreed with the computer that we would play 4 games, time controls 90 minutes per side (although the computer is set to report its move after 60-90 seconds of thought every time.) I set the clocks for 90 minutes per side, got myself some coffee, and settled in to play a very serious game with a very lightweight chess computer. What followed were four very entertaining games, the computer cleary demonstrating both the dangers and the virtues of playing materialistically. Keep in mind, while this is by no means a strong chess computer, there are no tactically weak computers. If a mate in 3 appeared, it would find it. If it could fork my pieces, it would do it. One must procede with great caution, because if you make a single mistake the computer will predictably bite your head off for it. Like Kasparov, my match ended in a tie, 2-2. My next post is my account of the first game of that match. |
|
Oct-22-05
| | Sneaky: White: Radio Shack Talking e-Chess
Black: Sneaky
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5
9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3 Qb6
click for larger view
A well known book position. 12...c5 is more commonly seen, but this move order served me well, as ...Qb6 took the little handheld toy out of its opening book and forced it to think on its own. 13. Be2?!
The first move it computed, and a real lemon. I had to laugh out loud when I saw this move. The Opening Explorer shows that out of 70 games, 13.Bg2 was played each and every time. After all, if it intended Be2, then what was the point of 12.g3? 13...O-O-O 14. O-O Bh6 15. Ne4 c5 16. Bxh6 Bxe4!? 17. Bg7 
click for larger view17...cxd4! The idea of my previous moves. All of my pieces will soon be participating in an attack before the machine can get organized. 18. Bxh8 Rxh8 19. Rc1 Ne5! (There is no time to settle for crumbs with ...Nxf6, the knight is far more dangerous to the White king right here.) 20. b3 d3 21. Bh5 
click for larger view21...Rxh5! Time to sacrifice the other exchange! With his bishop gone, the weakness on his light squares will decide the game. 22. Qxh5 Nf3+ 23. Kg2 d2 24. Rc3
click for larger viewGive this position to most chess computers--even ones much more advanced that Talking e-Chess--and they won't see the winning move without a good deal of reflection. In fact, as a rule they tend to like White in this position, and yet there is a crushing tactical shot that decides the game in Black's favor. 24...Ne1+ looks tempting but leads to unclear complications. After about 15 minutes thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel: 24...Qd4!! Giving up yet another piece! Forgive me for awarding myself the coveted double-exclam move, but if I ever -played a move deserving of it, this is it. 25. Rxf3 c3! And now this little pawn duo is worth a whole queen, making up for all the sacrifices to this point with interest. 26. Qg4 Bxf3+ 27. Qxf3 Qd5! (What do you do when you're a rook down in the endgame? Trade queens, of course!) 28. Qxd5 exd5 
click for larger view0-1. My friend who was witnessing the game decided that this would be the aesthetically correct time to resign. There is no way to stop ...c2 and the queening of a pawn. |
|
Oct-22-05
 | | tpstar: <Sneaky> Beautiful game - congratulations. I'll bet your friend thought you were a genius. =) You should also put it into the database here for posterity. |
|
Oct-22-05
 | | Open Defence: <Sneaky> I think the computer could not evaluate the force of 25..c3 and hence could not consider Qd4 to be of sufficient threat. In fact, I now feel that against the Mid Strength programs it is a good strategy to get into tactically complex and materially imbalanced positions.. most computers cannot evaluate these positions accurately ... not in my humble opinion anyway .. interesting to see if anyone differs |
|
| Oct-22-05 | | KingG: <Open Defence> Yes, i agree that they often have problems evaluating those kinds of positions. Still, well done <Sneaky>, beating a reasonably strong computer on the Black side of the Botvinnik. |
|
| Oct-22-05 | | KingG: I think you are fully justified in giving 24. ...Qd4!! two exclamation marks, it's a great move, but i think you could have given 20.b3?? two question marks, positionaly this is horrible alowing two connected passed pawns; and probably 13.Be2 is more of a ? than a ?!(incidently, strange that it was out of book after 12.Qb6 in particular, it's been played quite a few times and is the second most popular move int this position). One question though, wasn't it slightly unfair to limit the computer to 60-90 seconds per move? Anyway great game! |
|
Oct-23-05
| | Sneaky: Thanks everybody. KingG, I guess it's not 100% fair but the machine has various "levels of play", and if it was on the next hardest level (which was the hardest level of all) it would take 3-4 minutes per move, and I just didn't have the patience for that. And yes 12.Be2? deserves a full blunder-mark. In the famous game Denker vs Botvinnik, 1945, Denker was criticized for playing Be2 *instead* of playing g3/Bg2. To play g3 and then follow it up with Be2 is even worse than that! |
|
| Oct-23-05 | | KingG: Ok, fair enough. For a computer 90 seconds in a reasonable amount of time anyway. What about 20.b3??, do you agree it should be given double question marks? |
|
Oct-23-05
| | Sneaky: It's hard to say if it's a losing move, or if Black is lost at that point anyhow. True, it eventually allowed me to play ...c3 and establish the pawn duo, but it seems very natural in that position since c3 seems impossible. At the time I was a little worried because the computer finally was suggesting that it might be able to drum up a little counterplay. I'd like to believe that the computer was in a hopeless spiral from Be2 onward but that might be a little optimistic. |
|
| Oct-23-05 | | KingG: I've just done a quick analysis with Fritz. This is what it thinks: Before b3 it thinks the position is about even despite the exchange sacrifice. In real terms i think this means you are slightly better. After b3 it thinks you are a lot better(about -3.50), basicaly winning. It gives the line 21.Bh5 Qd4 22.a4 d2 23.axb5 c3 24.Be2 dxc1N!!(24. ...dxc1Q is a draw after 25.Qxd4 Qh6 26.h4 c2 27.Qc5+ Kd8 28.Qe7+) 25.Qxc1  since you have an extra piece, a passed pawn and a potential attack against the White king. The immediate 21. ...d2! was also poosible, 22.Rc3(stopping c3, 22.Qxd2 Rxh5 ) Qd4! and White is in big trouble. What you played in the game is also fine, there is no improved defence(unless it is extremely clever and Fritz doesn't see it straight away). As for Be2, Fritz doesn't think it is THAT bad, but common sense tells us that it can't be good. |
|
Oct-24-05
| | Sneaky: <It gives the line 21.Bh5 Qd4 22.a4 d2 23.axb5 c3 24.Be2> That deserves a diagram Black to play and win
click for larger view24...dxc1=N!! Yes very clever, that Fritz.
Anyhow, thanks for analyzing my game with me. I'm starting to get embrassed with all the column space it's taken up now! |
|
| Oct-24-05 | | KingG: Ok, no problem, we can stop now. :) |
|
| Dec-16-05 | | refutor: interesting novelty on the 7th move but no doubt unsound...i've never seen it before (either has the opening explorer) [Event "WJun"]
[Site "Yerevan ARM"]
[Date "2000.09.23"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Gershon,A"]
[Black "Senff,M"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2502"]
[BlackElo "2354"]
[EventDate "2000.09.02"]
[ECO "D44"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 b4 8. Ne4
Qd5 9. Ned2 c3 10. exf6 cxd2+ 11. Qxd2 gxf6 12. Bxf6 Rg8 13. Qc2 Nd7 14.
Bh4 b3 15. axb3 Bb4+ 16. Kd1 c5 17. Bc4 Qh5 18. Qe4 Nb6 19. Qc6+ Bd7 20.
Qxb6 Rg4 21. Rxa7 1-0 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
