| |
Main
Date: 13 Feb 2006 16:32:19
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: old game for analysis
|
Hello,
I read in "I don't remember where" an article of Minev from the old
match Rubinstein-shall, Warsaw 1909. I do not remember where I saw
Minev notes. I have searched in chesscafe but I can't find them.
I think Minev notes about 5th game were very superficial and a it seems
He do not used computer help because there are many mistakes which
engines can see easily. There are also interesting moments where
computer alone are unable to evaluate correctly some positions.
Anyone interested in analising it?
Regards
Antonio T.
Ps: Minev notes:
Game 5
Akiba Rubinstein - Frank shall
Warsaw Match, 1908
Dutch Defense [A84]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nd7 4.b3 Ngf6 5.Bb2 Ne4!?
{Perhaps home preparation. shall avoids the unnamed system 5...Bd6
6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 c5 8.Nbd2, followed with Ne5 [D05], used often, and
successfully, by Rubinstein.}
6.Bd3 Bb4+ 7.c3
{Now the opening will transpose into the Dutch Defense, here in a better
edition for Black than in Game 3. It is possible that 7.Nfd2 deserves
attention, but such opening acrobatics are not in Rubinstein�s style.}
7...Bd6 8.c4 0-0 9.0-0 c6 10.Nbd2 f5 11.Ne5 Rf6 12.f3 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Rh6
14.Rac1
{14.cxd5 exd5 15.Bxf5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxf5 17.exd6 Qxd6 is equal.}
14...Qh4 15.g3 Qf6 16.f4 Qf8!
{Avoiding 17.g4. It looks as though Black is plunging into a rash
adventure and that White�s position is preferable. In reality, this
position is well-suited to shall. His initiative on the kingside will
soon acquire significant dimensions.}
17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.c5 Bc7 19.b4 Qf7 20.a4 a6 21.Bc3 Kh8 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5
Rg8 24.bxc6 Bxc6! 25.Rf2 g5 26.Rb1 gxf4 27.exf4 Qh5 28.Rg2
{28.Bb5? Rxg3+!}
28...Rhg6 29.Qf2
{29.Bb5 Qf3!? 30.Bxc6? Bxf4 or 30.Rf1 Bxf4.}
29...Qh6 30.Bd2 Qg7 31.Ra1 h5 32.Bf1 Bd8 33.Be3 Bf6 34.Ra2 h4 35.gxh4
Rxg2+ 36.Bxg2 Qg4 37.Qd2 Bxh4 38.Kh1 Bb5! 39.Rb2 Bc4
{39...Ba6!?}
40.Qc2
{If 40.Rxb7? then 40...Be2 wins.}
40...Ra8?
{40...Ba6!?}
41.Rxb7! Be2 42.Rb1 Rg8 43.Rg1 Bf3 44.c6 Bd8 45.Qf2 Bxg2+ 46.Qxg2 Bc7
47.Qxg4 fxg4 48.Kg2 Kg7 49.Rb1 Kf6 50.Rb7 Rc8 51.Kg3 Kf5
{Even with an extra pawn, White still has some problems.}
52.Bd2 Ke4 53.Kxg4 Kxd4 54.Rb3 Bd8 55.Bc1 Kc4 56.Rb7 Rxc6 57.Bb2 Bc7 58.Be5!
{58.h4 d4 is in Black�s favor.}
58...Bxe5 59.fxe5 d4 60.Rd7 Rc5 61.Kf4 Kd3 62.Rd6 Rc1 63.Rxe6 Rf1+
64.Kg5 Ke4 65.h4 d3 66.Rd6 Rf5+ 67.Kg6 Rxe5 68.h5 Rd5 Draw
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2006 08:58:47
From:
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
John Sheatsley wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > The more I look at this article, the more I am inclined to think that
> > it was first written for "Inside Chess" magazine in the late 1980s or
> > very early 1990s.
>
> Article is in "Inside Chess", Volume 1, Issue 9, May 4, 1988, pages 3-8.
Thank you for confirming my guess.
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2006 06:51:56
From:
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I worked with [Minev] on one book (A Practical Guide to Rook
> > Endgames, 2004), and would sometimes raise questions I came up with
> > in computer-checking his work. It turned out there were few or no
> > significant errors, and where Minev's idea differed it was usually
> > just as good as what Fritz came up with.
>
> That's good to know. I'll try not to judge all of Minev's work based
> on the example of the Rubinstein-shall match.
The more I look at this article, the more I am inclined to think that
it was first written for "Inside Chess" magazine in the late 1980s or
very early 1990s. In that case, computer-assisted analysis would not
have been as good as today's, not that Minev is inclined to
silicon-based assistance anyway.
Minev is an IM, originally from Bulgaria; he got his title way back
in 1960. He has written or co-authored several good books, such as
"French Defense: New and Forgotten Ideas," "Dutch Defense: New and
Forgotten Ideas," the two-volume Rubinstein bio with IM John Donaldson,
and several with GM Yasser Seirawan.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Feb 2006 16:26:54
From: John Sheatsley
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> David Richerby wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I worked with [Minev] on one book (A Practical Guide to Rook
>> > Endgames, 2004), and would sometimes raise questions I came up with
>> > in computer-checking his work. It turned out there were few or no
>> > significant errors, and where Minev's idea differed it was usually
>> > just as good as what Fritz came up with.
>>
>> That's good to know. I'll try not to judge all of Minev's work based
>> on the example of the Rubinstein-shall match.
>
> The more I look at this article, the more I am inclined to think that
> it was first written for "Inside Chess" magazine in the late 1980s or
> very early 1990s. In that case, computer-assisted analysis would not
> have been as good as today's, not that Minev is inclined to
> silicon-based assistance anyway.
> Minev is an IM, originally from Bulgaria; he got his title way back
> in 1960. He has written or co-authored several good books, such as
> "French Defense: New and Forgotten Ideas," "Dutch Defense: New and
> Forgotten Ideas," the two-volume Rubinstein bio with IM John Donaldson,
> and several with GM Yasser Seirawan.
>
Article is in "Inside Chess", Volume 1, Issue 9, May 4, 1988, pages 3-8.
Regards,
John
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Feb 2006 19:21:18
From: John Sheatsley
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
>
> Article is in "Inside Chess", Volume 1, Issue 9, May 4, 1988, pages 3-8.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
I found only one "Letter to the Editor" in "Inside Chess"
(in I 1, V 13) related to Minev's article.
Vince McCambridge wrote:
"IM Minev's piece on the Rubenstein-shall was excellent.
In particular, I enjoyed his detailed annotations and synthesis of old and
modern theory.
The article raised two interesting questions for me:
(1) In game 3 after 10. 0-0 can't Black improve with 10. ... Ba6
(instead of 10. ... Bb7)? My idea is that 11. b3 can be answered
with 11. ... dxc4.
(2) In the note to Black's fifth move in Game 3, the variation 1. d4 d5
2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Nc3 f5 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. 0-0 0-0
8. Ne5 Bxe5! 9. dxe5 Na4 10. f4 dxc4 11. Bxe4? Qh4 12. h3 Nxe5!
is said to be better for Black. But I remember a game where Hungarian
GM Szabo played 13. Bb3 and got good compensation for the pawn.
(Ed: 13. ... Nf7 14. e4 Szabo - Pedersen 1955)"
Rather interesting that no one at the time reported (or at least they didn't
get published) the variations for Game 5 that Antonio Torrecillas,
David Richerby, and tkingston posted in this most enlightening thread.
My database has the Szabo - Pedersen game as being from 1954, not 1955, and
is as follows:
[Event "Prague zt"]
[Site "Prague"]
[Date "1954.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Szabo, Laszlo"]
[Black "Pedersen, Eigil"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A85"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 f5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 c6 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Ne5
Bxe5 9. dxe5 Ng4 10. f4 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Qh4 12. h3 Nxe5 13. Bb3 Nf7 14. e4 b6
15.
Be3 Kh8 16. exf5 exf5 17. Re1 Nd7 18. Qf3 Nd8 19. Bf2 Qh6 20. Rad1 Rb8 21.
Qe2
Nb7 22. Qe7 Qf6 23. Bh4 Qg6 24. Re6 Qh5 25. Ne2 Nbc5 26. Ng3 Qf7 27. Qxf7
Rxf7
28. Re8+ Rf8 29. Rxf8+ Nxf8 30. Rd8 Ncd7 31. Be7 1-0
Thank you all!
Regards,
John
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Feb 2006 23:55:25
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
En/na John Sheatsley ha escrit:
>>Article is in "Inside Chess", Volume 1, Issue 9, May 4, 1988, pages 3-8.
>>
>
> I found only one "Letter to the Editor" in "Inside Chess"
> (in I 1, V 13) related to Minev's article.
>
> Vince McCambridge wrote:
>
> "IM Minev's piece on the Rubenstein-shall was excellent.
> In particular, I enjoyed his detailed annotations and synthesis of old and
> modern theory.
>
> The article raised two interesting questions for me:
> (...)
>
> Rather interesting that no one at the time reported (or at least they didn't
> get published) the variations for Game 5 that Antonio Torrecillas,
> David Richerby, and tkingston posted in this most enlightening thread.
Hello John,
I would like to add that Claus Juergen notes were very deep and
instructive. I have the answer to his message in my "pending works".
I hope to have time to answer Sunday or Monday.
AT
> (...)
> Thank you all!
>
> Regards,
> John
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Feb 2006 00:22:35
From: John Sheatsley
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
>
> Hello John,
>
> I would like to add that Claus Juergen notes were very deep and
> instructive. I have the answer to his message in my "pending works".
>
> I hope to have time to answer Sunday or Monday.
>
> AT
>
>> (...)
>> Thank you all!
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>
Ah, yes. My apologies to Claus for not including him among the
posters. I just didn't scroll down far enough to catch his name while
composing.
Thanks again, all!
Regards,
John
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 06:09:11
From:
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
David Richerby wrote:
> I'm glad it's not just me who found the quality of the analysis in
> that article to be rather poor. It's possible, though, that the
> analysis is old: in the text of the article, Minev says, `Even now,
> after 80 years, ...', suggesting that he was writing some time around
> 1988 when computers wouldn't have been so useful.
The article may be an excerpt from volume I of Donaldson & Minev's
biography of Rubinstein. IIRC, that came out in the late 1980s or early
1990s from International Chess Enterprises.
Minev is not likely to use computers in any event; he's an old-school
guy (born 1931), doesn't even have e-mail last I checked. I worked with
him on one book (A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames, 2004), and would
sometimes raise questions I came up with in computer-checking his work.
It turned out there were few or no significant errors, and where
Minev's idea differed it was usually just as good as what Fritz came up
with.
However, in this game, I must agree that there are definite errors.
The most serious, it seems to me, is that Rubinstein, shall and
Minev all missed a killer win for Black at move 43. The position is:
W: Kh1, Qc2, Rg1, Be3, Bg2, c5, d4, f4, h2
B: Kh8, Qg4, Rg8, Be2, Bh4, d5, e6, f5
shall played the indecisive 43...Bf3, but unless I have the
position wrong, either 43...Qh5 or 43...Bg3 win crushingly, viz.
43...Qh5 (threatening 44...Bg3) 44.Bh3 (or 44.h3 Bf3 intending
45...Bf2-+) 44...Qf3+ and wins, or 43...Bg3 44.h3 (44.hxg3?? Qh5+
45.Bh3 Qxh3#) 44...Qh5 45.Rb1 Bf3 46.Kg1 Bh4 etc.
I will pass your comments on to Russell Enterprises, who now own the
ICE catalog, in case the book is reissued.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 16:27:58
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
En/na [email protected] ha escrit:
> However, in this game, I must agree that there are definite errors.
> The most serious, it seems to me, is that Rubinstein, shall and
> Minev all missed a killer win for Black at move 43. The position is:
>
> W: Kh1, Qc2, Rg1, Be3, Bg2, c5, d4, f4, h2
> B: Kh8, Qg4, Rg8, Be2, Bh4, d5, e6, f5
>
> shall played the indecisive 43...Bf3, but unless I have the
> position wrong, either 43...Qh5 or 43...Bg3 win crushingly, viz.
> 43...Qh5 (threatening 44...Bg3) 44.Bh3 (or 44.h3 Bf3 intending
> 45...Bf2-+) 44...Qf3+ and wins, or 43...Bg3 44.h3 (44.hxg3?? Qh5+
> 45.Bh3 Qxh3#) 44...Qh5 45.Rb1 Bf3 46.Kg1 Bh4 etc.
>
> I will pass your comments on to Russell Enterprises, who now own the
> ICE catalog, in case the book is reissued.
ok, both 43...Qh5 and 43...Bg3 are clear wins for black.
That proves white made a big mistake in previous moves (in concrete in
42th move) not sensing the danger and not preventing that lines.
Antonio T.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 15:18:40
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> I worked with [Minev] on one book (A Practical Guide to Rook
> Endgames, 2004), and would sometimes raise questions I came up with
> in computer-checking his work. It turned out there were few or no
> significant errors, and where Minev's idea differed it was usually
> just as good as what Fritz came up with.
That's good to know. I'll try not to judge all of Minev's work based
on the example of the Rubinstein-shall match.
> W: Kh1, Qc2, Rg1, Be3, Bg2, c5, d4, f4, h2
> B: Kh8, Qg4, Rg8, Be2, Bh4, d5, e6, f5
>
> shall played the indecisive 43...Bf3, but unless I have the
> position wrong, either 43...Qh5 or 43...Bg3 win crushingly, viz.
> 43...Qh5 (threatening 44...Bg3) 44.Bh3 (or 44.h3 Bf3 intending
> 45...Bf2-+) 44...Qf3+ and wins, or 43...Bg3 44.h3 (44.hxg3?? Qh5+
> 45.Bh3 Qxh3#) 44...Qh5 45.Rb1 Bf3 46.Kg1 Bh4 etc.
You have the position correct and Fritz agrees with your analysis: Qh5
scores -6.75 and Bg3 -4.9 to 14 ply. I gave up on the game after the
previous error in the analysis!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Sumerian Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager that's really old!
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 09:00:24
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected] > wrote:
> I read in "I don't remember where" an article of Minev from the old
> match Rubinstein-shall, Warsaw 1909. I do not remember where I saw
> Minev notes. I have searched in chesscafe but I can't find them.
It is at Chess Cafe:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles267.pdf
(BTW, the match was in 1908.)
The following comments are from the notes I made on these games and
Minev's analysis at the time.
> I think Minev notes about 5th game were very superficial and a it
> seems He do not used computer help because there are many mistakes
> which engines can see easily.
I'm glad it's not just me who found the quality of the analysis in
that article to be rather poor. It's possible, though, that the
analysis is old: in the text of the article, Minev says, `Even now,
after 80 years, ...', suggesting that he was writing some time around
1988 when computers wouldn't have been so useful.
There are at least two typos in the article. In the comments to
Black's move in game 1, `17... Ne4' should be `17... Nf6'. In game 1,
Black's 19th move is ked `!?' but described as `tempting but
premature', suggesting that `?!' is the correct k.
In game 2, the comment to Black's 7th flatly contradicts the comment
to his 5th. If 5... Nf6?! is dubious and has been known to be so
since before 1908, how can the position after the further 6.Bg5 Be7
7.dxc5 Be6 be `a critical juncture for modern theory'? Surely, any
position that arises after a dubious move is, itself, dubious so
cannot be critical?
In game 3, 14... Rxd6 is given as a better alternative to the move
played but that this still leaves him in a poor position. However, in
the variation quoted, 21... Rc8 looks to me to be dubious to the point
of being losing and Fritz agrees, suggesting 21... Qe8 22.Ra7 Rd8 with
equality.
In the following, I've snipped Minev's comments except where I'm
responding to them.
> Game 5
> Akiba Rubinstein - Frank shall
> Warsaw Match, 1908
> Dutch Defense [A84]
>
> 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nd7 4.b3 Ngf6 5.Bb2 Ne4!? 6.Bd3 Bb4+ 7.c3
> Bd6 8.c4 0-0 9.0-0 c6 10.Nbd2 f5 11.Ne5 Rf6 12.f3 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Rh6
> 14.Rac1
>
> (14.cxd5 exd5 15.Bxf5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxf5 17.exd6 Qxd6 {is equal.})
Is this position really equal? I can't see any weaknesses for Black
but White has to play one of f4, g3, g4 and h3 to avoid losing his
h-pawn and, in either case, his kingside pawns and e-pawn look very
weak. Fritz gives this position as -0.8 (i.e., -/+).
> 14...Qh4 15.g3 Qf6 16.f4 Qf8! 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.c5 Bc7 19.b4 Qf7 20.a4
> a6 21.Bc3 Kh8 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5 Rg8 24.bxc6 Bxc6! 25.Rf2 g5 26.Rb1
> gxf4 27.exf4 Qh5 28.Rg2 Rhg6 29.Qf2
> 29...Qh6 30.Bd2 Qg7 31.Ra1 h5 32.Bf1 Bd8 33.Be3 Bf6 34.Ra2 h4 35.gxh4
> Rxg2+ 36.Bxg2 Qg4 37.Qd2 Bxh4 38.Kh1 Bb5! 39.Rb2 Bc4
> 40.Qc2
>
> ({If} 40.Rxb7? {then} 40...Be2 {wins.})
`Wins', indeed. It's actually mate in five: did Minev actually look
into the position?
> 40...Ra8?
Fritz thinks this is only slightly worse than the best available
move. Is it on the wrong track here?
> 41.Rxb7!
Hardly! Fritz gives 41.Rxb7?? 41... Ra1+ 42.Bg1 Qe2 43.Qxe2 Bxe2
44.Rb2 Bf2 {threatening mate} 45.h3 Bxg1 46.Rxe2 Be3+ 47.Bf1 Rxf1+
48.Kg2 49.Kf3 Bxd4 {-+ (-2.06 to 15 ply)}.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Portable Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet but you can take it
anywhere!
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2006 20:53:12
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis .. game 4
|
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I read in "I don't remember where" an article of Minev from the old
>>match Rubinstein-shall, Warsaw 1908. I do not remember where I saw
>>Minev notes. I have searched in chesscafe but I can't find them.
>
> It is at Chess Cafe:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles267.pdf
Hello again
I think that very intertesting comments were made in that threat.
Anyone would start posting some analysis of game 4th?
I think it is a very interesting game too (specially the ending)
Note in the above link there are Minev notes.
[Event "Warsaw m"]
[Site "Warsaw"]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "shall, Frank James"]
[Black "Rubinstein, Akiba Kivelovich"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D27"]
[PlyCount "96"]
[EventDate "1908.??.??"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 a6 6. a4 c5 7. Nf3 Nc6
8. O-O cxd4 9. exd4 Be7 10. Bf4 O-O 11. Re1 Qa5 12. Ne5 Rd8 13.Nxc6 bxc6
14.Qd2 Ra7 15. Rad1 Rad7 16. Be5 Bb7 17. h3 c5 18.Nd5 Qxd2 19.Nxe7+ Kf8
20. Rxd2 Kxe7 21. Rd3 Ne8 22. Rg3 cxd4 23. Bxg7 Nxg7 24.Rxg7 d3 25.Rd1
d2 26.f3 Rd4 27. Rg4 f5 28. Rxd4 Rxd4 29. b3 Bd5 30. Bxd5 Rxd5 31. Kf2
Rd3 32. Ke2 Rxb3 33. Rxd2 Rb4 34. Ra2 a5 35. g4 Kf6 36. Kf2 Kg5 37. Re2
Rxa4 38. Rxe6 Ra2+ 39. Ke1 f4 $1 40. Re7 h6 41.Rf7 a4 42. Kd1 a3 43.Rf5+
Kh4 44. Rxf4 Rf2 45. Ra4 a2 46. Kc1 Kxh3 47. Ra5 Kg3 48. g5 a1=Q+ 0-1
AT
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2006 05:01:53
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: old game for analysis .. game 4
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> Anyone would start posting some analysis of game 4th?
> I think it is a very interesting game too (specially the ending)
>
> Note in the above link there are Minev notes.
Minev made almost no comments about this game, so I try to make up for
it :-)
> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 a6 6. a4 c5 7. Nf3 Nc6
> 8. O-O cxd4 9. exd4 Be7 10. Bf4
"?! The oldest continuation, not even mentioned in the last edition of
ECO." Minev.
Almost true. According to Chessbase Bf4 was a first in the game
Blejkmans - Gajdos, Barmen 1905, three years before.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bf4 c5 5.e3 a6 6.a4 Nc6 7.Nf3 cxd4 8.exd4
dxc4 9.Bxc4 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Re1 Re8 12.Qd2 Bd6 13.Bg5 Be7 14.Rad1 Qc7
15.Bd3 Nb4 16.Bb1 Nbd5 17.Rc1 Qd8 18.Qd3 g6 19.Ne5 Nh5 20.Qf3 Bxg5
21.Qxf7+ Kh8 22.Nxd5 Ng7 23.Nxg6+ 1-0
In this tournament at Barmen Rubinstein was also a participant, so very
likely he knew the game.
But Bf4 is not the oldest continuation.
Lasker - oczy, Paris 1900, went 10.Be3 0-0 11.Qe2 Qa5 12.Rfd1 Rd8
13.Rac1 Nb4 14.Ne5 Nfd5 15.Bb3 Rf8 16.Ne4 Qd8 17.f4 b6 18.Bd2 Bb7 19.Ng3
Rc8 20.f5 Rxc1 21.Rxc1 exf5 22.Nxf5 Bf6 23.Bxb4 Nxb4 24.Nxf7 Rxf7
25.Qe6 Kh8 26.Qxf7 Bxd4+ 27.Kh1 Nd3 28.Rf1 Bxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Qg5+ 30.Kh3 1-0
Over a century later the Lasker plan was still valid in this little gem
Graf - Borges, Merida 2001. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4
c5 6.Qe2 cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 8.Be3 a6 9.a4 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nc3 b6 12.Rad1
Nb4 13.Ne5 Bb7 14.f4 g6 15.f5 exf5 16.Bh6 Nbd5 17.Rd3 Re8 18.Rxf5 Bf8
19.Rxf6 Qxf6 20.Bxd5 Bxd5 21.Nxd5 Qd6 22.Qf3 1-0
> O-O 11. Re1 Qa5
Gajdos protected his bishop with Re8 in view of a possible d5.
Rubinstein had to be sure that 12. d5 Rd8 13. d6 was not a problem to
him. Which it isn't after 13...Qb4 14. Ne4 Nxe4 15. dxe7 Qxe7 16. Qc2
Nf6 17. Rad1 b6!? (17...Nb4) 18. Rxd8 Qxd8 19. Bxe6 Bxe6 20. Qxc6 Bd5 =
> 12. Ne5
?! by Minev. Ne5 neglects the protection of d4 which is exploited next
move. Good is 12. Qe2 and if 12...Rd8 13. Rad1 and d5 may be a threat.
> Rd8
d4 is under attack and the white queen is in an awkward position.
> 13.Nxc6 bxc6
The trade doesn't ease much of White's problem. If White defends with
13. Nf3 Black keeps up the pressure with 13...Bc5 14. Ne2 Bb4 15. Rf1 b6
followed by Bb7, Rd7, Rad8.
> 14.Qd2
shall searches for a place to put his queen to but first needs to
protect the d pawn. A nice idea is 14. Be5. Black would like to play
14...Nd7 to trade the bishop, but 15. Bg3! just evades. If the knight
returns 15...Nf6 16. Be5 no progress was made. So the knight does not
return but it is definitely not as good at d7 than at f6. Also the d
pawn is no longer pinned. If Black hops his knight to b6 to attack both
Bc4 and d4, White evades with his other bishop, 15...Nb6 16. Bd3. Now d4
is protected through the discovered attack Bxh7+. After 16...Bb7?! 17.
Qg4 plan Qe4 or 17. Be5 plan Qh5 an attack on the kingside is brewing.
If Black plays 15...Qb4 to attack c4 and b2 White is willing to
sacrifice b2 with 16. Bd3 Qxb2 17. Re3 (threat 18. Rb1 Qa3 19. Rb3)
17...Qb6 18. Rb1 Qa7 19. Be4 and suddenly White does not only get his
pawn back (19...Bb7 20. Qb3) but also has a tremendous initiative. Black
better not takes b2. 16...Nf6 17. Be5 looks familiar. So 16...Nf8
protects both h7 and attacks d4. 17. Qc2 Qxd4 18. Rad1 Qb6 19. Ne4 Bb7
20. Nd2 Bb4 21. Nc4 Qa7 22. Re2 (Re4!?) with compensation. 17...Rxd4 18.
Be5 Rd8 19. a5 plan Ra4 also with compensation I think.
> Ra7
Rubinstein doubles the rooks before developing the bishop. Never let up
the pressure.
> 15. Rad1 Rad7 16. Be5 Bb7
I wonder if 16...Ng4 17. Qc2 Bb7 would have been more precise.
> 17. h3
Prevents Ng4.
> c5 18.Nd5 Qxd2 19.Nxe7+ Kf8
> 20. Rxd2 Kxe7 21. Rd3 Ne8 22. Rg3
Wrong side! 22. Rb3 keeps the balance. 22...cxd4 23. Bxd4 Rxd4 24. Rxb7+
Kf6 25. b3.
> cxd4
Excellent move which creates a strong passed pawn backed by rooks.
22...f6 23. Bxf6 Kxf6 24. Rxe6+ Kf7 25. dxc5 where White has the passed
pawns is much weaker.
> 23. Bxg7 Nxg7 24.Rxg7 d3 25.Rd1
> d2 26.f3
The threat was Be4, but Rg3 was better. White defends against Be4 with
Rc3. After 26. f3 Black could have driven off the rook.
> Rd4
26...Kf6! 27. Rg4 (27. Rxh7 Rd4 28. Bb3 (28. b3 Kg6! catches the rook)
28...Rc8 (prevents Bc2, threat Kg6) 29. Rh5 Rd3! and the bishop is gone)
27...h5 28. Rf4+ (28. Rg3 Rd4 29. b3 Rxc4 30. bxc4 Bc6 plan Bxa4xd1)
28...Kg5 29. g3 e5 wins the exchange and soon the game.
> 27. Rg4 f5 28. Rxd4 Rxd4 29. b3 Bd5
Black has to trade the bishops or he is not able to attack the white pawns.
> 30. Bxd5 Rxd5 31. Kf2
d2 is doomed, Black has to look for something in exchange.
> Rd3 32. Ke2
Wants to get rid of that menace d2 at all costs. But d2 is not so
dangerous anymore. The pawn is effectively stopped and can't evade his
fate. Easier was g3 which controls the kingside in front and clears the
second rank so a later check by the black rook doesn't skewer the pawns.
After g3 Black can't win: 32...e5 33. Ke2 Rxb3 34. Rd5 Ke6 35. Ra5;
32...Kf6 33. Ke2 Rxb3 34. Rxd2 Rb4 35. Rd7 h5 36. Rh7 Kg6 37. Re7;
32...h5 33. b4 Rd4 34. b5 a5 35. Ke2 Rxa4 36. Rb1! Rd4 37. b6 d1Q+ 38.
Rxd1 Rb4 39. Ra1 =; 32...Rxb3 33. Rxd2 Rb4 34. Rc2 h5 (34...Kd6 35. Rc8
plan Rh8) 35. Rc7+ Kd6 36. Rxh5 Ra2+ 37. Ke3 with an active king.
> Rxb3 33. Rxd2 Rb4 34. Ra2
This is the problem. White would like (and should) place his pieces
actively. After 34. Rc2 h5 35. Rc7+ Kf6 36. Rh7 Rxa4 37. Rxh5 Ra2+ 38.
Kf1 the king is forced to be passive on the first rank. Still this is a
very good chance for a draw as White has an active rook and a passed
pawn on the h file.
> a5 35. g4
35. g3 plugs the holes in the kingside. It is much harder for the black
king to intrude. If the Black pawns advance they will be traded. White
can defend the remaining pawns on the third rank. shall wants to
trade as many pawns as possible which is understandable.
> Kf6 36. Kf2 Kg5
Now White seizes the opportunity to capture the e pawn. If Black secures
the e pawn White defends with 36...e5 37. Kg2 Kg5 38. Re2 Kf4 39. Ra2
(39...h6 40. gxf5 Kxf5 41. Kg3 h5 42. h4) 39...fxg4 40. fxg4 Ke3 41. Rc2
Rxa4 42. Rc7 h5 43. gxh5 =
> 37. Re2
> Rxa4 38. Rxe6 Ra2+ 39. Ke1
Why not 39. Ke3? Minev gives only 39. Kg3 f4 mate. But 39. Ke3 f4+ 40.
Kd4 a4 (40...Kh4 41. Rh6+ Kg3 42. Rxh7 Kxf3 43. g5 =) 41. Rh7 h6 42. Rf7
a3 43. Rf5+ Kh4 44. Rxf4 Kg3 (44...Ra1 45. Kc3 Kg3 46. Rh6) 45. Rf6
Rd2+ 46. Ke4 a2 47. Ra6 Rb2 48. h4 =
> f4 $1 40. Re7 h6 41.Rf7 a4 42. Kd1
The last chance was 42. Rf5+ Kh4 43. Rxf4 Kg3 (43...a3 44. g5+ Kxg5 45.
Ra4 Ra1+ 46. Kf2 (looks counter intuitive at first glance but 46. Kd2?
a2 47. 47. Kc2 Rh1 48. Rxa2 Rh2+ 49. Kb3 Rxa2 50. Kxa2 Kf4 is fatal)
46...a2 47. Kg2 Kf5 48. h4 Ke5 49. Kh2 Kd5 50. Kg2 Kc5 51. Kh2 Kb5 52.
Ra8 Kb4 53. Rb8+ Kc3 54. Rc8+ Kd2 55. Ra8 =) 44. Rf6 a3 45. Ra6 Ra1+ 46.
Kd2 a2 47. Kc2 Rf2 48. Rxa2 Rf2+ (48...Rxf3 49. Ra6) 49. Kb1 Rxa2 50.
Kxa2 Kxf3 51. Kb1 Kg3 52. Kc1 Kxh3 53. Kd1 Kxg4 54. Ke1 Kg3 55. Kf1=
> a3 43.Rf5+
> Kh4 44. Rxf4 Rf2 45. Ra4 a2 46. Kc1 Kxh3 47. Ra5 Kg3 48. g5 a1=Q+ 0-1
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2006 15:07:28
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis .. game 4
|
Thanks Claus Juergen for your analysis.
It seems we agree in main points. Here some my provisional/provisoire
conclusions:
1) I see that final phase was correctly played by black:
- 45...Rxf3? would have been a mistake
- 46...Rxf3? is worse too
That can deserve that ending being part of ending theory but I think
Minev overestimated black play in the whole game.
2) It seems the rook ending was draw and black only played a single
mistake allowing the line that ocurred in game:
- 42.Rf5 seems to achieve easy equality (and it was not very difficult
to find)
- 39.Ke3 seems also to achieve equality (I did not consider it but your
analysis seems convincing)
- 35.g3 and 32.g2 are also possible as you posted but it seems white
play was not incorrect until move 42th
Black created some difficulties for white but it seems not very
difficult to solve for a player of the category a shall.
3) I did not imagine that 26...Kf6!! (which was indicated to me by my
old Fritz 8). It seems a crushing move which creates big problems fro
white. A line you did not menction but it's instructive is:
27.Rg3 Tc7 28.b4 Rxc4 29.bxc4 Bc6 with big problems for white in the
resulting rook ending.
I can understand Rubinstein did not saw that (the tactical tricks with
white rook captured in h7, h4 or f4) but after game continuation black
has no much advantage.
4)That good possibility was created for white previous mistake 26.f3.
It also seems white played an inacuracy in move 22, being the simple
22.Rb3! good. The tactical motivs are that 22.Rb3 f6 is bad (as 22.Rg3
f6), and black do not obtain a passed "d" pawn.
I admit that tactical refutation was very difficult to find (the
previous 26...Kf6!!) and many GM can play wrong here.
But I think too that 22.Rg3 inacuracy shows Mashall saw tactics based in
22...f6 move, but He was not alert to having a rook misplaced and
allowing an strong "d" passed pawn.
5) In the opening I was surprised by 11....Qa5 move. I have seen as
normal plan Nb4 followed by blockade in d5. The idea of allowing Nc6
bxc6 is very frequent. We can conclude that black have no problems in
the opening but He did not achieve advantage either.
FINAL CONCLUSION: I admit it is a nice and instructive ending but with
mistakes. I think Minev overestimated it (remember Minev words:
"shall very quickly reaches an inferior position. The rook endgame is
another forgotten masterpiece of Rubinstein�s technique, which I believe
should take its place in the endgame guides.")
Thanks,
Antonio T.
Ps: I have detected a few typo mistakes and I have corrected them
between the text.
En/na Claus-J�rgen Heigl ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
>> Anyone would start posting some analysis of game 4th?
>> I think it is a very interesting game too (specially the ending)
>>
>> Note in the above link there are Minev notes.
>
> Minev made almost no comments about this game, so I try to make up for
> it :-)
>
>> 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 a6 6. a4 c5 7. Nf3 Nc6
>> 8. O-O cxd4 9. exd4 Be7 10. Bf4
>
> "?! The oldest continuation, not even mentioned in the last edition of
> ECO." Minev.
>
> Almost true. According to Chessbase Bf4 was a first in the game
> Blejkmans - Gajdos, Barmen 1905, three years before.
> 1.d4 d5 (...)
>
>> O-O 11. Re1 Qa5
>
> Gajdos protected his bishop with Re8 in view of a possible d5.
> Rubinstein had to be sure that 12. d5 Rd8 13. d6 was not a problem to
> him. Which it isn't after 13...Qb4 14. Ne4 Nxe4 15. dxe7 Qxe7 16. Qc2
> Nf6 17. Rad1 b6!? (17...Nb4) 18. Rxd8 Qxd8 19. Bxe6 Bxe6 20. Qxc6 Bd5 =
>
>> 12. Ne5
>
> ?! by Minev. Ne5 neglects the protection of d4 which is exploited next
> move. Good is 12. Qe2 and if 12...Rd8 13. Rad1 and d5 may be a threat.
>
>> Rd8
>
> d4 is under attack and the white queen is in an awkward position.
>
>> 13.Nxc6 bxc6
>
> The trade doesn't ease much of White's problem. If White defends with
> 13. Nf3 Black keeps up the pressure with 13...Bc5 14. Ne2 Bb4 15. Rf1 b6
> followed by Bb7, Rd7, Rad8.
>
>> 14.Qd2
>
> shall searches for a place to put his queen to but first needs to
> protect the d pawn. A nice idea is 14. Be5. Black would like to play
> 14...Nd7 to trade the bishop, but 15. Bg3! just evades. If the knight
> returns 15...Nf6 16. Be5 no progress was made. So the knight does not
> return but it is definitely not as good at d7 than at f6. Also the d
> pawn is no longer pinned. If Black hops his knight to b6 to attack both
> Bc4 and d4, White evades with his other bishop, 15...Nb6 16. Bd3. Now d4
> is protected through the discovered attack Bxh7+. After 16...Bb7?! 17.
> Qg4 plan Qe4 or 17. Be5 plan Qh5 an attack on the kingside is brewing.
> If Black plays 15...Qb4 to attack c4 and b2 White is willing to
> sacrifice b2 with 16. Bd3 Qxb2 17. Re3 (threat 18. Rb1 Qa3 19. Rb3)
> 17...Qb6 18. Rb1 Qa7 19. Be4 and suddenly White does not only get his
> pawn back (19...Bb7 20. Qb3) but also has a tremendous initiative. Black
> better not takes b2. 16...Nf6 17. Be5 looks familiar. So 16...Nf8
> protects both h7 and attacks d4. 17. Qc2 Qxd4 18. Rad1 Qb6 19. Ne4 Bb7
> 20. Nd2 Bb4 21. Nc4 Qa7 22. Re2 (Re4!?) with compensation. 17...Rxd4 18.
> Be5 Rd8 19. a5 plan Ra4 also with compensation I think.
>
>> Ra7
>
> Rubinstein doubles the rooks before developing the bishop. Never let up
> the pressure.
>
>> 15. Rad1 Rad7 16. Be5 Bb7
>
> I wonder if 16...Ng4 17. Qc2 Bb7 would have been more precise.
>
>> 17. h3
>
> Prevents Ng4.
>
>> c5 18.Nd5 Qxd2 19.Nxe7+ Kf8 20. Rxd2 Kxe7 21. Rd3 Ne8 22. Rg3
>
> Wrong side! 22. Rb3 keeps the balance. 22...cxd4 23. Bxd4 Rxd4 24. Rxb7+
> Kf6 25. b3.
>
>> cxd4
>
> Excellent move which creates a strong passed pawn backed by rooks.
> 22...f6 23. Bxf6 Kxf6 24. Rxe6+ Kf7 25. dxc5 where White has the passed
> pawns is much weaker.
>
>> 23. Bxg7 Nxg7 24.Rxg7 d3 25.Rd1 d2 26.f3
>
> The threat was Be4, but Rg3 was better. White defends against Be4 with
> Rc3. After 26. f3 Black could have driven off the rook.
>
>> Rd4
>
> 26...Kf6! 27. Rg4 (27. Rxh7 Rd4 28. Bb3 (28. b3 Kg6! catches the rook)
> 28...Rc8 (prevents Bc2, threat Kg6) 29. Rh5 Rd3! and the bishop is gone)
> 27...h5 28. Rf4+ (28. Rg3 Rd4 29. b3 Rxc4 30. bxc4 Bc6 plan Bxa4xd1)
> 28...Kg5 29. g3 e5 wins the exchange and soon the game.
>
>> 27. Rg4 f5 28. Rxd4 Rxd4 29. b3 Bd5
>
> Black has to trade the bishops or he is not able to attack the white pawns.
>
>> 30. Bxd5 Rxd5 31. Kf2
> d2 is doomed, Black has to look for something in exchange.
>
>> Rd3 32. Ke2
>
> Wants to get rid of that menace d2 at all costs. But d2 is not so
> dangerous anymore. The pawn is effectively stopped and can't evade his
> fate. Easier was g3 which controls the kingside in front and clears the
> second rank so a later check by the black rook doesn't skewer the pawns.
> After g3 Black can't win: 32...e5 33. Ke2 Rxb3 34. Rd5 Ke6 35. Ra5;
> 32...Kf6 33. Ke2 Rxb3 34. Rxd2 Rb4 35. Rd7 h5 36. Rh7 Kg6 37. Re7;
> 32...h5 33. b4 Rd4 34. b5 a5 35. Ke2 Rxa4 36. Rb1! Rd4 37. b6 d1Q+ 38.
> Rxd1 Rb4 39. Ra1 =; 32...Rxb3 33. Rxd2 Rb4 34. Rc2 h5 (34...Kd6 35. Rc8
> plan Rh8) 35. Rc7+ Kd6 36. Rxh5 Ra2+ 37. Ke3 with an active king.
(Typo correction: 34.Rd2 Rb4 are missing five lines before being then
35.Rd5 ...)
>> Rxb3 33. Rxd2 Rb4 34. Ra2
>
> This is the problem. White would like (and should) place his pieces
> actively. After 34. Rc2 h5 35. Rc7+ Kf6 36. Rh7 Rxa4 37. Rxh5 Ra2+ 38.
> Kf1 the king is forced to be passive on the first rank. Still this is a
> very good chance for a draw as White has an active rook and a passed
> pawn on the h file.
>
>> a5 35. g4
>
> 35. g3 plugs the holes in the kingside. It is much harder for the black
> king to intrude. If the Black pawns advance they will be traded. White
> can defend the remaining pawns on the third rank. shall wants to
> trade as many pawns as possible which is understandable.
>
>> Kf6 36. Kf2 Kg5
>
> Now White seizes the opportunity to capture the e pawn. If Black secures
> the e pawn White defends with 36...e5 37. Kg2 Kg5 38. Re2 Kf4 39. Ra2
> (39...h6 40. gxf5 Kxf5 41. Kg3 h5 42. h4) 39...fxg4 40. fxg4 Ke3 41. Rc2
> Rxa4 42. Rc7 h5 43. gxh5 =
>
>> 37. Re2 Rxa4 38. Rxe6 Ra2+ 39. Ke1
>
> Why not 39. Ke3? Minev gives only 39. Kg3 f4 mate. But 39. Ke3 f4+ 40.
> Kd4 a4 (40...Kh4 41. Rh6+ Kg3 42. Rxh7 Kxf3 43. g5 =) 41. Rh7 h6 42. Rf7
> a3 43. Rf5+ Kh4 44. Rxf4 Kg3 (44...Ra1 45. Kc3 Kg3 46. Rh6) 45. Rf6
> Rd2+ 46. Ke4 a2 47. Ra6 Rb2 48. h4 =
(Typo correction: 41.Re7 three lines before)
>> f4 $1 40. Re7 h6 41.Rf7 a4 42. Kd1
>
> The last chance was 42. Rf5+ Kh4 43. Rxf4 Kg3 (43...a3 44. g5+ Kxg5 45.
> Ra4 Ra1+ 46. Kf2 (looks counter intuitive at first glance but 46. Kd2?
> a2 47. 47. Kc2 Rh1 48. Rxa2 Rh2+ 49. Kb3 Rxa2 50. Kxa2 Kf4 is fatal)
> 46...a2 47. Kg2 Kf5 48. h4 Ke5 49. Kh2 Kd5 50. Kg2 Kc5 51. Kh2 Kb5 52.
> Ra8 Kb4 53. Rb8+ Kc3 54. Rc8+ Kd2 55. Ra8 =) 44. Rf6 a3 45. Ra6 Ra1+ 46.
> Kd2 a2 47. Kc2 Rf2 48. Rxa2 Rf2+ (48...Rxf3 49. Ra6) 49. Kb1 Rxa2 50.
> Kxa2 Kxf3 51. Kb1 Kg3 52. Kc1 Kxh3 53. Kd1 Kxg4 54. Ke1 Kg3 55. Kf1=
(typo correction: 47...Rf1 two lines before)
>> a3 43.Rf5+ Kh4 44. Rxf4 Rf2 45. Ra4 a2 46. Kc1 Kxh3 47. Ra5 Kg3 48. g5
>> a1=Q+ 0-1
>
> Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2006 16:32:53
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: old game for analysis .. game 4
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> 3) I did not imagine that 26...Kf6!! (which was indicated to me by my
> old Fritz 8). It seems a crushing move which creates big problems fro
> white. A line you did not menction but it's instructive is:
> 27.Rg3 Tc7 28.b4 Rxc4 29.bxc4 Bc6 with big problems for white in the
> resulting rook ending.
Hello Antonio,
thank you for amending my analysis.
> 5) In the opening I was surprised by 11....Qa5 move. I have seen as
> normal plan Nb4 followed by blockade in d5. The idea of allowing Nc6
> bxc6 is very frequent. We can conclude that black have no problems in
> the opening but He did not achieve advantage either.
I wonder why no one has picked up Rubinstein's move Qa5 after that. So I
played a little around with Shredder and now have the suspicion that the
plan Qa5 and Rd8 is inaccurate as Black either can't prevent d5 or risks
an attack on the kingside. Especially f7 is vulnerable as the rook has
left f8.
11...Qa5 12. Qe2 Rd8
This is obviously the idea behind Qa5. Black can of course play Nb4 with
the plan Nd5 but if he plays it now why not play it in the 11th move?
Instead of Qa5 he would have b6 which develops faster.
13. Rad1 Nb4
Black wants to control d5. If 13...b6 14. d5! exd5 15. Nd4! Bb7
(15...Nxd4 16. Qxe7 Bg4 (16...Nc6 17. Nxd5! Be6 18. Nxf6+ gxf6 19. Qxf6)
17. b4 Nc6 18. Qxd8+ Rxd8 19. bxa5 Bxd1 20. Nxd5 Bxa4 (20...Nxd5 21.
Bxd5 Bxa4 22. Bc7 Rf8 23. axb6) 21. Nxf6+ gxf6 22. axb6 winning the
endgame) 16. Nxc6 Bxc6 17. Qxe7 Rd7 18. b4 Rxe7 19. bxa5 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1
dxc4 21. axb6 with a better endgame for White.
14. Ne5 Nbd5
If 14...b6 15. Nxf7! Kxf7 16. Bxe6+ White wins two pawns.
14...Nfd5 is answered by 15. Qh5.
15. Bd2 Bb4
15...Nxc3 16. Bxc3 Qc7 17. f4 g6 18. f5 gxf5 19. Rd3 gives White a very
strong attack.
15...Qc7 16. Nxd5 exd5 (after 16...Nxd5 17. Qh5 White develops threats
on the kingside) 17. Bd3 (threat Nxf7) 17...Re8 18. a5 Be6 19. Rc1 Qd6
20. f4 with white initiative.
16. Qf3. White has several plans here: Bg5, Bd3+Qh3, Qg3 while Black has
difficulties to develop the Bc8. White should have an advantage here.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2006 13:17:31
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis .. game 4
|
En/na Claus-J�rgen Heigl ha escrit:
> Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
>
>> Anyone would start posting some analysis of game 4th?
>> I think it is a very interesting game too (specially the ending)
>>
>> Note in the above link there are Minev notes.
>
>
> Minev made almost no comments about this game, so I try to make up for
> it :-)
Ok, Minev wrote very few notes. In the header we can read "It�s no
wonder that after the shock of such a downfall, shall plays
uncertainly in the next game. Very quickly he reaches an inferior
position. The rook endgame is another forgotten masterpiece of
Rubinstein�s technique, which I believe should take its place in the
endgame guides."
But I only saw "bad play" in the ending.
I will answer as son as possible!
AT
|
| | |
Date: 15 Feb 2006 03:24:21
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
David Richerby wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Akiba Rubinstein - Frank shall
>>Warsaw Match, 1908
>>
>>1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nd7 4.b3 Ngf6 5.Bb2 Ne4!? 6.Bd3 Bb4+ 7.c3
>>Bd6 8.c4 0-0 9.0-0 c6 10.Nbd2 f5 11.Ne5 Rf6 12.f3 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Rh6=20
>>14.Rac1
>>
>>(14.cxd5 exd5 15.Bxf5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxf5 17.exd6 Qxd6 {is equal.})
>=20
> Is this position really equal? I can't see any weaknesses for Black
> but White has to play one of f4, g3, g4 and h3 to avoid losing his
> h-pawn and, in either case, his kingside pawns and e-pawn look very
> weak. Fritz gives this position as -0.8 (i.e., -/+).
A Shredder suggestion is 18. g4!? with the idea e4. The white pawns look =
very loose but I can't find a way to exploit it.
18. g4!? Bd3?! 19. Rf2 Bb5 20. a4 (strips b3 from its protection but=20
denies the black bishop access to the long diagonal) 20...Ba6 21. e4=20
dxe4 (21...Re8 22. exd5 cxd5 23. Rd1 Rd8 24. Re1 Re6? (24...b6 25. Qg5=20
d4 26. Qe7) 25. Rxe6 Qxe6 26. Bxg7! Kxg7? 27. Qg5+ gives White pressure=20
on the central files while the black bishop largely is out of play -=20
this was the idea of a4) 22. dxe4 Re8 23. Re1. If Black trades queens=20
the threat to the white king is gone. If Black conserves the queen and=20
plans to get his bishop to b7 (23...b6), White can try to go for d7 or=20
f7 with Re1-e3-d3 or Re1-e3-f3 and Qd2-Qc2-c4+.
18. g4 Be6 (keeps his eye on g4 and protects d5) 19. e4 (otherwise Black =
plays c5 and dominates the center) 19...Rf8 20. Rae1 (idea exd5 and Be5) =
20...Rg6 21. Rf2 (White plans g5 and f4 and doesn't want to be=20
interrupted by Bh3. After 21. exd5? Bxd5 22. Be5 Qe7 plan Qh4 and h5=20
White has severe problems with his king). It looks to me like White has=20
consolidated his position. Any suggestions for Black?
Anyway, 14. Rac1 was probably the better move. Why give the other side=20
opportunities if you don't have to?
>>14...Qh4 15.g3 Qf6 16.f4=20
What of 16. Nxd7 Bxd7 17. e4 plan e5 and perhaps g4? It looks to me like =
Black is on the defensive on both wings and the Rh6 has difficulties to=20
find back into the game. I'm not convinced of the strategy to put the=20
black queen face to face with the white rook. 15...Qh5 and if 16. g4=20
then Qh3 could be playable.
>>Qf8! 17.Nxd7=20
>>{Avoiding 17.g4. It looks as though Black is plunging into a rash=20
>>adventure and that White=92s position is preferable. In reality, this =
>>position is well-suited to shall. His initiative on the kingside=20
>>will soon acquire significant dimensions. Minev}
Did Qf8 really avoid g4? 17. g4!? Nxe5 18. dxe5!? (Shredder thinks 18.=20
fxe5 is better but after 18...Bb4 19. Qe2 Rg6 20. Kh1 Rxg4 21. Qxg4 fxg4 =
22. Rxf8 Bxf8 23. Rg1 Bd7 (23...h5 24. Bg6) 24. Rxg4 Be7 White doesn't=20
have much if anything) 18...Bb4 19. Qg2 fxg4 (else g5 and the rook is=20
trapped) 20. f5! exf5 21. cxd5 which opens up a lot of diagonals and=20
files White can use. The position explodes Shirov style.
Despite being a pawn back Shredder thinks White is at least not worse.=20
Just one of the ultra sharp variations: 21...cxd5 22. Qxd5+ Be6 23. Qxb7 =
g3!? 24. hxg3 Rd8 25. Bxf5!? Bxf5 26. e6 (threat Rxf5) 26...Bd2 27.=20
Rce1 Rxe6 (27...Bxe1? 28. Rxf5 +-) 28. Rxf5 Bxe3+ 29. Rxe3 Rd1+ 30. Kh2 =
Rd2+
31. Kg1 Rd1+ perpetual.
I'm sure there is a lot more in this position but it would require a day =
or more to analyse this thoroughly.
>>Bxd7 18.c5 Bc7=20
That is a surprise for me. I would have preferred Be7 preparing for a=20
quick g5. Indeed Bc7 controls a5. Is this important? 18...Be7 19. Qa5=20
Bd8 20. Qb4 (20. Qd2 g5 and White just lost a tempo) 20...b5! followed=20
by a5 and the queenside is safe (note the c pawn is pinned).
Bc7 is very slow because it will be a while before Black is ready for g5.=
>>19.b4 Qf7 20.a4
>>a6 21.Bc3 Kh8 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5 Rg8=20
If Black captures he can't hold hold the pawn anyway (Rb1, Qe2) and the=20
game concentrates on the queenside where the Rh6 is out of position.
>>24.bxc6 Bxc6! 25.Rf2=20
A good plan is 25. Ba5 Bb8 26. Be2 (controls h5) followed by Ra1-Ra3,=20
Rfa1, Bf1, Qf2 (kingside is secured), Bb6, Ra8, Ba7 (invasion of the=20
queenside). It looks to me that Black can't do much on the kingside if=20
White doesn't nudge.
>>g5 26.Rb1
>>gxf4 27.exf4 Qh5 28.Rg2=20
Perhaps Rubinstein overlooked that 29. Be2 fails to Rxg3+.
>>Rhg6 29.Qf2
>>29...Qh6 30.Bd2 Qg7 31.Ra1 h5 32.Bf1 Bd8 33.Be3 Bf6 34.Ra2 h4 35.gxh4=20
>>Rxg2+ 36.Bxg2 Qg4 37.Qd2 Bxh4 38.Kh1 Bb5! 39.Rb2 Bc4
>>40.Qc2
>>
>>({If} 40.Rxb7? {then} 40...Be2 {wins.})
> `Wins', indeed. It's actually mate in five: did Minev actually look
> into the position?
>=20
>>40...Ra8?=20
>=20
> Fritz thinks this is only slightly worse than the best available
> move. Is it on the wrong track here?
>>41.Rxb7!
>=20
> Hardly! Fritz gives 41.Rxb7?? 41... Ra1+ 42.Bg1 Qe2 43.Qxe2 Bxe2
> 44.Rb2 Bf2 {threatening mate} 45.h3 Bxg1 46.Rxe2 Be3+ 47.Bf1 Rxf1+
> 48.Kg2 49.Kf3 Bxd4 {-+ (-2.06 to 15 ply)}.
Yes, obviously Minev just regarded Be2 and overlooked Qe2. Both=20
Rubinstein and shall also didn't see this.
>>Be2 42.Rb1
I have the impression that the frequency of the mistakes increase in=20
this stage of the game. What was the time control? The move played=20
should lose when White has good winning chances after 42. h3 Qh5 43. c6=20
Ba6 44. Rb6 Bc8 45. c7.
>>Rg8 43.Rg1 Bf3
Black wins after 43...Qh5. The threat is 44...Bg3 45. h3 Bf3 46. Ra1=20
Qxh3+ 47. Kg1 Bf2+! 48. Qxf2 Rxg2+. If 44. h3 Bf3 (threat Bf2) 45. Bxf3=20
(45. Rf1 Bxg2+ is also hopeless) 45...Qxf3+ and wins.
>>44.c6 Bd8 45.Qf2 Bxg2+ 46.Qxg2 Bc7 47.Qxg4
Those endgames are difficult. As it turns out, making f5 accessible to=20
the black king gives Black chances. 47. h3 forces the queen exchange=20
under more favorable conditions.
>>fxg4 48.Kg2 Kg7 49.Rb1
49. h3 gxh3+ 50. Kxh3+ Kf8 51. Rxg8+ Kxg8 52. Kg4 Kf7 could be drawn.=20
But 49. Rg3 is more subtle. The black king is cut off from the board=20
while the white king is free to enter the battle. If Black tries=20
49...Rg6 (idea Kg7) then 50. h4 is possible because Black can't capture. =
The passed h pawn is a problem for Black because Black can't attack it =
while having to protect the g pawn. When Black activates his king White=20
invades on the queenside. For example 50. h4 Kg8 51. Bd2 Kf7 52. Rb3 Ke7 =
53. Rb7 Kd8 (53...Kd6 54. f5 exf5 55. Bf4+ +-) 54. Kg2 g3 55. Ra7 Bb6=20
(55...Rg4 56. Ra8+ Ke7 57. Rc8 Bd6 (57...Bxf4 58. Bb4+ Kf8 59. Rf8+=20
followed by Rxf4 and c7 +-; 57...Kd6 58. h5 Kxc6 59. Ba5 +-) 58. f5! Kf6 =
(58...exf5 59. Bg5+ Kf7 60. Rd8 Ke6 61. Rh8 f4 (61...Bc7 62. Rh6+ Kf7=20
63. Rh7+) 62. Rh6+ Kf7 63. Rxd6 f3+ 64. Kxf3 g2 65. Be3+-) 59. Rf8+ Ke7=20
60. Rh8 Rxd4 61. Bg5+ Kf7 62. fxe6+ Ke6 63. Rh6+ +-) 56. Rf7 e5=20
(56...Bxd4 57. Ba5+ Ke8 58. c7 +-) 57. dxe5 Rxc6 58. Kxg3 +-.
If 49...Rg7 then 50. Bd2 Kg8 51. Ra3 Kf7 (51...Bd6 52. Ra8+ Kh7=20
(52...Kf7 53. Ra7+ Kg6 54. Rxg7+ Kxg7 55. Ba5 +-) 52. Re8 and e6 falls.)
52. Ra7 Kf6 53. Kg2 Re7 (Black can't go to f5 because of Ba5) 54. Be1=20
Rf7 55. Bh4+ Kg6 56. Bg5 Rh7 (57...Bb6 58. Rxf7 is lost) 57. Rb7 (57.=20
Kg3?? Bxf4+) 57...Rf7 58. h3 gxh3+ 59. Kxh3 Rh7+ 60. Kg4 Rg7 61. Ra7 Rh7 =
62. Ra8 (threat Rf8-f6+, if 62...Rf7 63. Re8) 62...Kf7 63. Rc8 Kg6 (if=20
the bishop moves c7 followed by rook check and the pawn queens) 64. Re8=20
Kf7 65. Re7+ Kg6 66. Rxe6+ Kg7 67. Re7+ Kg8 68. Rxh7 Kxh7 69. Kf5 +-.
>>Kf6 50.Rb7 Rc8 51.Kg3 Kf5
>>{Even with an extra pawn, White still has some problems.}
>>52.Bd2 Ke4
52...Bd8 53. Rf7+ Kg6 54. Ra7 Rxc6 =3D Perhaps Ke4 was a winning attempt?=
>>53.Kxg4 Kxd4 54.Rb3 Bd8 55.Bc1
White might be winning after 55. h4 Rxc6 56. h5 Rc2 57. Be1! Bf6 58. Rb8 =
Rc7 59. h6 Ke4 60. Re8! Re7 61. Rxe7 Bxe7 62. Bh4 Bf8 63. h7 Bg7 64. Kg5 =
d4 65. Kg6 Bh8 66. Bf6 d3 67. Bxh8 d2 68. Be5 d1Q 69. h8Q. If there is a =
better defense Black should look for it before move 58. The plan=20
Rb8-e8xe7 followed by Bh4 is very strong.
>>Kc4
Why not capture the pawn immediately? 55...Rxc6 56. Bb2+ Ke4 57. Rb4+=20
Rc4 58. Rxc4+ dxc4 59. h4 Kd3 60. h5 c3 61. Bxc3 Kxc3 62. h6 Kd4 63. Kh5 =
(63. f5? e4! -+) 63...Ke4 64. Kg6 Ba5 65. Kf6 =3D
>>56.Rb7 Rxc6 57.Bb2 Bc7 58.Be5!
>>{58.h4 d4 is in Black=92s favor.}
Questionable. 58. h4 d4 59. h5 d3 60. Bc1 Kd4 61. Rb4+ Kc3 62. Rb2 Rd6=20
(62...Kd4 63. Rb4+ =3D) 63. h6 Bd8 64. h7 Bf6 65. Kh5 d2 66. Rxd2 Rxd2 67=
=2E=20
Bxd2+ Kxd2 68. Kf6 Bd4 69. Kf7 Ke3 =3D
>>58...Bxe5 59.fxe5 d4
Black can win a pawn with 59...Kd4 60. Kf4 Rc2 61. h4 Rf2+ 62. Kg3 Rf8=20
but I'm not sure if this is winning. Clearly White's 58th move was not=20
so good.
>>60.Rd7 Rc5 61.Kf4 Kd3
61...d3 62. h4 Kc3 63. h5 d2 64. h6 Kc2 65. h7 Rc8 66. Kg5 d1Q 67. Rxd1=20
Kxd1 68. Kf6 =3D
>>62.Rd6 Rc1 63.Rxe6 Rf1+ 64.Kg5 Ke4 65.h4 d3 66.Rd6 Rf5+ 67.Kg6 Rxe5=20
>>68.h5 Rd5 Draw
Clearly Minev was restricted in the size of his article and couldn't=20
comment on all the interesting things. But it seems to me when he did=20
comment he was not always on the k.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Feb 2006 23:59:34
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
Hello,
Thank you CJ for your deep and instructive analysis!
Silicon monsters can play at a very high level when humans know how to
obtain the better from them. Some humble comments follow ...
AT
En/na Claus-J�rgen Heigl ha escrit:
>>> Akiba Rubinstein - Frank shall
>>> Warsaw Match, 1908
>>>
>>> 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nd7 4.b3 Ngf6 5.Bb2 Ne4!? 6.Bd3 Bb4+ 7.c3
>>> Bd6 8.c4 0-0 9.0-0 c6 10.Nbd2 f5 11.Ne5 Rf6 12.f3 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Rh6
>>> 14.Rac1
>>>
>>> (14.cxd5 exd5 15.Bxf5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Bxf5 17.exd6 Qxd6 {is equal.})
>>
>> Is this position really equal? I can't see any weaknesses for Black
>> but White has to play one of f4, g3, g4 and h3 to avoid losing his
>> h-pawn and, in either case, his kingside pawns and e-pawn look very
>> weak. Fritz gives this position as -0.8 (i.e., -/+).
>
> A Shredder suggestion is 18. g4!? with the idea e4. The white pawns look
> very loose but I can't find a way to exploit it.
>
> 18. g4 Be6 (...)(keeps his eye on g4 and protects d5) 19. e4 (otherwise Black
> plays c5 and dominates the center) 19...Rf8 20. Rae1 (idea exd5 and Be5)
> 20...Rg6 21. Rf2 (White plans g5 and f4 and doesn't want to be
> interrupted by Bh3. After 21. exd5? Bxd5 22. Be5 Qe7 plan Qh4 and h5
> White has severe problems with his king). It looks to me like White has
> consolidated his position. Any suggestions for Black?
>
> Anyway, 14. Rac1 was probably the better move. Why give the other side
> opportunities if you don't have to?
Curiously I also considered that 18.g4 but more superficially than you.
I have no refutation after 21.Rf2 in you main line, but I would not play
that unnecessary risky line with white.
Sometimes there are no direct refutations of weakening moves but during
all the game the influence of those weaknesses is a big problem (as you
also wrote in your last line).
I suppose the writter only pretended to show that white can not win a
pawn after the correct answer 14.cxd5 exd5! (being 14.cxd5 cxd5
favourable to white).
>>> 14...Qh4 15.g3 Qf6 16.f4
>
> What of 16. Nxd7 Bxd7 17. e4 plan e5 and perhaps g4? It looks to me like
> Black is on the defensive on both wings and the Rh6 has difficulties to
> find back into the game. I'm not convinced of the strategy to put the
> black queen face to face with the white rook. 15...Qh5 and if 16. g4
> then Qh3 could be playable.
All that sounds logical. On the other hand, I have big problems
evaluating positions where a bishop is blocked (like the Bb2).
>>> Qf8! 17.Nxd7
>
> >>{Avoiding 17.g4. It looks as though Black is plunging into a rash
> >>adventure and that White�s position is preferable. In reality, this
> >>position is well-suited to shall. His initiative on the kingside
> >>will soon acquire significant dimensions. Minev}
>
> Did Qf8 really avoid g4? 17. g4!? Nxe5 18. dxe5!? (Shredder thinks 18.
> fxe5 is better but after 18...Bb4 19. Qe2 Rg6 20. Kh1 Rxg4 21. Qxg4 fxg4
> 22. Rxf8 Bxf8 23. Rg1 Bd7 (23...h5 24. Bg6) 24. Rxg4 Be7 White doesn't
> have much if anything) 18...Bb4 19. Qg2 fxg4 (else g5 and the rook is
> trapped) 20. f5! exf5 21. cxd5 which opens up a lot of diagonals and
> files White can use. The position explodes Shirov style.
>
> Despite being a pawn back Shredder thinks White is at least not worse.
> Just one of the ultra sharp variations: 21...cxd5 22. Qxd5+ Be6 23. Qxb7
> g3!? 24. hxg3 Rd8 25. Bxf5!? Bxf5 26. e6 (threat Rxf5) 26...Bd2 27.
> Rce1 Rxe6 (27...Bxe1? 28. Rxf5 +-) 28. Rxf5 Bxe3+ 29. Rxe3 Rd1+ 30. Kh2
> Rd2+
> 31. Kg1 Rd1+ perpetual.
>
> I'm sure there is a lot more in this position but it would require a day
> or more to analyse this thoroughly.
I think 16...Qf8 was not played with the idea of avoiding 17.g4.
If we consider black plans:
- one os to exchange ...Nxe5 but before playing it, black need to avoid
the pin f6-d6 moving queen or bishop.
- a second one is to improve the knight via Nd7-f6 moving the Qf6
Both possibilities can be played after 16...Qf8.
And that also can mean that 15...Qf6 was not the best move (as can be
deduced from CJ suggestion 15...Qh5)
>>> Bxd7 18.c5 Bc7
>
> That is a surprise for me. I would have preferred Be7 preparing for a
> quick g5. Indeed Bc7 controls a5. Is this important? 18...Be7 19. Qa5
> Bd8 20. Qb4 (20. Qd2 g5 and White just lost a tempo) 20...b5! followed
> by a5 and the queenside is safe (note the c pawn is pinned).
> Bc7 is very slow because it will be a while before Black is ready for g5.
I did not consider 18...Be7.
It is a logical move, but Bc7 has some logic too (if black can play
...g5 -and maybe ...h4-) the bishop is pressing to f4-g3-h2
>>> 19.b4 Qf7 20.a4
>>> a6 21.Bc3 Kh8 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5 Rg8
>>> 24.bxc6 Bxc6! 25.Rf2
>
> A good plan is 25. Ba5 Bb8 26. Be2 (controls h5) followed by Ra1-Ra3,
> Rfa1, Bf1, Qf2 (kingside is secured), Bb6, Ra8, Ba7 (invasion of the
> queenside). It looks to me that Black can't do much on the kingside if
> White doesn't nudge.
A possibility can be 26...g5 27.Ra1 gxf4 28.exf4 Rf6!? (idea ...h5-h4)
29.Qd1 h5! 30.Bh5 Qh7 with compensation (here there is 31.Bf4 Bxf4
showing that the Bb8 is helping in black pressure)
>>> g5 26.Rb1 gxf4 27.exf4 Qh5 28.Rg2 Rhg6 29.Qf2 Qh6 30.Bd2 Qg7
>>> 31.Ra1 h5 32.Bf1 Bd8 33.Be3 Bf6 34.Ra2 h4 35.gxh4
>>> Rxg2+ 36.Bxg2 Qg4 37.Qd2 Bxh4 38.Kh1 Bb5! 39.Rb2 Bc4 40.Qc2
>>> 40...Ra8?
>>
>>> 41.Rxb7!
>>
>> Hardly! Fritz gives 41.Rxb7?? 41... Ra1+ 42.Bg1 Qe2 43.Qxe2 Bxe2
>> 44.Rb2 Bf2 {threatening mate} 45.h3 Bxg1 46.Rxe2 Be3+ 47.Bf1 Rxf1+
>> 48.Kg2 49.Kf3 Bxd4 {-+ (-2.06 to 15 ply)}.
>
> Yes, obviously Minev just regarded Be2 and overlooked Qe2. Both
> Rubinstein and shall also didn't see this.
ok ...Qe2 was very difficult to find (for humans) being main idea that
white has to lose a piece to avoid mating themes like 47.Kh2 Bf4# in
Dave line, or 45.h4 Bxg1 46.Rxe2 Be3 47.Kh2 Bf4 48.Kh3 Ra3.
> >>Be2 42.Rb1
>
> I have the impression that the frequency of the mistakes increase in
> this stage of the game. What was the time control? The move played
> should lose when White has good winning chances after 42. h3 Qh5 43. c6
> Ba6 44. Rb6 Bc8 45. c7.
In other game of that PDF, Minev comments it can be read that control
seemed to be 3 hours for 50 moves. I agree it seems time pressure.
42.h3 is a good defensive move avoding being passive (passively lost in
that case) in the king wing to be able to press in the queen wing.
> >>Rg8 43.Rg1 Bf3
>
> Black wins after 43...Qh5. The threat is 44...Bg3 45. h3 Bf3 46. Ra1
> Qxh3+ 47. Kg1 Bf2+! 48. Qxf2 Rxg2+. If 44. h3 Bf3 (threat Bf2) 45. Bxf3
> (45. Rf1 Bxg2+ is also hopeless) 45...Qxf3+ and wins.
ok, 43...Bg3 also wins
I have to check all the following,
... but not this night! (time to sleep)
> >>44.c6 Bd8 45.Qf2 Bxg2+ 46.Qxg2 Bc7 47.Qxg4
>
> Those endgames are difficult. As it turns out, making f5 accessible to
> the black king gives Black chances. 47. h3 forces the queen exchange
> under more favorable conditions.
>
> >>fxg4 48.Kg2 Kg7 49.Rb1
>
> 49. h3 gxh3+ 50. Kxh3+ Kf8 51. Rxg8+ Kxg8 52. Kg4 Kf7 could be drawn.
> But 49. Rg3 is more subtle. The black king is cut off from the board
> while the white king is free to enter the battle. If Black tries
> 49...Rg6 (idea Kg7) then 50. h4 is possible because Black can't capture.
> (...)
You mean 48.Rg3.
> (...)
>
> Clearly Minev was restricted in the size of his article and couldn't
> comment on all the interesting things. But it seems to me when he did
> comment he was not always on the k.
>
> Claus-Juergen
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Feb 2006 00:36:50
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
Antonio Torrecillas wrote:
> En/na Claus-J=FCrgen Heigl ha escrit:
>=20
>=20
> I did not consider 18...Be7.
> It is a logical move, but Bc7 has some logic too (if black can play=20
> ...g5 -and maybe ...h4-) the bishop is pressing to f4-g3-h2
>> A good plan is 25. Ba5 Bb8 26. Be2 (controls h5) followed by Ra1-Ra3, =
>> Rfa1, Bf1, Qf2 (kingside is secured), Bb6, Ra8, Ba7 (invasion of the=20
>> queenside). It looks to me that Black can't do much on the kingside if=
=20
>> White doesn't nudge.
> A possibility can be 26...g5 27.Ra1 gxf4 28.exf4 Rf6!? (idea ...h5-h4) =
> 29.Qd1 h5! 30.Bh5 Qh7 with compensation (here there is 31.Bf4 Bxf4=20
> showing that the Bb8 is helping in black pressure)
This is an interesting idea and you are right with the pressure against=20
f4. Perhaps a better defense is 29. Kh1 h5 30. Rg1. If then 30...Rh6=20
White can consider 31. h4 with the plan Qe3, Be1-f2, if the need arises=20
even Kh2 and continue with queenside plans.
>> 49. h3 gxh3+ 50. Kxh3+ Kf8 51. Rxg8+ Kxg8 52. Kg4 Kf7 could be drawn. =
>> But 49. Rg3 is more subtle. The black king is cut off from the board=20
>> while the white king is free to enter the battle. If Black tries=20
>> 49...Rg6 (idea Kg7) then 50. h4 is possible because Black can't=20
>> capture. (...)
>=20
>=20
> You mean 48.Rg3.
Yes, thanks.
Claus-Juergen
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 16:46:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
> Surely, any
> position that arises after a dubious move is, itself, dubious so
> cannot be critical?
This is the crux of the 1/x rule: that a position is "poisoned" if a mistake
has been made along the way to it.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 22:10:23
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:
>>Surely, any
>>position that arises after a dubious move is, itself, dubious so
>>cannot be critical?
>
> This is the crux of the 1/x rule: that a position is "poisoned" if a mistake
> has been made along the way to it.
please, do not disturb with your hiperbolic rule!
(concentrate in posting more 1 min wins in equal positions)
AT
|
| | |
Date: 14 Feb 2006 16:23:39
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: old game for analysis
|
Hello,
En/na David Richerby ha escrit:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Antonio Torrecillas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I read in "I don't remember where" an article of Minev from the old
>>match Rubinstein-shall, Warsaw 1909. I do not remember where I saw
>>Minev notes. I have searched in chesscafe but I can't find them.
>
> It is at Chess Cafe:
>
> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles267.pdf
>
> (BTW, the match was in 1908.)
Thank you Dave, ... I saved all that in a DOC file to study later and I
forgot the source!!
I was very interested in that games because I had studied some other
Rubinstein matches and it were nice experiences. In that case I enjoyed
the games too, but the when I compared my notes with engine suggestions
and Minev article, I felt a little disapointed.
> The following comments are from the notes I made on these games and
> Minev's analysis at the time.
>
>>I think Minev notes about 5th game were very superficial and a it
>>seems He do not used computer help because there are many mistakes
>>which engines can see easily.
>
> I'm glad it's not just me who found the quality of the analysis in
> that article to be rather poor. It's possible, though, that the
> analysis is old: in the text of the article, Minev says, `Even now,
> after 80 years, ...', suggesting that he was writing some time around
> 1988 when computers wouldn't have been so useful.
>
>>Game 5
>>Akiba Rubinstein - Frank shall
>>Warsaw Match, 1908
>>Dutch Defense [A84]
>>
>>1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nd7 4.b3 Ngf6 5.Bb2 Ne4!? 6.Bd3 Bb4+ 7.c3
>>Bd6 8.c4 0-0 9.0-0 c6 10.Nbd2 f5 11.Ne5 Rf6 12.f3 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 Rh6
>>14.Rac1
>>14...Qh4 15.g3 Qf6 16.f4 Qf8! 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.c5 Bc7 19.b4 Qf7 20.a4
>>a6 21.Bc3 Kh8 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5 Rg8 24.bxc6 Bxc6! 25.Rf2 g5 26.Rb1
>>gxf4 27.exf4 Qh5 28.Rg2 Rhg6 29.Qf2
Here Minev commented 29.Bb5 Qf3!? but actually the move is a blunder
which loses due to 30.Be2!! Qe4 31.Rf1! and the black queen is trapped.
>>29...Qh6 30.Bd2 Qg7 31.Ra1 h5 32.Bf1 Bd8 33.Be3 Bf6 34.Ra2 h4 35.gxh4
>>Rxg2+ 36.Bxg2 Qg4 37.Qd2 Bxh4 38.Kh1 Bb5! 39.Rb2 Bc4
>>40.Qc2 Ra8?
>
> Fritz thinks this is only slightly worse than the best available
> move. Is it on the wrong track here?
>
>>41.Rxb7!
>
> Hardly! Fritz gives 41.Rxb7?? 41... Ra1+ 42.Bg1 Qe2 43.Qxe2 Bxe2
> 44.Rb2 Bf2 {threatening mate} 45.h3 Bxg1 46.Rxe2 Be3+ 47.Bf1 Rxf1+
> 48.Kg2 49.Kf3 Bxd4 {-+ (-2.06 to 15 ply)}.
I had problems evaluating this ending because Black need to conserve his
d pawn to have winning chances, but this line shows clearly white
problems after 41.Rxb7?
I can't see here the remaining moves, where we can find some other
mistakes. ... anyone interested?
Antonio T.
|
|
