|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jun-20-07 |
| RookFile: Capa lost this game, sure. I guess if you want to talk about 'domination', what you're saying is: one side had such a stranglehold on the position, that the other side had no counterchances whatsoever. Is that what happenned here? The answer is no. Just one slip on Botvinnik's part, and Capa would have emerged from this with a draw. |
 |
Jun-23-07
 |
| cornflake: < Gypsy: <And it turns out your concept is correct, and it was found over the board. > Was it OTB? I always thought that Botvinnik prepared the whole line with Ragozin in their famous thematic training/preparation games. Capa definitely had a weakness for playing the c5-c4 push and the opening was according to the opening themes of the era. > This line by Botvinnik feels like home preparation. I can't imagine any GM allowing Qxa4 OTB. |
|
| Jul-09-07 |
| sanyas: Olga has been known to exaggerate, but if it was true that he was in such a state during the game and yet still managed to play the opponent's part so well in this beautiful contest, then this is a truly magnificent demonstration of Capablanca's ability in chess. |
|
| Jul-12-07 |
| Goofy: On move 25 white should play rxr followed by pxg6 this destroys black's kingside pawn defense and puts white in control. Up till this time white played ok. The only bad part was allowing black to advance that qside pawn blacks night on the queenside goes nowhere and is pointless regardless its pawn protection. |
|
| Jul-21-07 |
| adnol: Hey guys. I'm fairly new to chess, but slowly getting better. My question is why not: 29. Qc7+ Kg8 (or Kh8 or even perhaps Nd7?)
and 30. e7 ...
It might be pretty stupid of me to ask, but I don't see any good defence against this. Thanks for all the help. |
|
Jul-21-07
 |
| WannaBe: Top 3 moves for 29. via Shredder:
1. ± (1.37): 29.Qc7+ Kg8 30.Qe5 Qe7 31.Ba3 Qxa3 32.Qxf6 Qf8 33.Qe5 Qe7 34.Qxd5 b5 35.Qd7 Kf8 2. ± (1.34): 29.Qe5 h6 30.Ba3 Na5 31.Qc7+ Kg8 32.Be7 Ng4 33.Qd7 Qxd7 34.exd7 Nc6 35.Ne2 Kf7 36.d8N+ Nxd8 37.Bxd8 Ne3 38.Kf2 3. ± (1.33): 29.Qd6 Qf8 30.Qc7+ Kh6 31.Ne2 a5 32.e7 Qf7 33.Qe5 Ng4 34.Qf4+ Kg7 35.Qxg4 Qxe7 36.Qf3 a4 37.Qf1 Qe3+ 38.Kh1 |
|
| Jul-21-07 |
| adnol: Hey WannaBe: Thanks for your help this got me think a little bit and I see why not Qc7+ followed by e7 - because black doesn't have to accept the queen exchange latar on to get the passed pawn for white. By the way, what's the meaning of those numbers  1.37 ? stay well, |
|
Jul-21-07
|
| WannaBe: <adnol> the signs  or  or or  or  or  just shows you how good a position is.= position is considered equal(ized)
White has slightly better chance
Black has slightly better chance
White has superiority, but no immediate forced win
Black has superiority, but no immediate forced win
White is winning (or win is inevitable)
Black is winning (or win is inevitable)
The numbers, each point means a pawn advantage, so something like 1. e4 e5 might be interpreted as 0.05 The fractional portion is said to mean how mobile the position is. If white is ahead/better, the number will be positive, if the black is ahead/better the number will be negative. So, when you read a line (-4.23) 34. Qd5+ Kg6 (blah, blah, blah) it means black is definitely ahead, and computer evaluate it to be 4+ pawns advantage. As far as your e7 question, without knowing what black's inbetween move is, I can't plug it into my computer to answer you. |
|
Jul-29-07
 |
| Guguni: This is the famous Botvinnink system in Nimzo-Indian in action. He used it in Queen's Gambit Declined as well and also against strong players of his time. And yes, it was a home preparation of Botvinnik. |
|
| Aug-09-07 |
| sanyas: <adnol> Adding to what <WannaBe> said, when the computer gives 1 'pawn' advantage (computers always see advantage in terms of pawns, older engines like Crafty give a value of about 300 pawns to checkmate) it means that it thinks one side has a decisive advantage. Sometimes you can see that this is true, although technique may be required, other times you have to wait and play out its recommended line to see if it doesn't eventually change its mind. A lot of times computer engines see wins in drawn endings, which of course aren't really there. But here you can believe Shredder when it says White has a win, obviously. |
|
Aug-14-07
 |
| Karpova: Alexander Alekhine on the AVRO 1938 tournament:
<This tournament can be compared with advantage to Semmering-Baden 1937 and AVRO 1938, in which the aims were chiefly connected with commercial propaganda; the masters had to play in an unsatisfactory atmosphere quite out of keeping with the elevated spirit which the art of chess requires. There were nonetheless excellent individual results, but the sporting performances were falsified by the inevitable physical fatigue of the players, who were taken on a danse macabre, from one Dutch town or city to another (in the case of AVRO) like exhibition objects or low-grade fighters.>
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Nov-06-07 |
| forbismarck: I know this one by memory, beautiful game by Botvinnik. Though Capablanca did not play badly, and his opening strategy led to the winning of a pawn. He underestimated Botvinnik's deep understanding of the position. |
|
| Dec-10-07 |
| GeauxCool: Botvinnik displays his iron sac: 30.Ba3 |
|
| Jan-01-08 |
| DanLanglois: That whole deal with ...Nb8-c6-a5-b3 looks smoking gun dubious.
I'd suggest 15...Nc7. |
|
Jan-01-08
 |
| Silverstrike: <DanLanglois> 15...Nc7 Might have some merit, but at first glance the knight on b3 does look strong, apparently rendering the bishop dead. 30.Ba3 is hardly an obvious move. |
|
| Jan-04-08 |
| newtonbag: When I play with this set-up in internet blitz games, I generally aim to play Ng3 and Qe2 and instigate the usual kingside attack. For this reason, I am a bit intrigued by Botvinnik's early Bb2, as it goes for a slightly different plan. If this move is to be regarded as a mistake, I think Capablanca could have more actively punished it with Nc7 (followed up with Ne60 and he appears to have a fairly strong kingside fortress. |
|
| Apr-11-08 |
| MagnumDefender: I would have expected white's 14th or 16th move to be a5, exchanging off the isolated pawn and gaining a (semi) open file for his rook, I was surprised when he forfeited the weak pawn for tempo in the center. Botvinnik's 30th move scores 101%, I wonder if any computer would go for that option. |
|
| Apr-22-08 |
| Whitehat1963: See the game well explained here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSOX... |
|
| May-28-08 |
| Augalv: In this game, Botvinnik unleashes one of the most famous combinations in the history of chess, his victim being the mighty Capablanca. http://www.chess.com/article/view/s... |
|
| Aug-25-08 |
| frogga: This game is from <AVRO championship >held in <Holland> in <1938>. The purpose of the tournament was to find a challenging opponent for the great legend, <Alexander Alekhine>. The competitors in this championship were the eight top players from that time. This game is from the second championship. In the first one the title was shared between <Fine>(USA) and <Keres>(estonia) with third going to <Botvinnik>(Russian Federation). In the first one <Capablanca> only managed to come seventh! This game shows that you should never overlook <sacrifes> which give give you advantages other than material. I think the way <Botvinnik> plays in this game is the way chess should be played. |
|
| Aug-25-08 |
| Petrosianic: <frogga> <This game is from AVRO championship held in Holland in 1938. The purpose of the tournament was to find a challenging opponent for the great legend, Alexander Alekhine>. It was not. This tournament was in no way, shape or form a Candidates Tournament, though the organizers wanted it to be. <The competitors in this championship were the eight top players from that time. This game is from the second championship. In the first one the title was shared between <Fine>(USA) and <Keres>(estonia) with third going to <Botvinnik>(Russian Federation).> Not sure what you mean here. There was only one AVRO tournament that all these people played in, which was won by Keres on tiebreak over Fine. This game is from that tournament, not from some subsequent tournament. |
|
Aug-25-08
 |
| Marmot PFL: <Petrosianic> I always thought the winner was to play a match with Alekhine, or the 2nd place finisher if Alekhine won. However when WWII broke out in 1939 no match was played. Many players thought that if a match did take place Botvinnik or Reshevsky would have better chances than the less experienced Keres or Fine. |
|
| Aug-25-08 |
| Petrosianic: That's what the organizers were hoping, but Alekhine made it clear beforehand that he wouldn't feel any obligation to play a match with the winner. At the time, FIDE's "Official" Challenger was Flohr. After the tournament, Alekhine announced his intention to finally play the rematch with Capablanca. (Nothing ever came of that, but still...) |
|
Aug-25-08
|
| Marmot PFL: It seems they had a commitment from Euwe when he was champion, but he lost the rematch, and Alekhine was free to choose his opponent as past champions had. Based on results I think Botvinnik would be the one he most wanted to avoid, and perhaps Fine. |
|
| Sep-16-08 |
| Miachonzinho: On this game Bottivinik gives to his opponent the chance to win a [Tower] Pawn and, with this, put the Knight out of the fight theather. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 30.Ba3
