tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post3137681528546863487..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: Sixty Memorable AnnotationsTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-91054131909254480592014-01-17T03:59:16.711+00:002014-01-17T03:59:16.711+00:00"If the computer assessment is accurate"..."If the computer assessment is accurate"... I think it was Joel Benjamin who wrote, if you are behind in material, and the computer says "=", then you are better. (Well, I guess GM Joel would exclude stalemate. And perpetual. And tablebase positions. And opening book.) In this case though after 17...f5 18.Nf4 Rac8 19.h3 Nxd4 20.exd4 Qxc2 21.Qxc2 Rxc2 22.hxg4 Re8 black is looking pretty active (not checked by computer).<br /><br />Keene's comment about 17...f5 reminds me of Botvinnik. In just about every game Botvinnik ever annotated, there arises a single moment where the opponent makes a clueless move which allows Botvinnik to execute his strategic masterpiece without resistance. Botvinnik's note says something like, "He could have played X, but it wouldn't have made any difference, for example," followed by variation Y, which variation ALSO sees Botvinnik execute the same strategic plan. Of course, X was the right move, and all the hapless opponent had to do was improve on Y. (Not easy though to prevent a strategic threat that you completely overlook.) Naturally Botvinnik was a genius for seeing plans which his opponents did not, but that's not the same thing as being able to FORCE that plan regardless of what the opponent does. Further, I'm not claiming to be a genius just because I can find an improvement somewhere that keeps Botvinnik's opponent from losing. I'm just saying that Botvinnik, once per game(!), gives a fairly wishy-washy variation at a critical moment.an ordinary chessplayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-5191593212591962652014-01-15T21:03:26.479+00:002014-01-15T21:03:26.479+00:00Oops, published that comment early.
The point bei...Oops, published that comment early.<br /><br />The point being, you could well be right. If the computer assessment is accurate, Rxf6 isn't better for White.<br /><br />Not that any of that makes RDK's essential point - that Rxf6 is a typical opportunity - any less true.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-69614554415833799642014-01-15T21:01:34.917+00:002014-01-15T21:01:34.917+00:00@Matt:
Maybe a post for another day. RDK's 6 ...@Matt:<br />Maybe a post for another day. RDK's 6 move line has a 'computer move' flaw in it.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-15199621222494661662014-01-15T20:59:58.956+00:002014-01-15T20:59:58.956+00:00Hi guys,
Maybe I underestimate my fellow chessers...Hi guys,<br /><br />Maybe I underestimate my fellow chessers, maybe I'm talking about just me.<br /><br />BUT<br /><br />I don't recall anybody saccing an exchange against me for anything other than immediate material gain or mate. I don't recall seeing them happen about me either.<br /><br />I would certainly accept that the closer that you get to 200 the more likely it is to happen. But up to 180? Very unlikely, I would suggest.<br /><br />Happy to be proved wrong, though. Show me the games!<br /><br /><br />(PS:<br />I'm planning a Rook Ending Friday post once a month or so to keep the flame alive, but I'm not quite sure about scheduling as yet)Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-6042528309395454762014-01-15T17:15:01.883+00:002014-01-15T17:15:01.883+00:00Actually, is 1. Rxf6 even better for White after 3...Actually, is 1. Rxf6 even better for White after 3... f5? The computer's giving me a main line of 1. Rxf6 gxf6 2. Qd3 f5 3. Nf4 Rac8 4. Bb3 Na5 5. Bd5 Qc2 =<br /><br />Although nothing else is better than Rxf6Matt Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885091955173203114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-48572994091665631312014-01-15T11:45:21.344+00:002014-01-15T11:45:21.344+00:00From my perspective as a player of about your stan...From my perspective as a player of about your standard, I can see that Black's really struggling in the game continuation - if that was the only line I needed to calculate I think I'd have played the sac as White.<br /><br />If I'd played the sac in the game (and I think I might have done, just about) I'd have spent much more (probably too much) of my time wondering what happens after f5 - do you still play Nf4 (threatening h3) and claim that the unassailable knight along with the open king is worth as much as a rook? Seems plausible. But not immediately obvious to me.<br /><br />Here's to a year of exchange sacs!Matt Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885091955173203114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-42209253988794179512014-01-15T10:25:44.338+00:002014-01-15T10:25:44.338+00:00Blimey - are you sure? I know plenty of sub-200s w...Blimey - are you sure? I know plenty of sub-200s who'd go for this position with no hesitation. I think even a risk-averse aged shuffler like myself might give it a go.<br /><br />Still, all the more need for your project, I guess, which I applaud. You will let us have the occasional rook ending for auld lang syne, though, I trust.John Coxnoreply@blogger.com