| |
Main
Date: 24 Dec 2005 14:26:21
From: mike
Subject: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
After 14...Rd8, Kmoch writes: if instead 14...Nxc4 15.Qxc4 White remains at
a clear advantage due to his strong center.
I understand why central control is important as it relates to space and
mobility, but this position (after 14...Nxc4) is approaching an endgame
where White's fractured pawn structure has created potential targets at a2,
h2, f3, and maybe even c3. I can see that Black does not control as much of
the center, but he does not have any pawn weaknesses. I might agree that
White's strong center makes it difficult for Black's pieces to attack
White's weak pawns, at least for now -- but I don't know that I agree that
White has a clear advantage.
Is Kmoch correct? After 14...Nxc4 15.Qxc4 does White have a clear
advantage? How is White going to use his strong center to win the game,
what is his plan? And what general principles are illustrated in this
example? When is a strong pawn center more important than a sound pawn
structure? Can we say that when there is only one half-open d- or e-file,
it is more important to have a strong pawn center than to have an intact
pawn structure?
Rubinstein - Alekhine, Karlsbad 1911
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 Qb6 5.Qc2 Bg4 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bf4 e6
9.Bd3 Qa5 10.0-0 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxf3 12.gxf3 dxc4 13.Bxc4 Nb6 14.Qb3 Rd8
15.Be2 Bd6 16.Bg3 Bxg3 17.hxg3 0-0 18.f4 c5 19.Bf3 Rd7 20.a4 Nd5 21.Rfc1 g6
22.Qb5 Qxb5 23.axb5 cxd4 24.cxd4 b6 25.Rc4 f5 26.Rc6 Kf7 27.Bxd5 exd5
28.Rac1 Rfd8 29.Kf1 Ke7 30.Ke2 Rd6 31.R6c3 R6d7 32.Kd3 Ra8 33.Rc6 Rd6 34.Ke2
Rxc6 35.Rxc6 Kd7 36.f3 Re8 37.Kd3 Re7 38.g4 Re6 39.Rc1 Re7 40.Rh1 Ke6 41.Rc1
Kd7 42.Re1 Rf7 43.Ra1 Kd6 44.Rc1 Kd7 45.Rc6 Rf8 46.Ke2 Rf7 47.Kf2 Rf8 48.Kg3
Re8 49.Rc3 Re7 50.Kh4 h6 51.Kg3 h5 52.Kh4 Rh7 53.Kg5 fxg4 54.fxg4 hxg4
55.Kxg4 Rh1 56.Kg5 Rb1 57.Ra3 Rxb5 58.Rxa7+ Kd6 59.Kxg6 Rb3 60.f5 Rxe3 61.f6
Rg3+ 62.Kh7 Rf3 63.f7 Rf4 64.Kg7 Rg4+ 65.Kf6 Rf4+ 66.Kg5 Rf1 67.Kg6 Rg1+
68.Kf6 Rf1+ 69.Kg7 Rg1+ 70.Kf8 Rd1 71.Ke8 Re1+ 72.Kd8 Rf1 73.Rd7+ Kc6 74.Ke8
Rf4 75.Re7 Kb5 76.Rc7 1-0
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 23:27:38
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
> After 14...Rd8, Kmoch writes: if instead 14...Nxc4 15.Qxc4 White remains
> at a clear advantage due to his strong center.
The writing is typical of the pre-computer era, where the difference between
the best moves and the rest was thought to be almost decisive. Computers
are showing that this is not the case at all. After 14...Nxc4 my engine
says it's dead even, though White has better chances, um, due to his strong
center.
> I understand why central control is important as it relates to space and
> mobility, but this position (after 14...Nxc4) is approaching an endgame
> where White's fractured pawn structure has created potential targets at
> a2, h2, f3, and maybe even c3.
Black is not suffiicently developed to exploit any of that.
> I can see that Black does not control as much of the center, but he does
> not have any pawn weaknesses. I might agree that White's strong center
> makes it difficult for Black's pieces to attack White's weak pawns, at
> least for now -- but I don't know that I agree that White has a clear
> advantage.
White can tie Black down in the center and that will be the long-term
problem.
> Is Kmoch correct? After 14...Nxc4 15.Qxc4 does White have a clear
> advantage? How is White going to use his strong center to win the game,
> what is his plan? And what general principles are illustrated in this
> example? When is a strong pawn center more important than a sound pawn
> structure?
Anytime except an ending where the kings can roam free.
>Can we say that when there is only one half-open d- or e-file, it is more
>important to have a strong pawn center than to have an intact pawn
>structure?
Black's pawns are not necessarily even better than White's with the rooks
still on the board. No matter where Black castles, White shold be able to
get some pressure going.
The real problem here, however, is that Kmoch was a lot weaker than either
player of this game. If Alekhine ever annotated the game, trust his
analysis.
> Rubinstein - Alekhine, Karlsbad 1911
>
> 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 Qb6 5.Qc2 Bg4 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.e3 Ne4 8.Bf4 e6
> 9.Bd3 Qa5 10.0-0 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxf3 12.gxf3 dxc4 13.Bxc4 Nb6 14.Qb3 Rd8
> 15.Be2 Bd6 16.Bg3 Bxg3 17.hxg3 0-0 18.f4 c5 19.Bf3 Rd7 20.a4 Nd5 21.Rfc1
> g6 22.Qb5 Qxb5 23.axb5 cxd4 24.cxd4 b6 25.Rc4 f5 26.Rc6 Kf7 27.Bxd5 exd5
> 28.Rac1 Rfd8 29.Kf1 Ke7 30.Ke2 Rd6 31.R6c3 R6d7 32.Kd3 Ra8 33.Rc6 Rd6
> 34.Ke2 Rxc6 35.Rxc6 Kd7 36.f3 Re8 37.Kd3 Re7 38.g4 Re6 39.Rc1 Re7 40.Rh1
> Ke6 41.Rc1 Kd7 42.Re1 Rf7 43.Ra1 Kd6 44.Rc1 Kd7 45.Rc6 Rf8 46.Ke2 Rf7
> 47.Kf2 Rf8 48.Kg3 Re8 49.Rc3 Re7 50.Kh4 h6 51.Kg3 h5 52.Kh4 Rh7 53.Kg5
> fxg4 54.fxg4 hxg4 55.Kxg4 Rh1 56.Kg5 Rb1 57.Ra3 Rxb5 58.Rxa7+ Kd6 59.Kxg6
> Rb3 60.f5 Rxe3 61.f6 Rg3+ 62.Kh7 Rf3 63.f7 Rf4 64.Kg7 Rg4+ 65.Kf6 Rf4+
> 66.Kg5 Rf1 67.Kg6 Rg1+ 68.Kf6 Rf1+ 69.Kg7 Rg1+ 70.Kf8 Rd1 71.Ke8 Re1+
> 72.Kd8 Rf1 73.Rd7+ Kc6 74.Ke8 Rf4 75.Re7 Kb5 76.Rc7 1-0
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 06:37:07
From: mike
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
Ray, thanks for the response.
>
> The real problem here, however, is that Kmoch was a lot weaker than either
> player of this game. If Alekhine ever annotated the game, trust his
> analysis.
>
>
You know the saying: those who can't do, teach. I suppose most of Kmoch's
reks are accurate, but they are very terse and infrequent. But he has
said a few things that have made me skeptical. Also, this edition of
Rubinstein's games has an unusually high number of typos for a Dover book.
Great games, though. Nearly every one is full of instructional value.
Regards
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 14:01:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
> Ray, thanks for the response.
>
>>
>> The real problem here, however, is that Kmoch was a lot weaker than
>> either player of this game. If Alekhine ever annotated the game, trust
>> his analysis.
>>
>>
>
> You know the saying: those who can't do, teach. I suppose most of Kmoch's
> reks are accurate, but they are very terse and infrequent. But he has
> said a few things that have made me skeptical. Also, this edition of
> Rubinstein's games has an unusually high number of typos for a Dover book.
> Great games, though. Nearly every one is full of instructional value.
>
> Regards
Kmoch is a brilliant theoretician whose "pawn power in chess" book is one of
the best ever written. His three-pawn trick where the fifth-rank pawns (for
the attacker) crash through the second-rank pawns (for the defense) is
something every GM now knows, and plays for in ways they didn't even if
there were problems which predated Kmoch's book.
That said, there are always problems inherent in analyzing the games of
another, because we really don't know why someone plays a move. For
example, most people say Fischer loved the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian because of
its complexity, but I think he loved it because the main line at the time --
10. e5 -- was a forced loss for White. In Fischer-Geller (1967), Fischer
played 10. f5. I'm not sure if anyone ever tried the shall Attack
against Fischer, but most were scared of losing an opening if he revealed
how to bust it.
Alekhine once noted a writer who ascribed a motive to his game, saying he
played a move because he didn't like a certain type of position. He wrote
"I didn't play this move because I don't like being CHECKMATED, which would
have happened after...." then he said "I hate it when people try to analyze
my games."
Alekhine published two volumes of his best games in what is probably the
best first-person account ever done in chess. Fischer's was #2 with "My 60
Memorable Games."
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 17:47:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Kmoch is a brilliant theoretician whose "pawn power in chess" book is
> one of the best ever written. His three-pawn trick where the fifth-rank
> pawns (for the attacker) crash through the second-rank pawns (for the
> defense) is something every GM now knows, and plays for in ways they
> didn't even if there were problems which predated Kmoch's book.
You mean the one in the position with white pawns on a5, b5, c5 and black
ones on a7, b7, c7 with the kings miles away?
7k/ppp5/8/PPP5/8/8/8/7K w - - 0 1
(White wins with 1.b6! axb6 2.c6!.) Is that really as recent as Kmoch?
> That said, there are always problems inherent in analyzing the games of
> another, because we really don't know why someone plays a move. For
> example, most people say Fischer loved the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian
> because of its complexity, but I think he loved it because the main line
> at the time -- 10. e5 -- was a forced loss for White.
Fritz's opening book ks it `!?' and, while the move was rather out of
fashion in the 1970s (no doubt because Fischer had done rather well
against it), Fritz's database contains a few games from the 1980s onwards
with mixed results (+3-3=3 since 1980). It doesn't seem to be a `forced
loss for White'.
> In Fischer-Geller (1967), Fischer played 10. f5.
As I mentioned last time you cited this game, it's worth pointing out that
Fischer got miniatured.
> I'm not sure if anyone ever tried the shall Attack against Fischer,
> but most were scared of losing an opening if he revealed how to bust it.
According to Fritz 8's database, Fischer faced the shall seven times
and scored +3-0=4:
Opponent Tournament Year Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein US Championship 1959 1-0 (38)
Seifman US Championship 1960 1-0 (36)
O'Kelly de Galway Capablanca Memorial 1965 1/2 (54)
Wade Capablanca Memorial 1965 1/2 (69)
Donner Capablanca Memorial 1965 1-0 (35)
Donner Piatigorsky Cup 1966 1/2 (34)
Spassky Piatigorsky Cup 1966 1/2 (35)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Homicidal Watch (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ precision chronometer but it wants to
kill you!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 18:27:09
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
> You mean the one in the position with white pawns on a5, b5, c5 and black
> ones on a7, b7, c7 with the kings miles away?
>
> 7k/ppp5/8/PPP5/8/8/8/7K w - - 0 1
>
> (White wins with 1.b6! axb6 2.c6!.) Is that really as recent as Kmoch?
He popularized it, and explained why it works. He also added several other
tidbits, but his readers were like a secret society that wouldn't even admit
they had the book. It was out of print forever, and I noticed it twice:
once on the bookshelf of the hustler who used to beat me regularly, and the
other time on the bookshelf of a kid I grew up with, who used to beat me
regularly as well.
Now that it's back in print it's not as big of a deal.
>> That said, there are always problems inherent in analyzing the games of
>> another, because we really don't know why someone plays a move. For
>> example, most people say Fischer loved the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian
>> because of its complexity, but I think he loved it because the main line
>> at the time -- 10. e5 -- was a forced loss for White.
>
> Fritz's opening book ks it `!?' and, while the move was rather out of
> fashion in the 1970s (no doubt because Fischer had done rather well
> against it), Fritz's database contains a few games from the 1980s onwards
> with mixed results (+3-3=3 since 1980). It doesn't seem to be a `forced
> loss for White'.
It did when Fischer was playing.
>> In Fischer-Geller (1967), Fischer played 10. f5.
>
> As I mentioned last time you cited this game, it's worth pointing out that
> Fischer got miniatured.
By Geller, as many other players have. Geller was much stronger in the
opening than any player of his day, including Fischer. Maybe he took one
for the team or something, but there's no reason Geller couldn't have become
world champion, even in 1972, assuming he had trained to his potential.
The point is that Fischer, in his pet line, whipped out a move that was
different from what others were playing against him. He obviously did not
respect 10. e5, and I suspect that's why he was so eager to meet it. I
doubt he had any inherent preference for the opening itself.
>> I'm not sure if anyone ever tried the shall Attack against Fischer,
>> but most were scared of losing an opening if he revealed how to bust it.
>
> According to Fritz 8's database, Fischer faced the shall seven times
> and scored +3-0=4:
Not a bad score.
> Opponent Tournament Year Result
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Bernstein US Championship 1959 1-0 (38)
> Seifman US Championship 1960 1-0 (36)
> O'Kelly de Galway Capablanca Memorial 1965 1/2 (54)
> Wade Capablanca Memorial 1965 1/2 (69)
> Donner Capablanca Memorial 1965 1-0 (35)
> Donner Piatigorsky Cup 1966 1/2 (34)
> Spassky Piatigorsky Cup 1966 1/2 (35)
The Piatigorsky Cup was a vanity tournament (Mrs. Piatigorsky put up the
money), and the other opponents were hardly anything to write home about.
That Fischer was undefeated against it does speak well for White's side of
the line, nonetheless.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 20:43:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>> most people say Fischer loved the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian because of
>>> its complexity, but I think he loved it because the main line at the
>>> time -- 10. e5 -- was a forced loss for White.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to be a `forced loss for White'.
>
> It did when Fischer was playing.
Yeah but against Fischer any one of 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 was
starting to look like a bit it lead ot loss by force.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Accelerated Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ handy household tool but it's twice
as fast!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2005 19:03:58
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> That Fischer was undefeated against it does speak well for White's side of
> the line, nonetheless.
Either that, or it speaks well for Fischer's tactical and technical
skills.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2005 23:36:40
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Alekhine published two volumes of his best games in what is probably the
> best first-person account ever done in chess. Fischer's was #2 with "My 60
> Memorable Games."
That being said, Alekhine's own notes to his games are hardly
error-free. He was supremely confident and, against top opposition,
sometimes missed defensive resources that they might have used against
him in the game.
But this is true for all players, particularly before the dawn of
computers. It's not a criticism of Alekhine, but merely pointing out
that you need to think critically about the comments that ALL players
make, even if they happen to be among the strongest ever to play the
game talking about their own games.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 24 Dec 2005 14:32:25
From: mike
Subject: Re: Discussion - Rubinstein-Alekhine 1911
|
Also, could someone explain 16...Bxg3 and 21...g6 to me? Those don't look
like good moves to me. Kmoch does not comment on them.
|
|
