| |
Main
Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:17:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Is this a TN in the Mod Benoni?
|
In my other game against the same player i remembered a fischer maneuver,
with knight to h5 as black, from his iceland game against spassky, so played
that too at move 16. it also offers a pawn, or at least to double pawns on
the h file - but seemed indicated here as sufficient diversion to central
play - is this also a TN? Should white have accepted it? If so, should white
have tried to capitalise on it by also moving to capture the advanced h pawn
rather than he did in the game, and defend the center with 18. Qd2? Phil
1. c4 Nf6
2. d4 c5
3. d5 e6
4. Nc3 exd5
5. cxd5 d6
6. e4 a6
7. a4 g6
8. Be2 Bg7
9. Nf3 O-O
10. O-O Re8
11. Qc2 Bg4
12. h3 Bxf3
13. Bxf3 Nd7
14. Bf4 Ne5
15. Be2 Rc8
16. b3 Nh5
17. Bxh5 gxh5
18. Qd2 Ng6
19. Re1 Bxc3
20. Qxc3 Nxf4
21. Qg3 Ng6
22. f4 h4
23. Qg4 Kh8
24. Qf3 Qf6
25. Qe3 Qd4
26. Kh2 Qxe3
27. Rxe3 c4
28. bxc4 Rxc4
29. f5 Ne5
30. Rb1 Rxa4
31. Rxb7 Kg7
32. g4 Ra2
33. Kg1 Rc8
34. Rb1 Rc2
35. Kh1 Rf2
36. Kg1 Nf3
white resigns
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 07:24:20
From:
Subject: Re: Is this a TN in the Mod Benoni?
|
On Nov 2, 4:35 am, "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Phil My, what a poor memory you have -- for an IM, I mean.
> It is well-known that GM Fischer's Knight move was a blunder,
> but Spassky failed to capitalize on it and went on to lose.
I am not aware of any annotator who characterized Fischer's 11...Nh5
in the third game of the 1972 match as a "blunder," nor do I know of
any objective analysis proving it to be so. Spassky's followup, 12.Bxh5
gxh5 13.Nc4 Ne5 14.Ne3 Qh4! 15.Bd2, was less than optimal, but there
was no immediate refutation of 11...Nh5, which there would have to be
for it to qualify as a blunder.
Timman suggests that White could have improved with 14.Nxe5 Bxe5
15.Be3! f5 16.f4!, or with 15.Ne2 instead of the "feeble" 15.Bd2, but
he sees these as only giving White some advantage, not anything near a
win.
> Of course it is not a "TN", as GM Fischer (you may have
> heard of him) already played it in a world championship match!
In Innes' game ...Nf6-h5 came at a later point, and in a different
position, than the Spassky-Fischer game. If current theory extends to
that point, and the move had not been played before, it might qualify
as a TN (theoretical novelty). If theory does not extend that far, then
Innes' move is just one of several middlegame possibilities.
> As a not-nearly-an-IM, I don't recall any specific series of
> moves to refute this error, but of course I could simply work
> it out OTB (yeah, right!). The refutation has been published,
> but I couldn't say where, exactly.
I would be interested to know if, when, and where you find this
refutation. I have several books on the 1972 match. None present any
refutation of 11...Nh5, and most of them praise the move.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 01:35:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is this a TN in the Mod Benoni?
|
Chess One wrote:
> In my other game against the same player i remembered a fischer maneuver,
> with knight to h5 as black, from his iceland game against spassky, so played
> that too at move 16. it also offers a pawn, or at least to double pawns on
> the h file - but seemed indicated here as sufficient diversion to central
> play - is this also a TN? Should white have accepted it? If so, should white
> have tried to capitalise on it by also moving to capture the advanced h pawn
> rather than he did in the game, and defend the center with 18. Qd2? Phil
My, what a poor memory you have -- for an IM, I mean.
It is well-known that GM Fischer's Knight move was a blunder,
but Spassky failed to capitalize on it and went on to lose.
Of course it is not a "TN", as GM Fischer (you may have
heard of him) already played it in a world championship match!
As a not-nearly-an-IM, I don't recall any specific series of
moves to refute this error, but of course I could simply work
it out OTB (yeah, right!). The refutation has been published,
but I couldn't say where, exactly.
-----
In my games at GetClub.com, I have transposed into a
Benoni of some sort many times, and the result is always
the same: victory. But I did this in order to steer clear of
all of Sanny's "pre-inputed" opening moves, just to see
what might happen with the program on its own. In the
famous game between GMs Spassky and Fischer, it was
more likely a matter of tossing in something irrelevant for
the opponent's team to work on for a while. GM Fischer
did the same with an Alekhine's Defense, which of course
caused the Spassky team fits, since they then had to
prepare GM Spassky in case he faced it again. I imagine
the Spassky team had expected a "test" of the King's
Gambit, since GM Fischer had published a supposed
bust and was therefore morally obligated to slay the
Russian in battle to defend his honor. Okay, that's an
exaggeration, but you get the general idea.
One problem with the Benoni is that White need not
advance a pawn to c4, but instead can post a Knight
on that square. In these lines Black must tread very
carefully, lest he get pushed off the board with a timely
p-e5. But why am I telling you this -- you must know
all this and much more! It's a dog-eat-dog world, and
in order to attain the stellar heights of nearly-an-IMdon,
you must know everything there is to know about chess
openings theory these days. Here's the opening of my
latest game at GetClub, which the program says I lost
after a won its Queen for a mere Bishop:
1.d4 d5
2.c4 e6
3.Nc3 Nf6
4.Bg5 Bb4 (Is this a TN?)
5.e3 Qd6 (This is an egg (sizzle); this is Sanny's program on
drugs.)
6.Bxf6 gxf6
7.Qb3 Bxc3+
8.bxc3 Rg8
9.g3 b6
10.cd Bb7 (Is this a TN?)
11.de fe
12.f3 Bd5
13.Qc2 f5
14.e4 Bb7 (Another TN?)
15.ef Nc6 (The Prozac, again.)
16.fe Qxe6+
17.Kf2 O-O-O (Heroin?)
18.Bh3 Qxh3
19.Nxh3 Rd7
20.R/h-e1 a6
21.Re3 h6 (Overpowering energy!)
22.R/a-e1 Rd6
23.Nf4 b5
24.Nd3 Rg7
25.Nc5 Kb8
26.Re8+ Ka7
27.Rh8 b4 (A crushing counterattack.)
28.R/1-e8
Here, the game replay now shows ...b3 as having
been played, though no such move ever appeared on
my screen. The game was somehow scored as a
loss or me, but the only way I could lose such a
game is to click on the resign button, which was
impossible since I was not even looking at that tab
at the time, but patiently waiting for the program to
move while reading in another tab. In any case,
Sanny's program comes up with more TNs in a
single game than IM Innes and GM Fischer put
together come up with in a month of play; it's this
sort of "original thinking" which ks the truly
brilliant chess players, like Sanny. ; >D
-- help bot
|
|
