| |
Main
Date: 09 Aug 2005 19:43:33
From: Will Kemp
Subject: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
What am I missing here? Why not 18...Bc6, which looks like one of those
automatic moves? We are looking at a good bishop vs
bad bishop situation here, are we not?
I concede that White's Bb5 is not very impressive, but is it worse than
black's Bb7?
I was perplexed by this sequence of moves. Maybe I am not judging correctly
the relative value of the light-square bishops. But it appears to me that
Black's Bb7 is the worst piece on the board, and it probably will be for a
long time to come; therefore, it makes sense to trade it for something --
anything!
[Event "?"]
[Site "Lake Hopatcong"]
[Date "1926.??.??"]
[White "Kupchik,Abraham"]
[Black "Capablanca,Jose"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A46"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Ne4 6. Nbd2 f5 7. c3 Be7 8.
Qc2 d5 9. Ne5 O-O 10. f3 Nxd2 11. Bxd2 Nd7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. Rae1 c5 14. Qd1
Rf6 15. Qe2 Raf8 16. Bb5 Qc7 17. f4 c4 18. Kh1 Bd6 19. Rf3 h5 20. Ref1 Rh6
21. Be1 g6 22. Bh4 Kf7 23. Qe1 a6 24. Ba4 b5 25. Bd1 Bc6 26. Rh3 a5 27. Bg5
Rhh8 28. Qh4 b4 29. Qe1 Rb8 30. Rhf3 a4 31. R3f2 a3 32. b3 cxb3 33. Bxb3 Bb5
34. Rg1 Qxc3 35. Qxc3 bxc3 36. Rc2 Rhc8 37. Bh4 Bd3 38. Rcc1 Rxb3 39. axb3
a2 0-1
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 10:08:33
From: Carlo Mazzoni
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
"Will Kemp" <[email protected] > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected]...
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 14:07:23
From: Will Kemp
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
Hello Carlo,
Thank you for the reference. I have Silman's book somewhere, although I did
not remember this game. I will take a look.
Kind regards,
Will
>
> About this game, Jeremy Silman, in 'How to Reasses Your Chess', point out
> that in closed position you have to searching for break pawn moves to open
> lines. Seems that changing Bishops don't work because without open lines
> (see white position after 28.Qh4) there is no way to penetrate into
> enemy's
> position. So Black plains to push the queenside pawns (where he's in space
> advantage) until a break happens. With this in mind, he know that pedonal
> structure will change, so don't mind what good are, now, the Bishops.
> (sorry for my poor-quality english)
> bye,
> Carlo
>
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 12:07:14
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
Will Kemp wrote:
> What am I missing here? Why not 18...Bc6, which looks like one of those
> automatic moves? We are looking at a good bishop vs
> bad bishop situation here, are we not?
>
> I concede that White's Bb5 is not very impressive, but is it worse than
> black's Bb7?
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Ne4 6. Nbd2 f5 7. c3 Be7 8.
> Qc2 d5 9. Ne5 O-O 10. f3 Nxd2 11. Bxd2 Nd7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. Rae1 c5 14. Qd1
> Rf6 15. Qe2 Raf8 16. Bb5 Qc7 17. f4 c4 18. Kh1 Bd6
The natural plan for Black in this position is to move the a and b-pawns
to attack the white pawn chain b2-d4 at its base, open a file on the
queenside and intrude in the white position, just as Capablanca did later.
But White also had a positional threat, that was to generate counter
play on the kingside with g4. Before Black commits himself on the
queenside, Capablanca wanted to make sure White had no opportunity for a
go at the kingside.
If Black traded the white squared bishops White would have had the
opportunity for a play on the g-file, for example 18...Bc6 19. Bxc6 Qxc6
20. g4.
If after 18...Bd6 White played 19. g4 Black could answer 19...fxg4 20.
Qxg4 e5 21. dxe5 Bxe5 (note the f-pawn is pinned) 22. Qd7 Qxd7 23. Bxd7
Bd6 and suddenly the Bb7 isn't bad at all while the Bd2 is. Black plans
to attack e3 with Bc5 and even might advance the d-pawn with d4+. White
has a difficult defense.
> 19. Rf3
This move is a severe mistake and showed White had actually no clue. Now
Black can prevent g4 once and for all with h5 where White will have
absolutely no counter play to the black advance on the queenside. Much
better would have been 19. Rg1 which renews the threat of g4. The
counter thrust e5 is no more possible because the white f-pawn isn't
pinned any more.
> h5 20. Ref1 Rh6
> 21. Be1 g6 22. Bh4 Kf7 23. Qe1 a6 24. Ba4 b5
After g4 was secured, Capablanca feels no need to trade off the bishops.
The Bb5 helped Black to speed up his offensive on the queenside. Also if
the white bishop is pushed back it helps to cramp the white position and
hampers the free movement of the white rooks. In general and especially
in a cramped space trades help the defending player. There are fewer
attacking pieces left and more room to manoeuvre.
> 25. Bd1 Bc6 26. Rh3 a5 27. Bg5
> Rhh8 28. Qh4 b4 29. Qe1 Rb8 30. Rhf3 a4 31. R3f2 a3 32. b3 cxb3 33. Bxb3 Bb5
> 34. Rg1 Qxc3 35. Qxc3 bxc3 36. Rc2 Rhc8 37. Bh4 Bd3 38. Rcc1 Rxb3 39. axb3
> a2 0-1
Claus-Juergen
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 22:43:49
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
Hello Claus-Juergen,
As allways your comments are very instructive and interesting.
I have some doubts about this game. It seems white need to choose
between: (a) 18...Bc6 19. Bxc6 Qxc6 20.g4! and (b) 18...Bd6 19.Rg1!
It seems to me that:
- (a) variaton is not dangereous for black because the exchange of
white-squares bishops has converted the possible attack in nothing
dangereous (maybe I'm wrong but I see like white opening lines for black
with a poor white bishop)
- if white can play a later g4, 19.Rg1 seems more improvement for white
play than Bd6 for black, that CAN make (a) line preferable than (b).
regards
Antonio
En/na Claus-J�rgen Heigl ha escrit:
>> 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Ne4 6. Nbd2 f5 7. c3
>> Be7 8.Qc2 d5 9. Ne5 O-O 10. f3 Nxd2 11. Bxd2 Nd7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7
>> 13. Rae1 c5 14. Qd1 Rf6 15. Qe2 Raf8 16. Bb5 Qc7 17. f4 c4
>> 18. Kh1 Bd6
>
> The natural plan for Black in this position is to move the a and b-pawns
> to attack the white pawn chain b2-d4 at its base, open a file on the
> queenside and intrude in the white position, just as Capablanca did later.
>
> But White also had a positional threat, that was to generate counter
> play on the kingside with g4. Before Black commits himself on the
> queenside, Capablanca wanted to make sure White had no opportunity for a
> go at the kingside.
>
> If Black traded the white squared bishops White would have had the
> opportunity for a play on the g-file, for example 18...Bc6 19. Bxc6 Qxc6
> 20. g4.
>
> If after 18...Bd6 White played 19. g4 Black could answer 19...fxg4 20.
> Qxg4 e5 21. dxe5 Bxe5 (note the f-pawn is pinned) 22. Qd7 Qxd7 23. Bxd7
> Bd6 and suddenly the Bb7 isn't bad at all while the Bd2 is. Black plans
> to attack e3 with Bc5 and even might advance the d-pawn with d4+. White
> has a difficult defense.
>
>> 19. Rf3
>
> This move is a severe mistake and showed White had actually no clue. Now
> Black can prevent g4 once and for all with h5 where White will have
> absolutely no counter play to the black advance on the queenside. Much
> better would have been 19. Rg1 which renews the threat of g4. The
> counter thrust e5 is no more possible because the white f-pawn isn't
> pinned any more.
>
>> h5 20. Ref1 Rh6 21. Be1 g6 22. Bh4 Kf7 23. Qe1 a6 24. Ba4 b5
>
> After g4 was secured, Capablanca feels no need to trade off the bishops.
> The Bb5 helped Black to speed up his offensive on the queenside. Also if
> the white bishop is pushed back it helps to cramp the white position and
> hampers the free movement of the white rooks. In general and especially
> in a cramped space trades help the defending player. There are fewer
> attacking pieces left and more room to manoeuvre.
>
>> 25. Bd1 Bc6 26. Rh3 a5 27. Bg5
>> Rhh8 28. Qh4 b4 29. Qe1 Rb8 30. Rhf3 a4 31. R3f2 a3 32. b3 cxb3 33.
>> Bxb3 Bb5
>> 34. Rg1 Qxc3 35. Qxc3 bxc3 36. Rc2 Rhc8 37. Bh4 Bd3 38. Rcc1 Rxb3 39.
>> axb3
>> a2 0-1
>
>
> Claus-Juergen
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 14:05:16
From: Will Kemp
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
Thank you for your comments -- they make a lot of sense. I'm sure there is
something instructive about this game, though I'm not sure what it is or how
to apply it in my own games!
Regards
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 03:04:35
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
En/na Will Kemp ha escrit:
> What am I missing here? Why not 18...Bc6, which looks like one of those
> automatic moves? We are looking at a good bishop vs
> bad bishop situation here, are we not?
>
> I concede that White's Bb5 is not very impressive, but is it worse than
> black's Bb7?
>
> I was perplexed by this sequence of moves. Maybe I am not judging correctly
> the relative value of the light-square bishops. But it appears to me that
> Black's Bb7 is the worst piece on the board, and it probably will be for a
> long time to come; therefore, it makes sense to trade it for something --
> anything!
>
>
>
> [Event "?"]
> [Site "Lake Hopatcong"]
> [Date "1926.??.??"]
> [White "Kupchik,Abraham"]
> [Black "Capablanca,Jose"]
> [Round "?"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "A46"]
>
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 b6 4. Bd3 Bb7 5. O-O Ne4 6. Nbd2 f5 7. c3 Be7 8.
> Qc2 d5 9. Ne5 O-O 10. f3 Nxd2 11. Bxd2 Nd7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13. Rae1 c5 14. Qd1
> Rf6 15. Qe2 Raf8 16. Bb5 Qc7 17. f4 c4 18. Kh1 Bd6 19. Rf3 h5 20. Ref1 Rh6
> 21. Be1 g6 22. Bh4 Kf7 23. Qe1 a6 24. Ba4 b5 25. Bd1 Bc6 26. Rh3 a5 27. Bg5
> Rhh8 28. Qh4 b4 29. Qe1 Rb8 30. Rhf3 a4 31. R3f2 a3 32. b3 cxb3 33. Bxb3 Bb5
> 34. Rg1 Qxc3 35. Qxc3 bxc3 36. Rc2 Rhc8 37. Bh4 Bd3 38. Rcc1 Rxb3 39. axb3
> a2 0-1
ok, 18..Bc6 is the move who would come to my mind automatically (and
surely the move I would made), ... but it seems Capa was correct because
some moves later the bad Bb7 become an strong Bb5 or Bd3.
AT
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2005 14:01:56
From: Will Kemp
Subject: Re: Kupchik - Capablanca 1927. Good and Bad Bishop. What Am I Missing?
|
I agree, in a blitz game 18...Bc6 is the move. In G/90, maybe not!?
Thanks
>
> ok, 18..Bc6 is the move who would come to my mind automatically (and
> surely the move I would made), ... but it seems Capa was correct because
> some moves later the bad Bb7 become an strong Bb5 or Bd3.
>
> AT
>
|
|
