Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 01:50:38 03/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2001 at 03:44:17, Steve Schooler wrote: >[D]3r2k1/pr3p2/3p4/2p1ppq1/2Pn4/1PNQ2P1/P4RKP/5R2 w - - 0 1 > >>>>... >>>>Reshevsky - Fine >>>>Detroit, 1933 >>>> >>>>1.Rxf5! Nxf5 2.Rxf5 Qh6 (The exchange sacrifice has completely transformed >>>the situation. The imminent Nd5 leaves black without resource.) >>>>3.Qe4 Re7 4.Qg4+ Kf8 5.Rh5 Qg7 6.Qh4 Ke8 7.Nd5 f5 8.Nxe7 1-0 >>>>... > >>>... lines like this ... need a lot of explaining ... >>>... >>>it (chess program) likes Qg6 instead of NxR. After forcing NxR it likes Qg6 >>instead of Qh6. After forcing Qh6 , Qe4 it likes Qg6 instead of Re7? >>> > >> ... >> 1.Rxf5! clearly is white's best move in the original position. >> This move was chosen by Reshevsky in the mentioned game. And this position, >> with 1.Rxf5!, is used by Israeli national coach Israel Gelfer, in training >> groups. The single line of moves you refer to is simply just what I wrote: >> The rest of the game between Reshevsky-Fine. And it opens up for the >> investigation of your choice. >> > >I'm uncomfortable with this response. I feel it's reasonable that annotation to >a posed position provide a clear resolution without requiring tremendous >tactical-talent/positional-grasp. I'm uncomfortable having to subscribe to 1. >Rxf5 based on hearsay (e.g. Reshevsky chose it, position given in training >groups). Was Reshevsky's choice based on tactical analysis only? Since the >position is used in training, I suspect the GrandMaster motivation of 1. Rxf5 is >(at least partly) positional, rather than completely tactical. Assuming so, I >also suspect the positional ideas (sufficient compensation for the exchange, et >al) are deep. Okey, let's pick up the ball again. In the original position white was a pawn down, facing the irritating threat of 1.-e4. You are completely correct in your suggestion that the move 1.Rxf5! is a positional sacrfice. The reason why 1.Rxf5! is considered that good, is the tremendous grip on the white squares for white. Besides a pawn back, he gets a giant, dominating knight on d5, two dangerous pawns on the g-h files. Furthermore black's king gets in trouble and black has almost no counterplay at all. All these factors together motivate the move 1.Rxf5! as clearly the best choice in this position. Whether this is considered "deep" or not depends on the viewer. With this move the situation is transformed. From now on white is playing for a win and black has to defend very exact to stand some chance. Fine lost the game very quickly and I'm not aware of the story around this game. Anyway, this position attracted my interest a bit more, which resulted in a 60' game, from the original position, vs Gambit Tiger. Some of the above is shown in this game, though I don't think my move order was fully correct. Instead of 12.-Qe1+, I think 12.-Rf7 might had resulted in a draw. Here's the game: Larsson - Gambit Tiger 2.0 Just Fine? 60', 23.03.2001 1.Rxf5 Qg6 2.Qe4 Nxf5 3.Rxf5 f6 4.Nd5 Rf8 5.h4 Kh8 6.g4 Rh7 7.Kg3 Qh6 8.h5 Rg7 9.Qf3 Qc1 10.Nxf6 Rg5 11.Kh4 Rxf5 12.Qxf5 Qe1+ 13.Kg5 Qd2+ 14.Kg6 Qh2 15.g5 Qh1 16.Qd7 Qb1+ 17.Kh6 Rxf6+ 18.gxf6 Qc1+ 19.Kg6 Qg1+ 20.Kf7 Qg5 21.Qe8+ Kh7 22.Ke6 e4 23.Qg6+ Qxg6 24.hxg6+ Kxg6 25.f7 Kg7 26.Ke7 Kg6 27.f8Q 1-0 Gambit Tiger put up tougher resistance than Fine, but then again, I have a distinct feeling that my move order ws not fully correct. Thanks for your interest. Sune > >When a position + annotation is presented, I hope for either a tactical >examination (e.g. 1. Rxf5 clearly wins because... and the following other >plausible moves for white are insufficient because ...) or a reasonably clear >discussion of the positional ideas (e.g. since white will receive the following >positional compensation, the exchange sacrifice is indicated...). > >Unfortunately, when the above analysis is absent, it's not reasonable to expect >the person posing the position to "pick up the slack". However, I feel it is >reasonable for the poser to first examine the position/annotation for clarity. >I feel the poser dropped the ball here because the presented annotation suggests >a clarity (to average chess players) that I feel is missing.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.