[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Two months ago having left suspended year 1924 Capablanca-Tartakower, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102104, where does Black go wrong? The definitional CV-brilliancy, pretty rigorously minimizing subjectivity in being unexpected and showing direct sacrificial potential, is precisely '25 Qxe8' this score. Everything before that then becomes more or less inviolate Black Box -- not to risk mixing in the whole multi-century Opening Theory kettle of fish -- when there are to be found errors aplenty post each fulcral discovery of one specific suspect provocative Move. Which is to say, after White Move 25 this example is the notional Region of Suspicion, where Black generally does go wrong in reality for whatever reason. Which move, what correction of early Black response upon Jose Raul's Move 25 Capa-Tart 1924?
After 19 ...Qa8, Uruguayan Molinari has to address the long diagonal right away with 20 f3. So the game score is an exception that proves the rule in that the correction is not after the technical cv-brilliancy, but just before. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1278766. If then 20 ...Bd5, 21 Be1, White keeping typical edge not yet conclusive. Next, year 1924 again, where does Black go wrong, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102104. It starts with 25 Qxe8 and everything before is a black box.
Back to Reti versus Capablanca 1924. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102101. Move 20 Bxd4 is the technical definitional brilliancy because of Queen's being able to take Pawn-c4. For some reason, practically every gm game so far, that precisely defined and findable spot is where the loser's error occurs. And again this game as others Capablanca's Move 20 ...Qxc4 seems premature. The White Bishop is too well placed now to leave it there, so '20 ...Bxd4' may be the needed improvement. But the changed move has to be justified and here the doubled Queen and Rook of Reti look tough. Is there something better there or a move or two ahead? Or is there follow-up to this suggested improved 20 ...Bxd4 to give Capablanca blockbuster reversal? '20 ...Bxd4' as first try, is there anything else, to prevent Capablanca's first tournament loss in 8 years? A couple others so far were not fully resolvable under post-mortem parfait. We may not be able to help Capa specifically enough to turn around the result above. Next one working alternately back and forth in time from the mid-thirties Wikipedia's main list of all-time Chess games will be the only WWII game, Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1278766, Uruguayan Immortal. Where does White go wrong? Immediately by definition 20 ...Bxg2 is the starting point variantists are well disposed to call brilliancy, in order to obviate fixed opening theory. It has practically nothing to do with, though sometimes overlaps because the same moves are involved, their Orthodox aesthetic tournament-prize ''brilliancy'' within the one meager set of rules (to our thousands). CV-brilliancy as defined should be transportable to CVs other than OrthoChess for CVers working other game replays: Rococo, Centennial, Chess Different Armies, the lot of the several dozen best having game results at Game Courier.
Reti versus Capablanca 1924 31 Moves. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102101. Everything before is a black box. '20 Bxd4...' is the technical brilliancy on account of leaving c-Pawn en prise -- completing White's previous 19 Q-d2 set-up. Hence analytic post-mortem parfait commences on Capa's Move 20 response. Then the Locus of Suspicion Theorem points to in all likelihood correction being at that Move 20, 21, or 22 in descending order. Where does Black go wrong? Without even looking ahead, we know it is Move 20 or 21. And correction has to carry strong enough justification for Black winning. Okay seeing in reality, Capa takes the bait 20 ...Qxc4? Frankly taking that free Pawn puts Queen in awkward spot without support. Sucker's bait. Obviously the grab '...Qxc4' essays no plan, and found already by plain abstraction right where expected where Black strays. So what should at the juncture J. R. Capablanca do instead?
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102101. Where does Black go wrong? Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_games. The game above it says ended Capablanca's eight-year run without a loss in tournament play.
[Added 8.May: Okay '16 Nxe4...' leaves the other Rook to be captured, so it is fair to analyze for improvement from Black's Move 16 on; that is, White Move 20 is the second ''brilliancy'' not the first. Then 16 ...Nxa1 is the turnaround for Black to win. Gone is the a-Rook that gets moved three times in a row, and the passed d-Pawn is not organized to be threat. Black Queen stays mobile enough to keep the upper hand.] Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1284171. Move '21 Nxe6...' by post-mortem parfait guidelines, dispensing or avoiding the hackneyed opening theory phase (beat to death for five hundred years), is the definitional brilliancy. The reason is that it dramatically leaves the Rook in jeopardy with prospective exchange sacrifice. Somehow the improvement that consistently is able to be justified to reverse the outcome happens the first move or two afterwards and not later. So here in present 1938 Parr-Wheatcroft, how about '21 ...Nxg2' instead of actual '21 ...Nxf1'? That way taking Bishop removes important piece in the finale orchestrated by White, whilst the Rook may not have opportunity to figure. It's not enough to suggest the improvement. Rather can 21 ...Nxg2 be justified for Black to win? Otherwise have to find a different improvement one of the Moves 21, 22, 23 actually made post technical not subjective brilliancy.
In Parr-Wheatcroft 1938, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1284171, since White wins, 21 Nxe6 is the definitional brilliancy because of leaving Rook in jeopardy. [Error corrected last two comments this thread with actual outcome 1-0 and finding Black's reversal of outcome the object. All the references are now correct to this score, and Black's winning move as to be improved should alter one of those 21, 22, or 23 actually made.]
This is another classic score where the correction is not even the second or third move after the definitional brilliancy, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1284171, but the very first move after. 'Find that locus and make the right move' would not seem to be insignificant discovery. So here upon Move 21 Nxe6..., Black has at least one winning move to replace 21 ...Nxf1. The difficulty this case is Move 21 replacement has half a dozen best candidates. Which one most justifiable then, where Black goes wrong?
[Added same 17.April.2013: Finding the ''brilliancy'' these classic games has corollary somehow that the locus of suspicion is the next several moves, not really all the way to the end. That is, the losing move, and same time correction to reverse the outcome, is one of the very next couple moves. Once again, like Fischer-Spassky 6 1972 and Polish Immortal 1929 and Reti-Alekhine 1925 all three -- again loser Black this time would appear to have the blockbuster expected Move 21, 22, 23. Which one and what improvement?] Move '21 Nxe6...', http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1284171, is the CV-definitional brilliancy typically expected, so only Moves 21 to the end would be fair game for asking, Where does Black go wrong?
Move 23 is where White goes wrong. '23 a4...' does not do anything right away as needed by the provoking h-Pawn the other edge of board. '23 Nxb7' is the correction. Because of threat the same Knight then to d6, Black Queen has to take the sacrificial Knight at once. Reti versus Alekhine year 1925, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012326. So both sides have not better follow-up than 23 Nxb7 Qxb7 24 Nxc6..., upon which White is down a point but poised better than Black. White continuation may grab Knight-d5 or Bishop-g4, and Black Queen is put out of position. In particular, no longer pawn-protected, Black Knight on d5 has only retreat squares available, all three of which block own Queen or Rook. Back to the surf board from the chess board, because vaunted Reti-Alekhine another imperfect game. Next, where does Black go wrong? Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1284171.
[Added 10.April.2013. Right after the indicated brilliancy below, but not the first try '23 Bxd5...', isn't there a blockbuster White has, enough of an improvement to reverse the outcome?] Reti versus Alekhine 1925, where does White go wrong? Here like Botvinnik's personal best ever last game, just shy of that Alekhine says this is one of his two best tournament games ever. So let's enable White to win instead. Black can capture Rook at c1, after 31 K-h2... And, unusually, the very next turn Black also declines to capture the other Rook at d2 -- not capturing either Rook only one even guarded by Knight. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012326. But we need to help loser White-Reti to reverse the outcome. By rules of post mortem parfait, permissible analysis may begin after 22 ...h4. On Move 22 Black puts the edge Pawn in jeopardy; though White himself declines that Pawn, as Black does later with those Rooks, it's the CV-definitional ''brilliancy'' to begin post-play analysis, well clear of likely-memorized insipid opening theory. What about 23 Bxd5?
Where does Black go wrong? 21 Q-f2 g6. Instead '21 Q-f2 Nxe5' improvement. After that exchange sacrifice finishes, Black will be behind point only. 21 Q-f2 Nxe5 22 dxe5... Then since immediate '22 ...N-c5' threatens 23 ...N-d3 forking Rook/Queen, White is not free to advance his one passed Pawn, rendering another title moot. After correction 21 ...Nxe5, Black has the more flexible attack. Four Pawns to one will be stationed westside, and all four White Bishop-Rook-Rook-Queen are rather hemmed. In all, a Black prospect more than equal the temporized single material point. So Botvinnik's self-described personal best ever is another imperfect game. When finding at last the Perfect Wave, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Endless_Summer, there were one after another of them there oceanically, whilst search a solitary game of Chess remains. Next, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012326 is 1925 Reti versus Alekhine. Where does White go wrong? Before even determining where the first brilliancy occurs in CV terms, this game is remarkable the last ten moves 30 to 40. Do the several declines to capture unguarded piece all make sense?
Most of the re-examination over years has been Moves in the thirties and Moves in the teens. But by ''post mortem parfait'' 19 e4... is where to start. It's a defined ''brilliancy'' when White sacrifices a-Pawn outright. Usually, from Polish Immortal 1929 to Fischer-Spassky Game 6 1972, the correction to reverse the outcome follows soon upon the first brilliancy. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957. Finding that right locus of suspicion, '21...g6' is clearly the unnecessary move. Bad move. If that is in fact where Black goes wrong, passive Move 21 pointlessly defending against Knight, what should Black do instead? There still needs be different improved move at and after Move 21 that likely turns the tide -- to dis-prove this Botvinnik-Capablanca 1938 being perfect game either.
This is seriously on the way to be declared the first perfect game by the ground rules of ''post mortem parfait.'' I.e., the working backwards for better Move by the loser must follow an exchange sacrifice or other great surprise move; absolutely no hackneyed opening theory. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957. Understand, to be inclusive of CVs in general and future chosen Chesses, ''brilliancy'' is definitional as above, not strictly ''their'' definition, and may not always be the very best move of all a given game, to the extent that can be ever determinable. Now above score incredibly there is no good response by Black-Capablanca to the 'Move 30 B-a3...' putting Bishop en prise by White-Botvinnik. By that brilliancy White is going to win no matter what Black does the end ten or so moves. It is said Botvinnik considered the present one his best game ever. However before final reckoning, like the Polish Immortal, this game has two sacrificial brilliancies to factor in, notwithstanding the Polish Glucksberg-Najdorf's two key brilliancies being back-to-back. The earlier one in year 1938 Botvinnik-Capablanca cannot be ignored. Namely, sacrificing a-Pawn by Move '19 e4...' to push cental Pawns optimally permits questioning back to Moves 20 to 29 too -- before the more dramatic White Bishop sacrifice -- where does Black go wrong?
From the mid-thirties, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_games alternate-directionally, where does Black go wrong: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1264050? Esteban Canal is Peruvian, and the title since Peru borders Columbia, 'a man a plan a canal' requires 'panama' to be palindrome. Above game there has been a brilliancy upon 8 Qxf3 let's say. The error by Black is to prepare to castle on the wrong side, when all three White diagonallers are trained that way. Revised '9 ...N-e7' should delay the outcome for possible Draw. Next, where does Black go wrong in year 1938: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957? Brilliancy would appear to be 30 B-a3 Qxa3 sacrificing Bishop outright for empty space. Everything before Move 30 therefore is no-comment set-in-stone. So where does Black go wrong in the last eleven moves to try to reverse this outcome?
This particular game, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013180, several Black moves after the agreed-on brilliancy Move 21 are but average. Black's Moves 24, 27, 28, 29 and 31 are all third-choice move to what is available each time. Alekhine seems to facilitate the White pawn advance, seeing phantom attacks pending of White pieces. Fortunately Move 24 ...g5 is the worst of the series. White's three Rook, Rook, even Queen are all buried in the background. Instead let the two White Pawns free in the middle try to earn their farther space. Corrected '24...B-d4' leaves King protected, offers space for Black's three majors not one of White's three have, and makes advantage Black. Equally, even given the intervening errors, revised '31 ...Q-e4' should solve any Black problem, pinning the Knight.
First try. Alekhine-Black has two or three chances to move the Knight after Move 28. Which one should he use? By the same token, after 31 Rxg1, the whole Rook Black is up should be worth the three more or less passed Pawns in the board middle. Which of the two moments does Black go wrong? Mis-use of passive Knight, letting it be captured; or missed connections two Rooks and Queen against one Rook and Queen at and after Move 31?
Most of the great games qualify for analysis by the rules of post mortem parfait, and as a guess fewer than 10% other recorded games, not having recognizable ''brilliancy.'' No opening theory and everything is given before such ''brilliancy'' usually being or leading to exchange sacrifice that works. In 1935 Euwe-Alekhine, http://chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013180, that point is reached when Euwe-White lets stand capture of Bishop Move 21...Bxc3. Black stays that one piece up until Move 33 exd7... Moves 22 to 47, the end 1-0, are about the longest stretch so far any score to ask where the losing side went wrong. There may or may not have been rote memorization before Move 22, but that half of this game is off-limits. Where does Black go wrong this time?
The dead middle in the Wikipedia list between 1858 Paul Morphy and 2013 Viswanathan Anand is year 1935, from which to work up and down. Year 1935 has Euwe-Alekhine for the world championship then, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1013180. Where does Black go wrong?
Q. What established CV has the most potential 'Rxc2' like the game below has two, sans Pawn promotion and avec immediate capture of that Rook? Where does White go wrong? Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1358096. The exchange sacrifice complete at Move 17 Bxc2 is where it is cricket to make a change by the rules of post mortem parfait. There has to have been a brilliancy. No opening theory. After correction '18 Bxg7...' If 18 ...B-f5 19 Qxb4 and the first attack is over. In summary, get Black down to three pieces and the Queen sitting productively. After the dust settles, White should be up a point or two and Win -- Reversing Another Outcome. Please correct as usual no Computer having been used. A likely scenario after the above 17: 1 Bxg7 Q-a1* 2 B-b1 R-c8* 3 B-c3 bxc3 4 Q-d4 cxb2* 5 K-d2... And then the Rooks prevent Black promotion whilst White Queen threatens mayhem forwardly. 9 niatfeihc elttab .A
Where does White go wrong? Of note there is a double Rook sacrifice by Move 20. Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1358096, Bakre versus Kadziolka. This game played in 2004 is almost current by Chess lore standards. It is another from one of ChessGame top ten all-time lists, of which there are several. Switching to Wikipedia's longer compilation for follow-up scores, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_games, also to finish are two or three left from the Mail's ten-best list. In the Wikipedia format, we have already determined better move, reversing the outcome in: (1) 1930 (probably 1929) Glucksberg-Najdorf ''Polish Immortal'' (2) 1960 Spassky-Bronstein, from which this weave is named (3) 1972 Fischer-Spassky game 6 (4) 1972 Spassky-Fischer game 13 (5) 1985 Karpov-Kasparov game 16.
After the Queen sacrifice by Black Move 30, most moves are forced upon
White.
There are only 4 or 5 chances for alternate moves at all the last nineteen
moves to the Resign. But each of those has about the same four or six
alternatives than the White move actually chosen by Averbakh.
First try: instead of retaking the Bishop after 41 ...Bxg5,
'42 Nxf4' as correction falls upon 42 ...Bxf4.
Is this then the first perfect game after a clear-cut brilliancy?
[ Added 25.February.2013. Second try: So how about the 'Nxf4' earlier at 34? Move 34 Nxf4... Averbakh-Kotov ]
The brilliancy, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375, in Averbakh versus Kotov sixty years ago is 30 ...Qxh3, sacrificing the Queen for Pawn. The game is barely half over and Black will play Queen-less and down the Queen for 19 moves -- yet win. Where does White go wrong?
All-time top ten of ChessGames,
Top_Ten, listed fourth
is Averbakh versus Kotov year 1953.
Deserving listing, the game features mid-game Queen sacrifice followed by King chase:
Averbakh-Kotov. Where does White go wrong?
Like the search for the perfect wave in surfing classic film ''Endless Summer'' (1966), the search for the perfect chess game goes on. The first one on the list above, Glucksberg versus Najdorf (1929) fails this test. Just considered last comment, the Polish Immortal falls because of White open-and-shut response 11 N-h3. A perfect chess game score cannot have cooperation if better move shown to be available after a brilliancy. So too since last summer have failed Fischer-Spassky Game 6 (1972), Stoltz-Steiner (1952), Euwe- Reti(1920), and almost a score others, depending how many from the Spassky-Fischer series are counted. However, two or three from the Mail's Top Ten are indeterminate on first look or postponed including Karpov-Kasparov 42 moves (1985) whether filling the bill perfect game, to resurrect the finals.
The four above are examples of ones to throw out as obviously no good for the purpose: Fischer-Spassky famous Game 6 because of 15 ...Rxc5, Stoltz-Steiner because of 25 ...K-g8, Euwe-Reti 1920 because of 12 Qxc5 and that G-N Polish Immortal. False candidates all for perfect game, but understandable each being on top-ten list -- top-one in case of Stoltz-Steiner by Kramnik reckoning -- for their inadvertent cooperative error by opponent leading to interesting exciting chess often having exchange sacrifice.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.