Don wrote:I remember seeing a Fischer game where BF sacrificed a queen and it was impressive, because it was not some tactical shot but appeared to be completely based on positional judgement and looked like a blunder. Only after several moves did it become apparent that he knew exactly what he was doing. I wish I could remember where to find that game, I'm curious to know how Komodo would have played it.
This?
That is a good one, but it was so long ago - it does not remind me of the game I was thinking about. I remember the queen sacrifice as being almost positional and hard to believe - in this beautiful game it's not hard to believe there might be immediate tactics.
[D]r3r1k1/pp3pbp/1qp3p1/2B5/2BP2b1/Q1n2N2/P4PPP/3R1K1R b - - 3 17
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. d4 O-O 5. Bf4 d5 6. Qb3 dxc4
7. Qxc4 c6 8. e4 Nbd7 9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5 Bg4 11. Bg5 {11. Be2
followed by 12 O-O would have been more prudent. The bishop
move played allows a sudden crescendo of tactical points to be
uncovered by Fischer. -- Wade} Na4 {!} 12. Qa3 {On 12. Nxa4
Nxe4 and White faces considerable difficulties.} Nxc3 {At
first glance, one might think that this move only helps White
create a stronger pawn center; however, Fischer's plan is
quite the opposite. By eliminating the Knight on c3, it
becomes possible to sacrifice the exchange via Nxe4 and smash
White's center, while the King remains trapped in the center.}
13. bxc3 Nxe4 {The natural continuation of Black's plan.}
14. Bxe7 Qb6 15. Bc4 Nxc3 16. Bc5 Rfe8+ 17. Kf1 Be6 {!! If
this is the game of the century, then 17...Be6!! must be the
counter of the century. Fischer offers his queen in exchange
for a fierce attack with his minor pieces. Declining this
offer is not so easy: 18. Bxe6 leads to a 'Philidor Mate'
(smothered mate) with ...Qb5+ 19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Ng3+
21. Kg1 Qf1+ 22. Rxf1 Ne2#. Other ways to decline the queen
also run into trouble: e.g., 18. Qxc3 Qxc5} 18. Bxb6 Bxc4+
19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Nxd4+ {This tactical scenario, where a
king is repeatedly revealed to checks, is sometimes called a
"windmill."} 21. Kg1 Ne2+ 22. Kf1 Nc3+ 23. Kg1 axb6 24. Qb4
Ra4 25. Qxb6 Nxd1 26. h3 Rxa2 27. Kh2 Nxf2 28. Re1 Rxe1
29. Qd8+ Bf8 30. Nxe1 Bd5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Qb8 b5 {Every piece
and pawn of the black camp is defended. The white queen has
nothing to do.} 33. h4 h5 34. Ne5 Kg7 35. Kg1 Bc5+ 36. Kf1
Ng3+ {Now Byrne is hopelessly entangled in Fischer's mating
net.} 37. Ke1 Bb4+ 38. Kd1 Bb3+ 39. Kc1 Ne2+ 40. Kb1 Nc3+
41. Kc1 Rc2# 0-1
so many... but Botvinnik - Capablanca should be a top contender. Difficult to find one game like that, with players of that caliber, and so influential.
Don wrote:I remember seeing a Fischer game where BF sacrificed a queen and it was impressive, because it was not some tactical shot but appeared to be completely based on positional judgement and looked like a blunder. Only after several moves did it become apparent that he knew exactly what he was doing. I wish I could remember where to find that game, I'm curious to know how Komodo would have played it.
This one? Not exactly positional, as the loss of the Rg8 seems to be forced. But this was somehow the closest to your description.
Fischer - Tal (Bled, 1961)
[D]2b1k1r1/1pqp1pPp/1r3Q2/4p3/5P2/3B2P1/1PP4P/1K1R3R w - - 0 23
javimm wrote:For the fireworks thing, I very much like Kasparov-Topalov 1999 Wijk aan Zee. That rook sacrifice is fantastic to play at that level (24 Rxd4).
Saw this game live, after looking at the game the next day. We found that Rxd4 does not work. If Topalov would have ignored the rook sac, the game would have been long forgotten. It took Topalovs blunder after Rxd4 to make Rxd4 work, so I do not consider this game one of the best ever.
I remember some people using the rook sac as a computer test position, but no computer program would play the rook sac....because even in those day the chess programs saw the sac was not winning.
javimm wrote:For the fireworks thing, I very much like Kasparov-Topalov 1999 Wijk aan Zee. That rook sacrifice is fantastic to play at that level (24 Rxd4).
Saw this game live, after looking at the game the next day. We found that Rxd4 does not work. If Topalov would have ignored the rook sac, the game would have been long forgotten. It took Topalovs blunder after Rxd4 to make Rxd4 work, so I do not consider this game one of the best ever.
I remember some people using the rook sac as a computer test position, but no computer program would play the rook sac....because even in those day the chess programs saw the sac was not winning.
Would you care to show one of the greatest games ever where neither side made a mistake, please? I'd really want to know...
Don wrote:I remember seeing a Fischer game where BF sacrificed a queen and it was impressive, because it was not some tactical shot but appeared to be completely based on positional judgement and looked like a blunder. Only after several moves did it become apparent that he knew exactly what he was doing. I wish I could remember where to find that game, I'm curious to know how Komodo would have played it.
This one? Not exactly positional, as the loss of the Rg8 seems to be forced. But this was somehow the closest to your description.
Fischer - Tal (Bled, 1961)
[D]2b1k1r1/1pqp1pPp/1r3Q2/4p3/5P2/3B2P1/1PP4P/1K1R3R w - - 0 23
I don't think it's that one either. This was a really long time ago and I think my memory of it may not be accurate. I was probably a much weaker player back then too.
javimm wrote:For the fireworks thing, I very much like Kasparov-Topalov 1999 Wijk aan Zee. That rook sacrifice is fantastic to play at that level (24 Rxd4).
Saw this game live, after looking at the game the next day. We found that Rxd4 does not work. If Topalov would have ignored the rook sac, the game would have been long forgotten. It took Topalovs blunder after Rxd4 to make Rxd4 work, so I do not consider this game one of the best ever.
I remember some people using the rook sac as a computer test position, but no computer program would play the rook sac....because even in those day the chess programs saw the sac was not winning.
Would you care to show one of the greatest games ever where neither side made a mistake, please? I'd really want to know...
You miss the point. Rxd4 is not a great winning move. The fame of the game rest on Rxd4!! being a very deep and a winning move found by Kasparov. It is not, Black is fine after Rxd4. So Topalov did not make some subtle mistake that Kasparov was able to refute with Rxd4. Yes, that would have been great. A Shot out of the blue.
javimm wrote:For the fireworks thing, I very much like Kasparov-Topalov 1999 Wijk aan Zee. That rook sacrifice is fantastic to play at that level (24 Rxd4).
Saw this game live, after looking at the game the next day. We found that Rxd4 does not work. If Topalov would have ignored the rook sac, the game would have been long forgotten. It took Topalovs blunder after Rxd4 to make Rxd4 work, so I do not consider this game one of the best ever.
I remember some people using the rook sac as a computer test position, but no computer program would play the rook sac....because even in those day the chess programs saw the sac was not winning.
Would you care to show one of the greatest games ever where neither side made a mistake, please? I'd really want to know...
You miss the point. Rxd4 is not a great winning move. The fame of the game rest on Rxd4!! being a very deep and a winning move found by Kasparov. It is not, Black is fine after Rxd4. So Topalov did not make some subtle mistake that Kasparov was able to refute with Rxd4. Yes, that would have been great. A Shot out of the blue.
It was in fact a last-resort attempt to save the game after having almost been outplayed. If black declines, his advantage shrinks considerably.
Nevertheless it was a remarkable idea (in conjunction with the later Re7).
All I was hinting at (in a rather sarcastic manner, I agree), was that _if_ we're going to talk about human chess here, it should not degenerate into a discussion about the human mistakes.
If I'm able to hack in a queen and get away with it, you can bet on it that the other player commited some serious mistakes before. As did the other engine (-:
