Page 1 of 1
Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:20 pm
by Roger de Coverly
Warren Kingston wrote:Hope I have typed it correctly. Hope also you can remember the game Roger?
I supplied it from my archive.
I don't totally agree with all of David Lemoir's notes. In the critical middle game position, I see nothing particularly wrong with consolidating with 21.. Qf8 (Rybka suggests the imaginative defence 21 .. Bg4). The real error was on the next move in overlooking or underestimating the Rxd7 possibility. So 22 .. c5 is the ? move given that it provokes 23 Rxd7. 22 .. Rad8 was needed after which Black still has an advantage ( two pawns up
). Even after Rxd7, Black is the exchange and two pawns ahead so chances remain for equality by giving up material in exchange for king safety. One idea is to leave the piece on d7 to its fate after 25 Bb5. Another is to play 24 .. f6 which can involve giving up the queen for a rook to reach a queen v two rooks ending.
Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:35 pm
by John Upham
Is not 5..de: 6. fe: e5! somewhat more to the point making the Qa5 pin stronger still?
So if 7. de: then Qa5 and if 8. Bf6: then Ba3! would seem to take the wind out of Whites Veresov sails.
I'm no expert on the Veresov as you can easily tell but I though most of this was well-known stuff?
Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:46 pm
by Richard Bates
John Upham wrote:Is not 5..de: 6. fe: e5! somewhat more to the point making the Qa5 pin stronger still?
I'm no expert on the Veresov as you can easily tell!
I don't think 5...d6xe4 is legal.
Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:49 pm
by John Upham
Richard Bates wrote:John Upham wrote:Is not 5..de: 6. fe: e5! somewhat more to the point making the Qa5 pin stronger still?
I'm no expert on the Veresov as you can easily tell!
I don't think 5...d6xe4 is legal.
Ooops! I made the silly assumption that Black had played d5 and not d6. Apologies to RDdC!
Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:52 pm
by Roger de Coverly
John Upham wrote:Is not 5..de: 6. de: e5! somewhat more to the point making the Qa5 idea stronger still?
Move 2 had been d6 not d5. To this day, the positions early in the game remain on the outer frontiers of opening theory. If you can classify it at all, it has something in common with the system attributed to Pribyl where Black plays Nf6,c6,d6 and Qa5 which had yet to be invented in 1976. There's even a game from 1986 where Pribyl is Black in the position at move 7. White (also Polish) choose the cautious 8 Be3 instead of 8 h4.