Alex Niedzwiedzki

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 22607
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:20 pm

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.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 8329
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki

Post by John Upham » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:35 pm

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?
Last edited by John Upham on Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Arbiter, Organiser, Swiss Mangler person, Rating Officer, Teacher, Coach and Photographer
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Richard Bates
Posts: 3466
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki

Post by Richard Bates » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:46 pm

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.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 8329
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki

Post by John Upham » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:49 pm

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!
Arbiter, Organiser, Swiss Mangler person, Rating Officer, Teacher, Coach and Photographer
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 22607
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Alex Niedzwiedzki

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:52 pm

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.

Post Reply