Nezhmetdinov - Chernikov - 1962 - Queen Sac

[yanquis1972]

which line?? -what- line???

you're just giving a subjective interpretation of the position at move 14; how does white actually win? the draw scores arent due to blind repetition; engines actually evaluate the position as dead = without any repetition in the pv. if white truly has a concrete advantage, it has to be demonstrated in some fashion...

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Hi!

ProDeo Q3 Tactical Engine:

r1b2rk1/pp1ppp1p/5bp1/q7/3nP2Q/1BN1B3/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by ProDeo 2.2 SMP:
...
12.Dh6 Lg7 13.Dg5 Dxg5 14.Lxg5 e6 15.Tfd1 f5 16.La4 fxe4 17.Le3 Sc6 18.Sxe4 d5 19.Sd6 Le5 20.Sxc8 Taxc8 21.c3 b6 22.Tac1 Sa5
+/= (0.52) Tiefe: 17 00:00:25 59344kN
12.Dxf6 Se2+ 13.Sxe2 exf6 14.Sf4 d6 15.Tad1 Td8 16.Sd5 Le6 17.Sxf6+ Kg7 18.Sd5 Tac8 19.Ld4+ Kh6 20.c3 Te8 21.f4 Lg4
+/= (0.57) Tiefe: 17 00:00:34 80866kN
...
12.Dxf6 Se2+ 13.Sxe2 exf6 14.Sf4 d6 15.Tad1 b5 16.Txd6 Lb7 17.Txf6 Lxe4 18.Ld5 Lxc2 19.Tc6 Lf5 20.Tcc1 Tfd8 21.Lxa8 Txa8 22.b4 Dxb4 23.Lxa7
+/= (0.52) Tiefe: 21 00:02:43 402MN
12.Dh6
+/= (0.52) Tiefe: 21 00:03:41 550MN

So even this legendary sac- monster switches to another move later on again.

Without any alternative the move so far as for my few trials was only for an old Junior- setting of mine:

r1b2rk1/pp1ppp1p/5bp1/q7/3nP2Q/1BN1B3/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Deep Junior 11.2 UCI1553015:

12.Dxf6
+/- (1.21) Tiefe: 9 00:00:00 74kN
...
12.Dxf6 Se2+ 13.Sxe2 exf6 14.Sc3 Te8 15.Sd5 Te6 16.Ld4 Kg7 17.Tae1 b5 18.Te3 Lb7 19.Sxf6 Txf6 20.Td1 Dd8 21.Tf3
+- (2.08) Tiefe: 22 00:06:58 12616MN

BTW in Hiarcs CE online GM++ the move is stored with a ?, Qg4 has !? and Qh6 has !.
To me the sac isn't unsound, but I'd not call it the best move neither. I'd not give a Queen for no proveable advantage, especially not, if I'd want to play aggressively.
And that might be the reason why even "aggressive" settings don't chose it, if you don't lower the material eval of the Queen e.g., like I did here with F15. Black's Queen- value lowered for the worth of 3 Pawns:

r1b2rk1/pp1ppp1p/5bp1/q7/3nP2Q/1BN1B3/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Fritz 15:

12.Dxf6 Se2+ 13.Sxe2 exf6 14.Sc3 Dd8 15.Tfd1 b6 16.f3 Lb7 17.La4
=/+ (-0.61) Tiefe: 7 00:00:00 8kN
...
12.Dxf6 Se2+ 13.Sxe2[] exf6[] 14.Sc3 d6 15.Sd5 Le6 16.Sxf6+[] Kg7 17.Ld4 Tfc8[] 18.Sd7+ Kg8 19.Sf6+[] Kg7 20.Sd7+ Kg8 21.Sf6+[] Kg7 22.Sd7+ Kg8 23.Sf6+[] Kg7 24.Sd7+ Kg8 25.Sf6+[] Kg7 26.Sd7+ Kg8 27.Sf6+[]
= (0.00) Tiefe: 27 00:02:04 1162MN

Finally I have here some more SF- output. After Forward- Backward of the main lines with 12.Qxf6, 12.Qg4 and 12.Qh6, the Queen- sac in 6MV is among the 4 best ones at once, rising for one place later on.
That's at depth 41, after soon reduction to 3MV:

r1b2rk1/pp1ppp1p/5bp1/q7/3nP2Q/1BN1B3/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Brainfish 031216 64 POPCNT:

1. = (0.11): 12.Dg4 d6 13.Dd1 Sc6 14.Lh6 Td8 15.Ld2 Dc5 16.Le3 Da5 17.Df3 Tf8 18.Lh6 Te8 19.Ld2 Le6 20.Tad1 Sd4 21.Dd3 Sxb3 22.axb3 Dc5 23.Le3 Dc6 24.Ld4 Lxd4 25.Dxd4 Tec8 26.f4 Dc5 27.f5 gxf5 28.exf5 Lxf5 29.Sd5 Lxc2 30.Sxe7+ Kf8 31.Sxc8 Lxd1 32.Txf7+ Kg8 33.Tg7+ Kh8 34.Dxc5 dxc5 35.Tc7 h6 36.Txc5 Lxb3 37.Tc7 b6 38.Kf2 Le6 39.Se7 Kh7 40.Sc6+ Kg6 41.Txa7 Txa7 42.Sxa7

2. = (0.08): 12.Dh6 Lg7 13.Dg5 Sxb3 14.axb3 Dxg5 15.Lxg5 Lxc3 16.bxc3 f6 17.Lh6 Te8 18.Le3 a6 19.c4 d6 20.f3 g5 21.Kf2 Kf7 22.Ta5 Le6 23.Lb6 Tg8 24.Ke3 Tac8 25.Kd3 h5 26.h3 Th8 27.Th1 Tcg8 28.Le3 Ld7 29.c5 g4 30.hxg4 hxg4 31.Txh8 Txh8 32.cxd6 gxf3 33.gxf3 Th3 34.dxe7 Txf3

3. = (0.00): 12.Dxf6 Se2+ 13.Sxe2 exf6 14.Sf4 Kg7 15.Sd5 d6 16.Ld4 h5 17.Sxf6 Kh6 18.Le3+ Kg7 19.Ld4

and all of those 'tweaked' versions will score 10-20% less than the standard engine settings in tests, so what is the use of it?

Sf goes wrong already at move 17. much better is check with the bishop (Lf6+), and after Kg8 Be7:

[d]r1b2r2/pp2Bp1k/3p2p1/q2N3p/4P3/1B6/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 7

white captures the d6 pawn instead of the f8 rook, getting to the imbalance position I already posted of RRBB+2pawn vs QRR, which is easily won for white, though deep enough for top engines not to see.

I guess they are even more convincing attacking winning lines, but no time to check extensively.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

another easy attacking winning line, probably more convincing than the imbalance line, is 17. Nf6 (still capturing with the knigth, seemingly everyting wins) Kh6 and now, instead of what Drawfish suggests (3-fold repetition), with Be3, f4 Be6 (nothing better) f5:

[d]r4r2/pp3p2/3pbNpk/q4P1p/3BP3/1B6/PPP3PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 8

and white has crushing attack. white doubles rooks on the f file, mating.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

here is Nezhmetdinov's finest: a win against the world champion.
and Nezhmetdinov was not even a grandmaster!

[pgn][Event "USSR Championship 1961 b"]
[Site "Baku URS"]
[Date "1961.12.08"]
[EventDate "1960.??.??"]
[Round "15"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov"]
[Black "Mikhail Tal"]
[ECO "B84"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 Nbd7
7.O-O a6 8.f4 Qc7 9.g4 b5 10.a3 Bb7 11.Bf3 Nc5 12.Qe2 e5
13.Nf5 g6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.Nh6 Ne6 16.Bg2 Bg7 17.Rxf6 Bxf6
18.Nd5 Qd8 19.Qf2 Nf4 20.Bxf4 exf4 21.e5 Bxe5 22.Re1 f6
23.Nxf6+ Qxf6 24.Qd4 Kf8 25.Rxe5 Qd8 26.Rf5+ gxf5 27.Qxh8+ Ke7
28.Qg7+ Ke6 29.gxf5+ 1-0


[/pgn]

[yanquis1972]

of course it looks crushing, but actually try it in practice against drawfish and youll find it not nearly so simple to execute.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

of course it looks crushing, but actually try it in practice against drawfish and youll find it not nearly so simple to execute.

we were looking at whether the position is won, and not whether I can win it against SF: 2 different things. (but I guess I can do both)

so far d5 sacrifice is refuted, Kg7 & d6 is refuted, any other lines remaining?

people who have big hardware with sufficient time can easily demonstrate any of the 2 critical positions I posted: the imbalance one and the f5 push one, reach very significant white advantage.

one does not have to play well to guess the rigth move, one just has to evaluate precisely at the root.

[reflectionofpower]

here is Nezhmetdinov's finest: a win against the world champion.
and Nezhmetdinov was not even a grandmaster!

[pgn][Event "USSR Championship 1961 b"]
[Site "Baku URS"]
[Date "1961.12.08"]
[EventDate "1960.??.??"]
[Round "15"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov"]
[Black "Mikhail Tal"]
[ECO "B84"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "57"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 Nbd7
7.O-O a6 8.f4 Qc7 9.g4 b5 10.a3 Bb7 11.Bf3 Nc5 12.Qe2 e5
13.Nf5 g6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.Nh6 Ne6 16.Bg2 Bg7 17.Rxf6 Bxf6
18.Nd5 Qd8 19.Qf2 Nf4 20.Bxf4 exf4 21.e5 Bxe5 22.Re1 f6
23.Nxf6+ Qxf6 24.Qd4 Kf8 25.Rxe5 Qd8 26.Rf5+ gxf5 27.Qxh8+ Ke7
28.Qg7+ Ke6 29.gxf5+ 1-0


[/pgn]

Don't forget Lev Polugaevsky vs Rashid Nezhmetdinov 1958. Said to be one of the greatest games of the 20th century. A definite immortal from Nezhmetdinov. A very aggressive game.

[pgn][Event "RSFSR-ch 18th"]
[Site "Sochi"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Polugaevsky, Lev"]
[Black "Nezhmetdinov, Rashid"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A53"]
[Annotator "RR"]
[PlyCount "66"]
[EventDate "1958.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "19"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2013.11.20"]

1. d4 {Cette partie est trés connue à cause de l'attaque fameuse menée par les
Noirs sur le K Blanc} Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. e4 exd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd2 g6
7. b3 Bg7 8. Bb2 O-O 9. Bd3 Ng4 10. Nge2 (10. Nf3 $142 Nge5 11. Be2 Nxf3+ 12.
Bxf3 Nd4 13. h4 $5 Nxf3+ 14. gxf3 Qf6 15. O-O-O Be6 16. f4 $16) 10... Qh4 (
10... Nce5 11. Bc2 Bh6 $36 (11... Qh4)) 11. Ng3 Nge5 12. O-O f5 13. f3 Bh6 14.
Qd1 f4 15. Nge2 g5 16. Nd5 g4 17. g3 fxg3 18. hxg3 Qh3 19. f4 Be6 $1 {Début du
festival tactique} 20. Bc2 (20. Nxc7 {[%cal Gc7e6,Gc7a8]} Bxf4 $1 21. Rxf4 (21.
gxf4 g3 $19 {[%csl Gf2,Gh2]}) (21. Nxf4 Qxg3+) 21... Rxf4 22. Bxe5 Nxe5 23.
Nxa8 (23. Nxe6 Rf6 {[%cal Gf6e6,Gf6h6]}) 23... Rf7 {[%csl Ra8]} (23... Rf6 24.
Nc7)) 20... Rf7 21. Kf2 Qh2+ 22. Ke3 Bxd5 23. cxd5 Nb4 24. Rh1 (24. a3) 24...
Rxf4 $3 25. Rxh2 Rf3+ 26. Kd4 Bg7 $3 {[%csl Rd4][%cal Gg7d4] << Personne ne
voit les combinaisons comme Nezhmetdinov >> Mikhail Botvinnik} 27. a4 c5+ 28.
dxc6 bxc6 29. Bd3 Nexd3+ 30. Kc4 d5+ 31. exd5 cxd5+ 32. Kb5 Rb8+ 33. Ka5 Nc6+
0-1[/pgn]

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

which line?? -what- line???

you're just giving a subjective interpretation of the position at move 14; how does white actually win? the draw scores arent due to blind repetition; engines actually evaluate the position as dead = without any repetition in the pv. if white truly has a concrete advantage, it has to be demonstrated in some fashion...

engines evaluate as blind repetition, because engines are stupid.

so far I have reched 100-150cps scores for both main lines, from both SF and Komodo, with just quick checks.
of course, couple of moves before, in advance of being shown the rigth continuations, both SF and Komodo wished to repeat as soon as possible.

[yanquis1972]

of course it looks crushing, but actually try it in practice against drawfish and youll find it not nearly so simple to execute.

we were looking at whether the position is won, and not whether I can win it against SF: 2 different things. (but I guess I can do both)

so far d5 sacrifice is refuted, Kg7 & d6 is refuted, any other lines remaining?

people who have big hardware with sufficient time can easily demonstrate any of the 2 critical positions I posted: the imbalance one and the f5 push one, reach very significant white advantage.

one does not have to play well to guess the rigth move, one just has to evaluate precisely at the root.

to demonstrate whether or not the position is won, you'd have to beat, at very least, stockfish. i've checked your positions & engines cannot win them at short TC (avoiding any quick draws by repetition); perhaps they are stupid, but i'm curious as to how you'd reach a position that's actually evaluated at something like +1.00, even +.50 would be great. as is engines see the root positions as = & play suggests that evaluation is accurate.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

of course it looks crushing, but actually try it in practice against drawfish and youll find it not nearly so simple to execute.

we were looking at whether the position is won, and not whether I can win it against SF: 2 different things. (but I guess I can do both)

so far d5 sacrifice is refuted, Kg7 & d6 is refuted, any other lines remaining?

people who have big hardware with sufficient time can easily demonstrate any of the 2 critical positions I posted: the imbalance one and the f5 push one, reach very significant white advantage.

one does not have to play well to guess the rigth move, one just has to evaluate precisely at the root.

to demonstrate whether or not the position is won, you'd have to beat, at very least, stockfish. i've checked your positions & engines cannot win them at short TC (avoiding any quick draws by repetition); perhaps they are stupid, but i'm curious as to how you'd reach a position that's actually evaluated at something like +1.00, even +.50 would be great. as is engines see the root positions as = & play suggests that evaluation is accurate.

what you think, that I have all day to analyse these 2 positions?

why do not you do the analysis instead? there are many people with powerful hardware, let them give a hand.

I know both positions are easy wins, but, it is true, even from these positions, our respected tops still miss vital moves every too often, even with more time, running bullet games here might be counter-productive.

just 2 quick games with SF, I suggested to SF the first 2 moves in the first game (which SF does not see), then SF continues on its own, and the first 3 moves in the second game, then SF is on its own. as you see, all easy wins, I do not have the time to play till mate, first position reaches +200cps, second +100cps. I am more than certain white play could be further improved.

[pgn][Event "analysis"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2016.12.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "myself+SF, owner"]
[Black "SF"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4r2/pp3p2/3pbNpk/q4P1p/3BP3/1B6/PPP3PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 10"]
[PlyCount "22"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 10... Bxb3 {-0.24/20 2} 11. axb3 {5} Qd2 {-0.44/16 1} 12. c3
{3} Qxb2 {-0.58/20 0} 13. Be3+ {-0.04/20 2} g5 {0.00/22 1} 14. h4 {0.09/19 1}
Rg8 {0.27/20 4} 15. Rac1 {0.43/18 1} Kg7 {0.30/18 2} 16. hxg5 {0.48/19 1} a5 {
0.24/20 7} 17. Bd4 {0.66/17 1} b5 {0.55/19 4} 18. Rce1 {0.50/19 1} Qxb3 {0.68/
21 2} 19. e5 {0.55/21 1} dxe5 {0.78/24 3} 20. Nxh5+ {0.88/23 1} Kh7 {1.50/22 2}
21. Nf6+ {1.87/21 1} 1-0

[Event "analysis"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2016.12.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "myself + SF, owner"]
[Black "SF"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4r2/pp3pkp/6p1/q2B4/4P3/4B3/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "44"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1... Qc7 {-0.02/21 8} 2. c4 {5} h5 {-0.11/19 5} 3. b4 {3}
Rad8 {-0.08/16 1} 4. a4 {39} Rfe8 {0.15/17 2} 5. Rfd1 {0.14/17 0} a6 {0.36/21 5
} 6. a5 {0.14/19 0} Rd7 {0.27/22 4} 7. b5 {0.42/20 0} f5 {0.25/21 3} 8. h3 {0.
45/17 0} Kh7 {0.26/20 1} 9. exf5 {0.34/19 0} gxf5 {0.27/23 5} 10. bxa6 {0.41/
19 0} bxa6 {0.39/21 1} 11. Rab1 {0.48/20 0} Rxe3 {0.19/20 1} 12. fxe3 {0.38/16
0} Rd6 {0.39/22 1} 13. Rf1 {0.41/18 0} Kg6 {0.72/21 1} 14. e4 {0.64/20 0} fxe4
{0.79/22 2} 15. Rb7 {0.79/21 0} Qc5+ {0.69/24 1} 16. Kh2 {0.58/24 0} Kh6 {0.64/
25 1} 17. Re7 {0.62/21 0} e3 {0.71/24 1} 18. Rf3 {0.75/23 0} e2 {0.68/24 3} 19.
Rxe2 {0.69/21 0} Qc7 {0.54/21 1} 20. Kh1 {0.73/19 2} Qxa5 {0.58/18 1} 21. Rf5 {
0.60/20 0} Qa3 {0.97/19 1} 22. Ree5 {0.90/19 0} Kg7 {0.70/21 1} 23. Re8 {1.00/
17 0} 1-0

[/pgn]