I love the psychological damage botvinnik does with this move. White still has a decent position after the sacrifice but it felt like he was holding on for his life for the rest of the game
I found a very enlightening comment on this game some years after seeing it for the first time. I believe that Botvinnik's strategy was altogether not so convincing, even if he certainly did make the most of it once given the chance to install his rook on d4, after which his play was basically flawless. Your helpful comments prove that you well have understood Botvinnik's concept and are able to explain it to a broad audience. The very deep point of the aforementioned comment (unfortunately I can't remember the author) was that White should have played his queen to c2 first instead of moving his knight to c3. This would have allowed White to exchange a pair of rooks. In this case, Black's play would have turned out far less effective if he had opted for the exchange sacrifice again on d4. The reason for this is that in the stem game White's two rooks proved totally ineffective whereas Black made good use of his remaining rook. If you took a pair of rooks off the board after Botvinnik's iconic exchange sacrifice, the difference would become clear. If Black refrained from the exchange sacrifice, his pawn structure would clearly remain shattered. Naturally, expecting Liublinsky to understand all these details over the board would have been pretty assertive since Botvinnik's concepts were so daringly new in those days (and later endorsed by Petrosian). As of your other question: I put some thought to it, but I was unable to come up with an earlier example. I will keep on looking though ;-)
I'm not sure if this one qualifies for your definition of a purely positional exchange sacrifice, but I believe it does. In the game Lilienthal - Ragozin, Moscow 1935, Black's move 27... Rxe3!! must have been quite shocking for White. The move once and for all stops White's intended e3-e4 without any clear attack in return. Amusingly, Ragozin even sacrificed a second exchange a few moves later in the game! Maybe this could become one of the best games of the 1930s if you intend to follow up with that decade after the 1940s!?
Just to make matters clear: with "this one" I was referring to Ragozin's example, not to Botvinnik's sacrifice, which is simply the mother of all exchange sacrifices.
Yes, more Botvinnik ✊✊ The Soviet Legend and the ‘professional’ chess master. Amazing analysis, preparation, and study by him and very awesome methodical play by him this game Good stuff 👌👌✌🏻✌🏻
I love the psychological damage botvinnik does with this move. White still has a decent position after the sacrifice but it felt like he was holding on for his life for the rest of the game
Cant believe that this channel is so underrated
I found a very enlightening comment on this game some years after seeing it for the first time. I believe that Botvinnik's strategy was altogether not so convincing, even if he certainly did make the most of it once given the chance to install his rook on d4, after which his play was basically flawless. Your helpful comments prove that you well have understood Botvinnik's concept and are able to explain it to a broad audience.
The very deep point of the aforementioned comment (unfortunately I can't remember the author) was that White should have played his queen to c2 first instead of moving his knight to c3. This would have allowed White to exchange a pair of rooks. In this case, Black's play would have turned out far less effective if he had opted for the exchange sacrifice again on d4. The reason for this is that in the stem game White's two rooks proved totally ineffective whereas Black made good use of his remaining rook. If you took a pair of rooks off the board after Botvinnik's iconic exchange sacrifice, the difference would become clear. If Black refrained from the exchange sacrifice, his pawn structure would clearly remain shattered.
Naturally, expecting Liublinsky to understand all these details over the board would have been pretty assertive since Botvinnik's concepts were so daringly new in those days (and later endorsed by Petrosian).
As of your other question: I put some thought to it, but I was unable to come up with an earlier example. I will keep on looking though ;-)
I'm not sure if this one qualifies for your definition of a purely positional exchange sacrifice, but I believe it does. In the game Lilienthal - Ragozin, Moscow 1935, Black's move 27... Rxe3!! must have been quite shocking for White. The move once and for all stops White's intended e3-e4 without any clear attack in return. Amusingly, Ragozin even sacrificed a second exchange a few moves later in the game! Maybe this could become one of the best games of the 1930s if you intend to follow up with that decade after the 1940s!?
Just to make matters clear: with "this one" I was referring to Ragozin's example, not to Botvinnik's sacrifice, which is simply the mother of all exchange sacrifices.
Love your breakdowns man!
Yes, more Botvinnik ✊✊ The Soviet Legend and the ‘professional’ chess master. Amazing analysis, preparation, and study by him and very awesome methodical play by him this game
Good stuff 👌👌✌🏻✌🏻
Thanks a lot sir..for this beautiful game...
Wonderful explanation of the positional exchange sac, thanks Sam. I makes perfect sense when explained as clearly as y ou did here.
I am a little surprised that you chose this, instead of his great win against Milan Vidmar Senior at Groningen. Still, a fascinating game.
BOTVINNIK. As they say on nthe PGA golf tour "THESE GUYS ARE GOOD" AWESOME !!!
dude, i really love your content but i have to look away at the beginning of the video cuz of the position spoiler 😂
What a game !
Bitvinnik was a GREAT master; the likes of whom we may never see again.
I thought Tigran Petrosian invented the positionsl exchange sacrifice.
Kinda clickbaity... I seem to recall games by Nimzo and Alekin that featured nice positional exchange sacrifices. Will try to hunt them down.