1. Taimanov vs. Unzicker
2. Smyslov vs. Korchnoi
3. Tal vs. Najorf
4. Reshevsky vs. Mecking
When I played over these games, I cant help but wonder "How does one win against such players?". When all it takes for them to win, is just a very tiny weakeness in an opponents position? Its hardly the case for my games that a weak pawn would prove to be decisive. But here, a single weak pawn indeed proves to be the downfall of the opponent. Such skill to exploit so little an advantage.
Anyway, if I had to pick one game from the four which I felt was most instructive, I'll give my game-of-the-chapter award to (Drum-roll please)
1. Taimanov vs. Unzicker
I felt all the games followed some sort of pattern, and it was this one game which more closely followed that pattern. Namely:
Note: Step 3 and 4 maybe reversed.
The presence of prophylactic thinking is really prevalent among this games. I read the comment "White does not take the pawn because black will get counterplay" quite a few times. I guess when you are faced with world class GM's, it pays not to take any chances. Even if you are a world-class GM yourself. (Strangely, even Tal's game here doesnt look like the common stereotyped Tal game. It looks more like a Botvinnik game to me.)
This playing thru master games is getting quite addicting too. Perhaps it has something to do with me being starved for such things after a very long tactics training program?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
btw: I think U1600 Delamaza has won our division (T27 tournament).
Our score in round 9 was 3-0 with one more game left to go. Congratulations to the guys! Here's to a nice tournamanent. Cheers!
Very clarifying. I allways thought that weak pawns were made from bad rubber.:)