|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-05-12 | | morfishine: <FSR> Its obvious that <34.Bxg4> loses for White fairly handily. I find it hard to believe that <LM> would state <34.Bxg4, Bxd2; does NOT look like a win, in fact, (without an engine); it looks like Black might be struggling to make a draw ... (it) hardly looks like "an easy knock-out."> when its clear that White is struggling to draw if not is already downright lost. This statement by <LM> defies rational analysis |
|
Aug-05-12
 | | Jimfromprovidence: Here's another game with a bolt-out-of-the-blue move. It's white to play and win. Move 21.
click for larger view
The game link is below
Sutovsky vs E Inarkiev, 2009 |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | Conrad93: I should have realized that removing the pin was the best tactic... |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | morfishine: <Jimfromprovidence> That is terrific your post with the game Sutovsky vs E Inarkiev, 2009 I wanted to add your overall posts for the past couple of weeks have been outstanding, to say the least! Morf |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | QueenMe: <Once>: Actually, at the time I posted I found only 4 posts (well, 5, but one [from <ajile>] was conceded to be a line generated from Rybka). And of the remaining 4, 2 were mere mentions of it; hardly rising to the level of "analysis" you credit them for. And even so, in 4 (at the time) pages of kibitzing, that meant that only about one player per page commented on it. It's important because it continues to defend the night fork at f3, and guarantees that black has simply an exchange of queens. Moreover, I did fully concede, in a later post, that the move, while not resulting in a mate or other decisive win, DOES prevent the loss of the otherwise-doomed pinned bishop. Collaborating my point, BTW, is a similar post wondering why so few people mentioned 33) Be4. My main point was that I expected roughly 1/3 of the folks to be bringing up 34) Bxg4 instead of capturing with the rook, since there are three different ways the Queen can be captured (plus it has to obvious appeal of preserving defense of the knight fork, while capturing with the rook doesn't). |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | Eduardo Leon: Easiest Sunday I have ever solved. 33...♕g4 breaks the pin, and if white restores it with 34.♖xg4, then 34...♘f3+ 35.♔(any) ♘xd2 36.♖xg5+ ♔h6!, a nasty surprise. |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | Marmot PFL: 34 Bxg4 is not worth analyzing. As <gofer> pointed out the key line is 34 Rxg4 Nf3+ 35 Kg3! when it is black, not white, who still has to fight to draw. if black plays as in the game with 35...Nxd2 36 Rxg5+ Kh6 then 37 Kg4 threatening Rg6+ and Rxd6 puts white on top and if instead 36...Kf8 white's passed h pawn is dangerous. |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | raul555: I found the cue winner move in one minute: Qg4; but I am lazy, and I din't follow the secuence |
|
| Aug-05-12 | | Mendrys: Moves like 33...Qg4 are beauties that captured my interest in chess while I was in my teens. Not that I got it though but to be honest, it's not the deepest move I've seen lately. Surely not as deep as Anand's 24...Nc7 in Karjakin vs Anand, 2006 <QueenMe> It's ok to be humbled every once in a while. Finding out that perhaps you aren't, perhaps, cut from a different "mould" by not seeing that 34. Bxg4 is the only way white can ensure his own defeat, must be humbling indeed. Perhaps that assumption is wrong though . I'm sure that you'll find, if you look, moves that are gross blunders in tomorrows puzzle too that a certain percentage of the kibbitzers here don't mention. |
|
| Aug-06-12 | | Abdel Irada: <FSR>:
Yes. I *do* know your opinion of 33. ...♕g4. It would be difficult to read your many comments on this game and fail to know it. ;-) Beyond that, I suppose we'll just have to make the proverbial agreement to disagree. Burn's move may have been his best practical chance, but objectively it fails to save him, and I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to give too much credit in such an instance. However, "De gustibus non disputandum est," and all that. |
|
| Aug-06-12 | | Once: <QueenMe> Ahem. 4 or 5 kibitzers is not exactly nobody, is it? You may have expected one third of people to point it out, but as it clearly loses for white it doesn't need much discussion. As for 33. Be4, that comes one move before the puzzle position... As I said before, we like to keep it pleasant on these pages. And that means not launching into a piece about "I'm surprised nobody has mentioned move X" - when people have mentioned it and anyway it's a clear blunder that doesn't need much discussion. Time to move on, methinks. |
|
Aug-06-12
 | | FSR: <Abdel Irada> Yes, different strokes for different folks. As if to confirm this, Krabbé's own choice for the most fantastic move ever is a very strange one IMO: 16...Nc6?!? in Averbakh vs Spassky, 1956. My guess is that you and I can at least agree that that is an odd choice. :-) |
|
| Aug-06-12 | | morfishine: <QueenMe> On your comment <...Or perhaps, more evidence that a lot of you guys here just re-post others' analysis, and there's a whole heckuva lot more herd-mentality here than anybody's willing to admit to...> IMHO, this is not the case. I believe the vast majority of POTD solvers simply post their best line in an honest fashion. With so many skilled solvers present, duplication is bound to happen. But there are holes. Look at my solution for example: I neglected to mention White's best response <34.Rxg4> which was the move played. That was a poor oversight on my part I think most if not all solvers are simply doing their unassisted best |
|
| Aug-06-12 | | Once: I suppose we've all done it at one time or another. You play through a chess game and spot a move that no-one else has mentioned. A move that seems to turn defeat into victory, or at the very least gives the loser a reason to play on. And for a brief instant you get that glow of personal pride that a scientist must get when he discovers a new breed of bug or a planet orbiting a distant star or a tiny particle even smaller than the previously discovered tiny particle. You imagine the fame and riches which will follow. The applause and acclamation of your peers. Maybe an honorary title - say CGGM, a chessgames grandmaster? Gold medals, riches, adoring female fans drawn exclusively from the beach volleyball teams? Then, one of three things will happen. If you are lucky, you will double check your analysis. Perhaps use a chess engine. Or play it out on a board. Then 999 times out of a hundred, you will discover that you haven't spotted something new. That miracle move doesn't save the day. It doesn't rewrite chess theory. In fact, it probably loses far more quickly than the lines that everyone else is talking about. <Phew, that was close. Glad I didn't post it.> Scenario #2 is that you tentatively offer your move to the world. You say something like "Doesn't 34...Bxg4 work?". You might add in something suitable humble like "or have I missed something?". Then someone will gently point out the problem with your line, and you can accept it with good grace. <Aha, I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out.> But then we get to scenario #3, the worst of all possible worlds. You can't help yourself. You want to shout from the rooftops about this marvellous move that you've found. So you post something hyper-aggressive - possibly with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS!!! - to say how wonderful you are to have spotted this move and how stoooopid everyone else is for missing it. Throw in a few insults and puff your chest out for added effect. And the inevitable happens. <Ooops> The moral of the story is this. Mistakes do sometimes happen in analysis. GMs do miss good moves, sometimes game-changing moves. A kibitzer will sometimes spot something that no-one else has. But it is very rare. Especially in an age when powerful chess engines are available for free. If you think you have spotted something new, check, check and double-check before announcing it to the world. And do so politely, hmmm? |
|
| Aug-22-13 | | MarkFinan: How does white lose this??? 33.Be4 and its a totally different result, and to shadow box for 25 moves (missing 21.b4) without so much as a pawn being taken, building up a positional advantage and still not winning is unforgivable..
I've never heard of either player but this game must be pretty well known as there are 6 pages of kibitzing.. I'm now gonna read some comments and see if others agree. I hate reading the kibitzing first because if someone says anything remotely similar to what you're gonna say then i don't see the need to comment and repeat what others say.. |
|
| Nov-14-13 | | JustAnotherPatzer: <Mark> lol, that's why i never say anything technical; and also b/c i don't use engines so would probably get torn to shreds; 'better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt', that's my approach to kibitzing |
|
| Dec-14-13 | | shallowred: When I make a simple combination or sacrifice that works OTB I am elated. This move is one of a kind. |
|
| Dec-31-14 | | Llawdogg: Wow! That was an incredible queen sacrifice. I'm glad I stumbled upon this gem from the birthday boy Amos Burn. Happy Birthday, you da man! |
|
| Feb-07-17 | | clement41: White's opening play looks clumsy. His pawn play and way to develop the pieces are awkward... that's due to the knowledge back then I suppose.
Doesn't 9 Bg5?! already allow 9...Nxd5 ? Perhaps Burn saw it but didn't want to give white the strong d5 outpost and a target on d6 (alaol the more as white can exchange its natural defender, the Be7, with 10 Nxd5 Bxg5 11 Nxg5).
33...Qg4 is such a gem! |
|
| May-27-17 | | whiteshark: http://i.imgur.com/fu8iW3O.gif |
|
| Jun-13-20 | | RandomVisitor: After 33.Bh5 surprisingly 33...Qg4 is the best move. White should have played 35.Kg3
click for larger viewStockfish_20060616_x64_modern:
<50/87 1:54:24 +3.01 33...Qg4 34.Rxg4 Nf3+ 35.Kg3> Nxd2 36.Rxg5+ Kf8 37.Rf5+ Kg7 38.Bd1 b6 39.axb6 axb6 40.Bc2 b5 41.cxb5 c4 42.Rg5+ Kf8 43.b6 Rb7 44.bxc4 Rxb6 45.h4 Rb2 46.Bg6 Nf1+ 47.Kf3 Nd2+ 48.Kg4 Rb4 49.Kf5 Rxc4 50.Ke6 Rxh4 51.Kxd6 Ra4 52.Rf5+ Kg7 49/85 1:54:24 +13.01 33...Qd8 34.Rxg5+ Kh7 35.Bg4 Kh8 36.Kg3 Rh7 37.Bh5 b6 38.Kxh4 bxa5 39.f4 Qf6 40.fxe5 dxe5 41.Kg4 a4 42.bxa4 Qf1 43.Rxe5 Rg7+ 44.Kh4 Qf6+ 45.Rg5 Re7 46.Kg3 Re4 47.Bf3 Re7 48.Qf4 Qxf4+ 49.Kxf4 Rf7+ 50.Rf5 Re7 51.Bh5 Kg8 52.d6 Rd7 |
|
| Jul-15-20 | | jith1207: I'd be grateful to someone who could compile a book of posts from <JimfromProvidence> with the narration given by <Once>. |
|
May-28-22
| | FSR: Instead of 37.h4? Stockfish 15 points out that 37.Kg4! would have been totally winning, for example 37...Rg7 38.Rxg7 Kxg7 39.Kf5 Nxb3 40.Ke6 Nxa5 41.Be2! and Black is toast. |
|
| May-28-22 | | Nosnibor: <FSR> With respect how can white play 37.Kg4 and jump 2 squares from g2? Am I missing some thing? |
|
May-29-22
| | FSR: <Nosnibor> Good point. What I should have said is that instead of 35.Kg2?, Stockfish 15 points out that 35.Kg3! Nxd2 36.Rxg5+ Kh6 37.Kg4! would have been totally winning, for example 37...Rg7 38.Rxg7 Kxg7 39.Kf5 Nxb3 40.Ke6 Nxa5 41.Be2! and Black is toast. Gotta use that king in the endgame! I see that <RandomVisitor> already noted a couple of years ago that 35.Kg3! wins. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
+ sac: 33...Qg4
