|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-11-05
 |
| patzer2: Sutkovsky and Gormally traded blunders in this game, allowing Sutkovsky to avoid an embarrassing loss and pull off a nice swindle. As <Captain Scarlet> notes, after Sutkovsky's 30...dxe4?? (Sutkovsky should have played 30...Rc8 =), Gormally could have won easily with the deflection combination 31.Bxf8! Kxf8 32.Qd6+ Kg8 33.Qd8+ Qe8 34.Qxe8+ Nxe8 35.Rxb2  . After 31. c4? Qf5!?, White commits an even bigger blunder with 32...Bxf8??. Instead, he could have held with advantage after 32. Rxb2!  . Of course Sutkovsky deserves credit for pulling off a pretty swindle with the stunning deflection combination 32...Nh5! 33.Qg4 exf3! 34.Qxf5 fxg2+ 35.Kg1 Bd4+ 36.Qf2 Nf4!! –+ A detailed analysis, validated with Fritz 8, follows: 30...dxe4?? <30...Rc8! 31.e5 Nd7 32.c3 Nc5 33.Bxc5 Qxb3 34.Qf2 Qxa2 35.Qxb2 Qc4 36.Qb4 Qd3 37.Qb8 Qf1+ 38.Bg1 Qa6 39.Qb6 Qa4 40.Bd4=> 31.c4?! <31.Bxf8! Kxf8 32.Qd6+ Kg8 33.Qd8+ Qe8 34.Qxe8+ Nxe8 35.Rxb2 > 31... f5!? 32. xf8?? <32.Rxb2! exf3 33.Kg1 fxg2 34.Qf2 Qe5 35.Qc5 Qxc5+ 36.Bxc5±] 32...Nh5! 33.Qg4 exf3 34.Qxf5 fxg2+ 35.Kg1 Bd4+ 36.Qf2 Nf4!–+ <36...Bxf2+?? 37.Kxf2 Kxf8 > In the final position, play could have continued 37.h4 <37.Qxd4 Nh3#; 37.h3 Ne2+ 38.Kh2 Be5+ 39.Qf4 Bxf4#> 37... e2+ 38. h2 xf2 39.d6 g1+ 40. xg1 xg1+ 41.h3 d4 42.a4 f5 43.b4 f3 44.c3 f2 45.h5 e3 46.b3 f5 47.c5 g5 48.hxg6 hxg6 49.xe6+ h7 50.h2 g5 51.xf5+ <51.Bd7 Nf1+ 52.Kh3 g4#> 51...xf5 52.b1 g4 53.d2 g3+ 54.h3 d5 55.g4 g2–+ with a clear win for Black. |
 |
| Feb-14-05 |
| RisingChamp: Patzer after watching Larry Christiansens analysis on ICC,one realizes that Sutovskys ideas are deeper than comp analysis-it was no blunder 30...dxe4 that is,it loses but not your variation.31 Bxf8! Nh5! with a dangerous attack brewing,it is refuted,but not very easy OTB.A double question mark is hardly deserved for Bf8,as the refutation is hardly easy to see,involving some fantastic variations after Nh5 Qb8,which he no doubt intended before realizing that its forced mate after Ng3!!!I thik you would enjoy watching his coverage of this game. |
|
Feb-14-05
|
| patzer2: <RisingChamn> Don't know if I quite understand your point. My premise is that a move that loses, when there is another move available to draw or win deserves to be labeled as a blunder (??). The fact that the losing continuation (i.e. the refutation) or the winning or drawing alternatives are difficult or complex doesn't change my conclusion. In this case, 30...dxe4?? loses to 31. Bxf8! (as I pointed out), when 30...Rc8! would have held the position. After 31...Nh5!? 32.Qd6 exf3 33.Be7! fxg2+ 34.Kg1 g5 35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.c3! Qxb3 37.Qxa8 Qc2 38.Re1 Qd2 39.Qe4 h6 40.Qe5+ Kg8 41.Qe3 , White still wins. I'm a great admirer of Larry Christainsen and enjoy his written analysis and verbal commentary, but 30...dxe4?? is a blunder. Maybe there should be a different symbol for not-so-obvious blunders, but as far as I know (??) is the standard for all blunders. |
|
| Feb-14-05 |
| ughaibu: I dont know why he didn't look at 36....Nf4 instead of Qb3(?) |
|
| Feb-14-05 |
| Cyphelium: <ughaibu> I think then 37. f8+ g6 38. g8+ wins. 38.- f5 39. xg5+ or 38.- h5 39. d1+. |
|
| Feb-14-05 |
| ughaibu: Cyphelium: Yes, that looks annoying. |
|
Feb-14-05
|
| patzer2: <uqhaibu> I'll work with Fritz 8 to expand the analysis and include your 36...Nf4 (instead of 36...Qxb3) option (hope it helps, with apologies for the overkill): 31.xf8! xf8
[31...Nh5!? 32.Qd6 exf3 33.Be7! fxg2+ 34.Kg1 g5 35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.c3! Qxb3 <36...Nf4 37.Qf8+ Kg6 38.Bc2+ Kh5 (38...f5 39.Qf6+ Kh5 40.Qxg5#) 39.Bd1+ Ne2+ 40.Bxe2+ Qxe2 41.Qxa8 Qd3 (41...Qe3+ 42.Kxg2 ) 42.Re1 Bxc3 43.Nxc3 Qxc3 44.Qe4 > 37.Qxa8 Qc2 38.Re1 Qd2 39.Qe4 h6 40.Qe5+ Kg8 41.Qe3 Qd5 42.Nb4 Qb3 43.Bd6 Qxc3 44.Qxc3 Bxc3 45.Re4 Nf6 46.Rc4 Bxb4 47.Rxb4 Kh7 48.Kxg2 Kg6 49.Kf3 g4+ 50.Kg2 h5 51.h3 gxh3+ 52.Kxh3 Ng4 53.Bf4 e5 54.Bc1 f6 55.Kh4 Nf2 56.Rb3 Ng4 57.Rb2 e4 58.Rg2 Kf5 <58...f5 59.Bf4 e3 60.Bxe3 Kf6 61.Bg5+ Ke5 62.Re2+ Kd5 63.Bf4 Nf6 64.Kg5 Ne4+ 65.Kxf5 Nc5 66.Rh2 Nd3 67.Rxh5 Nc5 68.Be3 Nb3 69.Kf4+ Kc4 70.Ke4 Kc3 71.Rh2 Kb4 72.Rc2 Kb5 73.Kd5 Ka4 74.Ra2+ Kb4 75.Bd2+ Nxd2 (75...Kb5 76.Rb2 Ka4 77.Kc4 Na5+ 78.Bxa5 Kxa5 79.Rb8 Ka6 80.Kc5 Ka7 81.Rb6 Ka8 82.Kc6 Ka7 83.Kc7 Ka8 84.Ra6#) 76.Rxd2 > 59.Kxh5 Ne5 60.Ra2 Nc4 61.Ra4 Ne5 62.Kh4 Nd3 63.Bd2 Nb2 64.Rb4 Nd3 65.Rb5+ Ne5 66.Kg3 Ke6 67.Kf4 Nc4 68.Bc3 e3 69.Rf5 e2 70.Rxf6+ Kd5 71.Kf3 e1Q 72.Bxe1 Ne5+ 73.Kf4 Nd3+ 74.Ke3 Ne5 75.Rf5 Kd6 76.Bg3 ] 32.d6+ g8 33.d8+ e8 34.xe8+ xe8 35.xb2 |
|
| Feb-14-05 |
| RisingChamp: ?? means very bad move according to all major analyzing systems and all acllaimed analyzers.In fact in many great games very good annotators like Kasparov give the losing move as ?!(dubious) or at the most ? unless it is really bad.(??)is reserved for moves which are really very poor-mistakes a patzer could make. (?) is a poor move which a grandmaster should not be making.I think you are missing the concept of "blunder"- "blunder" means a very poor move,a move which a good player would make very very rarely-not more than one blunder in 5 games for a GM IMO. More specifically blunders are used in reference to obvious tactical oversights,this doesnt come remotely close to being obvious.Maybe Bxf8 and dxe4 were deserving of question marks though I doubt it,but certainly not double question marks.Perhaps we differ in our opinions,but you should be aware that most annotators take the subjective elements into consideration,rather than purely objective calculations like yours. |
|
Feb-14-05
|
| patzer2: <RiskingChamp> Appreciate your comment.
I'll think about using ?! or ? on losing moves that are not so obvious. In any event, thanks for pointing out that the refutation to 30...dxe4?! is very subtle, and that White must play very carefully and accurately to preserve winning chances. I found the variations fascinating. |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| Cyphelium: <ughaibu> Although patzer2's computer doesn't say why, the reason why my suggestion below doesn't work seems to be (31. -h5 32.d6 exf3 33. e7 fxg2+ 34. g1 g5 35. d8+ g7 36.c3 f4 37. f8+ g6 38. g8+) 38.- h6!, when 39. f8+ h5 40. d1+ doesn't win, since there's no mate on g5 anymore. |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| ughaibu: Cyphelium: 40.Qh7? |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| Cyphelium: <ughaibu> I don't see any follow-up after 40.- g4, do you? |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| ughaibu: I see, yes, after Bd1 black has Bf3. Well, well, well. How about 40.h4? |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| Cyphelium: <ughaibu> Well, then it's actually mate in six: 40.- h3+ 41. h2 e5+ 42. xh3 e3+ 43. h2 g1+ 44. xg1 f2+ 45. h3 xh4 mate. |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| ughaibu: That looks okay, brings me back to wondering why Nf4 wasn't mentioned on the video. |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| ughaibu: What about Bc2 instead of Qg8? |
|
| Feb-15-05 |
| ughaibu: I see, that's the computer's suggestion. |
|
| May-27-05 |
| SDSUPinoy: Whats wrong with 12. ... Qxg7. I haven't seen anygames take that route? |
|
| May-27-05 |
| Shokwave: 12.Qxg7 walks into Rg8, and I dunno about that.
13.Qh6 Nxe4
and white can't try Qxh7 because of Nf6,and when he covers g2 with Qh3, e5!
so...
14. NxN QXN 15.f3 and then the comp suggests Qe5 or Qf5, but I'd play Qg6!
and force the QxQ trade, then be tempted to recapture with the h pawn and have a nice looking structure. Crafty wants to recapture with the rook. Anyway, 12.Qxg7 does look interesting, but somewhat awkward for white. |
|
| Jun-19-05 |
| crumpy: He sacrificed both his queen and rook. What Brilliant play. |
|
| Nov-08-05 |
| aw1988: Is wasting a tempo with a3 and a4 necessarily a good idea? |
|
Jun-19-07
 |
| Richard Taylor: Great game!! |
|
Sep-15-07
 |
| notyetagm: <Richard Taylor: Great game!!> Yes. Wow.
|
|
May-01-08
 |
| Ulhumbrus: According to Fischer, White stands better after 6 Bc4. White has some advantage in space, and White's minor pieces are three moves ahead in development of Black's minor pieces, but can White make these assets count? |
|
Sep-19-08
 |
| whiteshark: Position after <33.Qg4> is a good Sunday puzzle: 
click for larger view It is said that Anand called it the best game he'd ever seen (New In Chess Magazine Nr. 3/2005, p.106) Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_S... |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
