< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 17 ·
|Feb-24-05|| ||Republic of Texas: <InfinityCircuit>: General Sheridan, shortly after arriving in Texas: If I owned Hell and Texas, I would live in Hell and rent out Texas. :-)) |
|Feb-24-05|| ||Gypsy: < Chris00nj> Quite close actually. Honza's mother undoubtely was Mrs. Cervenkova. Furthermore, cervenka is a feminum noun depicting something red. |
|Feb-24-05|| ||Catfriend: Not really precise, but since you're non-slav it's pardonable:)|
Kournikova isn't a second name, it's the last name. Her father would be Kournikov, not Kournik. It isn't an <ova> added, it's <ov> added to something to make it a male last name, and an additional <a> to make a female one.
|Feb-24-05|| ||WillC21: Eh, but see Anand shouldn't have won this game. Whatever. |
|Feb-24-05|| ||chessgames.com: Thanks to everybody for coming by today. Tomorrow's game will be Leko-Anand, starting at 9:30am EST tomorrow morning. |
|Feb-24-05|| ||Chris00nj: <Catfriend:>
I've seen the full -ova added/dropped many times, at least in Czech names. I'm not familar with the Russians and I only assumed it was similar. Yes, I did forget Honza was a male nickname for Jan.
I hope Honza clarifies his last name for us.
|Feb-24-05|| ||Catfriend: The full <ova> is added in cases of "second name by father", like a second name, not a last one.
As to the <a> at the end of <Cervenka>, it's not a gender-change case, just the word is like that. However, I must admit I'm no Czech-speaker, so what I know on the subject is not enough...|
|Feb-24-05|| ||810609: Interesting discussion about Czech names :) Problem in distinguishing male and female names here is complicated by fact, that both Czech and Slovak language (who are very similar) have special vowel signs, using "´" for long sound of vowel, for example á, í, é. In fact female name isn´t ending with "ova" or "a", it is ending with "ová" or "á". So Czech (Slovak) will immidiately know that Cervenka is male name. |
But this is very complicated for non-Slav speakers, because as <Gypsy> pointed out, female form would not be Cervenkaova, just Cervenková.
|Feb-24-05|| ||FatalError: blacks 25.h5 ? looks very strange for me why not logical 25.nf6xg4 or 25.nf6xe4 anyone knows ? i will never understand this GMs i mean excahnging that h pawn leaves the black king not in a good safe position i mean ok he opens h file but for what no threat on h file white king on queenside !!! |
|Feb-24-05|| ||FatalError: to open h file for black is a weakness not a strenght i thing. i wonder what topalov thought doing that. did i missed something ? |
|Feb-24-05|| ||peyote: very very good game,; i was able to stay until move 55...glad to see vishy did finish it off |
|Feb-24-05|| ||InfinityCircuit: <Fatal Error> The open h-file is a definite plus for Black, as it allows him to place pressure on the h2 pawn. As the old saying goes, the attacking rook wins in the endgame. If Anand's rooks are reduced to passivity guarding the h2 pawn, then Topalov's chances rise. If on the other hand Leko exchanges, as happens in the game, then Black has two pawns of his own to steamroll with.|
Note also that whenever your rook is already placed to hold a file, opening it is nearly always to your advantage. Your rook will always do more on an open file than sitting behind a flank pawn!
|Feb-24-05|| ||fgh: Well played game by Anand. The najdorf @#$% got what it deserves!!!! |
|Feb-24-05|| ||patzer2: Instead of <43...e4?!>, an analysis with Fritz 8 seems to indicate Black would have drawn with the defensive combination 43...Rg7! 44.Ba6 Rg2+ 45.Kb1 f4 46.c6 Rg7 47.Rxa5 Rc7 48.Rc5 Ke6 49.b4 Kd6 50.Bd3 f3 51.Rc1 Rxc6 52.Rxc6+ Kxc6 53.Be4+ Kb5 54.Bxf3 Kxb4 55.a3+ Kxa3 56.Be4 Kb4 57.Kb2 Nc4+ 58.Kc2 Nb6 59.Bb7 .|
Note that in this line, the tables turn as Black is comfortable and White is fighting for the Draw.
|Feb-24-05|| ||FatalError: <InfinityCircuit> good point thanks for sharing knowledged! |
|Feb-24-05|| ||patzer2: Anand, I think, could have improved over <37.Bh1?!> (avoiding the 43...Rg71 line above) with 37.Rf4! Nd7 38.Bg2 Rxh2 39.Rxf5+ exf5 40.Bd5+ Kf6 41.Rxh2 Ke5 42.Bh1 Nc5 43.c3 Ne4 44.Kc2 a4 45.b4 Rc7 46.Rh3 Rc6 47.a3 Rd6 48.Rh2 Rc6 49.Bxe4 Kxe4 50.Re2+ Kf3 51.Re1 Kf2 52.b5 Rb6 53.Re5 f4 54.c4 f3 55.Kc3 Rf6 56.c5 Kg3 57.Re3 Kf4 58.Rxf3+ Kxf3 59.b6 Ke4 60.b7 Rf3+ 61.Kc4 Rb3 62.c6 Ke5 63.c7 .|
There may well be an improvement with some drawing chances for Black in this line, but the point is that 37. Rf4! would have kept the pressure on Black, without yielding counterchances (as after 37. Bh1?!).
|Feb-24-05|| ||csmath: <<Well played game by Anand. The najdorf @#$% got what it deserves!!!! >>|
Topalov had a draw number of times in this game and he blew it. This isn't such a big win, it is more of a loss for Topalov.
|Feb-24-05|| ||patzer2: Anand's winning technique after 46. a6
is noteworty, with <51. Bg5!> and <55. Kd2!> being particularly instructive.
Anand could also have won after 55.Bd7+! Kc5 56.Bh3 Kd5 (56...Kb5 57.Kd4 Ka4 58.Ke3 Ka3 59.Be6 Kb4 60.Bd5 Ka3 61.Kf2 Kb4 62.Bxe4 Ka3 63.Bd5 Kb4 64.Kxf3 ) 57.Bf5 f2 (57...e3 58.Bc8 e2 (58...f2 59.Ba6 ) 59.Bb7+ Kc5 60.Kd2 f2 61.Kxe2 f1Q+ 62.Kxf1 ) 58.Bh3 e3 59.Bf1 . However, I must admit Anand's clear and straight forward 55. Kd2! is the better approach.
|Feb-24-05|| ||patzer2: Topalov apparently misses two more chances to hold at moves 44 and 45:|
Instead of <44...Rc7?!>, perhaps Black should consider 44...Rg7! 45.bxa5 Rg2 46.a6 Rxe2+ 47.Kb3 Nd5 48.a7 Nc7 49.Ra6+ Nxa6 50.a8Q Nxc5+ 51.Kc3 Nd3 52.Qh8+ Ke6 53.Qc8+ Ke5 54.Qc7+ Kf6 55.Qd6+ Kg5 56.Qg3+ Kh6 57.Qh3+ Kg6 58.Qg3+ Kh6 59.Qh4+ Kg6 60.Qg3+ Kh5 61.Qh3+ Kg5 62.Qg3+ Kh5 63.Qh3+ Kg5 64.Qg3+ =, with a draw by threefold repetition.
Instead of <45...Rxc5?!>, maybe Black should consider 45...Ke5 46.a6 Ra7 47.c6 Nd5 48.Bc4 Nb6 49.Rb4 Nxc4+ 50.Rxc4 Kd6 51.Kc3 Kc7 52.Rc5 Rxa6 53.Rxf5 Rxc6+ =.
|Feb-24-05|| ||InfinityCircuit: <patzer2> Your computer must either be faster than mine or you must have started the analysis sooner. Now my 2 hours of computation will be worthless! Oh well, I don't really mind. |
|Feb-24-05|| ||InfinityCircuit: Another possible choice, instead of 45...Rxc5, is ...Rb7+ 46.Kc3 Ke5. The inbetween check seems to be quite helpful by placing the rook where it can attack the passers from behind, while at the same time supporting his own pawns. Fritz gives this line as =, but on the other hand for a long sit it gives the winning 55.Bd7+ as equal, when it is in fact opposite. |
|Feb-24-05|| ||InfinityCircuit: Amusingly enough, Fritz8 felt it important to mention that 38...Rxh2 39.Rxh2 Nxh2 40.Rh4 was a blunder. Sometimes it has very interesting views on what simple variations it should and should not show.|
By the way patzer2 when using Fritz8 for evaluation do you do Blunder Check, Full Analysis, or just turn on the analysis and go through the variations yourself?
|Feb-24-05|| ||patzer2: <InfinityCircuit> I highlight and Ctl-C the "view text" annotation to the game in Chessgames.com and edit/paste the game to Fritz, and then look at the game using engine/infinite analysis. I force Fritz to look at a lot of variations that interest me, and often stop it from exploring what I consider dead end options.|
I don't really like the total Fritz analysis with Blunder check, because I learn more by exploring the lines in my own "interactive mode," often stopping to try out moves (even trying to "beat Fritz" in difficult won positions or trying to guess what Fritz will finally select). Actually trying to understand the variations and getting the computer to improve in lines that are difficult for computers is interesting and challenging.
|Feb-24-05|| ||csmath: <<Topalov apparently misses two more chances to hold at moves 44 and 45:
Instead of <44...Rc7?!>, perhaps Black should consider 44...Rg7! 45.bxa5 Rg2 46.a6 Rxe2+ 47.Kb3 Nd5 48.a7 Nc7 49.Ra6+ Nxa6 50.a8Q Nxc5+ 51.Kc3 Nd3 52.Qh8+ Ke6 53.Qc8+ Ke5 54.Qc7+ Kf6 55.Qd6+ Kg5 56.Qg3+ Kh6 57.Qh3+ Kg6 58.Qg3+ Kh6 59.Qh4+ Kg6 60.Qg3+ Kh5 61.Qh3+ Kg5 62.Qg3+ Kh5 63.Qh3+ Kg5 64.Qg3+ =, with a draw by threefold repetition.>>|
44. Rg7 is not easy to spot, and it might be hard for GM to calculate all the complications but 45. ... Rxc5 was definitely a bad idea.
Anand, to his credit, played well after that and, unlike Kasparov, did not allow the full point to slip away.
This whole game is not terribly important for Naydorf as opening but it is instructive of Anand's strength in endings which he demonstrated many times. Very strong indeed.
|Feb-24-05|| ||mdz: Black had a draw in his pocket as late as move 50...Kg5 and white can't force rook exchange and will have to give up B for 2 pawns. Can anyone show a win for white? |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 17 ·