| Jan-14-07 |
| Kangaroo: <32. c6!> was a missed opportunity for Magnus Carlsen He might have won this game then. |
 |
| Jan-14-07 |
| slomarko: true and ironicaly 35.c6 is the decisive mistake! |
|
Jan-14-07
 |
| sandmanbrig: How did he miss 32 c6 anyways? It clearly wins. |
|
| Jan-14-07 |
| weltschmertz: 32. c6 wins instantly for white... shredder puts carlsen up by 11.96! after 32. c6. |
|
| Jan-15-07 |
| LoveThatJoker: Nice find guys. Indeed 32. c6 is as Bobby Fischer would say "curtains for Black." ;) LTJ |
|
Jan-15-07
 |
| notyetagm: <sandmanbrig: How did he miss 32 c6 anyways? It clearly wins.> Carlsen spent only 30 seconds before deciding to play 32 a5?. Both he and Navara missed that the White b5-queen had been defended by White's previous move (31 a4) so that 32 c6! was now not only possible but devastating. Magnus should have spent much more time on this move, given that Black's 31 ... g5?? made his Black f5-queen undefended and lined up with Magnus' White b5-queen. If Magnus had spent any time at all trying to find a way to exploit this alignment he would have seen that his White b5-queen was in fact defended and that 32 c6! won on the spot. Very poor time management by Magnus, spending only 30 seconds when his opponent had just made a move (31 ... g5??) that demanded analysis to see if it could be exploited. |
|
Jan-15-07
|
| notyetagm: <slomarko: true and ironicaly 35.c6 is the decisive mistake!> Isn't that ironic? 32 c6! is the winning move which Magnus did not play. Then he played it three moves later, 35 c6?, and it is the losing move! Also strange is the prelude to the winning <DISCOVERED ATTACK> 32 c6!. The previous two ply, 31 a4 and 31 ... g5??, defended the White b5-queen and left the Black f5-queen undefended, respectively. So in one move the tactical situation does a 180, from undefended White b5-queen versus defended Black f5-queen to vice versa! |
|
| Jan-15-07 |
| slomarko: Carsen should learn time management from.... Shirov :P |
|
| Jan-15-07 |
| alicefujimori: I must mention that Carlsen wasn't really in time trouble when he played 32.a5?? In fact, when he played 31.a4 I thought he actually had 32.c6 in mind in reply to black's 31...g5 but obviously that was not the case and Carlsen's intention was to just push the a-pawn up to try and attack black's queenside pawns. |
|
Jan-15-07
 |
| Honza Cervenka: Interesting possibility seems to be 25...Bxg3!? 26.Nxf5 Bxe1. Black with two Rooks against Queen should be better here, for example 27.Ne7 Rad8 28.Qd5 (28.Qxc5?? Bf2+  ) 28...Bxc3 29.Qxc5 Bg7 30.g3 (necessity) 30...Rd7 with advantage of black. 31...g5?? 32.a5?? was a mutual blunder. This can happen in tense fight even to the best super GMs. Remember some Kramnik vs Topalov games... |
|
Jan-15-07
 |
| Rolfo: <alice> He was already 'bound for' pushing the a-pawn, and didn't reconsider in time |
|
Jan-15-07
|
| notyetagm: <Rolfo: <alice> He was already 'bound for' pushing the a-pawn, and didn't reconsider in time> Exactly. That's how I play bullet games, ignoring my opponent's last move because I do not have the time to consider it. :-) Magnus spent only 30 seconds on 32 a5?? not because he was in time trouble but because he chose not to investigate the tacitcal remifications of the Black f5-queen being undefended and lined up with his defended White b5-queen after 31 ... g5??. |
|
Jan-15-07
 |
| ketchuplover: calm down everybody. Magnus will destroy Pono tomorrow :) |
|
| Jan-15-07 |
| slomarko: <ketchuplover> yeah he really destroyed him |
|
Jan-15-07
|
| notyetagm: <slomarko: <ketchuplover> yeah he really destroyed him> LOL! Magnus was lost by move 14!
|
|
Jan-18-07
 |
| Mateo: Many mistakes but a tense and interesting battle. Quiet unusual to see so many tactical flaws in Carlsen's play. 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 c5 8. Ne2 Nc6 9. Be3 O-O 10. O-O Bd7 11. Rb1 Qc7 12. Bf4 Qc8 13. d5 Na5 14. Bd3 e5 15. Bg3 f5 <15...c4 Sakaev vs B Avrukh, 2004 1/2-1/2.> 16. f4 fxe4 17. Bxe4 Nc4 <Threatens the fork Ne3.> 18. Qd3?! <18.d6 should be considered. The move actually played introduces a forced variation (until move 26) which includes a questionable sacrifice of the exchange.> Nd6! 19. fxe5 Nxe4 20. Qxe4 Bf5 21. Qc4 Bxb1 22. d6+ Kh8 23. Rxb1 Qf5! 24. Re1 <24.Rxb7?? Qf1 mate.> Bxe5 25. Nd4 Bxd4+ 26. cxd4 <White threatens Be5+.> Rae8?! <26...Qf7 27.Qxf7 Rxf7 28.dxc5 leads to an ending where White has only one pawn for the exchange, although the extra pawn is already on the 6th rank. On the all, this should slightly favour Black.> 27. Rxe8 <But not 27.Be5?? Rxe5!.> Rxe8 28. h3!? <28.Be5+ Rxe5 29.dxe5 Qxe5 30.d7 should lead to a draw. Black won a pawn but the passed pawn is very dangerous, so Black has nothing best than to go for perpetual check. But Carlsen is obviously still playing for a win. Now the position is unbalanced with chances for both sides.> Kg7 <Navara avoids the trapp 28...cxd4? 29.Bf2! Kg7 30.Qc7+ followed by d7 wins.> 29. Qb5 <29.dxc5.> Rd8 30. dxc5 Rd7 31. a4 g5?? <A blunder.> 32. a5?? <Missing the win 32.c6! Qxb5 33.axb5 bxc6 34.bxc6, one of the pawns goes to Queen.> a6 33. Qc4 h5 34. Be1 Rf7 35. c6? <Leads to a quick loss. Carlsen loses the control of all the squares around his King.> bxc6 36. Bc3+ <36.Qxc6? Qf1+. 36.Qxa6? Qe5.> Kh7 37. Qxc6 <37.Qxa6? Qc5+.> Qf2+ 38. Kh1 Qf1+ 39. Kh2 Qf4+ 40. Kh1 Qf1+ 41. Kh2 Qf4+ 42. Kh1 g4! 43. hxg4 <43.Qxa6? Qc1+.> hxg4 44. Qc8 g3 <Threatens mate.> 45. Qh8+ Kg6 46. Qg8+ Kh5 47. Qh8+ Qh6 <Forcing the Queen trade.> 48. Qxh6+ <48.Qe5+? Kg4+ with mate in 2.> Kxh6 <Threatens mate again.> 49. Kg1 Kg5 50. Bd4 Rf5 <51.Bb6 Rd5 wins the d pawn, because White has to defend against the mate on the first rank.> 0-1 |
|
| Jan-18-07 |
| Rocafella: Magnus Magnus Magnus...tut tut. You should have played c6! instead of thinking about girls. No matter, you'll learn! |
|
| Jan-19-07 |
| Mameluk: Navara gives huge without-Fritz analysis in Czech chess week of this game. I am too exhausted to look at it, but he advocates 40. and 42. Kg1. Navara:´Magnus played 32. a5 after a minute or two, and he had 45 minutes left. It is good to have rating over 2700, many people then believe you don´t play total stupidities.´ |
|
| Jan-30-07 |
| acerbiter: is it available online somewhere (the analysis by navara), thx? |
|
