|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-01-07 | | zluria: I cannot fathom why Black gave up his Queen. Couldn't he have played 28 ...Qd8 ? |
 |
| Dec-01-07 | | karik: 29.Rxc1 Bxc1 30.Qf1 is good enough.
|
|
| Dec-01-07 | | slomarko: whats the point of 23...Ra8? i think gf5 would surely be better. |
|
| Dec-01-07 | | zoren: dominguez is very close to losing @ 29 or even losing |
|
Dec-01-07
 | | notyetagm: Carlsen vs L Dominguez, 2007 <zluria: I cannot fathom why Black gave up his Queen. Couldn't he have played 28 ...Qd8 ?karik: 29.Rxc1 Bxc1 30.Qf1 is good enough.> (VAR) Position after 28 ...  g5-d8 29  e1xc1  h6xc1 30 d3-f1:
click for larger viewThe tactical point of Carlen's -brilliant- 28 h2-h4!: by <DRIVING OFF> the Black g5-queen, he makes the Black c1-rook <LOOSE> (White e1-rook attacker, Black h6-bishop defender) which then gives him a <DOUBLE ATTACK (QUEEN FORK)> when combined with the <LOOSE> f7-square,pawn next to the Black g8-king. |
|
Dec-01-07
| | notyetagm: Carlsen vs L Dominguez, 2007 28 h2-h4! is yet another brilliant move by Magnus Carlsen. Position after 28 h2-h4!:
click for larger viewThe point? Simply to <DRIVE OFF> the Black g5-queen which <DEFENDS> the Black c1-rook, making this rook <LOOSE> (one attacker, one defender). Consider the position after the obvious retreat 28 ... g5-d8, shown below: (VAR) Position after 28 ... g5-d8:
click for larger viewWhite now has -two- <TARGETS> to attack: the <LOOSE> Black c1-rook and the <LOOSE> f7-square,pawn next to the Black g8-king. Magnus (White) would then exploit these <TWO WEAKNESSES> with the sequence 29 e1xc1 h6xc1 30 d3-f1, a <DOUBLE ATTACK (QUEEN FORK)> on c1 and f7. (VAR) Position after 29 e1xc1 h6xc1 30 d3-f1 <queen fork>:
click for larger viewNotice how in this position Magnus indirectly meets the threat to his "undefended" White d7-bishop of 30 ... d8xd7?? by the <KNIGHT FORK> 31  d5-f6+. Another brilliant game from Magnus Carlsen. Damn this guy can play chess. |
|
Dec-01-07
 | | Shams: 28. h4 is obvious. |
|
Dec-01-07
 | | jessicafischerqueen: What is obvious is that <Notyetagm>'s very thorough analysis AGAIN serves as an <EXCELLENT> teaching <RESOURCE> that I don't see anyone named <"shams"> providing. |
|
| Dec-01-07 | | miguel12: well said jessica |
|
Dec-01-07
| | notyetagm: Carlsen vs L Dominguez, 2007 <zluria: I cannot fathom why Black gave up his Queen. Couldn't he have played 28 ...Qd8?> After 28 ... g5-d8 29 e1xc1 h6xc1 d3-f1 <double attack>, the following position is reached: (VAR) Position after 28 ... g5-d8 29 e1xc1 h6xc1 30 d3-f1:
click for larger viewIf Black then tries to save his c1-bishop, then the White f2-rook takes the Black f7-pawn and comes crashing onto the 7th rank, as shown below. (VAR) Position after 30 ... c1-h6 31 f2xf7:
click for larger viewNot only is White (Carlsen) up by a pawn, but his White f7-rook completely dominates the <7TH RANK>. I think you and I both underestimated the strength of the White position here. I did not understand why Dominguez gave up for either, instead of accepting this position. After all, he is only down by a pawn here, right? Let's see what Fritz 6 Light has to say about this position: 1.  (5.28): 31...Bh6-f8 32.Bd7-g4 Nd4-f5 33.Rf7-b7
2. (6.06): 31...Bh6-f4 32.Rf7-e7 Kg8-f8
3. (6.25): 31...Nd4-c2 32.Bd7-e6 Kg8-h8
So Fritz sees an -enormous(!)- advantage for White in this position, due to his overwhelming piece activity. <<<Note that Fritz says that White's advantage is worth more than a rook(!) even though White (Carlsen) is actually only up by a pawn!>>> Such is the power of the White piece activity and coordination. So Dominguez was actually correct(!!!) to give up for  , a -3 position, instead of accepting this position with its -5 evaluation. |
|
Dec-01-07
| | notyetagm: <Shams: 28. h4 is obvious.> Yes, it's so obvious that 2683(!)-rated Dominguez overlooked this resource. What a patzer he is, with his near 2700 rating. Obviously he is a beneficiary of rating inflation. Clearly his true strength is more like 1150. |
|
Dec-01-07
 | | chancho: Poor Dominguez, he was hit by a two by four in this matchup. At the rate this Carlsen kid is improving, in another five years he'll be a monster to deal with. |
|
Dec-01-07
 | | keypusher: 28. h4 would be obvious, I think, if there wasn't a black bishop at h6 defending the rook on c1. Because then any chessplayer would be looking to drive off the queen and then grab the rook. But since 28. h4 Qd8 leaves the rook still defended, 28. h4 looks pointless. It's the additional fork with 29. Rxc1 Bxc1 30. Qf1 that makes it work. So I agree with <notyetagm> -- 28. h4 was a fine move. |
|
Dec-01-07
| | notyetagm: <chancho: Poor Dominguez, he was hit by a two by four in this matchup. At the rate this Carlsen kid is improving, in another five years he'll be a monster to deal with.> Agreed. I have come to the conclusion that Magnus is almost certainly going to become the World Champion in the near future, perhaps sooner than we think. No one in the world plays chess better than Magnus Carlsen except Kramnik and Anand, and he only just turned 17(!). That is obscene. |
|
| Dec-01-07 | | Jim Bartle: I thought it was an 8x8, not a 2x4. |
|
| Dec-01-07 | | dasp3edd3m0n: I'm seeing Qd8 Rxc1 Bxc1 Be8. Probably not as strong as Qf1, but still seems pretty strong. |
|
Dec-01-07
| | notyetagm: <keypusher: ... But since 28. h4 Qd8 leaves the rook still defended, 28. h4 looks pointless.> Yes, that's the tactical point that Dominguez missed but Magnus saw: the Black c1-rook is still defended but now it is <LOOSE>, one attacker (White e1-rook) versus one defender (Black h6-bishop). Right before Magnus played 28 h2-h4! and <DROVE OFF> the Black g5-queen, the Black c1-rook was much less vulnerable because it was -not- <LOOSE>, with -two- defenders (Black g5-queen, h6-bishop) versus one attacker (White e1-rook). <LOOSE> is not safe! <LPDO>! |
|
Dec-01-07
 | | tamar: Dominguez was thwacked by a 1x17! |
|
Dec-02-07
| | Shams: maybe it's not obvious, but it's a three move combination that doesn't require <EFFUSIVE PRAISE> that <BELABORS> the <BLEEDING OBVIOUS>. since when did this site get so dumbed down? |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | marcwordsmith: "loose" is a new chess concept for me. Thank you, <NotYetagm>. But what does LPDO stand for, please? One thing I don't understand about this site is why people have to be nasty. I understand what <Shams> means by "obvious" even though I would not have seen the move myself. Why should anyone be offended by <Shams> calling h4 an obvious move? It's great that people appreciate <notyetagm>'s lucid analysis--I know I do--but why do people have to also attack <Shams> for not being so impressed with h4? Those type of comments just seem pointlessly mean. |
|
Dec-02-07
| | notyetagm: <marcwordsmith: "loose" is a new chess concept for me. Thank you, <NotYetagm>. But what does LPDO stand for, please?> <LPDO> is an acronym created by the famous chess player Dr. John Nunn from the expression <"Loose Pieces Drop Off">. It's a reminder that tactics often occur when pieces are undefended or are defended only the same number of times as they are attacked. These pieces are "loose", i.e., not really secure, not really safe. Note that undefended is really just a special case of loose in which the number of attackers equals number of defenders and they both equal 0. That is, Na = Nd = "loose"; Na = Nd = 0 = undefended. |
|
Dec-02-07
| | notyetagm: <marcwordsmith: ... Why should anyone be offended by <Shams> calling h4 an obvious move?> Because people like myself get tired of non-titled patzers continually saying that some moves are "obvious" even though they were missed by 2700-rated GMs who would beat aforemnetioned patzer 100-0 if they played 100 games against each other. Go checkout the game Karjakin-Anand Corus 2006. Some patzer said that Anand's ... d7!! was an obvious move. It was so obvious that even the computers thought Anand was losing for around 20 minutes of thinking time when they finally understood Anand's point and that Anand was not losing but was instead winning brilliantly. But you can always count on some patzer and his 1200 rating to say "That was obvious". |
|
Dec-02-07
| | Shams: <notyetagm> ok, first things first. I got in a super-crabby mood yesterday (continuing today) and I shouldn't post when that happens. I apologize for the bitchiness. my rating is around 1900 USCF, which is probably below average for the site. I'm neither proud of it nor embarrassed by it. The move in question is not really obvious, I'll grant you that-- but it's closer in difficulty to obvious than it is to Anand's ...Nd7 in the game you mentioned. It's a kick of the queen, seeing that the infamously hard-to-spot diagonal retreat forks a piece and a pawn after the forced exchange on c1. nothing more, nothing less. I guess I should get over it, but I just feel like you constantly putting really basic chess terms like "loose", "pin" and "fork" in <ALL CAPS> is a bit remedial. We're chessplayers. Even when I was 1200 I knew those terms. Anyway, I can see that I'm in the minority here, so I'll continue to be driven nuts by it, but I'll do so quietly. Again, sorry. cheers. |
|
Dec-02-07
| | Shams: I would also add that the exclamation mark (not to mention the word "brilliant" ) is only as strong as the simplest move to which it is applied. Instead of awarding 28.h4 an exclam, I might award a black move that allowed it a question mark. To each their own. |
|
| Dec-02-07 | | JOHNNY YORK: SHAMS
Some of us on here are not 1900 uscf rated. We appreciate any help that we can get, even if pin, fork, etc are in caps. I'm sure he is doing that for the lower rated players. Just remember that not everyone is as strong a player as you. Everyone else needs to realize that h4 may of seemed obvious to a stronger player and just because they say it is obvious, it's no attack on anyone and just there opinion. This is one of the reasons I hate forums like this, it turns into nothing but a Bitc* fest, with people getting their feelings hurt or offended by what someone says. (I still don't understand how you get offended or hurt by what some misc. persons who has no bearing on your life says). I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS NOW, I BET SOME RETARD SAYS STOP USING ALL CAPS, YOUR SCREAMING AT ME AND IT IS HURTING MY FEELINGS. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
