< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|May-12-08|| ||Nullifidian: <shortsight> It seems my initial assessment wasn't wrong. Believe it or not, when I responded that "It seems perfectly obvious to me", I had been asked a question as to why a certain player would seek out a forced mate in such a strong position. I responded, tongue in cheek, with that sentence in my reply. In other words, the reason is perfectly obvious, to get back to the hotel room and grab an early dinner.|
If you cannot understand that this was part of the ongoing conversation, and instead rip it out of context to refer back to my initial statement, that is not my fault nor is it my problem.
If you object to my use of the word "missed", I must direct your attention to practically every endgame book ever written or translated into English. What else would one call it but a "missed mate"?
Lastly, regarding your complaint, what would you say about a person who sarcastically condescends to another in order to shut that other up, as you have confessed to doing?
|May-12-08|| ||Nullifidian: <tpstar> Sorry for the typo above. I mean 30. Rc1|
|May-12-08|| ||minasina: Rybka analysis, some critical points and variations http://chessok.com/broadcast/live.p...|
|May-13-08|| ||VargPOD: Wow, that was an opening gone bad. 5...b5 looks like it is playable, main line being 6.b3 e6 7.d4 leading to Slav/Semi-Slav-type positions. 6...Bg4 is already suspicious, 7...Bh5 is bad and 8...cxb5 loses.|
Another game with 6...Bg4, which black won, but IMHO white had a better position after the opening:
D Komarov vs E Prie, 2007
|May-13-08|| ||euripides: I followed some of this game live online. I think Ivanchuk played quite slowly at around moves 15-20 and I thought (given that simply winning was trivial) he must be looking for a brilliant finish of some sort. So I think it's fair enough to say he missed it, if there was one.|
|May-13-08|| ||euripides: ... trivial, of course, for players of this strength - I'm sure I'd have found a way to lose against Bu.|
|May-17-08|| ||al wazir: 27. Ne2 would also have won: 27...e5 28. Ng3 d4 29. exd4 exd4 30. Qc4 Bd5 31. Qxd4 Bxb3 32. Qg4+ Qg5 33. Qe4+; 27...Bf5 28. Nf4+ Bxf4 29. exf4 Bxh3 30. Qg3+ Kf5 31. Qxh3+ Ke4 32. Re1+ Kd4 33. Qc3/Qe3#|
|May-26-08|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: Would 19...d4 have been any kind of improvement? The Queen exchange should lead to a win anyway, but perhaps the Bishops and a central pawn advance offer some mild annoyance.|
|May-26-08|| ||apexin: 19...d4 would be an improvement but white should still win easely quick analysis by the deep schredder:
1:29 +7.32 20.Qa5+ Kf6 21.O-O+ Bf5 22.Rxf5+ Kg6 (22...exf5 23.Nd5+ and white wins a queen)23.Rf4 dxe3 24.dxe3 Bd6 25.Rg4+ Kh6 26.Qc3 g6 27.Rc4 e5 28.Rd1 Qe7 29.Nb5 depth 14ply and mate in 12 moves: |
26/43 2:11 +M12 20...Kg4 21.Qf3+ Kh4 22.g3+ Kh3
23.Qf1+ Kg4 24.h4 Qf6 25.Qh3+ Kf3
26.g4+ Kf4 27.Rf1+ Ke5 28.Qg3+ Qf4
29.Qxf4+ Kd4 30.Qf2+ Ke5 31.Nb5 Bxe4
32.Qf4+# (167.559.948) 1275
|May-26-08|| ||whiteshark: Bu got out of the wrong side of bed. There can be no argument about that.|
|May-26-08|| ||Schach and Awe: <Nullifidian: I skimmed through the comments, and didn't see this mentioned, but Ivanchuk missed a forced mate in thirteen starting with 20. e4+>
Missing mate in 13 is hardly an oversight, while someone missing mate in 5 in a non-blitz game might be. Offering to sac the d-pawn is hardly obvious, as it was to one of the world's top GMs in this game. I agree wholeheartedly with notyetagm.
I think nullifidian's remark should have read something like 'Hey, my program found mate in 13 on move 20.'|
|May-26-08|| ||Once: 20. e4+ allows black 5 legal moves - two ways to capture the pawn and three king moves. Silicon may prove that each (or some?) leads to a forced mate in 12, but so what? |
With the clock ticking, who wants to analyse five different lines to this depth? In a real game, we castle with check and smile.
For my money, this is not a missed line by Ivanchuk, just grandmaster pragmatism.
|May-26-08|| ||Wone Jone: Ah yes, dontcha love the oldies?|
|May-26-08|| ||Castleinthesky: Bu-whoo?|
|May-27-08|| ||kevin86: The pun reminds me of the wing of a hospital named after Picabo Street,the olympic skier,|
THE PICABO ICU
|Jun-16-08|| ||minasina: Rybka analyses relocated (see my previous post): http://chessok.com/broadcast/live.p...|
INTERNET CHESS CLUB / Chess.FM, FREE "GAME OF THE DAY":
http://webcast.chessclub.com/Mtel08... commentary by GM Larry Christiansen
|Jul-28-08|| ||Slurpeeman: how bout 21. Qe5+ Kh6; 22. Qf4+ Kh5 23. g4+ Kh4 24. Qg3+ Kg5; 25. h4+ Kh6
26. Qf4+ Qg5 27. fxg5#|
|Sep-03-08|| ||sicilianhugefun: a display of profound understanding from chuky|
|Sep-25-08|| ||bunkerputt: <For my money, this is not a missed line by Ivanchuk, just grandmaster pragmatism.>|
I tend to think he missed things. Chucky was in severe time trouble towards the end (with something like less than 2 mins left at move 20. Surely he was using his time thinking about something. I don't think he really got the idea of playing e4 to open lines for the Queen to the Kingside until later (Qe1 connecting to e3 and g3). I, of course, would also have played 0-0+ just because it's so hard to resist. But it hardly seems pragmatic to get into time pressure, when not winning would be more of an embarassment for Ivanchuk than losing would be for Bu.
|Sep-25-08|| ||bunkerputt: <notyetagm>, This game should be titled "Ivanchuk handed winning position by a 2700 on move 9(!)" |
|Sep-25-08|| ||Ladolcevita: just a blunder of BU......|
|Nov-11-08|| ||notyetagm: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil...|
|Nov-11-08|| ||notyetagm: 9 ?
click for larger view
click for larger view
<bunkerputt: <notyetagm>, This game should be titled "Ivanchuk handed winning position by a 2700 on move 9(!)"
Yes, it's not often that you get a completely winning position against a 2700-rated player on move 9(!!).
|Apr-23-09|| ||andrewleef1: I though Bu played Qh4 before he resigned|
|Jan-01-16|| ||morfishine: "Peek-a-Bu" ?!?!?!?!? You are kidding right? What is this, Romper Room?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·