Dominguez is only 25, mmmm.

Well as one who lost more of my 'won games' than I care to recall - I guess I'm not well suited to argue against this.....

However there is something sadly cheap and hollow about such an absurd victory. It reduces to the equally cheap 'touch piece' rule or winning a game on time without increments. Given that the 50-move rule is itself rather arbitrary the issue reduces to RESPECT for one's opponent - especially at this level – which is the normal standard.

Playing on yesterday past the time control at move 40 was bad for Chess because there was ONLY the possibility of a blunder which could decide the game. There was next to no value playing it out. I am curious as to whether or not L D-P refused a draw offer...

On the other hand we must not overlook the tenacity Carlsen has shown by playing out a couple of Bishops of opposite color positions ...which had some fine points worthy of the effort.

Worse I suppose was to leave the world hanging like in Kramnik-Anand After 41.Ra8+ FIDE World Championship Tournament 2007 (game 37 chessgames.com)

But as I posted then: “Perhaps even at the highest levels of competition when the choice tree suddenly seems to paradoxically expand rather than contract, opting for a draw can in fact be honorable in the face of increasing risk.”

Why? If you're on the defensive and you can only hope to draw the game in endgames like these, it is up to you to prove it's drawn. Lenier Dominguez could play for a win without any risk whatsoever. Onischuk blundered at the end so he didn't deserve the draw.

This has nothing to do with 'respect'; there are similar endgames which are drawn with perfect play but where the defence is quite hard so the superior side has everything to gain by playing on. Such as the rook vs knight endgame.

<Playing on yesterday past the time control at move 40 was bad for Chess because there was ONLY the possibility of a blunder which could decide the game. There was next to no value playing it out. I am curious as to whether or not L D-P refused a draw offer...>

I could not disagree more with you. Playing beyond the 40-move time control yesterday was GOOD for chess, because, you know what? there was no adjourment and no computer to help either player.

I doubt that ANY of us could have drawn this endgame. Sure, looking it up in a book or a computer, it is so easy to judge Onischuk..."what a blunder!", etc.

We have become great "armchair athletes", able to criticize the best grandmasters if they don't measure up to the "tablebases" perfection.

But this is PEOPLE playing chess, not computers.

I played at the Capablanca Memorial in 1977. I had a very bad tournament. For personal reasons, my chess could not happen at its best level. After playing disastrously for the first few rounds, I faced a Colombian IM. I was losing, but found a way to steer the game into a R+B against R ending. I drew the ending, and the Colombian IM was complaining "why did you have to learn to play chess now?" since he had seen my previous games.

I give all credit to Leinier for executing the winning plan. Technically, it is not so easy to play this ending for either side! Black had to find the precise moves! I enjoyed paying through the ending, seeing Leinier's technique. It is excellent, and leaves a good impression.

Another benefit is that hopefully we all learned something from this ending (and I am NOT talking about agreeing with the computer on which was the losing move).

How many won games are won, or even lost? How many lost games are drawn, or even won? Any game of chess is not over until the very end. If it is drawn, show me: show me your technique. Otherwise, lose the game, sign the scoresheet and learn.

All the great champions of our game were great endgame players. And they all knew how to save lost games, win "drawn" endings, etc.

So, with due respect, I could not disagree with you more.

He probably knew what to do, but I think most guys would be too exhausted to play on in a theoretically drawn position. His 88 Rd7 wasn't some small error but a total howler. Crude blunders like that occur when your concentration snaps from fatigue (at least this is what happens to me).

Good post on Chess in the Real World. Vaults you to the top tier phiosophers on this website, IMHO.

Now if your politics could be as realistic (which I see they aren't by your advertised favorite authors)....

Do you play chess? Mya you feel this way against your next opponent who is way better than you and who loses to you.

On the part of Dominguez, IMO it was not a hollow victory. GM Dominguez was persistent and it paid off. He also played well. Notice how he repeatedly and efficiently used his Knight as cover to protect his King from checks by White's Rook, at the same time limiting the movements of the White King as he slowly drove it to the edge of the board. It takes a lot of brainpower to do that. Finally he attained a position in which White could blunder the way he did (going for a cheap pin instead of keeping his Rook on the c file to prevent the approach of the Black King); and White did. But in the first place Dominguez could not have obtained such a position if he just aimlessly shuffled his pieces around.

GM Onischuk on the other hand certainly knew how to draw this ending. He tried to keep his King as far away from the edge of the board as long as he could; and kept his Rook ready for pins on the Black Knight and checks on the Black King. Without his blunder, he would have been able to claim the draw in a dozen more moves (50 move rule). He was just human and erred, after working so long to keep his King away from the edge of the board. Psychologically Onischuk probably got used to the technique that he was using of trying to pin the Black Knight; and fatigue caused him to overlook that on his last pinning move 88. Rd7, Dominguez could just leave his pinned Knight because his next move 88...Kc2 threatens mate.

The following is a post I made in the Biel Tournament corner.

<visayanbraindoctor: I am staring agog at 88. Rd7. By just staying his rook on the c file, White would have prevented the Black King from approaching his own. Maybe this is the answer:

acirce: Been playing for more than 6.5 hours though. The fatigue factor is another thing that's easy to underestimate..>

Well, guess what, chess is about winning and ultimately a win often comes as a result of the opponent blundering, whether it's in the opening, midgame or endgame. The good GMs are actively trying to make their opponent blunder, like Carlsens technique of seeking complicated positions.

According to Keres' (generally excellent) book on endings K, R & N vs K & R is usually a draw "because the king cannot be driven to the edge of the board".

click for larger view

e.g. <17...Bxe4 18.Ng5 Nf8 19.Qxc7 Rxc7 20.Nxe4>

click for larger view

<drmariogodrob: <Peligroso> If it were me--and I grant that I'm not terribly bright--I'd say that 90. [...] Kc3 seems to win also.>

In this position (after <90. Ka3-a4>):

click for larger view

if Black plays the suggested <90. … Kc3>, White now has four moves that draw (according to the tablebase: http://www.shredderchess.com/online...).

One drawing move is: <91. Rd1>, and if <91. … Kc2> then there are six (6) drawing moves, including two moves along the file (<92. Rd5> or <92. Rd6>, which prevent the winning idea Dominguez used in the actual game at moves 90 and 91, i.e., <90. … Rb4+> followed by <91. … Rb5> threatening <92. … Ra5#>, which White can delay only by sacrificing his rook).