|Feb-21-09|| ||AuN1: well played.|
|Feb-21-09|| ||Nina Myers: interesting game.|
|Feb-22-09|| ||Geronimo: Any Romanishin variation experts out there want to say where this goes off book? The two queens positioning themselves on the kingside seems extremely precise.|
|Feb-22-09|| ||Karpova: <Geronimo: Any Romanishin variation experts out there want to say where this goes off book?>|
According to Rybka 3 from http://www.chessok.com/broadcast/?k... and GM Dorian Rogozenko from http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... the Novelty was 19...Be2 - the first deviation from Kramnik vs Anand, 2008 where Black played 19...Rfc8.
|Feb-22-09|| ||acirce: Well, Ivanchuk is of course using Kramnik's novelty 18.Re1!? from Bonn, Kramnik vs Anand, 2008 (Kramnik says the normal moves 18.Be3 and Bf4 are no worse though). Grischuk thought for 50 minutes or more on 18..c5 (which was Anand's move and almost certainly the correct one), so it seems he may not have been aware of it! (Reminds me of how he doesn't seem to have known about the strong 19.Bc5! suggestion in Topalov vs Kramnik, 2006 - see Aronian vs Grischuk, 2008 and the comments there).|
Kramnik mentions 19.Qa3 as an alternative - actually his original intention - but he didn't like 19..Rfc8 20.Be3 Bb5!? - <Perhaps he will take the bishop to c6 and play his knight to c4, when he will be pretty solid, and if I play 21.Qa5 Black can transpose to the game with 21..Be2.>
19..Be2 was the first move to deviate - Anand played 19..Rfc8 - though it could still transpose. There is an amusing possibility: if Ivanchuk had played 21.Be3 instead of taking on e5, it would have transposed to Kramnik-Anand but with an extra tempo for White if 21..Rfc8; one that might not have mattered to much, though: Kramnik actually says in his comment to 21.Bf4 (which he gave an exclam, btw) that <...in fact there is some mutual zugzwang>!
|Feb-22-09|| ||acirce: (Kramnik's comments from New In Chess 2008/8.)|
|Feb-22-09|| ||Eyal: <Grischuk thought for 50 minutes or more on 18..c5 (which was Anand's move and almost certainly the correct one), so it seems he may not have been aware of it! (Reminds me of how he doesn't seem to have known about the strong 19.Bc5! suggestion in Topalov vs Kramnik, 2006)>|
Being a poker professional takes its toll...
|Feb-22-09|| ||cornholio denali: hi, i'm a beginner player, and i wonder why didn't white trade rooks by 59.Rf5+?|
|Feb-22-09|| ||Ladolcevita: <denali>
Maybe its because it cant promote the pawn,Why not use a machine to check it out:)
|Feb-22-09|| ||Geronimo: Thank you <Karpova> and <Acirce>. It's a variation that's less known to me than others, but I think I'll be studying it a bit now....|
|Feb-22-09|| ||Eyal: <cornholio denali> After the trade of rooks it's a basic type of drawn pawn endgame: 59.Rf5+ Rxf5+ 60.gxf5 Kf6 61.Kg4 Kf7 62.Kg5 Kg7 (keeping the "opposition") 63.f6+ Kf7 64.Kf5 Kf8 65.Kg6 Kg8 (again; or 65.Ke6 Ke8) 66.f7+ Kf8 67.Kf6 and draw by stalemate.|