|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-24-09 | | paavoh: 15.- Qd8 did not look right. A good scalp for Samsonkin. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | JohnBoy: What I like here is that the last move creates a hopeless zugzwang for black. You don't see such things much below the top GM levels. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | Marmot PFL: I did not see 31 Qc7! but the point is Rc8 32 Rxa6+ Kxa6 33 Qa5# |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | acirce: It's not a Zugzwang -- Black simply can't do anything about the Rxa6+ threat. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | notyetagm: <acirce: It's not a Zugzwang -- Black simply can't do anything about the Rxa6+ threat.> Good point.
The final position is *not* <ZUGZWANG>, its <DEFENSELESS>. :-) |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | luzhin: The underpromotion on move 22 was neat. After 22.gxh8=(Q)? Qxf7 White's brand new Queen would have been trapped! Lovely game throughout by White. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | Inf: 16...e5 and white has a +3 advantage! That was a blunder i think. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | Jim Bartle: Nakamura may have opened the door here, but Samsonkin deserves credit for a well-thought out attack. |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | Inf: On move 26 white is +5 already... What a bad loser Nakamura... He should've resigned! What was he waiting? For white to blow the game away? |
|
| Apr-24-09 | | DarthStapler: GOTD! |
|
| Apr-25-09 | | Billy Vaughan: <On move 26 white is +5 already... What a bad loser Nakamura... He should've resigned! What was he waiting? For white to blow the game away?> Believe it or not, little Rybka evals don't pop up on-board when you're actually playing. I'm sure Nakamura didn't think, "Wow, I'm down five points, let's keep playing on!" He was just trying to wriggle out of an attack, which is human nature. That said, this is a fascinating game. |
|
| Apr-25-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Great game by Samsonkin. |
|
| Apr-25-09 | | NewLine: <Billy Vaughan: <On move 26 white is +5 already... What a bad loser Nakamura... He should've resigned! What was he waiting? For white to blow the game away?>
Believe it or not, little Rybka evals don't pop up on-board when you're actually playing. I'm sure Nakamura didn't think, "Wow, I'm down five points, let's keep playing on!" He was just trying to wriggle out of an attack, which is human nature. That said, this is a fascinating game.>
Nice to see some carbon brain opinion... |
|
| Apr-28-09 | | arsen387: beautiful game! |
|
| Apr-28-09 | | Bowen Island: You never win a game by resigning; why shouldn't Nakamura play on in a dynamic, unbalanced position? |
|
| Apr-28-09 | | Manic: <Bowen Island> You should read the posts above before posting. Maybe you did not see the threat but it is Rxa6+ and Qa5# which is unstoppable. Black does not even have any checks. |
|
| Apr-28-09 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: I am surprised cause the white oppening I could call "my Sicilian attack" in the past (1980-90), I never thought that today this Bd3, Bd2 and a4, will be used by a GM! I'm feeling not too old for chess again! The black position is very bad, after 23.Ne2! if Ne8, (avoiding 24.Tc7) follows 23Bg5! very strong. Other possibility is Te8 answered by 23Bg5 too! White has found the winning move: Ne2! |
|
| Apr-29-09 | | Extremophile: I think mate-in-one positions are also zugzwang. If someone is in zugzwang, he will lose whatever he plays. So, mate-in-n positions also fall in ths category. So he IS in zugzwang. More specifically, this is mate-in-2. |
|
| Apr-29-09 | | Billy Vaughan: Zugzwang specifically means you weaken your position <because you must move> - in other words, you'd be fine if it were your opponent's move. Most mates-in-one aren't zugzwangs because passing wouldn't do anything. Notyetagm is correct: it's not a <zugzwang>, it's <defenseless>. |
|
| Apr-30-09 | | Extremophile: I have never seen a position in which someone is in zugzwang and his position is defendable at the same time. So, theoretically those positions are also lost and they are also mate-in-n positions (n might be 89, i don't know). So, mate-in-one IS an extreme case of a zugzwang. |
|
Apr-30-09
 | | alexmagnus: <I have never seen a position in which someone is in zugzwang and his position is defendable at the same time> Zugzwang means <being forced to move>. I.e., in a Zugzwang position <every move> loss but <no move> would either hold a draw or win. Here <no move> loses too so it's not a zugzwang. |
|
| Apr-30-09 | | dwojiow: <Extremophile: I have never seen a position in which someone is in zugzwang and his position is defendable at the same time. So, theoretically those positions are also lost and they are also mate-in-n positions (n might be 89, i don't know). So, mate-in-one IS an extreme case of a zugzwang.> Let me restate what you are saying:
1. Zugzwang positions are lost
2. Mate-in-n positions are lost
3. Therefore, Zugzwang = Mate-in-n
This does not follow (in terms of logic).
As others have stated, the key is a hypothetical passing move. If you could pass in a zugzwang position, you could draw. A pass in a mate-in-n will still result in mate. |
|
| Apr-30-09 | | ounos: What a game!!! This is what it takes to win a top GM? |
|
| Apr-30-09 | | Capablanca44: This game was a truly remarkable game. First sacrifice was 17.Ne6 ... opening up e8-h5 diagonal. A second sacrifice of White's Bishop at g5 deflected Black's Queen from the main attack on Black's King.A third sacrifice of White's Rook moving to c7 resulted in Black losing a Bishop and a Pawn. It allowed White to set up the final attack on the Black King. A threatened fourth sacrifice of another White Rook results in a forced mate ( 31. Qc7 Rc8 32. Rxa6+ Kxa6 33. Qa5# ). In fact, a true cascade of sacrifices took place in this game. This game shows the importance of development. By the twelfth move, White is further ahead in development.White's Rooks are already on the e and f central files, but Black's Rooks are are still on their original squares. White has already castled and Black is still yet to castle. The key problem here for Black, is that his King is still in the center. Black worsens his development problem by moving one of his Knights three times before before completing his development. Quite justifiably, White decides that the time has come for a direct attack on Black's King. White's Rook is moved to the c file suggesting that White has hostile intentions. Black's Pawn at h7 is pinned by White's 19. fxg6 ... move. Indeed, White has the initiative as White's Queen does not have to move after 20. g7 discovered+ even though Black's move 20 ... Nf6 attacks White's Queen. The Pawn at g7 attacks the Black Rook which is on the eighth rank. The underpromotion by White to a Knight after 22. gxh8=N protects his Queen. The quiet move of 23. Ne2 ... is defensive but allows White's Rook an open c file, cutting off the Black King's escape. The White Rook's 25. Rxf6 ... offers Black's Queen a White Bishop at g5. Black takes the bait, and as a result, his Queen has been deflected from the main attack on Black's King. Then the numerous tactics by White gets the job done. Pins, double attack, discovered check, deflections and sacrifices completely annihilates Black's position. This leads to a forced mate in two moves. This is a superb game by White. |
|
| Apr-30-09 | | Extremophile: dwojiow, I totally disagree about your comment number 3. I am not saying "therefore". When is someone in zugzwang? Someone is in zugzwang because 1. whatever he plays he will lose or,
2. whatever he plays he can't avoid his opponent's drawing combination. So, zugzwang includes both these situations. So, if someone loses whatever he plays that means the position is theoretically mate-in-n position. the number "n" can either be 1 or let's say 896. There is no statement that if someone is to be called in zugzwang, he must be able to play at least more than 1 (or I don't know, you should give me the number actually) move". Please, don't make up things I have never said. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 17.Ne6
icon.