chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Hikaru Nakamura vs Varuzhan Eduardovich Akobian
US Championship (2009), St. Louis, MO USA, rd 7, May-14
French Defense: Steinitz. Boleslavsky Variation (C11)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 7 times; par: 47 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 12 more Nakamura/Akobian games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: At the top of the page we display the common English name for the opening, followed by the ECO code (e.g. "C11"). The ECO codes are links that take you to opening pages.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-20-09  WhiteRook48: then rook takes on d8 and deflects the queen?!
Jun-20-09  ToTheDeath: <hedgeh0g> I have no idea what you're talking about- it hasn't been discussed here. White is winning in all lines after 16.Na4- unless you have some improvement?
Jun-20-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <ToTheDeath>,

I didn't say it had been discussed here, I just thought the Na4 idea had been tossed around quite a lot and I assumed many people were aware of it. When I checked the line with Fritz, it only showed a 0.50 advantage for White to begin with, but after letting it run for a bit, it does actually suggest White has a crushing advantage, so I was wrong there.

Hikaru Nakamura - Varuzhan Akobian, 120'+5"/40+60'/20+30'


click for larger view

Analysis by Fritz 11:

1. (4.20): 16...Qb6-c7 17.Na4xc5 Qc7xc5 18.f5-f6 Rf8-e8 19.Rh1-h4 d5-d4 20.Qd2-g5 Qc5-f8 21.Rh4xd4 Ra8-b8 22.f6xg7 Qf8xg7 23.Qg5-e3 Kg8-h8 24.h5-h6 Qg7-g8 25.Bf1-d3 Bc8-b7

2. (5.53): 16...Nc5xa4 17.f5-f6 h7-h6 18.Rh1-h3 Rf8-d8 19.Rh3-g3 Kg8-f8 20.f6xg7+ Kf8-e7 21.Qd2xh6 Qb6-f2 22.g7-g8Q Rd8xg8 23.Rg3xg8 Bc8-b7 24.Qh6-g5+ Ke7-d7 25.Rg8xa8 Bb7xa8 26.Bf1xa6 Qf2-b6 27.Ba6-d3

Jun-20-09  ToTheDeath: Yes, that's what makes f5! such an impressive concept, White had to see all this ahead of time.
Jun-20-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: I think the line was prepared by Nakamura.
Jun-21-09  lostthefight: Hedge - give Naka some props and let your computer do the speculating.
Jun-22-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: I have given him "props"; I thought the idea was incredible and Naka's fighting spirit in all the games he plays makes him one of my favourite players.

I was simply saying I thought he had gone into this line with Na4! in mind if Akobian was going to play into it.

I used Fritz to show some lines because (unlike you, I'm sure), I can't see 10+ moves deep in these positions and I felt clarifying the picture with some computer analysis would be useful.

So if you've got nothing better to do, stop being an annoying little troll and please go and stick your head in a food blender.

Thank you.

Jun-23-09  lostthefight: Hedge, irrespective of food blender and troll comments...when a player has a great game and you attribute it to preparation that's considered a backhanded slight to their OTB abilities. It's an apologetic that's been used by chess players for a long time.
Jun-23-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <You act like no one can read previous posts.>

Funny you should say that, because you obviously didn't read mine:

<When I checked the line with Fritz, it only showed a 0.50 advantage for White to begin with, but after letting it run for a bit, it does actually suggest White has a crushing advantage, so I was wrong there.>

In top level chess, players tend to prepare for their opponents and vice-versa, contrary to what you might believe. I for one don't believe Nakamura would go into this game, knowing his opponent almost exclusively plays the French against 1. e4, and leave himself the arduous task of having to figure things out as he went along in the opening. The idea that this was prepared was also suggested by the commentators on the ICC as the game was being played. I could be wrong, but I think it's quite likely Nakamura had done some analysis on this line beforehand.

And I don't have a clue what "bluff" you're referring to. I made a mistake and acknowledged it. Then you came in looking for a fight and you got one. Well done.

I'll give you the "benefit of the doubt" here and assume you simply enjoy winding people up and that you're not a complete ****ing moron.

Jun-23-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <Hedge, irrespective of food blender and troll comments...when a player has a great game and you attribute it to preparation that's considered a backhanded slight to their OTB abilities. It's an apologetic that's been used by chess players for a long time.>

It's funny how you edited your post after I pointed out the fact that you hadn't actually read much of mine.

Unfortunately, you still suffer from the same problem.

Please state where I attributed the <game> to preparation. All I said was I thought that one Na4 move (which wasn't even played) was prepared. What am I supposed to say? You're reading way too much into this; like I said before, I give full credit to Nakamura for a great game, whether the opening was prepared or whether he simply played it all from scratch.

Jun-23-09  lostthefight: Hedge - <I think the line was prepared by Nakamura.> I removed my first post in an effort to avoid a fight and keep the focus on Naka. Unless he says he prepared the line, I believe he has to be given the benefit of the doubt he's simply that good.

You know darn well if you beat somebody and he writes it off to preparation that's going to make you mad. Particularly if it was brilliant win like this one.

Jun-23-09  lostthefight: Hedge - Unfortunately, I feel obliged to defend against the idea that I didn't read your previous posts. I just went back further than when you corrected yourself to the point where you were dissing ToTheDeath.

<this has all been discussed before, but the position isn't actually 'huge' for White if Black plays accurately>.

This was bluff designed to silence the enthusiasm of ToTheDeath. You only admitted you were wrong after a challenge was issued.

Jun-24-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <I removed my first post in an effort to avoid a fight>

Let's be honest: you never wanted to avoid a fight, otherwise you wouldn't have stirred things up with your antagonistic comments. You may argue you're simply commenting on the preparation, etc. but I think it's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that your wording and tone is clearly provocative.

<You know darn well if you beat somebody and he writes it off to preparation that's going to make you mad. Particularly if it was brilliant win like this one.>

This is the last time I'm going to say this, because I'm fed up with repeating myself for the benefit of some clown who can't be bothered / is unable to read posts properly. I never credited the victory to preparation. Nakamura didn't even play the (possibly) prepared move. All I said was I thought the Na4 idea was known to Nakamura before the game, that's all. End of story.

So before you post any more idiotic flames regarding this worn-out issue, I suggest you visit: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re... first and consider what it tells you.

<This was bluff designed to silence the enthusiasm of ToTheDeath. You only admitted you were wrong after a challenge was issued.>

Again, I'm not sure where "bluffing" or "silencing enthusiasm" comes into it; I only <realised> I was wrong after I was challenged and checked it for an <extended> period of time with a computer. Again, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong and when I've made a mistake (unlike you, still rattling on trying to pretend you're defending chess players' honour, when really you've just been caught trolling).

Jun-24-09  lostthefight: Hedge - When you correct yourself after being called out I consider that to be a bluff. If you had corrected yourself prior to the challenge it would be different. I guess you give yourself more latitude.

Once you've been proven wrong about a critical point in a game, your cred is shot for pontificating about other matters directly related to that particular game. Again, I suppose you feel differently.

Jun-24-09  Postal: I must agree with <lostthefight> and <ToTheDeath>...

And <hedgeh0g>, you should watch your condescending remarks: <So if you've got nothing better to do, stop being an annoying little troll and please go and stick your head in a food blender.>

<I'll give you the "benefit of the doubt" here and assume you simply enjoy winding people up and that you're not a complete ****ing moron.>

<So before you post any more idiotic flames regarding this worn-out issue, I suggest you visit: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re... first and consider what it tells you.>

Makes you look like a donkey...

Jun-24-09  ToTheDeath: Wow I didn't want to start a flame war. Let's just agree it's a great game and move on.
Jun-24-09  Postal: I agree <ToTheDeath>, but the above remarks were totally uncalled for - IMHO...
Jun-24-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <When you correct yourself after being called out I consider that to be a bluff.>

I only corrected myself after <ToTheDeath> claimed it was winning. This caused me to analyse deeper with Fritz than I had previously and I discovered the line was winning and I corrected myself. You make it seem like I knew this all along and was just arguing for the sake of it.

<Postal>, I was responding to the tone and content of <lostthefight>'s posts which I perceived as being clearly provocative and insulting.

As a sidenote, it is curious how you have only 2 posts as a member on chessgames and they coincidentally happen to be involved in a heated argument.

<ToTheDeath>, if I'd known my comments would start something like this, I never would have contributed to this page. In hindsight, however, at least you caused me to analyse the line deeper and discover there was in fact a winning continuation, so thanks for that and sorry for getting involved in all this, but when I feel my comments are being misconstrued, I need to stick up for myself. I hope you understand.

Jun-24-09  SetNoEscapeOn: Well, I don't see what is wrong with speculating that any given chess move in the early part of a high level game is part of preparation. And it should be clear to everybody that Nakamura is quite capable of outplaying Akobian at any point during a game. If he did in fact find Na4 in home analysis, that would not provide any reason whatsoever for doubting that ability. As long as <hedge> agrees with this, there should be no beef.

<The idea that this was prepared was also suggested by the commentators on the ICC as the game was being played. I could be wrong, but I think it's quite likely Nakamura had done some analysis on this line beforehand.>

And that is a very good reason for doubting that Nakamura found the move otb; players stronger than all of us have stated that they believe the same thing (this could be confirmed, I did not watch the broadcast). He gave other reasons as well. Obviously, it is possible that Nakamura found the move otb, but <hedge> didn't just pull the idea it out of thin air.

<Once you've been proven wrong about a critical point in a game, your cred is shot for pontificating about other matters directly related to that particular game.>

To me it did not appear to be pontification, it looked like he was merely stating his opinion. He thinks that Na4 was found in home analysis.

And if you consider his "credibility to be shot" because he was mistaken about a separate move in the game, fine. I certainly don't. I remember last year in an interview in Mainz, Judit Polgar was talking through her loss against Anand when the wc jumped in and corrected her on a particular point. She thought that she had missed a drawing move, but Anand said "no, that's actually what I was waiting for" and gave his line. She was proven wrong, and the point was "critical" because it was the difference between winning and drawing. Would you stop listening to her analysis of the game at that point because her "credibility had been shot"?

Jun-24-09  Postal: <hedgeh0g> Correct, I've been on this site for quit some time and had to voice myself due to your comments, so I created a user name. Granted I was not involved, but I just wanted to say that I thought a few of your comments were rather rude. And, sometimes "tone" is hard to read from typed messages. But on a different note, I do find your analysis very helpful in my game, you posted a lot and I run through a lot of your lines and find them very helpful. The same goes with <lostthefight> and <ToTheDeath>, to name just a few. You obviously know this game called chess very well. Didn't mean to add fuel to the fire, so I'll got back to my silent mode...

Cheers!

Jun-24-09  lostthefight: SetNoEscape - Are you really comparing Hedge to Judit Polgar? Only my opinion, but that might be a bad example.

Preparation these days of course means computers. So if you say someone prepped the line it means he came to the position and let the machine run for half an hour to find a killer sequence. Thus... Hedge's comment about prepping the line was a reference to Naka using computers rather than being a great player. And no, once you've made an unconditional statement that he prepped the line you don't get to have it both ways as you attempted to describe in the second to last sentence of your first paragraph (see I'm reading his post Hedge - just like you taught me!).

Postal - Hedge's comment to you was an accusation that I am spoofing (and if I were Hedge I would insert a wiki link here so we could all know what that means). I knew he'd take that tactic when I saw it was your first post. Oh well, just an unfortunate coincidence.

Jul-02-09  zoren: Hello, I don't see the end after the Na4 trick, anyone with a computer paste a line? I don't see how h7-h6 is forced after f6 is played.
Jul-28-09  MarvinTsai: Once I met a guy online who kept talking bs, and he named himself "DNA". Do you know why he chose such a stupid name? Because then no one could google him out. But he was identified at last, because he left too much posts with too much info, and the site can remember IP(oops!). For a site like chessgames which won't reveal IP and always let users delete their own posts, sorry hedgehog, you may never know which cases are "unfortunate coincidences" and which are not.

Or, is there a possibility that admin has kept the IP? On my own blog, I can clearly see any poster's IP, while others can't. Of course, unless the poster uses "jumpboard"...

Jul-28-09  MarvinTsai: <zoren>, please see hedgehog's previous post. The idea is that f6 and h6 squares can't both be defended after Nxa4, and instantly then black king is in danger.
Feb-01-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: I think that Nakamura made small inaccuracies with 12.h5 and 13.O-O-O. After 13.O-O-O Black can exchange both the DSBs and the queens by 13...Bxd4 14.Qxd4 Qxd4 15.Rxd4. True, White has the much better bishop but with both the DSBs and queens off the board Black's dark square weakness is not easily exploited and Black probably has much less to fear from a k-side attack after ...O-O or ...Ke7. Even though engines are notoriously poor in properly evaluating closed positions, Houdini 1.5c evaluates the position after 15...Bb7, 15...Ke7, or 15...Rb8 as no worse than [+0.17], d=27. I prefer 15...Rb8 even though that's only Houdini's 3rd choice in order to answer White's a2-a4 with ...b4 and try to exchange the LSBs via ...a5, ...Ra8, and ...Ba6. Or if a2-a4-a5, then ...Nc5, ...Bd7, and ...Bb5. Slow but the number of moves required to accomplish that are probably not that important in such a closed position. And, true, Black doesn't have more than equality at best but that would be better than how the game turned out.

So I think that better was 12.Bxc5 Nxc5 13.O-O-O. Then White could continue as in the game if Black plays ...O-O. After 13.O-O-O Houdini evaluates the position as at best [+0.25], d=27 after 13...b4 14.Ne2 Qb6 15.Nd4 h5 with no ...O-O in any of the top 5 PVs. An insignificant improvement, but marginally better than if White allows the queen exchange and providing White with more opportunities to complicate the game.

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Cultus' favorite games
by Cultus
US Championship, St. Louis 2009 Rd.7
from Favorite Games from (2009) by wanabe2000
Sam Shankland- Small Steps to Giant Improvement
by SeazerCZ


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC