|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Sep-09-09
 |
| Albertan: I have analyzed this game in great detail and posted the analysis at the bottom of the first page of my blog: http://albertan1956.blogspot.com/. I hope you drop by and play through the game move by move.Thanks |
 |
| Sep-09-09 |
| lostgalaxy: Yes 31.Ng4 was the move! |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| talchess2003: I MUST be missing something blatant here, but why not 38... Kg8? No knight fork then, and after QxB material is even. |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| whiteshark: <29...Bxd5 30.Rxd5 Re6=> comes out from our engine department. 
click for larger view |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| Dr. Funkenstein: talchess: isn't Kg8 answered by Nxd7 leaving white up the exchange (Qxd7 Qxh6) and 3 pawns? |
|
Sep-09-09
|
| whiteshark: <18...d5!> equalises. |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| BraveUlysses: O, the joy of the knights.
What a pretty and truly fascinating game... it looks like a show-jumping event with the white horses not hitting an obstacle as they romp around the black position!
Karjakin basically overpowered/monstered his opponent in what is a very complex middlegame- the central rooks and the poor black Q position were crucial. |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| arsen387: White Knights in Bilbao! |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| kackhander: "ballad of bilbao baggins" would have been better. |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| kackhander: ...or maybe they already used that last year. |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| kevin86: Make it inside the park! That would be unusual. |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| Gambitor: <I MUST be missing something blatant here, but why not 38... Kg8?>
Come on, it's just a aesthetic detail to make Karjakin's great combination even prettier.. of course there's no fork with 38...Kg8, but the position is lost anyway. |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| Chessmensch: No wonder Karjakin did so well. He plays with BOTH hands (See his Chessgames pic). :-) |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| ClassZPlaya: Why 18. ... Re7 and not 18. ... d5 immediately? Seems like Black lost time with 18. ... Re7 unless I'm missing something. |
|
Sep-09-09
|
| ClassZPlaya: Just noticed <whiteshark: <18...d5!> equalises> .... Yeah, it certainly looks a lot better than 18. ... Re7 |
|
Sep-09-09
 |
| YouRang: Pun = "Dealt a grand slam"
Evidently referring to the context of playing bridge: <winning all of the tricks in a hand of bridge> Funny, the term <grand slam> is most familiar to me in the context of baseball (a home run with the bases loaded). Yet, this definition didn't even appear on the Google dictionary. They DID mentioned:
- the "grand slam of tennis"
- a race horse named "Grand Slam"
- the "grand slam of golf"
- it's a technique used in fly fishing
- it's the name of a British TV show
- there is a rock band called "Grand Slam"
- even the "grand slam of darts" (for crying out loud) But not the baseball term. :-\ |
|
Sep-09-09
|
| YouRang: Apparently, black needed 29...Bxd5. After 29...Bg7, things fell apart rather rapidly for black. Excellent game by Karjakin, though.
It's impressive how he quietly got both bishops, both knights, and his queen in array against black's king position [digram after 19 moves]
click for larger view
Within a few moves, he also had both rooks controlling the center. It's hard to believe he's married now. He still looks like he's 14. |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| ROO.BOOKAROO: An elementary question: Why not 5. ...Nxe4? when the e4 pawn is unprotected. Where is the risk? Most club players would take it. |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| sfeuler: Ok, I can't see what White gets after 37...Qxd7 - I'm only seeing 38.Nxe5 Qe6 39.Nxf7 Qxe1+ 40.Kh2 Qd2 - There's got to be something better for White! |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| corbinamman: sfeuler, I'm pretty sure after 38...Qe6 you'd see 39. Qxf7 Qxf7 40. Nxf7. |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| WhiteRook48: this is stunning |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| m0nkee1: after 13 .. Nb8 blacks got nowhere to go.. Nd7? so it could have protected the castle? after that Katjakin seems to march on the king! after 19 you can see trouble! |
|
| Sep-09-09 |
| chillowack: Right around move 32 or so, Grischuk must have realized something had gone horribly wrong somewhere.... |
|
| Sep-10-09 |
| sfeuler: <corbinamman> Thanks, that makes sense - didn't even consider 39.Qxf7! |
|
| Sep-18-09 |
| ROO.BOOKAROO: At the lower level of my comprehension, why exactly 15. ...Qc8? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 33.Nxf7+
