|Dec-04-11|| ||Penguincw: I consider this an upset.
<Nakamura 1,372> x 4:1 5.11 A winning 10 chessbuck ticket
pays out 51 chessbucks.
<Aronian 1,528> x 7:2 4.59 A winning 10 chessbuck ticket
pays out 45 chessbucks.
<Draw 4,402> x 5:8 1.63 A winning 10 chessbuck ticket
pays out 16 chessbucks.
Hmm. If I bet 200 on Nakamura then I would win about 1,022 chessbucks and could be on the leaderboard.
|Dec-04-11|| ||Jambow: This game had a strong but pleasant Laskerish flavour with a hint of Keres for the chess afficianado's out there.|
|Dec-04-11|| ||haydn20: In the postgame Aronian said ruefully that he had achieved equality and proceeded to "play for the loss." Naka concurred.|
|Dec-04-11|| ||Domdaniel: Hmmm. I don't think it's been aged in the cask for long enough to absorb those complex old-world flavours. A hint of cheekiness, perhaps, like a Californian Merlot cut with Sake and engine oil.|
Aronian tried Petrosian's rule (an Armenian delicacy): <In a sufficiently strong position, you can always sacrifice the Exchange>. He simply failed to note that his position wasn't strong enough.
|Dec-04-11|| ||Shams: <Dom> I always include the word "sufficiently" in my rules. It renders them non-falsifiable.|
|Dec-04-11|| ||whiteshark: <haydn20: In the postgame Aronian said ruefully that he had achieved equality and proceeded to "play for the loss."> I think he said that he was even slightly better (while Nakamura said equal) around move 28, but due to bad time management he spoiled it in the end.|
|Dec-04-11|| ||frogbert: i think the position was strong enough, objectively speaking. but aronian seemed to lose the thread after the exchange sacrifice - probably means that the position was kind of tricky to play from the black side.|
of course, "sufficiently" might imply more than being strong enough in objective terms ...
|Dec-04-11|| ||frogbert: here came the first inaccuracy from aronian:
click for larger view
he played 28... Bc5?! but the problem with this, is that it allows white to "attack" the potentially strong f4-pawn with g3, while 28... Bb4! makes this much harder.
e.g. 29. g3? Bxc3 30. Qxc3 Ne4 winning the pawn:
click for larger view
or 29. Rhf1 Qg4!?
click for larger view
it's very complicated tactically, though. but tactics is supposed to be one of aronian's biggest strengths ...
|Dec-04-11|| ||wordfunph: from TWIC..
<Aronian was highly critical of his clock handling "It was foolish to spend so much time on this [move]." and "I was spending time on moves and not playing them." Astonishingly neither player seemed certain of the time control and Nakamura only realised they had no increment when Aronian started to speed up. Whilst tournaments have a variety of time controls.>
nice win by Naka!
|Dec-04-11|| ||whithaw: frogbert, your 28....Bb4 seems to be a good positional move for black. If the Nc3 is allowed to be eliminated, the black knight becomes much stronger, and the loss of the exchange seems to be compensated, although it is a difficult position for me to completely understand. It isn't a clear position.|
|Dec-04-11|| ||Domdaniel: <Shams> Any sufficiently non-falsifiable rule is, er, difficult to falsify.|
If I'm to believe Herr Engine, Aronian's Exchange sac here was fully justified, and probably his best option at that point. He even had a very slight advantage for a while, but - as Frogbert rightly says - a series of inaccurate moves frittered it away.
The game was in the balance for quite a long while. 32...Rd7 wasn't great, but Aronian probably still had chances until 39...a5?
Just before the time control. I know the feeling, and it's hard to falsify.
Sufficiently so for me, at any rate.
|Dec-04-11|| ||Hesam7: <Domdaniel: Aronian tried Petrosian's rule (an Armenian delicacy): <In a sufficiently strong position, you can always sacrifice the Exchange>. He simply failed to note that his position wasn't strong enough.>|
Judging by result? Aronian's opening went really well and the exchange sac was the best plan for Black which gave him a nice advantage. Here are a number of improvements for Black: 20. ... Bc5, 28. ... d4, 29. ... Qg4 and 38. ... e2.
|Dec-04-11|| ||pajaste: Man, I thought 13. Bd3 was the Novelty here but CG suggests 10. Be5. Congrats to Nakamura for a fine win.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||HeMateMe: Nice to see Naka attacking, opening up the position against such a high ranked player. Sofia rules suits his temperment well.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||Ladolcevita: Nakamura is undoubtedly a super GM and an elite player now,with a rating of 2758,winning versus Aronian,participating Tal and London one after another...|
|Dec-05-11|| ||Atking: Yes <Ladolcevita> playing more than 10 games each other Nakamura has an equal score vs the top 2^3 Aronian. It isn't an easy feat.|
|Dec-05-11|| ||Gilmoy: <Shams: <Dom> I always include the word "sufficiently" in my rules. It renders them non-falsifiable.>|
<Domdaniel: <Shams> Any sufficiently non-falsifiable rule is, er, difficult to falsify.>
You guys are hilarious! I'm going to try this in my thesis!
|Dec-05-11|| ||Ladolcevita: <Atking>
Yes,indeed.And another remarkable feat that he achieved,I suppose,is that he realized the flying leap from a normal GM to a super one roughly in a year(according to his rating chart,and also I found that his highest rating was 2774!),which I presume is quite difficult.
Though I have to mention that he lost to Magnus yesterday,but then anyone could lose to Magnus.
|Dec-06-11|| ||Shams: <Gilmoy> You're a Sci-Fi fan I think, so you will appreciate that it was Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law" that inspired me. |
The other two laws deserve to be equally famous:
|Dec-06-11|| ||Hesam7: After 38. ... e2!
click for larger view
Black is winning, for example:
<A> 39. Rc8 Rxc8 40. Qxd5+ Kh8 41. Qf3 Qe7 42. Rxe2 Qxa3
<B> 39. Qe5 Qxe5 40. fxe5 Nf4 41. e6 Kf8 42. e7+ Kxe7 43. Rc7+ Kf6 44. Kc2 Rd5 45. Rxa7 Rc5+ 46. Kd2 Rxh5 47. Rxe2 Rd5+ 48. Ke1 Nxe2 49. Kxe2 h5
<C> 39. Ka2 Ne3 40. Qg6 Qxg6 41. hxg6 Rd2+ 42. Kb1 Kf8 43. f5 Ng2 44. Rg1 e1=Q 45. Rgxe1 Nxe1 46. Rxe1 Rd5 47. Rf1 h5
|Dec-08-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <wordfunph: from TWIC..
< *** Astonishingly neither player seemed certain of the time control and Nakamura only realised they had no increment when Aronian started to speed up. ***>>
Wow! Although it involved a different aspect of time-control regulations, Nakamura’s time-control contretemps in Vallejo-Pons vs Nakamura, 2011 should have focused his attention on that aspect of any tournament’s conditions, I would have thought.
Perhaps when one is accustomed to playing “game-in-one” games by the hundreds, nothing can shake his inclination to dismiss time-control regulations as unworthy of serious attention.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: BTW, for the benefit of those perusing this thread at a later date, the applicable TC for this tournament is: 40/2 - 20/1 - SD/ 15 mins., with a 30-second increment applicable only after move 60.|
|Dec-31-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: In his book " My 60 memorable games" Bobby Fischer describes 7 Nge2 as Robert Byrne's move, gives it an exclamation mark, and says that it is the strongest. Bobby Fischer therefore considers the move 7 Nge2 to be stronger than Botvinnik's move 7 g4.|
Instead of 9 Be2, 9 Bd3 seems consistent with the move 8 Ng3, preparing to place the N on f5. Four moves later, at move 13, the bishop spends a second tempo on going to d3.
10 Be5?! places the B on a square where a N on c4 can attack it.
11...h6?! disturbs the King side pawns without necessity and invites
the pawn attack g5.
After 15...Kh8 if the knight advance 16...Nc4 can be regarded as a threat if the other N can come to g4 following the exchange ...Nxe5, this suggests 16 f3 preventing the move ...Ng4
17 b3?! disturbs the pawns on the Queen side and may place White's King on c1 in greater danger than from the N itself. Moreover it invites the part sequence 17...Nxe5 18 dxe5 Ng4! when 19 f4 makes the g4 pawn backward and therefore Black's King safer.