|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-20-12 | | Knight13: Good game. |
 |
Jan-20-12
 | | Ulhumbrus: It seems that 47 e5 is partly a waiting move so that on 47..Ra3 Black can't answer 48 Rc8 with 48...Rxc4 |
|
| Jan-20-12 | | Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him? |
|
Jan-20-12
| | Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well. |
|
| Jan-20-12 | | Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)? |
|
Jan-20-12
 | | Strongest Force: Anyone looking at the Nak game? Was that amazing queen sac possible with e3!!!!???? |
|
Jan-20-12
 | | boz: There are some good games on the other boards. Anyone in the mood for a switch? I vote Navar-Carlsen but Naka's game is interesting too. |
|
Jan-20-12
| | boz: Well, so much for Gelfand. Naka wins with Black. Maybe he has played his way back into form. Is there no interest in the Navara-Carlsen game? |
|
Jan-20-12
 | | whiteshark: <brucejavier: Aronian has his favourite bishop when playing with white, has 4 pawns against 3 majority, has his pawns in a chain, blacks is scattered I give Aronian to win in 20moves most, he's done it too many times in these type of positions.> It took Aronian just 14 moves to archive the goal (starting to count from move <35.Bb5>). |
|
Jan-20-12
 | | Gypsy: <Is there no interest in the Navara-Carlsen game?> I'd be interested in it.
But I like endgames, even the obviously-drawn ones. |
|
Jan-20-12
| | Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)?> Because by then it would give him little or no more chance to hold on. |
|
Jan-20-12
| | boz: <Gypsy: <Is there no interest in the Navara-Carlsen game?> I'd be interested in it. But I like endgames, even the obviously-drawn ones.> Navara seems to have winning chances. |
|
Jan-20-12
| | boz: Now it looks like draw. |
|
| Jan-20-12 | | Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)?> Because by then it would give him little or no more chance to hold on.> Still better than 47...Ra3. |
|
Jan-20-12
| | Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)?> Because by then it would give him little or no more chance to hold on.> Still better than 47...Ra3.> Or possibly no better, so he thought after Aronian had played 47 e5 |
|
| Jan-20-12 | | Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)?> Because by then it would give him little or no more chance to hold on.> Still better than 47...Ra3.> Or possibly no better, so he thought after Aronian had played 47 e5> "Possibly"? |
|
| Jan-20-12 | | Penguincw: < "Aronian’s win, which came after 48 moves from a Ben-Oni Defense, earned him a 500-euro bonus"... > http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tourn... |
|
| Jan-20-12 | | James Bowman: Gishimov looker rather unimpressive through out imho. Aronian played well but certainly had some help. |
|
Jan-20-12
 | | wordfunph: "I'm very happy that I managed to beat a strong opponent in an easy game, this happens very rarely and can only be explained by my opponents bad form. So I'm looking forward to the next rounds." - GM Levon Aronian
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessne... |
|
| Jan-21-12 | | arnaud1959: The pawn structure in the endgame reminds me of
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1987
In this game we have rooks instead of queens otb. That makes the white rook less powerful but enables the white King to come out. |
|
Jan-21-12
| | Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)?> Because by then it would give him little or no more chance to hold on.> Still better than 47...Ra3.> Or possibly no better, so he thought after Aronian had played 47 e5> "Possibly"?> Possibly, as this is a guess. |
|
| Jan-21-12 | | Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus: <Knight13: <Ulhumbrus> Then why did Gashimov play ...Ra3 in that position if ...Rxc4 meant so much to him?> Probably because anything else would have lost as well.> If that was the case, then why didn't he resign on 47th? Why did he decide to go ahead and play ...Ra3 knowing that the potential ...Rxc4 would give him more chance (even if it's likely not enough to hold on)?> Because by then it would give him little or no more chance to hold on.> Still better than 47...Ra3.> Or possibly no better, so he thought after Aronian had played 47 e5> "Possibly"?> Possibly, as this is a guess.> I was looking for a more concrete answer, but I see what you mean. |
|
| Jan-22-12 | | kbob: I don't understand Gashimov's rush to trade pieces as soon as he lost the pawn, especially ruining his own pawn structure and exposing his second rank with 29. ... Ne6. Was this the best general plan to seek a draw? |
|
| Jan-22-12 | | ajile: The Bf4 variation again in the Benoni. Very annoying line for Black. |
|
| Mar-15-13 | | EvanTheTerrible: Ronen Har-Zvi noted the similarity between this endgame and the endgame between Kasparov and Karpov, game 24, 1987 WCC. The endgames are almost identical except for Kasparov and Karpov had Queens instead of Rooks. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
