|Jul-26-12|| ||Eyal: The end, of course, would be 82.Kg4 Rg2+ 83.Rg3 Rxg3#, and after 81.Kg4 the mate comes by way of 81…Rg2+ 82.Rg3 Rh4#. Very nice maneuvers by Nakamura to set up a mating net starting with 73...Rc2 (with the threat Rh1-h4+), which by this stage was actually Black's only chance to save the game. With 74.Rc3! Bologan might have been winning, with 79.Ne7+ he might still had chances to draw. Great fighting game by both players.|
|Jul-26-12|| ||parmetd: I thought the plan 74. Rc3! was an easy win with the plan of Rd2+ Kc4 Kb5. So I think Rxc3 is black's only answer which then means white is definitely winning after Kxc3 Kd5 Nd4. But Bologan was in time trouble. Still amazing that he took that easily won position to curtains so quickly.|
|Jul-26-12|| ||shaikriyaz: move number 34 to 37 were really funny. Black attacking the e pawn and white defending it. By the end of the sequence, all the pieces exerting there pressure on e pawn, both knowing well enough that pawn can't be taken that way. Made me smile:-)|
|Jul-26-12|| ||vinidivici: nice endgame from Naka.|
|Jul-26-12|| ||OneArmedScissor: Pretty exciting endgame.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||OBIT: I think another easy way Bologan could have escaped Nakamura's rooks is 72. Kb3 Rab1+ (or 72...Rcb1+ 73. Kc4 Rc1+ 74. Rc3) 73. Ka4 Ra1+ 74. Ra3 - the familiar "building a bridge" maneuver. From there, winning is a simple matter of pushing the a-pawn.|
Bologan's decision to send his king on a panic-stricken run to the kingside is what cost him the game. This decision actually made no sense, since the king was much safer on the queenside, where his own pieces could shelter him from the checks. In other words, Nakamura didn't so much create a mating net as Bologan ran into it.
Of course, the clocks were a huge factor. Bologan's clock ran down to a few minutes when he played 65. Nxa6 - a good move, but I'm wondering if he could have done it quicker, considering he was playing speed demon Nakamura. From here, it was interesting to watch Nakamura's clock go from 1:00 to 6:00, indicating he must have blitzed several moves here to keep the pressure on Bologan. I have to feel bad for Bologan, but Nakamura's blitz play to pull off the swindle was something to watch.
|Jul-27-12|| ||Eyal: <I think another easy way Bologan could have escaped Nakamura's rooks is 72. Kb3 Rab1+ (or 72...Rcb1+ 73. Kc4 Rc1+ 74. Rc3) 73. Ka4 Ra1+ 74. Ra3 - the familiar "building a bridge" maneuver. From there, winning is a simple matter of pushing the a-pawn.>|
That actually looks like a draw after 73...Rxc5 74.bxc5 Rxb8.
|Jul-27-12|| ||SirRuthless: Ok then if you want to call Nakamura's victory a swindle then what do you call Wang Hao's victory over Nakamura in round three? Be objective...who was better in that game up until the blunder? Bologan couldn't cope with the complexity. Simple, really. Give some credit to the player who won.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||frogbert: swindle is wrong. i'd rather say that nakamura went for a gutsy and calculated gamble when he didn't grab the available repetition with checks - in hindsight we know that it allowed white winning chances, but maybe something in bologan's appearance otb made naka think it was a decent bet to risk a little.|
not the cleanest of wins, but he won!
|Jul-27-12|| ||jrofrano: I hate this game; when i was watching it I couldn't believe that Bologan (even in time pressure) made a mistake like this. Nakamura was getting completely outplayed in this endgame I thought Bologan had this one in the bag. Nakamura had a good advantage going into this endgame before he gradually started getting outplayed. It's a real shame to see all of Bologans hard work pissed away because he fell for some ridiculous mate net.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||zakkzheng: this is a swindle tournament|
|Jul-27-12|| ||vinidivici: <frogbert> <swindle is wrong>|
What do you mean?
|Jul-27-12|| ||OBIT: In chess swindling does not have a negative connotation. Winning a game with a swindle is fine, even at times ingenious. We admire players who are good at it. It kind of like stealing bases in baseball.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||JoergWalter: <swindle> is a more "charming" word for <trap>, imo.|
|Jul-27-12|| ||Jambow: Cool thing for me was I saw that rooks penetrating from the back and manipulating the king was a possible strategey for blacks less than ideal situation about the time Nakamura started that direction. |
I think Nakamura had been able to use his rooks as well as the very top level chess players before his entire game was top ten worthy, so this reminded me of vintage Nakamura, although these days he depends on his bishops more instead of his knights unlike time past.
If Nakamura's position was against a top 5 player I doubt he could have survived let alone won, but then again knowing what might work against whom is a skill too, that many don't consider.
|Jul-27-12|| ||OBIT: Just playing around, I googled "chess swindle" and discovered Wikipedia has a remarkably detailed article on the subject written by none other than chessgames member FSR. For probably way more than you ever wanted to know about swindles, click on the following link: |
For you modern day teenagers who don't have the attention spans to read such a long article, the first two paragraphs make for a nice summary:
<In chess, a swindle is a ruse by which a player in a losing position tricks his opponent, and thereby achieves a win or draw instead of the expected loss. It may also refer more generally to obtaining a win or draw from a clearly losing position. I A Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld distinguish among "traps", "pitfalls", and "swindles". In their terminology, a "trap" refers to a situation where a player goes wrong through his own efforts. In a "pitfall", the beneficiary of the pitfall plays an active role, creating a situation where a plausible move by the opponent will turn out badly. A "swindle" is a pitfall adopted by a player who has a clearly lost game. Horowitz and Reinfeld observe that swindles, "though ignored in virtually all chess books", "play an enormously important role in over-the-board chess, and decide the fate of countless games".
Although "swindling" in general usage is synonymous with cheating or fraud, in chess the term does not imply that the swindler has done anything unethical or unsportsmanlike. There is nonetheless a faint stigma attached to swindles, since players feel that one who has outplayed one's opponent for almost the entire game "is 'morally' entitled to victory" and a swindle is thus regarded as "rob[bing] the opponent of a well-earned victory". However, the best swindles can be quite artistic, and some are famous.>
|Jul-27-12|| ||vinidivici: < In chess swindling does not have a negative connotation. Winning a game with a swindle is fine, even at times ingenious. We admire players who are good at it. It kind of like stealing bases in baseball.>|
Stealing bases could be a bit wrong. But swindle in chess is even a tactic, kind of like psychological factor u put in your opponent mind.
<JoergWalter: <swindle> is a more "charming" word for <trap>, imo.>
Its not a trap at all. A trap needs a decoy even in chess, u need something to offer (materials particularly, or seemingly offered better position), and your opponent took it and apparently it's a TRAP that destroy your opponent game.
Swindle needs no decoy, it's kind of like BLUFFING in poker. Its kindle of like you throwing all your pieces in the board to attack your opponent in the inferior position hoping to get a hole in the process to beat your opponent.
|Jul-28-12|| ||FSR: Thanks, <OBIT>. AFAIK, it is the most thorough treatment of the subject anywhere.|
You might also enjoy my articles "First-move advantage in chess" and "George H. D. Gossip." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George... Both were honored as Today's Featured Article, a distinction attained by only about 1 out of every 1,400 articles in the English-language Wikipedia.
|Aug-03-12|| ||Jambow: FSF nice contribution to Wiki for the article on a chess swindle pretty exaustive and well done.|