< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-11-13|| ||notyetagm: B Sambuev vs Morozevich, 2013|
<whiteshark: THE 1st round upset.>
|Aug-11-13|| ||wordfunph: axeset!|
|Aug-11-13|| ||perfidious: <goodevans: <40...Bxe4!> and black's still on top.>|
Maybe we can take things a step beyond this laconic assessment:
After 40....Bxe4 41.Qxe4 Rd5 42.Qxc4 Ne6, White should probably play 43.Qc6 Ke7 44.Re1, which looks far from clear.
|Aug-11-13|| ||csmath: Sambuev is experienced 2500 level grandmaster. The way Morozevich plays in the last 2-3 years I do not consider this a big surprise.|
I don't analize the games of Morozevich any more (similar with Wang Hao) because they are generally positional junk. I went over this one since it is Grunfeld.
Here Sambuev outMoro-ed Moro, meaning played general strange and unsound attack. He should have lost but Morozevich is not playing good chess here. Pretty straightforward but not good.
I think Karjakin would annihilate Sambuev in the position after 31th move of white here. Moro couldn't.
See the winning tactics after black decisive error
[Black losses exchange and the game immediately]
Perhaps this is due to time trouble?
|Aug-11-13|| ||paramount: WOWOWOW, thats brutal.
I think Moro lost his thunder....
|Aug-11-13|| ||csmath: He should have won the game but loses it in one move with bad calculation. The tactics is no more than 3 moves but he could not see it. I am guessing this is a time trouble else it is hard to explain although Moro does this kind of thing lately more often.|
|Aug-11-13|| ||QuietAttacker: "I don't analize the games of Morozevich any more (similar with Wang Hao) because they are generally positional junk. I went over this one since it is Grunfeld."|
Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Morozevich is a highly unconventional and aggressive player, but by no means are his games "generally positional junk." And for good measure you throw Hao in the same category as well. Unbelievable.
|Aug-11-13|| ||csmath: Yup, Moro's and Wang Hao's games are not worth analising for straight theoretical value ... or if it is opening variation one plays.|
I did not say Moro is not a skilled player! So cool down your hormones.
I have a plenty of experience, probably a lot more than you, and in my case it is a waste of time to analize these games other than for tactics. That is of course my opinion.
|Aug-11-13|| ||csmath: Actually the winning "tactics" is just 2 moves meaning the error 40. ...Qxf3?? really deserves two question marks.|
|Aug-11-13|| ||QuietAttacker: Morozevich and Hao have many, many positional masterpieces. They could not have reached the level they are at now without having an understanding far beyond that of most players. It is ignorant and myopic to say otherwise. |
But it is especially incomprehensible to me that you think there is no value in seeing their games for the opening ideas. Hao is a renowned theoretician and Morozevich consistently manages to find fascinating imaginative ideas in plenty of his games.
I don't know about experience, but I seriously doubt you are a stronger player than me. I have studied many of both Morozevich's and Hao's games and it has improved my play immensely.
|Aug-11-13|| ||perfidious: <QuietAttacker: Morozevich and Hao....could not have reached the level they are at now without having an understanding far beyond that of most players. It is ignorant and myopic to say otherwise.>|
While I emphatically agree, in no wise does this deter certain Monday morning quarterbacks from regaling us <ad infinitum> with stories of how poorly these GMs play.
|Aug-11-13|| ||csmath: <Hao is a renowned theoretician>|
Not by a long shot. I don't think you even know what chess "theoretician" is.
<I have studied many of both Morozevich's and Hao's games and it has improved my play immensely.>
|Aug-11-13|| ||QuietAttacker: Your condescending attitude is laughable. Hao is an excellent KIA practitioner and I have learned a lot from his games in them. The fact that you think the idea of somebody improving their play from examining the games of Morozevich and Hao shows your incredibly limited knowledge of chess. How somebody could have the years of experience you claim to possess and still be so clueless about the game is beyond me.|
|Aug-11-13|| ||builttospill: I know where both sides are coming from. If you want to study positional chess, you can learn a lot from Kramnik and Carlsen. If you want to study tactical chess, you can learn a lot from Morozevich and Hao.|
I trust we're all chess players here, so we all like to think about how we can improve our games. And I can't imagine why anyone would laugh at someone studying two of the top 20 players in the world.
Personally I like to load up on chess puzzles and when I do study a game by a player like Moro I pay close attention to the moves that lead up to good tactics.
I wouldn't read too much into a Moro loss here, where he blundered in time trouble going into move 40. He spent a lot of time in an opening I don't recall seeing him play before.
As someone who studies Moro's games I also study his losses. The right plan after 32 would have been Qh4 to pile pressure on the pinned pawn on f4 (and use h2 to eye the square if harassed by the bishop), and eventually take on f4 after forced to, say after white plays Ne2. With the pawn on f4 gone, it's only a matter of time before the pawn on g5 will drop, and black wins.
|Aug-11-13|| ||csmath: <As someone who studies Moro's games I also study his losses. The right plan after 32 would have been Qh4 to pile pressure on the pinned pawn on f4 (and use h2 to eye the square if harassed by the bishop), and eventually take on f4 after forced to, say after white plays Ne2. With the pawn on f4 gone, it's only a matter of time before the pawn on g5 will drop, and black wins.>|
Studying anything is a personal choice. There are plently of games played nowadays so to study everything even on the top level is impossible.
I said if you want to study tactics you can study Moro's games.
The fact is that in this game you can see poor (and weird) play by white who trapped his own rook (or perhaps it was a sacrifice) and rather standard play by black. What you identified as a correct plan Moro obviously could not see and then he blundered in two-move tactics. You can learn from any study even those from 2000-level players. Probably from your own games you can learn the best.
I am not laughing at anybody's study, he can study cockroaches for all I care. I am laughing at adolescent statements from a guy who wants to arm-wrestle with me.
|Aug-11-13|| ||QuietAttacker: Well said, builttospill.
Csmath, I'm curious, do you have an otb rating? Because by your statements it does not seem like you have very much experience playing in organized competition. You demean Morozevich's play and are fixated with the fact that "he blundered in two-move tactics" but seem to ignore the fact that he was in severe time pressure, which as any otb would know can impede the best of us, especially in such a complicated position.
I have no intention in arm-wrestling with you. But do you really consider, "I have studied many of both Morozevich's and Hao's games and it has improved my play immensely," an 'adolescent statement'? Since that is the phrase you specifically selected to ridicule, after all.
|Aug-12-13|| ||Kaspablanca: Why the score sheet dont put it the right way?; 50. Ng5#|
|Aug-12-13|| ||fisayo123: <csmath> A well known chessgames.com circus act.|
|Aug-12-13|| ||csmath: Interesting that both were missing tactics, since the position is quite a mess.|
Sambuev could have made better compensation for his rook (instead of getting into lost position) with hard to see move
27. Rxg6! (the right pawn) fxg6
28. Qf3 Rh4!
[the key is that 28. ...Rf8 is not possible because 29. Qg3 (and Nf3 to follow taking crucial pawn on e5)]
29. Kf1 Rh7
and black defends himself with unclear position.
Sambuev played more like Morozevich than Morozevich.
Morozevich played pretty routine Grunfeld ideas until he decided to move his king in center.
Looks like 13. e6?! and 16. ...e5?! is an opening error [waste of tempo] which allowed white to close center favorably closing black bishop on b7.
It would have been better just to play 13. ...Rad8 and then if white insists on 14. hxg6 hxg6 15. Nf4 to play simple standard Exchange Grunfeld plan with 15....Na5 16. Bd3 e6. In that position black is probably already better. White can play 16. Bd5 but that is nothing better.
Moro allowed getting cramped and then even wild sacrifice of exchange 27. Rxg6 [I have a hunch Sambuev did not really plan exchange sacrifice at all] could have created more problem for him than what Sambuev actually played.
|Aug-12-13|| ||haydn20: I probably don't know enough theory but...it seems to me 11...b6 is somewhat unusual (tho not necessaerily bad) and that 12. Qd2 is a natural response, which makes 12. h4!? interesting. Then 13...Rad8 looks better than 13...e6, although Black is certainly not lost (e.g. 17...c4!). I think that White really put the pressure on Moro in the opening and Moro probably ran short of time--which would explain the transpositional blunder 40...Qxf3? [40...Bxe4! first and Black is better if I'm not missing something]. I guess this opening is Gruenfeld 101A for someone like <csmath>, but it's more like graduate study for me.|
|Aug-12-13|| ||Doniez: <Kaspablanca> you are right, still no update at move 50, checkmate|
|Aug-12-13|| ||csmath: <I probably don't know enough theory but...it seems to me 11...b6 is somewhat unusual>|
To some degree. It is a sideline. 11. ...b6 has been played though. Here is Moro's own game (with 12. Qd2 with standard idea of exchanging black dragon on g7):
M Vachier-Lagrave vs Morozevich, 2011
The real surprise is this "bayonet" h4-h5 attack by Sambuev.
Initially I thought he is just trying to "outMoro" Morozevich but this is a novelty worth looking into. Many different moves have been tried before, this I think is a new one.
Morozevich played opening fairly conservative (for his usual style) but Sambuev would have none of it, this is an all out attack.
I think 11. ... Bb7 is normal reaction since this is why b6 was played.
However since your opponent started kingside attack so bluntly you should react in center immediately with countergame. This is according to "classics" (like Kasparov). This is why I think that
16. ... e5?!
is just a waste of tempo and it would have been more active to play 13.... Rad8 and only then when it is oportune to go for e5.
White would have enough firepower to repell white bishop from b2-g8 diagonal which was important here.
Nevertheless you can see that Sambuev did not conduct attack precisely (to put it mildly) and by move 31 he has actually a lost position.
Morozevich's tragedy lately (this keeps on repeating) are these simple tactics he keeps on missing. He must be definitely very disappointed with this game.
|Aug-12-13|| ||Refused: <13. ...e6?!
16. ... e5?!
is just a waste of tempo and it would have been more active to play 13.... Rad8 and only then when it is oportune to go for e5.>
That's a bit superficial imo.
There's a difference between 13...e5 and 16...e5 (as in the game).
With 16...e5 there was a knight on f4 Moro could kick out. If it moved back to e2 Moro would have actually won a tempo.
17.Nd5 will cost a pawn. Leaves the somewhat ugly 17.Nh3 Sambuev played.
Maybe Moro considered the knight on h3 to be badly placed for white...
|Aug-12-13|| ||znsprdx: After the fact of the game result, the spin doctors can go on and on. An old friend [a U.S.expert] put it best: think of Chess as a tennis game – would you rewind the tape and say: "if only that shot hit inside the line" – of course not. This past year we have seen several one move blunders made by the best in the world. At the time it was played I highly doubt that the Queen exchange option, presumably under time pressure, would not have appeared to be a reasonable option. As the song goes "Some gotta win, some gotta lose...” . When Sambuev draws later today as Black, maybe some people will show more respect – and God help <csmath> if he wins|
|Aug-12-13|| ||Overgod: Very entertaining game. Well done Sambuev. Good luck in the rest of your games...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·