|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-11-13 | | notyetagm: Wow, what an upset! |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | hellopolgar: Go, Canada? |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | goodevans: <40...Bxe4!> and black's still on top. Exchanging queens was a big mistake. |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | Jafar219: Sambuev showed great understanding of chess. |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | madlydeeply: What a stylin' win! What with the exchange sac and the middle game king walk, out complicatin' the uber complicatorr |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | notyetagm: <madlydeeply: What a stylin' win! What with the exchange sac and the middle game king walk, out complicatin' the uber complicatorr> Yes, *tremendous* win for Sambuev. |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | whiteshark: THE 1st round upset. |
|
| Aug-11-13 | | notyetagm: B Sambuev vs Morozevich, 2013 <whiteshark: THE 1st round upset.> Indeed. |
|
| 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
40. ...Qf3?
[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....
GOTD! |
|
| 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.> LOL. |
|
| 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. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 27.Rxf7+