< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-21-13|| ||AylerKupp: <<Eggman> A mistake, even one that throws away the win, is not necessarily a blunder. A blunder is an obvious mistake, not a mistake that is obvious only to Fritz and Houdini.>|
I donít understand that. A mistake that throws away a win is a blunder, period. I would not think that at this level of play either player would make an "obvious" mistake, except perhaps in time trouble. And even then, a mistake that throws away a win is a blunder. Perfectly understandable and excusable given the circumstances, but a blunder just the same.
|Aug-21-13|| ||marcwordsmith: <Shams> Thank you, I appreciate it! But I'm looking at 30. . . . Kxh5, 31. Qg7, Bxg2+, 32.Kxg2, Qc6+ followed by Qxe6, and now if Black has a forced mate after something like Qh7+ I at least cannot find it in my mind's eye.|
|Aug-21-13|| ||Troller: <marcwordsmith: dare I ask this? PATZER QUESTION ALERT: What is White's follow-up to 30. . . Kxh5?>|
<Shams: <marcwordsmith> 31.Qg7 is your huckleberry.>
You should throw in 31.Qxd5+ Kh6 (after Kh4 amuse yourself) and then Qe4 to eye the g6 pawn. That gets rid of these annouing Bxg2+ possibilities.
|Aug-21-13|| ||ajile: <savagerules: Now the obnoxious twenty- somethings living in their parents basement will come on here saying how this or that engine refutes this or that move. To them I say--$#*& off losers!>|
Thing is both these players probably went back to their hotel rooms and found all these improvements anyways with their computers. So these improvements will now be known to them and utilized in the future. The lines will become part of the history of chess whether you like it or not. Chess is logical and computers just happen to be very good at logic.
Now from a human practical standpoint "mixing it up" with a new line in a tournament with time controls can make sense. But it wouldn't be advisable playing this exact same line against the same opponent again.
|Aug-21-13|| ||actinia: I was going to question CG for posting this game mid-match, but you know what...|
they weren't kidding. it really is the game of the day
|Aug-21-13|| ||Shams: <marcwordsmith> I recommend moving the pieces! How about in your line 33.Rf3 Qxe6 34.Rh3+ Kg5 35.Rg3+ Kf4 36.Qd4+Qe4+ 37.Qxe4#<?> |
By the way I didn't check the move at all before I passed it on; perhaps I should have. Trent and Polgar mentioned it quickly in the live broadcast and I took their word for it.
|Aug-21-13|| ||Shams: <Troller>'s line looks even better. Black can sack a rook on g8 to defend g6 but then 34.Qe3+ decides.|
|Aug-21-13|| ||sami sherriff: excellent game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! genuis|
|Aug-21-13|| ||amateur05: Beautiful game. I watched the video. Kamsky spent a long time on 16. Bd2. I believe that is when he saw the piece sacrifice and the unfolding attack. He had only a few minutes left by move 23 but still managed to play very accurately.|
Mamedyarov never sat at the table properly and was way ahead in time. Perhaps he was trying to press his opponent psychologically but it didn't work.
The commentators had just started interviewing Caruana when Kamsky finished his game. He would have to wait for very long to be interviewed and so he didn't.
|Aug-21-13|| ||carlomix: I've been watching this game live yesterday, really amazing. I was wondering whether Kamsky felt sure or not of his attack... Anyway, for sure it must have been far from pleasant for Mamedyarov to lose tis way|
|Aug-21-13|| ||znsprdx: <savagerules:> 4387 indeed! Well said :)|
|Aug-21-13|| ||Defensiver: At move 23, black must have taken on e5 so he might have had a defense on the kingside. He might have equalised with Kamsky.|
|Aug-21-13|| ||mrbasso: <Mamedyarov never sat at the table properly and was way ahead in time. Perhaps he was trying to press his opponent psychologically but it didn't work.>|
This is typical for Shak. He tries to intimidate his opponents but it usually only works against lower rated opponents.
|Aug-21-13|| ||vasja: Methinks that there was a more direct way:
16 e5 de 17 fe QXe5 18 Bb6
and white wins exchange.
|Aug-21-13|| ||kevin86: checkmate is not present...but will come soon.|
|Aug-21-13|| ||kingscrusher: I reviewed the game last night as part of my weekly chessbase radio show :|
|Aug-21-13|| ||marcwordsmith: Thank you <Troller> and <Shams>. Yes, moving the pieces would probably be a good idea. Gotta get my board set up first--so much effort! ;-) Why do that when I have you guys? JUST KIDDING!|
|Aug-21-13|| ||marcwordsmith: oh jeez, I did not even SEE 31. Qxd5+. DUH! Perhaps moving the pieces wouldn't have even helped me.|
|Aug-21-13|| ||Ed Frank: Tal resurrected. Kamsky's attack here is pure beauty.|
|Aug-21-13|| ||KKDEREK: masterpiece. congratulations for Kamsky|
|Aug-22-13|| ||Tim Delaney: 30. Qd5 is less spectacular, but more direct. 30. ... Bxh4; 31. Qe4 and now black must play Rg8, losing both the Rook and the bishop. If he tries 30. ... Qb7 then 31. Rxh5 and he gets mated quickly.|
|Aug-22-13|| ||pericles of athens: <kingscrusher> thanks for the video link, helped me out a lot!|
|Aug-23-13|| ||sbevan: <luzhin: This is a devastating example of the rule that when Black plays ...d5 in the open Sicilian it either equalises completely or is a blunder. In this case, Black should have played 16...e5 with the idea of blunting White's key attacking piece, the Bd3.>|
|Aug-25-13|| ||Natalia Pogonina: Annotations by GM Naiditsch:
|Sep-25-13|| ||FSR: Video-annotated by IM Kiewra here: http://www.chess.com/video/player/h...
Kiewra observes that Kamsky's last 17 moves were all threats!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·