< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-05-13|| ||gothenburg: 11...Qxd5 was my TN vs. Jesus Noqueiros 1997 Canadian Open. I chickened out with the solid 12...Qd8. Although 12...Rad8 13.Ne5 Qd6 seems playable as Karposian mentions. Of course I saw the possibility of the Queen sac but felt it unsound. It seems almost no matter how it gets played though, everyone draws.|
|Dec-05-13|| ||Jason Frost: Was watching the game live. Still don't understand 22. Rfd1? I know computers like it, but why not something like 22. Rf2, 22. Bc3, or 22. some queen move which doesn't allow black to get a strong passed pawn.|
|Dec-05-13|| ||Calar: To play queen sacrifice on move 13 against player 340 points higher rated....Ezat certainly has balls.|
|Dec-05-13|| ||wordfunph: hats off to IM Mohamed Ezat..
2793 vs 2454
|Dec-05-13|| ||SirRuthless: What a great result for Ezat. Perhaps he even missed a winning chance at some point in the middlegame. Nakamura sends his regards...|
|Dec-05-13|| ||Gypsy: A grand way to stop big Vlad from swapping Qs and routinely grinding out a win? Sac your queen before Vlad gets his chance to swap them!|
Yes, I love the logical underpinning of the sac; and I like the game too.
|Dec-05-13|| ||plang: <Karposian: <alexmagnus> Yeah, but it was a terrible move there also!>|
Queen sacrifices are not automatically bad - you sound like a blatant materialist.
If your opinion is based on a computer evaluation then I would offer that the computer may have a bias against this type of sacrifice as well.
|Dec-05-13|| ||Karposian: <plang: <Karposian: <alexmagnus> Yeah, but it was a terrible move there also!> Queen sacrifices are not automatically bad - you sound like a blatant materialist.>|
You seem to assume that I consider all Queen sacrifices to be bad just because I criticized this one! You've ever heard about a thing called logical fallacies..?
Anyway, I don't consider this particular sacrifice to be correct. No way that there is enough compensation for it. To justify giving Queen for two minor pieces you must at least achieve something concrete right away, like a dangerous attack, a strong initiative etc. but this does not seem to be the case here.
|Dec-05-13|| ||Kwesi: <Karposian: To justify giving Queen for two minor pieces you must at least achieve something concrete right away, like a dangerous attack, a strong initiative etc. but this does not seem to be the case here.>|
Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962
|Dec-05-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnl...|
<Rook and two minor pieces versus a queen: draw (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:405).>
If the above is true, the game is theoretically drawn even without the extra pawn. Kramnik is probably aware of this, and knew that his extra pawn should give him even more drawing chances, which is why he eschewed previous opportunities to steer the game into dead drawn positions. He was probably hoping Ezat would blunder in time pressure.
Both players were playing for the win.
The Queen sac IMO is objectively unsound. But humanly playable. It requires accurate defense for White. Kramnik wasted a tempo or two when he moved 26. Qe4 because this exposed Queen later was attacked with tempo gain by Ezat's rook. Black's game was easier to play, just push his passed pawn and remove the obstacles. For a human being I think Kramnik defended well enough, until he attained a simplified position where he was certain he could transform into a theoretically drawn endgame.
IM Ezat played fearlessly, his game of the tournament. He was even attempting to mate Kramnik at the end with bare Rook and two Bishops!
|Dec-05-13|| ||Karposian: <Kwesi>
<Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962>
Thx for pointing out that wonderful game.
That was an amazing Queen sac by Nezhmetdinov! But in that game the sac at least created some dark-square weaknesses around Black's King although it looks rather crazy anyway!
But 'Nezh' was a fantastic attacking player, a lot like Tal, with these seemingly unsound sacrifices that turned out to be brilliant!
|Dec-05-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: http://wctc2013.tsf.org.tr/index.ph...|
From the above, one can deduce that even if Kramnik had lost the game, Russia would have 22.5 game points to China's 22. Even tied at first in terms of team points, Russia would have won the Team Championship on game points over China. So I speculate that Kramnik might have asked permission from the Russian coach to play out the ending, risking a loss but also hoping for an Ezat blunder in time pressure.
I am curious if any one knows if Botvinnik required his students to study pawnless endgames.
|Dec-05-13|| ||Shams: Some great games in here:
Game Collection: 52c_Middlegames_2 minor pieces for a Queen
|Dec-06-13|| ||Karposian: <Shams: Some great games in here:
Game Collection: 52c_Middlegames_2 minor pieces for a Queen>|
Oh my! That collection looks like a treasure chest of Queen sacrifices, thanks for the tip <Shams>!
|Dec-06-13|| ||Jason Frost: Don't really think it requires <accurate defense> for white, since the sac didn't produce an attack or initiative at all. All Kramnik had to do was stop black from getting a passed d-pawn and he wins. e.g. <17.Qe2> or <18.Qe2> are simple enough to find.|
Bad play by Kramnik today, it happens, and he was quite lucky not to lose Russia the crown. Maybe some last round jitters, but seems unlikely his mistakes were induced by the sac.
|Dec-06-13|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Jason Frost: Don't really think it requires <accurate defense> for white, since the sac didn't produce an attack or initiative at all. All Kramnik had to do was stop black from getting a passed d-pawn and he wins. e.g. <17.Qe2> or <18.Qe2> are simple enough to find.>|
I took a closer look at the middlegame. Indeed you are right. Bad play by Kramnik.
|Dec-06-13|| ||Natalia Pogonina: Gotta give credit to the IM. Nikita Vitiugov couldn't beat him earlier, after which the Chairman of the Russian Federation made the infamous remark "We are supposed to be beating bedouins in chess, aren't we?". And now he manages to hold a game against Vladimir Kramnik himself, not to mention that the sacrifice looks rather suspect.|
|Dec-06-13|| ||QueentakesKing: <wordfunph>< 2793 v 24540> If true, wow!!! Mohamed Ezat deserves an award or prize.|
|Dec-06-13|| ||bigmell: *wave* Hi Natalia! Im a fan :)|
|Dec-06-13|| ||abuzic: <Natalia Pogonina: Gotta give credit to the IM. Nikita Vitiugov couldn't beat him earlier, after which the Chairman of the Russian Federation made the infamous remark "We are supposed to be beating bedouins in chess, aren't we?".>|
Can you elaborate more on when and where that was said? or what exactly he was referring to? Any link? Would be appreciated.
|Dec-06-13|| ||nummerzwei: Black tried to build a fortress straight out of the opening, but the computer does not believe in it.|
Are there any improvements in the following line?
20. Rfd1 Nxd4 21. Bxd4 Bxd4 22. Rc4 e5 23. Qc2 g6 24. Rc7 Kg7 25. Rxd7 Rxd7 26.
g4 Kg8 27. h4 Kg7 28. h5 h6 29. Qe2 g5 30. Rc1 Re7
[the freeing attempt 30...e4 meets with 31.fxe4 Re7 32.Kf3 Bxe4+ 33.Qxe4 Rxe4 34.Kxe4 Bb2 35.Rc7 a5 36.b4 Bxa3 37.b5 Bc5 38.Rxc5]
31. Qd3 Kg8 32. b4 Kg7 33. b5 Kg8 34. a4 Kg7 35. Rc4 Rd7 36. Qc2 Re7 37.Rc7
|Dec-06-13|| ||abuzic: 26.Qe4 was a weak move by Kramnik, and Ezat missed 26...Re5 27.Qc4 <27.Rxd3 Rde8 28.Qxe5 Rxe5> 27...Be6 28.Qc7 Re2+ 29.Kg1 Rc2 30.Qf4 d2 31.h6 and white is on the defence of multiple threats like ...d2, ...Bd4+, ...Bh6, ...g5, ...Bg5, ...Rc4, ...Bb3|
|Dec-07-13|| ||QueentakesKing: This game deserves to be the 'Game of 2013' or 'Sacrifice of the Century'.|
|Dec-07-13|| ||harrylime: Kramnik's tinkering on the QS with a3/b4/Rc1 dose'nt seem right.. As said above 17.Qe2 or even Rf2 just giving up the d pawn and avoiding a past pawn scenario must be winning.|
|Jan-14-14|| ||morfishine: Incomprehensible and entertaining, all rolled into one|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·