chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

There are 5 clues unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page!   [Official Contest Rules]
(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu vs Jan-Krzysztof Duda
Dortmund Sparkassen (2018), Dortmund GER, rd 2, Jul-15
Sicilian Defense: Canal Attack. Main Line (B52)  ·  0-1
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 1,006 more games of Nisipeanu
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: All games have a Kibitzer's Corner provided for community discussion. If you have a question or comment about this game, register a free account so you can post there.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
Jul-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: He's the dude!
Jul-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  catlover: Por si hubiera duda.
Jul-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  catlover: I wonder if the Nisipeanu's resignation was a bit premature.
Jul-15-18  Ulhumbrus: After 5 0-0 White has his central pawn on a white square, which makes his bishop good. How can he lose? And yet he loses, nevertheless. White can be said to have been cheated out of his win, not literally, but in a manner of speaking.

William Hartston has written a book titled <How to cheat at chess>

I don't know which tricks have been mentioned there but perhaps this game can be called an example of REAL cheating: The opponent gives the player a position where the player has reason to believe that any win or at least advantage is rightfully his but then the opponent proceeds to win all the same thus "cheating" the player out of that win.

One can imagine Carlsen or one of the top players eg Kramnik winning such a game. Perhaps one has to play really well in order to win in this way.

So how does Black "cheat" White out of "White's" win?

If we look at the position after 5 0-0 White has his central pawn on a white square.

White himself changes this state of affairs at moves 7,8 and 10 when he plays 7 c3 followed by 8 d4 and then in reply to 9...d5, 10 e5 placing his central pawns on black squares. Now it is White who has the bad bishop and Black who has the good bishop.

This suggests that the move 7 c3 which begins to place White's pawns on black squares also begins to cheat White out of "his" win.

And that is how the opponent cheats at chess by winning a position which is won for the player : It is the player himself (or herself) who cheats himself or herself by making at least one questionable choice. This is not the whole answer, because the opponent also has to play well enough to take advantage of the player's choices.

Jul-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: All this abstract bloviating about good and bad bishops says nothing about what actually happened that caused white to lose. White had to play 19 b4 in order to counter ..g4 with b5, knocking one of the attacking knights away from the d-pawn. Notice that there are no bishops on the board by white's 19th move, which renders all of the discussion on good vs. bad bishops useless in this position.
Jul-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <GSM> Thanks for teaching me "bloviating"! It's true SF doesn't think much of 19. Rc3 (-1.45) After its first choice 19. b4 (0.00), it recommends 19. Nb3 (-0.57) or Na6+ (-0.83).

I used to play this variant over and over again with black against a friend at the university coffee shop. I wish I had known this plan back then! Allowing 10. e5 Ng8 looks intuitively bad (back to square one) but after h5 and Ne7-Nf5 it works out brilliantly.

Castling queenside was surprising, too, but Duda certainly (sin duda) had studied the possibilities of attack long in advance.

Jul-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: < I wonder if the Nisipeanu's resignation was a bit premature.>

Other sites say the game ended on move 35- 33 g3 Qc1+ 34 Kg2 Qc4 35 Qb2 d4 0-1

Jul-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  messachess: White is clearly lost. Needed is 33.pxp, but white has to guard that back rank. Black wins another pawn.
Jul-16-18  Inocencio: The trading of White good bishop and Black bad bishop on Move #4 is a bad idea. This is akin to French Defense that when you trade the White good bishop against the Black bad bishop, Black is already ahead strategically!
Jul-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Inocencio: The trading of White good bishop and Black bad bishop on Move #4 is a bad idea. This is akin to French Defense that when you trade the White good bishop against the Black bad bishop, Black is already ahead strategically!>

How is that? This system by White (to avoid the main lines in the Open variation etc) is very successful. Black played well but he had to defend also. Black is certainly not "ahead".

Jul-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: White actually had a small advantage up to move 17. Black's Ns were good but and White had some space advantage and probably Black's King was a little less safe. But White it seems should have played 17. Ne2 (overprotecting d4) or 17. b4 which is a more direct attacking plan. And leaves the N on c3 options to defend or attack.
Jul-17-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: The move that lost the game where White lost his edge was obviously 19 Rc3 which loses a pawn and then the game is virtually over as White's position cant really be held.

Better was 19. b4 as I think someone mentioned. Of course it helps to have a machine to verify these things but it is the place where there is a definite change.

After 19 b4 chances are about equal it seems.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC