|Jan-26-19|| ||OrangeTulip: A game of two days ago, I suggest that CG changes the header into Pun of the Day.
As it has become leading|
|Jan-26-19|| ||goodevans: <OrangeTulip: A game of two days ago...> I've got no problem with that. It's a pretty good game that I'd otherwise never have seen. I confess I've only been playing through a handful of the Gibraltar Masters (2019) games each day.|
<34...Be3 35. Qxe3 Rxc3> was a nice attempt to save the game. White could (maybe should) have avoided that little complication by playing <34.Qxf7+> before <Re4>.
|Jan-26-19|| ||Ironmanth: Good game! Thanks, chessgames.|
|Jan-26-19|| ||whiteshark: In the Benoni defence the German grandmaster was exposed to some pressure and with his last move <29...Re8> had lifted himself against the advance e4-e5 - in vain.|
It followed <30.e5>. Black took away on e5. White then switched to f6 and let <33. Qf2> follow, with attack on the Bf6 and the Rc5. Black could avoid immediate loss of pieces, but was at the end of the entanglements on lost mail.
The 21-year-old Iranian now belongs to the five players who are still at 100%.
Maschine-translated without changing much
original source: https://de.chessbase.com/post/gibra...
|Jan-26-19|| ||whiteshark: Game-related photo: https://de.chessbase.com/portals/al...|
|Jan-26-19|| ||The Kings Domain: Fine win by the Iranian master. Pretty good pun too. :-)|
|Jan-26-19|| ||petemccabe: Very surprised to see white offering a draw as early as move 20. Was this one of those things where it's the last round of a tournament and SK only needed a half-point to ensure some favorable result?|
Or did I misunderstand what happened?
|Jan-26-19|| ||cormier: |
click for larger view
Analysis by Houdini 4 <d 25 dpa
1. + / = (0.70): 21.Bg5> Ned7> 22.Nc4 Ne5 23.Nd2 Ned7 24.f4 h6 25.Bh4 Qf8 26.Nc4 Nh5 27.e5 dxe5 28.d6 Rc6 29.f5 g5 30.Bf2 Nf4 31.Ne4 Rb8 32.h4 g4 33.Rd1 Rcc8 34.g3 Nh3+ 35.Kg2 Nxf2 36.Qxf2 h5 37.Re3 Bh6 38.Rc3 Ra8
|Jan-26-19|| ||cormier: |
click for larger view
Analysis by Houdini 4 <d 23 dpa done
1. = (0.14): 22...Rcd8> 23.Rb3 Nfd7 24.Nca4 Nxb6 25.Rxb6 Rd7 26.Bd2 Rc7 27.Bf4 c4 28.Bg3 Rec8 29.Qe2 Re8 30.Rd1 Rec8 31.Rf1 Re8
2. + / = (0.36): 22...Rb8 23.Bg5 h6 24.Bh4 g5 25.Bg3 Nfd7 26.Nca4 Nxb6 27.Nxb6 Nd7 28.Nxd7 Qxd7 29.Rb3 Qe7 30.f3 Bd4+ 31.Kh1 Red8 32.Rb6 Rbc8 33.Rd1 Rc7 34.Be1 Kg7 35.Bc3 Be5 36.Qd3 c4 37.Qe3 Re8
|Jan-26-19|| ||ChessHigherCat: Wonderful game. I can't recall ever seeing any mention of Sarasadat Khademalsharieh, despite his catchy name.|
|Jan-26-19|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <CHC>--Her player bio states that her name is often shortened to "Sara Khadem", which is even more catchy.|
|Jan-26-19|| ||Chicgirl: Sacha Donchenko lost another game the very next round against another lady, GM Lei Tingjie. He was better, perhaps even winning, at several instances in the game.|
A Donchenko vs Tingjie Lei, 2019
|Jan-26-19|| ||ChessHigherCat: There's also the handy mnemonic of HEIRAHSLAMEDAHK TADASARAS, which is her name spelled backwards.|
|Jan-26-19|| ||ChessHigherCat: Nobody seems impressed by my handydandy palindromic mnemonic. Oh well.
Anyway, I thought she was a man at first, and I didn't notice anything unusual about her style, except maybe the offer of a draw by repetition on move 20 and the extremely clever combination beginning with 30. e5.|
Does anybody think that female players have any common characteristics that distinguish them from men? I haven't played through enough women's games to notice any big differences from men, except that Judith Polgar seems very aggressive in some games, maybe to compensate for the stereotype of women as "softies".
|Jan-26-19|| ||nok: Tadasaras is a great name. However I don't understand the "way you rook" pun. Means the loose rook on c5?|
|Jan-26-19|| ||Count Wedgemore: <CHC: Does anybody think that female players have any common characteristics that distinguish them from men?>|
Well, there are some basic anatomical differences..
On a more serious note: I think endgames. I have no idea why, and it may be coincidental, but an observation I have made over quite a lengthy period of time is that many of the World's best women players are not particularly strong endgame players. The best female players are usually well-prepared and good in openings. Strategically and tactically astute in the middlegame, but often their endgame play are rather unimaginative and unimpressive. There are many examples of top women players going wrong in endgames that really aren't too complicated. Again, this is just my personal impression, and if it is indeed the case, I have no idea why. Perhaps they simply don't study endgames enough.
|Jan-27-19|| ||ChessHigherCat: <nok: Tadasaras is a great name. However I don't understand the "way you rook" pun. Means the loose rook on c5?>|
That makes two of us. The "way you look tonight" is a song (says Google) and then your conjecture about the rook might be right. Unless I'm missing something, the real mystery is how anyone compliment the pun.
<<CHC: Does anybody think that female players have any common characteristics that distinguish them from men?>
<CW: Well, there are some basic anatomical differences..>
Are you sure about that? Can you post some photos?
<CW: The best female players are usually well-prepared and good in openings. Strategically and tactically astute in the middlegame, but often their endgame play are rather unimaginative and unimpressive. >
That's funny, your assessment corresponds exactly to the Russian joke about western players that <offramp> posted a couple days ago:
<There is an old Russian joke that western players are Grandmasters in the opening, Masters in the middle game and beginners in the ending.>
|Jan-27-19|| ||Count Wedgemore: <CHC> Well, like I said, my assessment is pure speculation based on my own observations, but I do think there is some truth to it.|
The old Russian joke that <offramp> posted is, however, clearly onto something. Western players, on average, used to be somewhat inferior to payers from the Soviet bloc when it came to endgame skills. A central part of the 'Soviet School of Chess' was to study endgames extensively. But, of course, there are always exceptions: take Fischer and Carlsen, both among the best endgame players that have ever lived. Perhaps things have evened out now, somewhat.
|Jan-27-19|| ||ChessHigherCat: <Count Wedgemore:
<The old Russian joke that <offramp> posted is, however, clearly onto something. Western players, on average, used to be somewhat inferior to players from the Soviet bloc when it came to endgame skills.>
I can relate to that. Not many kids would wade through all the possible mates and endgames unless they were threatened with the Gulag. I remember some serious tournament player here (I forget who it was) saying how essential it is to memorize all the typical mates but that's only true of professionals. It's like in piano: you can play Chopin waltzes and Brahms intermezzi well enough to have fun but a pro will come along and spoil everything by forcing you to play boring scales and exercises in order to make all your fingers of exactly equal strength (if you don't get carpal tunnel and aren't kicked out of your apartment first).
I'm happy to be an amateur, somebody's got to do it!
|Jan-28-19|| ||diceman: <nok: Tadasaras is a great name. However I don't understand the "way you rook" pun. Means the loose rook on c5?>|
<I don't understand the "way you rook" pun.>
A "rookie" mistake. :)
The key to white's e5 break is 34.Re4. That said, much stronger is 34.Qxf7+ first, then Re4. White would avoid the tactics of 34...Be3, and 35...Rxc3! plus the e8 rook is attacked, making Re4 that much stronger.
If white plays 36.bxc3? the position is
equal. So between Re4 and Rxc3
(and the "almost" attack on Re8) it's a very "Rooky" game!
Not to be confused with "Wookie."
|Jan-28-19|| ||WDenayer: This game made me remember a comment by someone I don't remember (it was a grandmaster - Gurevich?):the Benoni would be a great opening if White wouldn't have a f-pawn. It seems that White can always pay f4 and e5 and Black is in problems.|