| Jan-20-06 | | TheSlid: Oh No! White can support the wek f3 pawn with 32.a4 and 33.Ra3 but instead finds the only way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | Icyclemort: for the books:
It was 32. Be3?? that lost.
1.) Because after ... exf3 33. gxf3 Qg4 white cannot defend the pawn.
Instead 32. a4! would have made room for 34. Ra3 (which in the actual game was blocked by the a-pawn and additionally by the bishop e3) --> 32. a4 exf3 33. gxf3 Qg4 34. Ra3!
2.) Or white could have moved the queen to f2 so that the rook can be activated in the defense --> 32. Qf2 exf3 33. gxf3 Qg4? 34. Rg1!
(mind Qg4 beeig a blunder here itself, here solely to illustrate the defense) Actually playing a4 even earlier (30. a4, 31. a4) would have been better, but at move 32 white had to play at least something to defend against Carlsen ... gxf3.
Instead he lost with 32. Be3?? |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | notyetagm: <TheSlid> Yeah, someone on the Daily Dirt blog kibbed that 32 ♗e3?? is the only move in the position that loses! Actually 32 fxe4 also loses but that kibizter was not far from the truth. Anyway, 32 ♗e3?? shows you the problem with playing "natural moves": <they do not address the specific threats in the given position>. Trying to trade off the White dark-squared bishop for the strong Black f4-knight is the natural thing to do and it would be a good move if Black was not threatening anything vital. But after 31 ... e4, Black is threatening to play the bone-crunching 32 ... exf3 32 gxf3 ♕g4! and so natural moves simply will not do. White has to do something about this threat and playing the natural move 32 ♗e3?? does nothing about it. <The Fatal Allure Of Natural Moves>, the Tactics section of a previous issue of Chessbase Magazine called it. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | notyetagm: Here is a description of the Tactics section for Chessbase Magazine 105: <GM Valery Atlas has written an article entitled “Fatal Attraction Of Natural Moves”, with 25 tactical examples taken from the CBM 105 database and demonstrate how tempting continuations turned out to be fatal mistakes.> Naiditsch's 32 ♗e?? would fit right in there very nicely. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | Chesstosterone: Resume: Today, the "Mozart of Chess" (although in his youth, Spassky received the same nickname) forgot his partiture (was completely outplayed by Naiditsch), but his opponent bring it back to him. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | SnoopDogg: The weaker the player, the more bad moves feel like natural moves. Not saying Naiditsch is weak, but its an old chess proverb. |
|
Jan-20-06
 | | tamar: Brave to play the Sveshnikov against Naiditsch, who played it at Dortmund with some sharp ideas. Naiditsch vs Sutovsky, 2005 Carlsen varied from that game with 11...Nd7 (instead of Sutovsky's 11...Bb7) perhaps with some improvement in mind after the normal 12 b4 But Naiditsch didn't give him that chance and played 12 0-0 allowing 12...Nc5. White loses the white square bishop, but gets a big lead in development. Carlsen tried the thematic breakout 15...d5 but 16 Bc5 already looks decisive. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | TheSlid: <notyetagm> An excellent commentary. Thanks. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | Koster: Anyone know why white never moved his rook? |
|
Jan-20-06
 | | keypusher: First it was too soon, then it was too late! See commentary above. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | Chesstosterone: <keypusher: First it was too soon, then it was too late> Well said... |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | notyetagm: <TheSlid: <notyetagm> An excellent commentary. Thanks.> Thank you.
|
|
| Jan-20-06 | | Chesstosterone: <notyetagm> I join to thank you for your above comment on the "natural moves". I feel some identification with my style, so it is the class of blunders I could made. |
|
| Jan-20-06 | | notyetagm: <Chesstosterone> It's just such a tragedy for Naiditsch. Fritz 8 shows that 32 ♗e?? is completely winning for White except for 32 ... exf3. Naiditsch must have thought that he was ok after 32 ... exf3 33 gxf3, missing the crushing 33 ... ♕g4! and now he cannot defend the f3-square. I made the same kind of mistake once in a tournament game, going from a win to a loss in one move. Sucked. |
|
| Jan-21-06 | | Bobwhoosta: I've made that mistake in many games, but not in many tourney games. Win to draw though, several times, in one move. And I haven't played many tourney games. |
|
| Jan-24-06 | | ianD: 33. ...Qg4!! A beautiful qiet move for which there is no reply. |
|
| Feb-16-06 | | Warrush: who ever said, "With Age Comes Greatness." hasn't seen any of Magnus Carlsens Games. |
|
| Jun-13-08 | | notyetagm: One of my favorite Carlsen Sveshnikov games. |
|
| Sep-15-10 | | technical draw: OK, new move. Let's say that after 33..Qg4 white plays 34.h3. How does black continue? I can't see a clear win for Carlsen. |
|
| Sep-15-10 | | whiteshark: <technical deaf: ...<Let's say that after 33..Qg4 white plays 34.h3. How does black continue?>> How about ... 
click for larger view
<34...Qg3!> 0:1 |
|
| Sep-15-10 | | technical draw: Thanks <whiteshark>. Yep, 34..Qg3 looks like a winner. I'll pass that information on to the other TD. |
|
| May-08-14 | | notyetagm: Naiditsch vs Carlsen, 2006 <Icyclemort: ... 1.) Because after ... exf3 33. gxf3 Qg4 white cannot defend the pawn. <<<Instead 32. a4! would have made room for 34. Ra3>>> (which in the actual game was blocked by the a-pawn and additionally by the bishop e3) --<> 32. a4 exf3 33. gxf3 Qg4 34. Ra3!> 32 ?
click for larger view(VARIATION)
32 a2-a4 e4xf3 33 g2xf3 ♕g5-g4 34 ♖a1-a3!
click for larger view
click for larger view |
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 28...Rxd6
