| Apr-02-09 | | aragorn69: Great game!
Although I'm not sure I can evaluate correctly the position after (say) 16.d6 or 27.-b6 or 41.g4 or 42.-b4...
Was Black better all the time?? |
|
| Apr-02-09 | | parmetd: interesting that Marin repeated the line Conquest and Shulman had played in the very tournament a few rounds prior but instead of the ambitious 10... Bxc3 Marin goes for the more relaxed 10... Ne5 The position is dynamic with white's pawn sac he must seek counterplay and not allow everything to be traded into an inferior (probably losing) endgame. |
|
| Apr-02-09 | | drmariogodrob: 46. Bf7 seems short-sighted, doesn't it? I mean, surely a move like 46. Be4 should Be enough to hold the draw? After something like 46. ... Kb2 and then a race? |
|
| Apr-03-09 | | TrollKing: Wow! Now THAT'S a chess game! |
|
| Apr-03-09 | | parmetd: on Be4 white is losing still right away with b2 |
|
| Apr-03-09 | | sheaf: 46. Bf7 ?? looks bad to me, a complete waste of a tempo...how about 46. Bf5 (..b2 47.g6 b1=Q 48.Bxb1 Kxb1 49.g7 a3 50.g8=Q a2) and white is winning ( at least looks like that )..the stalemate trick that weak king has under normal situation doesn't work since his pawns work against him.. |
|
| Apr-03-09 | | sheaf: or at the very least there is a draw.. i haven't checked the line, Bf5 b2 g6 Ka1 g7 a3 g8=Q a2.. Qa8 b1=Q Bxb1 Kxb1 Qb7+ Ka1 Kc2 d3+ Kc3 and mate to follow..yep this is also winning... Bf5 is winning.. I don' understand this..white lost from a won position..!!...just after the first time control..!!..and white is US champion..!!.. is there a trivial trick that I am missing ..doesn't look like that .. |
|
| Apr-03-09 | | sheaf: nope I missed Kb2 obviously (I don't know why ;-))... after Bf5 ( or Be4 as someone else suggested) black has Kb2!, which should guarantee at least a draw black after a1=Q Qc5 .. idea is to block the king from all possible checks (d4 and d5 are doing exactly that ) and then queen exactly at the same time.. most probably it should be a draw.. since d5 is falling..and white can set a battery along the b1-h7 diagonal) |
|
| Apr-03-09 | | sheaf: sorry, there is no Qc5, 2.30 am here, I am too sleepy... -/= my verdict after Bf5 .. |
|
| Apr-06-09 | | Sleeping kitten: 33. ♔e5 is an improvement over I Novikov vs V Tukmakov, 1984, where 36. h4! was the novelty which had turned the endgame to a white win. Will this game change this assessment ? The depth of the opening theory is sometimes quite breathtaking. |
|
| Apr-06-09 | | aragorn69: Thx, <Sleeping kitten>. I obviously hadn't realised it had all been played before and that Kasparov had even already mentioned 33.-Ke5 as a possible improvement (although he doesn't seem to be sure it's enough for Black to draw!?!?). And now Marin plays it... and wins! The most probable is that Shulman botched his endgame. But a lot of analysis is still to be made - or made public... ;-) |
|
| May-11-09 | | JohnBoy: White's biggest mistake is not 46.Bf7. Several moves earlier 43.Bxg6 wins by forcing a pawn through. |
|
| May-11-09 | | JohnBoy: I like the trap 19.0-0, so that if 19...e5 then 20.d7 Qxd7 21.Qxd7 Bxd7 22.Rxb7 Rad8 23.Rd1 Re7 24.Bg4 wins with a double pin. |
|
May-05-12
 | | FSR: 34...Kd5! (improving on 34...Kd6, as seen in a prior correspondence game) was ranked as the tenth most important theoretical novelty in Informant 105. (This is the latest TN in "1000 TN!! The Best Theoretical Novelties," which contains the top 10-ranked TNs in each of Chess Informant Volumes 11 through 110.) Marin's notes indicate that both players were in time trouble as of move 36 and that the ending should have been drawn with correct play. |
|
| May-05-12 | | solskytz: Beautiful :-] does this mean that they were playing book theory up to move 34, and then got into time trouble by move 36? You make them sound like a pair of morons, don't you? (Or else I misunderstood something basic...) |
|
| May-05-12 | | solskytz: <Johnboy> 43. Bxg6 hg 44. h6 b3, or 44. hg b3 45. g7 b2 46. g8=Q+ Ka1 will both lead to a loss, I think. |
|
May-05-12
| | FSR: <solskytz> They were, it turned out, following a prior game move for move. I don't know how much of the theory they knew and how much they figured out on their own. I doubt very much that both of them were familiar with the game they were "following." |
|
| May-06-12 | | solskytz: A wildly amazing coincidence then... |
|
| Jul-10-12 | | shepi13: I've heard of a similar coincidence. I don't know what game it was in, but some GM told me they were watching a game in a grunfeld, and on move 44 they agreed to a draw. They thought they had some new cool novelty sometime around move 20, but when they asked some other GM's they found out that the novelty was actually agreeing to the draw. One other extremely recent game had followed the exact same moves through move 47 before a draw was agreed. |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 32...Bxd7