|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-03-09 | | ounos: <sulotas> probably you meant a "Monday" puzzle :P |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | computer chess guy: ChessBase points out 25. Ba2 as an error but even earlier 22. f5? was wrong I think (22. ♘c1 looks better). |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | Riverbeast: Wow Malakhov is on a tear!
Taking no prisoners....He just killed Svidler this game And last I heard (I don't know if this is still the case) Malakhov is a 'Super Amateur'....He has another career and doesn't even play chess full time |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | sulotas: <ounos> I would still say that this is for Saturday or Sunday puzzle; because the chessgames.com visitors would see the name Svidler for White and wouldn't think that things should be that easy for Black and check many other possibilities here. Sometimes, the 'names' are the trickiest part. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | luzhin: Perhaps 31...dxe1=N+!! came as a terrible shock to Svidler. Because if Black had promoted to a Queen then it's White who forces mate, starting with 32.Bxf7+ |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | Stoned Knight: Great game, black (almost) mates promoting to knight under threat of a mating attack. But what, I think, makes this game unique is that black never moved his queen-side knight and rook. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | mack: How many games can you name in which one side finishes with three knights on the board? I can't think of another. In fact, I can't name that many games in which one side had three knights at any point -- there was one in the BBC's Master Game series, but I can't remember the players off the top of my head. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | Jim Bartle: "But what, I think, makes this game unique is that black never moved his queen-side knight and rook." Amazing. Looks ridiculous, but it won. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | ARubinstein: <But what, I think, makes this game unique is that black never moved his queen-side knight and rook> This is because Malakhov gave Svidler knight plus rook odds, so those pieces should not even appear on the board. <CG>, please fix. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | Bondsamir: Malakhov saved two pieces for the next round as I think. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | khulakeg: ...I want malakhov to win this tournament... Only GM So can neutralize his slav! hehehe |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | shintaro go: Svidler played like someone who didn't deserve to be in the top 8. |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | Albertan: I have analyzed this game in great detail using Chessbase Megabase 2009,the Chessbase online database,and the World's strongest chess program, Deep Rybka 3 and posted the analysis to my blog using the program Chess Viewer Deluxe. I hope you drop by and play through this analysis, which is on the bottom of the first page of my blog.: http://albertan1956.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | kingsindian2006: beautyyyy!! |
|
| Dec-03-09 | | bangkokgambit: This is going to be a Sunday puzzle which suppose to start with 29. ...Q x f6 |
|
Dec-04-09
 | | tpstar: <mack> The Five Knight Game = Szabo vs Ivkov, 1964 And the Six Knight Game = Crafty vs Nakamura, 2007 <one of the best games of the tournament> Agreed. This one is stunning. |
|
Dec-04-09
 | | HeMateMe: Nice fighting chess, peter the Great (5 times champion of russia) and Malakhov. I wonder if Svidler was so busy calculating his terrific attack, he overlooked the under promo motif (not to be confused with the Rolling Stones' "Undercover West Coast Promo Man"). the Ivkov game rocks, thanks <TP> |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | whiteshark: comments+tactics in the final position: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp... |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | sheaf: <mack> more interesting trivia would be how many games do you know in which white moved all its pieces except the pawn on b2 and black didn't move rook on a8 knight on b8 and the pawn on f7 at all. yet white lost the game !!.. |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | Eyal: <- V.M.: Peter surprised me already in the opening: in the well known position he played Qf3 instead of traditional gf3 in move 9. The white pieces had a perspective position, but at one point Peter started to play let's say too “beautifully”. - P.S.: In general everything was like Vladimir said. My opponent is a great specialist in Slavic defense. Therefore, I had no illusions to have any opportunity to get an advantage in the traditional variations. That is why I played this move. In fact it seemed that I had an interesting game. The truth is that I made a standard mistake: I should have played faster. If you leave 20 minutes for 20 moves at the end, you risk to blunder something in this decisive position. It seemed that I had a million of perspective opportunities, but I did not hurry. At some point I was tossing a coin what to chose. One thing was clear for me: if I make a wrong step, I will have serious problems. I seemed to have a strong initiative, but again, it is difficult to make a decision being in a time trouble. In general, I came to a point where I should do my best to “get out of here”. In the possible endgame I would not be a favorite at all. But what I made is even worse: I lost by force.
The good thing is we had a game when a pawn was converted to a knight. (Peter smiles sadly). It is not bad.> (http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv...) |
|
Dec-04-09
 | | Check It Out: I like this game! Malakhov had great dark-square control throughout and forced the white queen out of the action. The win by under promotion was the icing on the cake. Where did Svidler go wrong? 10.g4 may have been a waste of time. Preventing black's breakout 10...e4 may have been higher priority. I say may all the time because I don't use an engine and half of this is low-level work on my part in an attempt to better understand chess. 15.a4 allowed black to lock up and control the queenside dark squares. Perhaps 15.Bd2 and an eventual b4 may have provided some counter play on the queenside? It seems like Svidler should have put his dsb on d3 say around move 21. instead of 21.f4. That black e pawn went on to be a real killer knight. Okay, let's read a bit...
=======
Nice basic review of the game <Albertan>; I didn't identify the questionable moves in the game 22.f5, 25.Ba2, and 27.Qxa4 (by which time it looks lost already.) <But what, I think, makes this game unique is that black never moved his queen-side knight and rook.> This is an interesting feature! |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | Thrajin: <But what, I think, makes this game unique is that black never moved his queen-side knight and rook> That reminds me of the boxing match in which Vladimir Klitschko scored a round 2 knockout of Ray Austin. Klitschko never used his right hand even once in the fight. Video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO_s... |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | Thrajin: It also brings to mind this gem, where Kasparov trounces Topalov without moving his queen the entire game: Topalov vs Kasparov, 1995 |
|
| Dec-08-09 | | vonKrolock: A similar combination was presented already in the 18th century P. Stamma
"Cent positions désespérées" 1737
click for larger view
white to play and mate in six
Black is threatening, a. o., to ♕ with check in 'f1', then white check, check, check, <underpromotes to ♘> with check, check and checkmate.
By the way, this same scheme with successive checks was showed many times by Arab and Persian composers since at least the 8th Century (therefore a thousand years before Stamma!) - but without the underpromotion idea, a feature of the new Chess ...
The simplest motivation for the underpromotion is the <need for an immediate check>, then the ♘ preceded the other pieces... Soundly motivated underpromotion to ♗ or ♖ were showed only around a hundred years after Stamma |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | fisayo123: Just discovered this gem of a game from Malakhov! What an imaginative player he is. Would like to see him at Tal Memorial next year. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
