On this occasion, it's not even a difficult idea to understand but I have failed. You don't get it. I apologise.

Let me tell you a story. Around a decade ago I was playing on the same team as Andrew Ledger - a strong IM. We were looking at a post game position where, unusually, he had lost. I think it was his only loss for that team in the entire season. He played an ambitious move which lost through a surprising tactical defence. Much like today's position.

In the post match analysis, we were talking about his aggressive move. And I said that I wouldn't have played it - I would have castled instead. And, for <once> my move was better than his.

Andrew slightly lost patience with me at that point. He said something along the lines of ... "well, sure, you wouldn't have played that move. But that's why I'm an international master and you're not."

On this occasion, it's not even a difficult idea to understand but I have failed. You don't get it. I apologise.>

click for larger view

<White's easiest win is to exchange twice on c6 winning a knight, but then we are into that calculation stuff again which you say we don't need.><I still maintain that it is far from obvious>

in fact im pretty sure black would have resigned rather than hanging a knight with 22 ... Kb8. call this 'calculation' if you want to, but it's not even monday puzzle standard. how much more obvious could it possibly be?

The move "deserves some criticism"??? When you are 2600+, maybe.>

Of course it can be criticised, it's the objectively worse move. The first sentence doesn't make much sense either, I think <rilkefan>'s analogy with drink driving does a good job of demonstrating why.

22. Qa6 wins in every variation except one.

Think about that sentence for a while.

Yes, it looks scary to put your queen en prise. It looks reckless. If you are a relatively lowly graded player it's the sort of thing that you wouldn't even think of doing. You might even call it drink driving.

But it's the sort of move that 2600+ players regularly play. When tactics justify it, we shouldn't be afraid to put even the queen in harm's way.

Try this. Play through the games of Alekhine and Tal. Try to predict the next move without looking at the game score, say with the predict-a-move feature on this website.

What you will find is that Alekhine and Tal frequently play aggressive moves that you didn't even contemplate. Moves that you would consider reckless or analagous to drink driving. Moves that sacrifice pawns, pieces, even queens. And 99 times out of a hundred, possibly 999 times out of a thousand, these aggressive moves will work. And hopefully you will have learnt something.

Just occasionally, very occasionally, a strong player will misplay it. They will play a 22. Qa6 type of move which has a tactical flaw buried deep inside it. A tactical flaw that is only spotted when we turn Fritz or Rybka on.

And when that happens you might be tempted to crow about it and say "see, I was right all along! It's reckless to put your queen en prise. Just like drink driving."

And for that 1 in 100 or even 1 in 1000 case you might be right. Especially if you are sitting smug and snug at home with no clock ticking, no opponent and a computer to tell you when something is "objectively the best move".

But try doing it over the board...

Here's a final thought for you. Victor Gashimov has earned an ELO of 2756. Earned. Robert Kempinski isn't far behind on 2600. I'll hazard a guess that both are much higher graded than anyone posting on this page - possibly even this entire website.

They got their grades by not being afraid of moves like 22. Qa6. If we think of moves like this as reckless or drink driving then we have virtually no chance of getting to similar grades.

And, okay, so today we get to see one of their rare mistakes. Let's not forget the far greater number of times that they got it right.

But it's the sort of move that 2600+ players regularly play. When tactics justify it, we shouldn't be afraid to put even the queen in harm's way...>

This is definitely the case when the analysis backs it up. When, like you say tactics justify it.

<Just occasionally, very occasionally, a strong player will misplay it. They will play a 22. Qa6 type of move which has a tactical flaw buried deep inside it...>

Even the greatest players don't see everything to the very end so mistakes are possible.

<And when that happens you might be tempted to crow about it and say "see, I was right all along! It's reckless to put your queen en prise. Just like drink driving."...>

There's a bunch of just that kind of crowing that goes on here.

<...And for that 1 in 100 or even 1 in 1000 case you might be right. Especially if you are sitting smug and snug at home with no clock ticking, no opponent and a computer to tell you when something is "objectively the best move".

But try doing it over the board...>

This is a point I've made more than (you'll forgive me) <once> here at CG.

<Here's a final thought for you. Victor Gashimov has earned an ELO of 2756. Earned. Robert Kempinski isn't far behind on 2600. I'll hazard a guess that both are much higher graded than anyone posting on this page - possibly even this entire website...>

Considering that I never came in higher than somewhere in the 2200s FIDE in my playing days, I'd say there isn't any doubt that both of these players are a tiny bit better than I was.

<...And, okay, so today we get to see one of their rare mistakes. Let's not forget the far greater number of times that they got it right...>

Back in the day I was on the other end of some players that managed to get it right more than they were wrong, people like Walter Browne, Nick DeFirmian, Larry Christiansen to name a few. You had players like me then you had guys like this.

<...What is the phrase that they use in America? Monday morning quarterbacks?>

And, rather to my surprise, you might even mock someone's typo, having apparently decided to be a jerk.

First, I am not mocking anyone's typo - something I do not do. In the UK we use the phrase drink driving. It means the same as driving drunk. Not mockery, just a different way of saying the same thing.

Secondly, I am not refusing to engage in the argument. Quite the reverse. I have tried very patiently to explain it on several occasions.

Let's be very clear. 22. Qa6 is a mistake. White should have played 22. Qa4 instead. No-one is disputing that.

But what we are also all agreeing on is that the only move to refute 22. Qa6 is hard to see. 22...Bc3+ puts the bishop en prise to no fewer than 3 white pieces.

click for larger view

I have been honest enough to say that I don't think I would have spotted that OTB - either as black or as white.

So yes it is quite right for us to talk about this point on these pages. An interesting game marred by a tactical mistake. But what <King Death>, I and several others are saying is that it is the <manner> with which we say it that matters. The tone of our posts.

Imagine that either player was reading this. How would they feel about the comments that have been made about their play? Would they think that we were being fair in our assessment? That out comments were enriching the debate?

Or would they think that we were taking cheap shots from the safety of internet anonymity and with the benefit of Fritz whirring away in the background?

CG.com has very few GM visitors. Can you guess why?

It's a point of principle. And I believe that we should stand up for our principles. By all means point out mistakes made in the play. Use software to help in your analysis. Try to learn.

But remember that these games are played by real people doing the best they can and without the aids that we use to analyse them. A little respect for that is all that I am asking for.

If you can't see that, then we do need to agree to disagree and move on. Because I believe in this point passionately and will not be moved from it.

I <once> commented on a GOTD or a POTD and made some smartass comment about a move that one of the players should have played. Only to find that the game was played by one of the CG members, and he was reading what I had written. And he posted to say so.

Did I feel like a heel for having criticised his play in the way that I did? Yup. And I resolved never to do it again. That's what's happening here, and that's why I am saying it.

My apologies then. It ought to be "drink-driving", I would think.

But if you're so concerned with tone, you ought to watch your own. Your first comment assumes <s> didn't see Bc3, when for all you know (I suspect) <s> is a strong player who could have easily seen it OTB or playing over the game. There "Yes, Qa6 is a blunder, but your comment is too strongly expressed, esp. if the players were in time trouble, and if not, well, people blunder, it's not a moral failing" would have been sufficient and (so it seems to me) rather more likely to lead to a useful discussion. You then spent a long time claiming Qa4 wasn't obviously won (again, not knowing <s>'s strength, or realizing that "for a strong GM" was the relevant metric). You then turned snide with "priceless", though <s> has been arguing extremely calmly. You failed for a long time to even understand the argument that ...Bc3's difficulty wasn't relevant (not sure you have even now) and that <s> was making a process analysis, as a result repeating refuted claims, while at the same time you took a lecturing sighing tone when the high road "GMs are imperfect, whatever white's process it's best not to be harsh about one bad move in a nice game" was available instead.

If you don't like my tone, then I apologise. As you know, I hate to upset anyone and try to be as even-handed as I can be.

But if you go back to page 1 and see how this all started, I hope you will see my point. Which was also shared with others. If you don't see it, then let's just leave it there.

There is one last point which I can't ignore: You said: "You failed for a long time to even understand the argument that ...Bc3's difficulty wasn't relevant (not sure you have even now)"

Let's try to nail that one. My point of view is this ... As far as I can see (and Fritz confirms), the only move which refutes 22. Qa6 is 22...Bc3+. If 22...Bc3+ wasn't available then 22. Qa6 would be perfectly fine and we would all probably be enthusing about the strength and vigour of white's attack.

My contention is that 22...Bc3+ is not an easy move to spot. Several people have agreed with me on this one. Hopefully you will too. And therefore the flaw with 22. Qa6 is equally hard to spot.

Your contention is that the difficulty of finding 22...Bc3 is irrelevant. I disagree. If it is the only thing that stops 22. Qa6 from being a good move then it is absolutely relevant. Could not be more relevant.

So instead of you wondering why I cannot see your point, I am left wondering why you cannot see mine.

Yes, 22. Qa6 was a mistake. But it was a mistake because black should have refuted it with 22...Bc3+ where a crushing white advantage fizzles into a levelish game. That's why 22...Bc3+ matters. If you can't see that, or won't see that, or don't agree, then let's just leave it there.

I have been honest enough to say that I don't think I would have spotted that OTB - either as black or as white...>

Of course. When you have a clear simple win isn't such a time. That's the whole argument right there. If your side can't see that, or won't see that, or don't agree, then let's just leave it there.

<I have been honest enough>

Another failure of tone I neglected to note.

You have a very different view of the world to me.

Enough.

22 Qa6 would have been a good move if black had been forced to accept the sacrifice, but he wasn't

after black declined the sacrifice, white had to find another way to win the game. that meant he had to play Qa4 after all

even if the Bc3+ resource had not existed, Qa6 would still have been inaccurate, because it delayed the win and effectively gave black a free defensive move

the Bc3+ resource did exist. when you have the board at your mercy, playing non-forcing queen sacrifices that give your opponent free defensive moves and allow out of left field counter shots is not a recipe for success at any level

gashimov is an brilliant player. anyone who is willing to essay the modern benoni at the highest level is an absolute legend as far as im concerned

... ... fun while it lasted