I won't mind that. Not many would.

But Gelfand will surely do. (1) He figures (I'm guessing from the first two of his white games) that his best chance of winning the match is by grinding down a small plus in lifeless positions where only he can win. That seems to be his general match strategy with white.

At the press conference, Gelfand was asked why he gets up so many times and goes away. His answer was: "Because behind the stage there are such great cookies." >

I don't think there is a win, an FM sent me some analysis, looks like Black can hold ... (maybe) Pawn down, but he says its a theoretical draw.

By now, almost superfluous to point out that the "analysis" from this imaginary email wasn't actually posted eh?

In High School I saw a student actually say "Well I know Cat Stevens personally, and he told me that <Wild World> is about a girlfriend, not a daughter."

Gales of laughter ensued, teacher and students helpless with mirth in the face of such an infantile public lie.

Come on, <AJ's> pipeline to the greats is well known! They rush to Pensacola to have their analyses verified by the GOAT.

<...By now, almost superfluous to point out that the "analysis" from this imaginary email wasn't actually posted eh...>

It never is, he claims that he wouldn't want to reveal it. He didn't have any problem ratting on CG the day he got a week's vacation from here though. I had imaginary play mates as a child but at 54 he still thinks he's in childhood or something.

<...You'd think a High School student would know better, let alone a grown man.>

I was conflicted about posting this on a Historical Game page given how much of a stink I raised about that earlier this year.

However, there's a big difference between a mistake and a lie with regard to information on game pages.

Anyone can post a mistaken bit of analysis or history on a game page, obviously nothing wrong with that.

However, outright, deliberate lying about chess analysis or chess history on a games page is just as obscene as spamming it with <AJ war> crud.

An outright lie on a game page should be challenged for the sake of chess history.

In this case, to be a normal person, all <AJ> would have to do is post the "analysis he received" and let <Eyal> and the other members take a crack at it.

However, this analysis doesn't exist, as all CG.com regulars know.

Gales of laughter ensued, teacher and students helpless with mirth in the face of such an infantile public lie.>

<Eyal>, the analysis he's talking about is the 35. ♖c4 line, not the King's walk line.

<AJ>, as mentioned a page or so back, the line posted on the tournament website ("But black defends with...") has White blundering with 41. ♖xh5?. We analyzed 41. ♖x♖ as a win for White about 1 page back. <AJ>, if your analysis deals with the 41. ♖x♖ line and claims it's a draw (or if gives some earlier drawing line for Black), please post the relevant lines.

I don't speak Russian, but his analysis doesn't seem to add up. After 34. d7, he gives 34...♖c5 an exclamation mark, even though it loses according to his analysis. Meanwhile, after 34...♖cc2, White seems to have nothing better than 35. ♖c4 ♖xc4 36. bxc4 h5 37. ♔c1 ♖d4 38. ♔c2 ♔f6 39. ♖h7 ♔g6 40. ♔c3 ♖d1 41. d8♕ ♖xd8 42. ♖xb7:

click for larger view

Shipov gives White only a slight edge, so his annotation of move 34 doesn't make much sense.

At any rate, playing out a bit the diagram position with the help of Houdini, I'm quite convinced that it's winning for White.

click for larger view

Basically, Black's Q-side is too weak: White's strong passer and the weakness of the a-pawn are too much to handle, especially with the black king on the other side of the board. For example: 42...Kf6 43.Rb2! (43.Ra7? Rg8 followed by Rxg2 and Black might get too much counterplay) 43...Rc8 44.Re2! (not 44.Kd4 immediately because after 44...Rd8+ 45.Kc5 Rc8+ the king can't cross over to the b-file, as the rook would be lost after Rb8+) followed by Kd4 & c5 with the white king invading, and there isn't much that Black can do.