chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Fabiano Caruana vs Pavel Eljanov
Tata Steel Masters (2016), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 1, Jan-16
Queen's Gambit Declined: Vienna Variation (D39)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 10 more Caruana/Eljanov games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: At the top of the page we display the common English name for the opening, followed by the ECO code (e.g. "D39"). The ECO codes are links that take you to opening pages.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-18-16  abuzic: <36.Qxc7>
Even stronger is 36.exf7 Rxf7 37.Qg6 Qf8 38.Re6
Jan-20-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  PawnSac: < beenthere240: Looks like the QG was accepted to me. >

yes it was. I treat this position as if it arrived via a different order of moves...

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.Bxc4 Nxe4 7.O-O

Jan-20-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  PawnSac: moronovich: < fisayo123: I can't believe Eljanov allowed 32.e6 > Me neither.31-Qe6 should be safe with a balanced position.

< 31. Qd4 b6? > was definitely a blunder

..♕e6 or ..♖g7 would be about = . After ..b6 white's eval immediately jumps to about +1.60

32. e6 Bf6
33. Qf4 < g5? >

a second critical mistake.
Last chance to hold out a while was ..Bg5 34.Qxf7 gxh5 35.Qxh5 Be8

34. Qf5 Rg7
35. Qc2 < Qc5?! >

I also marked this as a doubtful or weak move. but at this point it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Jan-20-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  PawnSac: abuzic: <36.Qxc7>
Even stronger is 36.exf7 Rxf7 37.Qg6 Qf8 38.Re6

I think you mean <36.Qxc5> and i agree

Jan-21-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  PawnSac: < MindCtrol9: I think Caruana was fine since the beginning,and what he did is to have more space to maneuver his pieces which were in good squares,or am I wrong? >

well.... ok, on move 8 Fab could have played Qa4+ Nc6 9.Ne5 Bd6 (or Rb8) 10.Nxc6 bxc6 and won the pawn back while retaining a very slight plus, BUT with 8.Bg5 it seemed clear he wanted to play it in the true spirit of a gambit, seeking more enterprising play (thus he also viewed this as a QGA).

between moves 14 and 30 there was some unclear and less than best play by both, but in general it was consistent enough that as it turned out it was Pavel who made the critical errors that decided the game.

what actually caught my attention was when reviewing the game with Stockfish analysis, it kept treating Ne4 as a weaker move and tried to undo it on several occasions with Ne4-c3. I have played QGA, both e3 and e4 lines, and quite often the white player watches the e4 square as a convenient transfer point for the QN, yet the computer did not like this IN THIS PARTICULAR LINE.

Jun-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  agb2002: I remembered the maneuver Qf4-f5-c2, so not a puzzle but a memory exercise.
Jun-24-17  ChessHigherCat: : I think 38. Nxh6 looks very strong, too.

Caruana did some really slick geometrical maneuvering after 33. Bf6. Eljanov obviously didn't anticipate that line of attack and vastly underestimated the strength of e6+, thinking Bf6 would solve all his problems, all that just to hold on to the pawn b4?

Jun-24-17  Ariogermano: I Like this variation: 32.f4 Bh4 33.f5 Bxg3 34.fxg6 Bf2➕ 35.Qxf2 ......
Jun-24-17  MrCarciofo: <Ariogermano> why Black has to check with Bf2? I was looking at f4 too but every line sums up in positions where Black has too much space and so much vertical pressure - also if you save the Knight there is no good square for it going in for the black king. Caruana makes little, simple, and most effective moves - GMs always marvel me because they make what I don't see even squeezing my brain the most obvious plan.
Jun-24-17  Ariogermano: @MrCarciofo you right !
Jun-24-17  gofer: Well, I am quite happy with myself, I saw the first three moves AND saw that at any point, a simple trade off on e6 lead to Re6 winning one of the bishops, because <32 ... Bf6> is forced and from then on black can't move the bishop or white will play Qxf7.

But did I see the Qc2 maneouver? Nope. I missed it. Instead I when to Qg4 which is just rubbish by comparison.

<32 e6+ Bf6>
<33 Qf4 g5>
<34 Qf5 Rg7>

35 Qg4?


click for larger view

Jun-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: Yeah it's probably a geometrical maneuver when you move a Queen lol
Jun-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: By the way, it's 'manoeuvre' or 'maneuver.' Let's get this eh straight.
Jun-24-17  ChessHigherCat: <WorstPlayerEver> What a snide and idiotic comment, which hardly surprises me from your part. What was geometric was the maneuver Qf4-f5-c2. And when you come down from your sterno, you might notice that I wrote "maneuvering", which corresponds to your "maneuver" + "ing", a common English suffix (look it up). Wow, you certainly straightened me out!
Jun-24-17  mel gibson: The computer agrees with the first 2 text moves but there is little more than 1 pawn in it:

32. e6+ (32.
e6+ (e5-e6+ ♗g5-f6 ♕d4-d2 ♗f6-g5 e6xf7 ♕e7xf7 ♕d2xb4 ♖g8-f8 ♕b4-c3+ d5-d4 ♕c3xd4+ ♗g5-f6 h5xg6 ♗f6xd4 g6xf7 ♗c6-d5 ♖e1-e7 ♗d5xb3 ♖e7xc7 ♗d4-g7 ♖c7-c6 ♗b3xa4 ♖c6xb6 ♖f8xf7 ♘g3-f5 ♗a4-d7 ♘f5-h4 ♗g7-d4 ♖b6xh6+ ♔h8-g7 ♖h6-g6+) +1.53/20 132)

score for white +1.53 depth 20.

It looks like black correctly resigns at move 38:

38. exf7 Rf8 {(Rg8-f8 Re1-e6 Bc6-d7 Re6xf6 Bd7xf5 Bb1xf5 Kh8-g7 Rf6-g6+ Kg7xf7 Rg6xh6 c5-c4 b3xc4 Kf7-g7 Rh6-g6+ Kg7-h8 Bf5-d3 Rf8-a8 c4xd5 Ra8xa4 Bd3-c4 Ra4-a7 Kg1-h2 Kh8-h7 Rg6-c6 Ra7-b7 Kh2-g3 b4-b3 Kg3-g4 b3-b2 Bc4-d3+ Kh7-g8) -5.31/17 33

score for black -5.53 depth 17.

Jun-24-17  patzer2: As <fisayo123> correctly observes, Black's decisive mistake is <31...b6?> which gives White a winning attack and solves today's Saturday puzzle position with 32. e6+! Bf6 33. Qf4! (+1.85 @ 36 depth, Stockfish 8.)

Instead, as <moronovich> suggests, the improvement 31...Qe6 holds for Black after 31...Qe6 32.Qxb4 Re8 33.Qd4 Bd7 34.Bd3 c6 35.f4 c5 36.Qe3 d4 37.Qf3 Bh4 38. hxg6 = (+0.22 @ 32 depth, Stockfish 8.)

In the follow-up after 32. e6+ Bf6 33. Qf4 g5, White secures a clearly decisive advantage with 34. Qf5 Rg7 35. Qc2 (+4.60 @ 35 depth, Stockfish 8.)

The computer initially suggests Black can put up more resistance with 33...Bg5 (+1.79 @ 34 depth, Stockfish 8.)

However, after 33...Bg5 White gains a decisive advantage with 34.Qxf7 gxh5 35.Qf5 Be8 36.Qxd5 h4 37.Nf5 Qf6 38.e7 Bc6 39.Qc4 Qc3 40.Qd4+ Qxd4 41.Nxd4 Be8 42.Bd3 Bd7 43.Bf5 Be8 44.Be6 Rg6 45.Bc4 Bf4 46.Bd3 Rg5 47.Nf5 Bd6 48.Re6 (+5.10 @ 29 depth, Stockfish 8.)

Jun-24-17  morfishine: Seen this one, nice play

Another example of a Knight on <f5> finishing off Black in striking fashion

*****

Jun-24-17  Al2009: Why 33. Qf4?

Better 33. Qd2! Bg5 (forced) 34. exf7! Qxf7 (forced) 35. Qc2!

if 35...Qf6 36. hxg6 followed by Nh5

if 35...Be8 36. hxg6 and again White wins (36...Rxg6? or 36...Qxg6? 37. Rxe8!)

Jun-24-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Fusilli: <Al2009> 35...Re8 is annoying, no?
Jun-24-17  patzer2: I let Stockfish 8 run for over six hours to 49 depth analyzing the computer best play line 32. e6+! Bf6 33. Qf4! Bg5 (diagram below)


click for larger view

Here (diagram above after 33...Bg5 34.Qxf7) Stockfish 8 gives 34.Qxf7 gxh5 35.Qxh5 Be8 36.Qe2 Qg7 37.Nf5 Qc3 38.e7 Bh5 39.Qe5+ Qxe5 40.Rxe5 Bf7 41.Bd3 Ra8 42.Bb5 Be8 43.Bxe8 Rxe8 44.Rxd5 Kh7 45.f4 Bf6 46.g4 Kg6 47.Kg2 Bxe7 48.Re5 Kf7 49.Nxh6+ Kf8 50.Kf3 Rc8 51.Re6 Rd8 52.Nf5 Bc5 53.Ke4 Rd1 54.Rf6+ Kg8 55.Nh6+ Kg7 56.g5 Rd4+ 57.Ke5 Rd3 58.Kf5 Rd7 59.Ng4 Bd4 60.Rc6 Re7 61.Ne5 Bc3 62.Rh6 Kg8 63.Nc6 Rf7+ 64.Ke4 Kg7 (+2.67 @ 49 depth) with the following position at the end of this analysis:


click for larger view

In this position (diagram above), Stockfish 8 indicates Black has nothing better than dropping the exchange with 48...Rxf5 49. Bxf5 (+4.75 @ 35 depth) with a clearly won position for White.

Jun-26-17  Al2009: <Fusilli>

After 35...Re8 36. Rxe8+ Qxe8 (36...Bxe8 is even worse) 37. hxg6 if 37...Qe1+ Kh2 Black can do nothing to prevent Nh5 or Nf5 or the check g7+ and following mortal checks.

Jun-26-17  Al2009: <patzer 2>

Instead of losing your time making your useless engine "Stockfish 2" run for hours on wrong positions, use your own brain, otherwise you'll remain a patzer forever.

33. Qf4?! is WRONG (or at least dubious)

33. Qd2! is BETTER, and wins quickly.

I found 33.Qd2! in less than 5 minutes, WITHOUT any engine helping me. So, you're a CHEATER (for me anyone who is using an engine to analyse is simply a CHEATER, as a man who is using a car to win a 100 mt. race against Usain Bolt) and in addition you didn't find the right moves either... I simply despise those who are using chess engines.

Jun-26-17  mel gibson: < I simply despise those who are using chess engines.>

The chess engine confirms the moves that people make. There is nothing wrong with checking your ideas using a chess engine. Also - some positions are just too complicated for a human brain. Chess engines are rated at about 3300 - much higher than any grand master.

Jun-26-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <I found 33.Qd2! in less than 5 minutes, WITHOUT any engine helping me. So, you're a CHEATER (for me anyone who is using an engine to analyse is simply a CHEATER, as a man who is using a car to win a 100 mt. race against Usain Bolt) and in addition you didn't find the right moves either... I simply despise those who are using chess engines.>

But <Al2009>, you're just a loud, obnoxious, stupid troll. As far as anyone can tell from the lines you post, you're also a lousy analyst. I remember you arguing (loudly and obnoxiously) about one of the Carlsen-Karjakin games. Your analysis was junk.

Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016) (kibitz #2198)

See also here.

Fischer vs W A Nyman, 1964 (kibitz #100)

So no one cares what you think.

Also, in the wise words of vsaluki:

<You are also a machine, as are Anand, Carlsen, Kasparov, and Fischer. You and the others are just inferior machines. >

Oct-14-17  Al2009: <keypusher>

You wrote

"But <Al2009>, you're just a loud, obnoxious, stupid troll. As far as anyone can tell from the lines you post, you're also a lousy analyst."

Dear IDIOT (as you're insulting me, I have ther right to reply insulting you), of course I can make mistakes, as I'm not using yr. useless engines, and I cannot spend hours analyzing.

But sorry for you, many line I proposed were totally CORRECT, and checked also by engines, and GM,

Can you find - as I did - the improvement 21. Nf5! to the famous Botvinnik - Capablanca without any engine helping the pneumatic vacuum in yr. cranium ?

Here is a short list of SOME correct lines I proposed

(Botvinnik – Capablanca)
Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 (Ni –Hua – Hoyos)
Ni Hua vs M Leon Hoyos, 2008 (Gulko-Miladinovic)
Gulko vs I Miladinovic, 1995 (Mecking – Harandi)
Mecking vs K Harandi, 1976 (Morozevich – Caruana)
(Morozevich vs Caruana, 2011) (Mrdja – Mecking)
M Mrdja vs Mecking, 2006

But sorry, I cannot waste my time with you. You're not a troll, you're simply an idiot whose "comments" are smelling like yr. defecations

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
32? (Saturday, June 24)
from Puzzle of the Day 2017 by Phony Benoni
32? (June 24. 2017_
from Saturday Puzzles, 2011-2017 by Phony Benoni
Game 31
from Move by Move - Caruana (Lakdawala) by Qindarka
Game 31
from Move by Move - Caruana (Lakdawala) by Koenigsac
32? (Saturday, June 24)
from POTD Queen Gambit Declined and Accepted 3 by takchess

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC