Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu vs Jan-Krzysztof Duda (2018)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu vs Jan-Krzysztof Duda
Dortmund Sparkassen (2018), Dortmund GER, rd 2, Jul-15
Sicilian Defense: Canal Attack. Main Line (B52) · 0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Annotations by Stockfish (Computer). [18120 more games annotated by Stockfish]

explore this opening	find similar games	1,073 more games of Nisipeanu
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: Help with kibitzing features can be found on our Kibtizing Help Page.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

THIS IS A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE. [CLICK HERE] FOR ORIGINAL.

Jul-15-18		HeMateMe: He's the dude!

Jul-15-18		catlover: Por si hubiera duda.

Jul-15-18		catlover: I wonder if the Nisipeanu's resignation was a bit premature.

Jul-15-18		Ulhumbrus: After 5 0-0 White has his central pawn on a white square, which makes his bishop good. How can he lose? And yet he loses, nevertheless. White can be said to have been cheated out of his win, not literally, but in a manner of speaking. William Hartston has written a book titled <How to cheat at chess> I don't know which tricks have been mentioned there but perhaps this game can be called an example of REAL cheating: The opponent gives the player a position where the player has reason to believe that any win or at least advantage is rightfully his but then the opponent proceeds to win all the same thus "cheating" the player out of that win. One can imagine Carlsen or one of the top players eg Kramnik winning such a game. Perhaps one has to play really well in order to win in this way. So how does Black "cheat" White out of "White's" win? If we look at the position after 5 0-0 White has his central pawn on a white square. White himself changes this state of affairs at moves 7,8 and 10 when he plays 7 c3 followed by 8 d4 and then in reply to 9...d5, 10 e5 placing his central pawns on black squares. Now it is White who has the bad bishop and Black who has the good bishop. This suggests that the move 7 c3 which begins to place White's pawns on black squares also begins to cheat White out of "his" win. And that is how the opponent cheats at chess by winning a position which is won for the player : It is the player himself (or herself) who cheats himself or herself by making at least one questionable choice. This is not the whole answer, because the opponent also has to play well enough to take advantage of the player's choices.

Jul-15-18		Gregor Samsa Mendel: All this abstract bloviating about good and bad bishops says nothing about what actually happened that caused white to lose. White had to play 19 b4 in order to counter ..g4 with b5, knocking one of the attacking knights away from the d-pawn. Notice that there are no bishops on the board by white's 19th move, which renders all of the discussion on good vs. bad bishops useless in this position.

Jul-15-18		ChessHigherCat: <GSM> Thanks for teaching me "bloviating"! It's true SF doesn't think much of 19. Rc3 (-1.45) After its first choice 19. b4 (0.00), it recommends 19. Nb3 (-0.57) or Na6+ (-0.83). I used to play this variant over and over again with black against a friend at the university coffee shop. I wish I had known this plan back then! Allowing 10. e5 Ng8 looks intuitively bad (back to square one) but after h5 and Ne7-Nf5 it works out brilliantly. Castling queenside was surprising, too, but Duda certainly (sin duda) had studied the possibilities of attack long in advance.

Jul-16-18		Marmot PFL: < I wonder if the Nisipeanu's resignation was a bit premature.> Other sites say the game ended on move 35- 33 g3 Qc1+ 34 Kg2 Qc4 35 Qb2 d4 0-1

Jul-16-18		messachess: White is clearly lost. Needed is 33.pxp, but white has to guard that back rank. Black wins another pawn.

Jul-16-18		Inocencio: The trading of White good bishop and Black bad bishop on Move #4 is a bad idea. This is akin to French Defense that when you trade the White good bishop against the Black bad bishop, Black is already ahead strategically!

Jul-17-18		Richard Taylor: <Inocencio: The trading of White good bishop and Black bad bishop on Move #4 is a bad idea. This is akin to French Defense that when you trade the White good bishop against the Black bad bishop, Black is already ahead strategically!> How is that? This system by White (to avoid the main lines in the Open variation etc) is very successful. Black played well but he had to defend also. Black is certainly not "ahead".

Jul-17-18		Richard Taylor: White actually had a small advantage up to move 17. Black's Ns were good but and White had some space advantage and probably Black's King was a little less safe. But White it seems should have played 17. Ne2 (overprotecting d4) or 17. b4 which is a more direct attacking plan. And leaves the N on c3 options to defend or attack.

Jul-17-18		Richard Taylor: The move that lost the game where White lost his edge was obviously 19 Rc3 which loses a pawn and then the game is virtually over as White's position cant really be held. Better was 19. b4 as I think someone mentioned. Of course it helps to have a machine to verify these things but it is the place where there is a definite change. After 19 b4 chances are about equal it seems.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!

If you already have an account, you should login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

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

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, 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 at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

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.