Jan-23-25
 | | FSR: I find it hard to believe that Black played the ridiculous 19...Kb8?? Instead, 19...Qf3! wins, e.g. 20.O-O (losing, but what else?) Rxh2 and mates. More likely White played 19.Qc6+! rather than 19.Qxa6, and the game ended in the usual draw by perpetual. |
|
Jan-24-25
 | | Sally Simpson: I'm with you FSR, 19.Qc6+ instead of 19.Qxa6.
1994 was still in the scoresheet era and games were transcribed into PGN by hand. I sent a correction slip. |
|
| Jan-24-25 | | stone free or die: More likely, maybe, but you're both advocating for changing the "official" record, and there's been plenty oversights in chess games. How do you know there wasn't one here?
Have you contacted either of these players?
Found another record of the game with the different moves? Etc., etc.
(Does this game even have a source?) |
|
Jan-24-25
 | | perfidious: One would imagine this game does indeed have a source; so far as I know, it is mandatory to provide one. It could very well have been uploaded straight from ChessBase or some such, and we have seen innumerable errors perpetuated, simply by uncritically passing games from one DB to another. A classic example is my first encounter with Alexander Ivanov, played in 1988, which one will find elsewhere with Igor Ivanov listed as the opponent, two players who could hardly be more different in appearance. |
|
| Jan-24-25 | | stone free or die: PS - I would have no reservations about putting <FSR>'s comments in the PGN, as a comment, even going so far as suggesting the game score is wrong. But as said, I would keep the original score (and even if altering it, I would provide a note and memorialize the original moves). |
|
| Jan-24-25 | | stone free or die: <CG> has changed the moves according to the comments above. Here is how the game ends on <ChessBase>: <18.Qxb5+ Ka8 19.Qxa6 Kb8 20.Qb5+ Ka8 21.Qc6+ Kb8 1/2-1/2> The *same* as <chessbites> and <365chess>. https://database.chessbase.com/
https://www.365chess.com/search_res...
https://chessbites.com/Games.aspx
* * * * *
As I pointed out, this game score was changed on the basis of how some felt the game should have been played on the board. Using the same criteria the game <Carlsen--Anand (R6) 2014> <After 25...Rdg8>
click for larger view(25.Bc2 Rdg8 26.Kd2 a4 27.Ke2 a3 28.f3 Rd8 29.Ke1 Rd7 30.Bc1) To wit:
<I find it hard to believe that Black played the ridiculous 26...a4?? Instead, 26...Nxe5! wins, e.g. 27.Rxg8 (losing, but what else?) Nxc4 and wins. More likely White played 26.Kd1! rather than 26.Kd2??, and the game ended in the usual draw by grind.> <Correction slip submitted: 26.Kd1 a4 27.Ke2 a3> Carlsen vs Anand, 2014 Now this is a little unfair to <FSR>, as he didn't directly advocate for altering the game score here. My point is that unfathomable mistakes happen on the chessboard. And game scores, which should be sourced, should also have concrete evidence supporting changes (unless truly nonsensical). |
|
Jan-24-25
| | Sally Simpson: <stone free or die> I understand the concern. I submitted the correction slip which I often do with an explanation. This one was based on correcting what does appear to be a PGN entry error. Very often the person entering the moves into PGN is not one of the players but a volunteer who may not have even been at the event. Because other databases, which basically copy from each other, have here; 
click for larger viewQxa6?? and then Kb8?? (which is approaching nonsensical) it does not make them correct. I am fairly certain what we now have is what happened. (Black could have played Kc8 then Qxa6+, Kb8 which again hints to a PGN entry error.) I can see no other explanation than a bad PGN
However, I agree, not correcting what we consider errors without 100% proof and just having a note in the thread that the score is suspect is very possibly the correct way to go. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
