If you watch the press conference after this game, when asked about the two most critical positions in the game, Nepo of course mentioned the 31...Qh4 move, calling it a "bluff".

But when doing some follow up commentary he basically admits overlooking that the king can escape (I think with Ke4 right?) after the long series of checks. He mumbled something about it ~"being hard to see from a distance".

There has to be awareness of the situation for it to be a true bluff. Bluffs aren't blunders, because of this awareness - they're deliberate gambles where you know the odds.

Nepo actually thought he had a perpetual, so he blundered away his rook. On CT it would be called an <Unsound Sacrifice>.

Ding maybe trusted Nepo wouldn't blunder, and didn't push his analysis deep enough. Or maybe Ding also missed it.

Press conference beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa6...

"I was very lucky to bluff with this ...Qh4 move ..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa6...

...Qh4 follow-up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa6...

Carlsen vs Anand, 2014

<zed....Carlsen blunders, Anand misses it (and Carlsen eventually wins)>

To hear 'pundits' maunder on of these occurrences at the highest level, one would think them paragons of perfection who would never put a foot wrong if they were in these spots.

What becomes clear, above all, is how little knowledge they truly possess of what it takes to win a game from a strong, determined opponent.

One can try to explain it's not as simple as looking at a computer and comparing it to a player being there.

A routine in the computer to take in time trouble and tiredness may give a better guide. A simple nudge to add in a horizon of say 8-10 ply. Then you get a better indication of what a strong player is seeing at that moment.

Also a routine to tell the computer it must win (as in a must situation) but that would involve the computer looking for plausible humans errors and ditching what it considered the best moves to set traps.

If such a computer could do that some of the traps would be amazingly deep. But they are hamstrung by only looking for the best replies.

I was staring at the screen here, on chess24 and my screen on a different computer to note up the game as it happens for 6½ hours today. I was knackered and wanted the game to just end.

Without a doubt I was that chess blind and tired I would have walked into one of the traps Nepo set Ding in that game 9 ending.

Remember the discussion on a different forum about wasting the time of an opponent?!?

Bless Ding, one of my favorite statements he made in the press conference today was in answer to the question (roughly, from memory) -

Q - "What did you think of the knight + pawn ending today?"

Ding - "I thought it was easy."

This match is the first time I've had the commentary on for any length of time during the games.

When they have a break I turn off the adverts by clicking the crossed out trumpet button on my keyboard (which btw I've only recently discovered what it was for. The uncrossed trumpet button turns the sound back on again. Amazing!)

I have noticed that Anish Giri uses the word 'preparation' much more than the word 'inspiration.' and have come to the conclusion that the modern player is nothing but a walking talking databank relying on the games and the sweat and research of the other more imaginative players. Here I have in mind Gioachino Greco and Frederick Reinfeld to name but two.

Ding had a one-move win and threw away the full point in that game. So I said <It <<could be>> like Bill Buckner's error>.

Emphasis on 'could be'. I didn't say it was so. (And Boston could have won game 7. 'Could have', not 'did'.) There is a difference between speculation on what <might> happen (which is what I did) and pronouncements of fact (which is what you are attributing to me).

<Looks like you jinxed it.>

A letter would be good, yes, and make it heartfelt.

Respect to Nepo for swindling his way out of this one. I'm pretty sure he didn't see that he essentially gave his rook away, but once more, both were low on time, this is human chess we're talking about, and this move simply saved his ass in this game, so labeling it as "??" shows a very limited mechanistic understanding of chess. I also love the little retarding moment where for a move or two it looks as if Ding would win the game after all before another "blunder" leads to a well-deserved draw.