| Mar-24-13 | | chesssalamander: Nice game by Gelfand! His first victory in the Candidates this year, and against world's number 4, the guy that almost beat Carlsen yesterday. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Illogic: Crushing win with black! Very well played by Boris |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Shams: Gelfand's very strong novelty <13...e5!> might have just put this line to bed for White. In the press conference he explained that he played this position in the 80s and 90s, playing 13...0-0 or 13...b6. But <13...e5> plays against White's Bg2 and Nb3, and Boris said the resulting position is much, much easier to play with Black. Certainly the course of the game bears that out. Gelfand also notes that you have to overrule the engine in this line, since it wants to play 14...dxc5 and then take on f4, playing into White's hands. Notably, this is the line Radjabov was counting on too, as he admitted after the game. |
|
Mar-24-13
 | | perfidious: If White cannot open the position in this middlegame-no pawn breaks, same as the Huebner variation in the Nimzo-Indian-then he will stand worse as the long-term positional factors favour Black. The game continuation was a nightmare, as White's pawn weaknesses became the dominant factor in the position after the inevitable exchange of both pairs of rooks. The insight of a top player makes all the difference, but even I would have a hard time believing that 14....dxc5 and ....exf4 could be right, as they give Radjabov potential dynamic chances. It looks better to play as Gelfand did, aiming for a prosaic exploitation of White's weakened queenside and challenging him to come up with an active plan, something he did not manage as the game went. Let Gelfand's concrete reasoning at home be a lesson to those who would blindly <follow the engine>. Chess-playing computers are not spelt G.O.D. As <Eyal> has rightly noted elsewhere, they are useful tools. They should not, however, be used as substitutes for thought. |
|
Mar-24-13
 | | HeMateMe: I like the 13...e5 line, as it blocked in white's LSB for much of the game. As a result, Gelfie feasted on the queenside, with his active pieces. |
|
Mar-24-13
 | | chancho: After 33... bxa5, Boris is threatening Qb6+ on his next move. Interposing with the White Queen, loses to a knight check on h3. If the White King moved to h1 instead, there is a loss of the Queen by Bb7 pin. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Marmot PFL: 13...e5 was played by Korchnoi quite a while ago I Morovic vs Korchnoi, 1988 |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Shams: <Marmot PFL> Interesting. I wonder if Gelfand was not familiar with that game. |
|
Mar-24-13
 | | harrylime: Yes I like 13.. e5 too . White has no knight which can hit d5 and it does indeed kill off the Bishop on g2. 14.. b6 I would say is pretty natural to any player in their class.But it's instructive all the same. Radja's problem was his knight on b3 which he could'nt get in the game. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | birthtimes: Poor opening choice by Radja. Don't they discover these things in their home preparation??? |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | whiteshark: Is this kind of a a break-down? |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Judah: <<birthtimes>: Don't they discover these things in their home preparation???> Keep in mind that they don't prep for just a single position. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Hesam7: I do not understand 17 f5?, why close the game when you have the Bishop pair? I think the simple 17 Rfd1 or 17 Nd2 (with the idea of Nf3 or Nc4) would have easily kept the balance. |
|
Mar-24-13
 | | penarol: Thank you <harrylime>. If 33 h4, then I think 33...Qb6+.34 Kh2 Bb7 35 Qe2, Nf3+ winning...or something better? |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Ulhumbrus: Although 13...e5 was an innovation it does not by itself explain Black's win. Instead of 15 cxd6, 15 cxb6 axb6 leaves Black with two weak pawns whereas 15 cxd6? removes one of Black's weaknesses. This suggests poor playing form on Radjabov's part. Perhaps Radjabov was feeling upset by his failure to win from Carlsen in the poreceding round. An alternative to 17 f5 is 17 c4 trying to remove this weak pawn by c5. What about Gelfand's playing form?
The Houdini evaluations on the official website suggest that Gelfand simply outplayed Radjabov move by move. Some one suggested that this was the Gelfand of the Moscow 2012 match. In this playing form Gelfand might have won this round against any of the players in London. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | xanadu: Hessam7: perhaps Radjabov was affraid of some kind of K-side attack, based on Kg4-Qh6, adding that the e-4 pawn is weak and can be attacked if the e-file is open by exf4 at any moment. Radjabov was driven to play a Sicilian, always unstable. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Eyal: <I do not understand 17 f5?, why close the game when you have the Bishop pair?> From what Radjabov said at the press conference (when talking about possible alternatives to how he played) I got the impression that this was part of an initial ambitious plan to attack on the K-side (combined with the advance of the g-pawn), in which he rather quickly lost faith. |
|
| Mar-24-13 | | Hesam7: <Eyal: <I do not understand 17 f5?, why close the game when you have the Bishop pair?> From what Radjabov said at the press conference (when talking about possible alternatives to how he played) I got the impression that this was part of an initial ambitious plan to attack on the K-side (combined with the advance of the g-pawn), in which he rather quickly lost faith.> So he did not calculate anything concrete? 18 g4? Qd3! 19 Qf3 Ng4 and 19 g4 Ba6! 20 Qf3 Rd1 21 Rd1 Qa2 are bad. That only leaves 20 g4 
click for larger viewbut after 20...Ba6 both 21 Qf3?! Nc6 22 g5 Ne8 23 g6 (23 Qg3 g6!) 23...hg6 24 fg6 fg6 25 Qg4 Bc4! and 21 c4!? Rc8 22 g5 Ne8 (22...Bc4? 23 Qd1 Ne8 24 Qd7=) 23 Qd3 Qe7 (23...Bc4? 24 Qd7=) 24 Rc1 Nd6 25 Nd2 N8b7 lead to nowhere for White. |
|
Mar-25-13
 | | Check It Out: In a club game I'm not so sure I'd resign as white in the final position, though I think I'd be aware of impending doom. |
|
| Mar-25-13 | | IndigoViolet: Boris modestly claimed that this was the first game of the tournament that would make it into the books and magazines as a classic/model game. |
|
| Mar-25-13 | | DrGridlock: <The Houdini evaluations on the official website suggest that Gelfand simply outplayed Radjabov move by move.> A direct challenge to Perfidious to support his contention that this game is a counter-example to engine analysis! (I'm not sure he can). |
|
Kibitzing
