|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-25-15 | | SirRuthless: This is obviously a case of computer prep gone awry. These lines in the KID are extremely sharp and if you fall off the tightrope you are toast. Aronian went for the early g pawn shove instead of the normal recapture, probably due to a miscalculation, and Ding collected the full point. |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | fisayo123: <SirRuthless> <instead of the normal recapture> Which normal recapture is that? From my knowledge, this position after 12.Bb5 is a novelty and the pawn recapture prior to that on move 11 has only been played in one game prior, so it's not a normal move. |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | breaker90: <fisayo123> I believe he's talking about how Aronian should've played 16. gxf5 instead of 16. g5. |
|
Jan-25-15
 | | tamar: I wonder if we are witnessing in the play of Aronian a danger of computer overload. Anish Giri commented players are following the computers lead in allowing Black f5. "The old move was 8 Nh2. The whole point was to stop ...f5, that is the whole theory. Now it (allowing f5 and pushing pawns) is very fashionable, because the computer likes it, but there is always a danger..." If you examine why for instance why Houdini likes White after 12...Qe7 it is very hidden, and if you don't set up the tactics right, Black is suddenly better. 13 Bc4 Na6 14 c6 bxc6 15 Qa4 Nc5 16 Qxc6 Bb7 
click for larger view 17 Qxc5! with a slight edge for White. |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | Gilmoy: <26.Bb2> offers the g-pawn to create a formidable crossfire into the hidden-pin. 26.h4 would be too meek. <26..Qxg5> blandly accepts: <there is no spoon, nor danger>. Of course h3 hangs, but no way will Black just grub two pawns and win -- um ... |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | SirRuthless: <fisayo> 16.gxf5 is correct to my eye and according to the engines as well. 16.g5 is refuted by ...Ne8 only which led me to believe Aronian missed that 18. Nc7 would be impossible after the game continuation. Perhaps he was expecting 16...c6 and after 17. gxf6 Bxf6 18.Be2 Nxe6 where black gets three pawns and a half open king for the piece but he simply did not evaluate the resulting position after 16...Ne8 correctly and paid the price. |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | fisayo123: <SirRuthless> Okay, I understand what you meant better now. |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | Ulhumbrus: 6 h3 moves a pawn in the opening. At the very least it loses a tempo for development. 8 g3 exposes the king side further and practically invites the attack 8...f5 Is 9...gxf5 necessary? One alternative is the pawn sacrifice 9...e4. White's king has not castled, after all. 11 c5 looks like a nonsense attack. Can White neglect his development and just attack everything like this? However Black also has still to complete his development. Instead of 11...Nf6, 11..Na6 gets another piece out.
Instead of 12...Qe7, 12...Bd7 encourages White to lose more time by 13 Bxd7 Is 16...Ne8 necessary? 16...Ne4 attacks the Nc3 and g5 pawn One can only guess the reason for Aronian's play. Perhaps he decided to take a risk in an attempt to improve his score. |
|
| Jan-25-15 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<Ulhumbrus>
(for what it's worth...) the 6. h3 e5 7. d5 Nh5 8. g3 (also 8.Nh2) variation of the Makagonov System of the King's Indian is cutting edge opening theory. Whether it's all that good is another question! e.g. GM Ernesto Inarkiev wrote a survey on it in New in Chess Yearbook 99 in 2011. Basically, white is anticipating black's standard k-side pawn push in the KID (...f7-f5) and hoping to take advantage of it. |
|
| Jan-26-15 | | fisayo123: <Simon> He <Ulhumbrus> does this all the time and get's corrected all the time. Difficult to know if he's being serious or just seeking attention. |
|
| Jan-26-15 | | fisayo123: 16.gxf5 is problematic because after the obvious 16..c6, white basically concedes the center for a pawn on f5 (which will be captured eventually). The engines here suggest a typical computer move that is almost impossible for a human to find, 17.Rg1. The idea is simply to gain a tempo with 17..Kh8 the impending 18.Bh6, but it seems to be driving the king to were it wants to go. Withdrawing the Bishop isn't great either. No wonder Levon played g5. He was already in trouble before that. |
|
| Jan-26-15 | | CarlosO: Could someone tell me please if 55. Bxf5 instead 55. Qc2 |
|
Jan-26-15
 | | OhioChessFan: At first glance 55. Bxe5 Qa1+ |
|
| Jan-27-15 | | CarlosO: Right. 55. Bxe5 Qa1+ not 55. ...dxe inmediatelly black loses because 56. Rd7+ and 57. Qf7 ++ in just two moves |
|
| Sep-23-17 | | PhilFeeley: Ding sure is a patient chap. Look out, Aronian, at the World Cup. |
|
Oct-10-22
 | | al wazir: 56. Bf2 Qxd2 57. Qxd2 Rh2. |
|
Oct-10-22
 | | HeMateMe: I don't understand the pun. |
|
Oct-10-22
 | | Korora: <I don't understand the pun.> Look at the opening used. |
|
Oct-10-22
| | HeMateMe: Yes, its a KID. But, the wording is not a pun. "a joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words which sound alike but have different meanings:" |
|
| Oct-10-22 | | SkySports: The controverises about when a pun is acceptable were born together with the 'game of the day'. I guess it's impossible to find a beautiful game with a funny and super-fitting pun every day. Today's one is acceptable, IMHO. |
|
| Oct-10-22 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: Any wordplay is regarded as a "pun" for the purposes of naming GotDs. |
|
| Oct-10-22 | | goodevans: 16.g5? instead of 16.gxf5. 20.f3? instead of 20.Nxc7. Levon's lemons. Sometimes it's best to just play the obvious move. |
|
Oct-10-22
 | | FSR: Stockfish's opening analysis is a joke. It gives 4...d6 in the King's Indian a question mark. Really? Stockfish helpfully informs us that the correct move was 4...O-O, and only then 5...d6. Another of Stockfish's nuggets of opening wisdom, seen in B Jacobson vs Niemann, 2019, is that after 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4? is a weak move that gives Black the advantage. |
|
Oct-10-22
| | Korora: <But the wording is not a pun.>
Yeah, a rather... erronian... choice of title. |
|
| Oct-10-22 | | goodevans: <FSR: Stockfish's opening analysis is a joke...> Well, it is only Stockfish 11. Quite frankly, whilst CG.com is great for many things it's not where I'd recommend for opening analysis. Even its opening explorer is tainted with too many low quality games. In today's GOTD 17 of SF's 25 annotations are on the first 12 moves and at least half of them whilst we were still 'in the book'. I really wish someone would edit these SF annotations, particularly when they're offered up as part of the GOTD. I'd start by getting rid of anything from the opening moves unless it's a clear blunder. Not difficult. If we could also get rid of those occasions when the annotations contradict each other from one move to the next (also not that difficult) then we'd be left with something that was actually useful. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
