|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-21-07 | | Karpova: 19.Qg4 f5! 20.Bxf5 Nxf5 21.Nxf8 Qg5! 22.Qxg5 hxg5 23.Nd7 Nxd4 looks still quite ugly though. But not far as bad as the actual move. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | InspiredByMorphy: <An Englishman> <Rb1 looks like a touch-move error. Scary. > Scary is right. I did a doubletake when I saw this move. I would think though that if he touched the piece and had to put it somewhere that 16.Re1 would be a more natural move. |
|
Jul-21-07
 | | al wazir: 19. Bxh6 would have been better, but still loses. The continuation might have been 19...gxh6 20. Qxh6 Bxg6 21. Bxg6 Nxg6 22. Qxg6+ Ng7 23. Re1 Qe7 (to prevent 24. Re6) 24. a4 Bf8 (or Bb4) 25. a5 Qf7. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | notyetagm: 19 g2-g4?? must be the blunder of the year so far at the elite level. After 19 ... ♘d6-e4!, <BLOCKING> the line of life-giving force from the White d3-bishop to the <LOOSE> White g6-knight (<INTERFENCE/LINE-CLOSING>), White can no longer meet the threat to this knight. Just like Dr. Nunn always says, <LPDO> = <LOOSE PIECES DROP OFF>. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | notyetagm: I just love the expression for <INTERFERENCE/LINE-CLOSING> that Chernev/Reinfeld use to describe this tactic: 19 ... ♘d6-e4! <CUTS OFF THE LINE OF LIFE-GIVING FORCE> from the White d3-bishop to the <LOOSE> White g6-knight. Without this <"life-giving force"> provided by the White d3-bishop, the <LOOSE> White g6-knight perishes so saying that the open line from the White d3-bishop to g6 provides <"life-giving force"> is quite accurate. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | Ziggurat: <notyetagm> This is just a minor quibble, but I feel it doesn't make sense to describe this tactic in terms of "Loose Pieces Drop Off". I've always thought the LPDO expression refers to unguarded pieces; but here, before the winning move, the g6 knight is guarded by not just one but two pieces. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | notyetagm: <Ziggurat: <notyetagm> This is just a minor quibble, but I feel it doesn't make sense to describe this tactic in terms of "Loose Pieces Drop Off". I've always thought the LPDO expression refers to unguarded pieces; but here, before the winning move, the g6 knight is guarded by not just one but two pieces.> No, you miss a =critically= important point.
A piece is <LOOSE> if it has an equal number of attackers and defenders. Here the White g6-knight is <LOOSE> because it is attacked twice (Black f7-bishop, f8-knight) and defended twice (White h5-queen, d3-bishop). And you see here exactly why <LOOSE PIECES DROP OFF>. If Black can add an attacker against the White g6-knight with a gain of time (<FORK>, <DISCOVERY>) or get rid of one of the White defenders (<OVERWORKED>, <REMOVE THE GUARD>, <INTERFERENCE/LINE-CLOSING>), then the White g6-knight ceases to be merely <LOOSE> and becomes <EN PRISE>. You see, if the White g6-knight had 4 defenders while being only attacked twice, then the closing of the line d3-g6 by 19 ... ♘d6-e4! would not be fatal for White: the g6-knight would still be defended 3 times. But if the White g6-knight had 4 defenders versus only 2 attackers, it would not be <LOOSE> in the first place. <When there is an equal number of attackers and defenders (LOOSENESS), you are playing with fire!> <UNDEFENDED> is just a special case of <LOOSE> in which the number of attackers equals the number of defenders equals <ZERO (0)>. That is, <Na = Nd = 0 = LOOSE = UNDEFENDED>. By understanding this important point, you have probably just added at least 200 points to your rating. You need to be constantly worried about the piece safety of <LOOSE> pieces, especially <UNDEFENDED> pieces and <PIECES DEFENDED ONLY BY OTHER PIECES>, such as the White g6-knight here. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | pacelli: As usual, Short gets easily and effortlessly crushed by real competition. He always performs well in open tournaments where the level of players are way below world class standards. Sort of like a 1700+ rated yahoo chess games player who can beat 1600 and below player but crumbles when facing any 1700 or higher rated players. Pathetic. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | Atking: Come on! Nigel Short has won match against Karpov when this latter was still at his top. He is imaginative and can still play very hight level chess. Ok, here he plays a bad game. This could happen to every one. To speak only about the game. 16.Rb1 (vs a potential Qb6) looks strange to me. Maybe 16.Ne2 is in order. The gambit 16.Re1 Qb6 17.Re3 (Bxh6) must be checked too. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | weisyschwarz: I guess they meant Petroff Defense, Exchange. |
|
| Jul-21-07 | | notyetagm: <Atking: ... Ok, here he plays a bad game.> Yes, an incredibly poor game for a near 2700-rated player, dropping a whole piece(!) before move 20, and with the White pieces to boot. Nigel seemed to forget about Dr. Nunn's <LPDO - LOOSE PIECES DROP OFF>. |
|
| Jul-22-07 | | savagerules: You sure this was really Nigel Short (2683) or some 1600 rated player impersonating him? |
|
| Jul-22-07 | | Paul123: I guess even super GM's have bad days now and then. It's not like the guy doesn't know the French and got out maneuvered in a sub variation or something like that. Probably a combination of his form being off and having a bad day…..@#$% happens to us all I guess |
|
| Jul-23-07 | | whatthefat: <notyetagm: <Ziggurat: <notyetagm> This is just a minor quibble, but I feel it doesn't make sense to describe this tactic in terms of "Loose Pieces Drop Off". I've always thought the LPDO expression refers to unguarded pieces; but here, before the winning move, the g6 knight is guarded by not just one but two pieces.> No, you miss a =critically= important point.
A piece is <LOOSE> if it has an equal number of attackers and defenders. Here the White g6-knight is <LOOSE> because it is attacked twice (Black f7-bishop, f8-knight) and defended twice (White h5-queen, d3-bishop).> Meh, they're all just words in the end. |
|
| Jul-23-07 | | notyetagm: In the following 2004 ICC 3 1 game Nigel wins a blitz game over Harikrishna using <INTERFERENCE/LINE-CLOSING> 51 ♘f6-h5! but in this classical game he loses to the same tactical idea with 19 ... ♘d6-e4!. Ironic, isn't it? This nlitz game is =the= game that taught me the concept of <INTERFERENCE/LINE-CLOSING>. In the blitz game, Short used it to beat Harikrishna. Then in Round 2 of this tourney, Harikrishna used it to beat Short. Position after 51 ♘f6-h5! 
click for larger view[Event "ICC 3 1"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2004.08.09"]
[Round "-"]
[White "NDShort"]
[Black "tomcruise"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[WhiteElo "3209"]
[BlackElo "3103"]
[Opening "King's pawn opening"]
[ECO "B07"]
[NIC "VO.17"]
[Time "10:11:58"]
[TimeControl "180+1"]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. h4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. f3 b5 6. g4 b4 7. Nce2 d5 8. e5
Nfd7 9. h5 Bg7 10. Nf4 e6 11. Nd3 c5 12. h6 Bf8 13. dxc5 Nxc5 14. Be3 Nbd7
15. Nxc5 Nxc5 16. Qd2 Qc7 17. Bb5+ Bd7 18. Bxd7+ Nxd7 19. f4 Bc5 20. O-O-O
Rc8 21. Rh2 O-O 22. Nf3 Bxe3 23. Qxe3 Nc5 24. Ng5 a5 25. Kb1 a4 26. Rc1 d4
27. Qxd4 Rfd8 28. Qe3 b3 29. cxb3 axb3 30. a3 Rd3 31. Qe2 Rd4 32. Rf2 Qd8
33. Qe3 Rd1 34. Rf1 Rd3 35. Qg1 Rd2 36. Rfd1 Qd3+ 37. Ka1 Rc2 38. Rxd3 Nxd3
39. Rd1 Nxb2 40. Kb1 Nc4 41. Qc5 Rb2+ 42. Ka1 Ra2+ 43. Kb1 Nxa3+ 44. Qxa3
Rxa3 45. Ne4 Ra2 46. Nf6+ Kf8 47. Nxh7+ Ke7 48. Nf6 Rd8 49. Rxd8 Kxd8 50. h7
Rh2 51. Nh5 gxh5 52. h8=Q+ Kc7 53. gxh5 Kc6 54. Qf6 1-0 |
|
| Jul-23-07 | | Youjoin: This was so short |
|
| Jul-24-07 | | Chessmensch: This is what Malcolm Pein had to say about this debacle in his telegraph chess column on July 25:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/mai... It got from bad to worse for Nigel Short at the 8th Montreal International. Short has a bad toothache and conceivably a sore head after a drubbing from Sergei Tiviakov left him on 0/3. Short suffered the indignity of losing in the Worral Attack in the Ruy Lopez, a line he had reintroduced at the top level on the way to his title match against Garry Kasparov in 1993. Here is his round two debacle. |
|
| Jul-28-07 | | ounos: <notyetagm> >>>By understanding this important point, you have probably just added at least 200 points to your rating.<<<
I think you refer to the 200 points that take you from 1200 to 1400, right? :-) (And certainly not from 1900 to 2100, for instance). |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | BlackNightmare: <notyetagm: <Ziggurat: bla bla ...
... bla
bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla bla
...
bla bla
By understanding this important point, you have probably just added at least 200 points to your rating. ....bla bla ....end of blah]> ..... bla blah......waow u are smart!
ps:blah blah |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | notyetagm: <BlackNightmare> @#$% off |
|
| Jul-30-07 | | likestofork: <savagerules: You sure this was really Nigel Short (2683) or some 1600 rated player impersonating him?> Actually, it was the ghost of Tony Miles possessing Nigel at an opportune moment. |
|
| Jul-30-07 | | syracrophy: <notyetagm: <BlackNightmare> @#$% off> C'mon man! You're doing a great job, so ignore any adverse comments. Don't waste your time trying to defend yourself from the adversity. You know that the "Winners are willing to do, what losers won't" |
|
| Jul-30-07 | | Eyal: <Frederic Friedel: What exactly happened? Short: Well, I need some root canal treatment, and in fact I knew that before I came to Canada. I went to see the dentist the day before I left, but the treatment requires about four visits. She gave me some medication and when I went to Ottawa the toothache had magically disappeared. I thought optimistically that maybe things were fine. But I started to get discomfort just before coming to Montreal. By the second day it was really excruciating. That was when I lost like a complete idiot to Harikrishna. Then we had a free day and I went for treatment. They have very good dentists and very good equipment here. I was quite amazed at the computer graphics of my teeth.> (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...) |
|
| Jul-30-07 | | notyetagm: <syracrophy: ... Don't waste your time trying to defend yourself from the adversity.> Not really wasting my time since it took me only two seconds to respond to that idiot. |
|
| Sep-16-09 | | jmboutiere: Please remember
Nigel Short vs Garry Kasparov
King's Gambit: Accepted. Bishop's Gambit Bryan Countergambit (C33) · 1-0 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 