Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Hikaru Nakamura vs Michael Adams
FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2004), Tripoli LIB, rd 4, Jun-26
Queen's Indian Defense: Petrosian Variation (E12)  ·  0-1



explore this opening
find similar games 17 more Nakamura/Adams games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: To see the raw PGN for this game, click on the PGN: view link above.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-26-04  Creator of Time: so, whats the next game?
Jun-26-04  Dick Brain: <> The game you mention though had all pawns on the same side of the board and on the same side as the defending king. A big diference.
Jun-26-04  MalibogKantutero: 26.d5 led to white's defeat.
Jun-26-04  Tigran Petrosian: Yeah, what's with 26.d5?
Jun-26-04  PinkPanther: From what I read, he was trying to sacrifice the pawn for simplifications.
Jun-27-04  Maroczy: Although I'm not a GM, I thought 7.b3 was suspect; Qc2 maybe? What will Nakamura play against 1.d4? Dutch? How about a Latvian gambit after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5? At 16 with his energy level on max, Hikaru will not go down easy.
Jun-27-04  acirce: According to 33..Qc6?? was really played.
Jun-27-04  acirce: A Romanian IM tells us on ICC that he was on the phone with Nisipeanu who had witnessed ..Qc6 so I would say it is settled.
Jun-27-04  csmath: This is not an impressive QID, it is just a selfdestructing game by Nakamura. He played opening he has no patience to play, wise choice by Adams. Adams could have played better too but this was good enough to punish the youth.
Jun-28-04  PinkPanther: <acirce>
Once again, I'm not sure I'd append Adams' Qc6 with a ??. It was not a game losing move, even if Nakamura took advantage of it. I think one ? would be sufficient.
Jun-28-04  acirce: I don't think ?? means "losing". It means "very bad" or "blunder". But of course, it's still not clear where to draw the line between ? and ??
Jun-28-04  PinkPanther: The move Nigel Short played against Krasenkow is a ?? (if I could give it another ?, I probably would) but nevertheless, that move was a ??. The move by Adams doesn't even come close to the one by Short.
Jun-28-04  acirce: <The move by Adams doesn't even come close to the one by Short.> That's why it's not a potential ???

But having a won position and allowing your opponent to reach a simple draw in a simple way is a ?? in my opinion, this is a very subjective area though, so if you differ I'm not going to argue.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: It's hard to make a worse move than tossing away a half-point. Tim Krabbe has a page of GM games where a whole point was tossed away, but they are very rare. (Although Nigel claims that his Re6?? qualifies, I'm not sure I believe him.)

I would award both Ne6 from Nigel's game, and Qc6 from this game, with a double question mark "??" since the refutation of these moves would both be spotted by your average 1400 or 1500 rated player.

There are some that claim that the chess play of today is vastly superior to the days of Steinitz, Lasker, and Capablanca. Yeah, right. Show me the game where Capablanca makes a blunder of this order and I'd believe it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: I should clarify: Krabbe's page deals with players who *resign* in won positions, not just really bad moves which turn a win into a loss. Here's the page I'm talking about
Jun-28-04  acirce: Give me a break, of course Capablanca made blunders like this. Then again, you were also the one who claimed that he never played early draws..
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: I'm from Missouri. SHOW ME.
Jun-28-04  acirce: I'm not going to do much job on this subject because time is too valuable for me, but here's something for starters.

Samisch vs Capablanca, 1929 - blundering a piece in the opening

Capablanca vs Fine, 1938 - 39.hxg5 is, I'd say, in the same league as Adams' 33..Qc6 since 39.h5 is a simple win; ..Rh1 Kg2 and the pawn just walks down.

Capablanca vs A Ribera Arnal, 1935 turning a draw into a loss with move 20, although this was a simul.

Jun-28-04  acirce: <39.hxg5 is, I'd say, in the same league as Adams' 33..Qc6 since 39.h5 is a simple win> I mean 40.Rxg5 / 40.h5
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Acirce, reasonably well done and I won't take up any more of your precious time on this subject.

The first example with Teichmann is horrible chess. I remember seeing that game now. I'm not going to debate if it's a "?" or "??" move but suffice to say that J.R. should have promptly put on a dunce cap and sat in the corner for the rest of the tournament.

The second example is tricker, the idea of not recapturing the pawn at all is somewhat hard to see (of course once you see it all becomes obvious, but I can understand not seeing it). And yes it's amazing that Capa didn't see it. I'd give it one question mark.

The third example is strange not only because it's a simul but because Capablanca's "blunder" allows him to win the game in a few moves. It's only normal that the best opponents bring out the best play, and weak opponents bring out sloppy play.

Jun-28-04  acirce: Capa's opponent counter-blundering doesn't mean Capa didn't blunder though, but maybe it doesn't really count as being a simul.

On the second example I don't see much that differs from Adams' move. If Capablanca had problems seeing such easy wins, then I bet there are lots of similar blunders.

The first example is crystal-clear. It is a blunder in the same class as Christiansen vs Karpov, 1993

Anyway, this was what I found in a few minutes. I'm absolutely positive that there are other striking examples.

Jun-28-04  Everett: Three question marks is not appropriate chess notation. Two is an outright blunder that turns a game into a loss. One indicates something less severe... a loss of a half-point, loss of the initiative, etc...
Jun-28-04  acirce: Less severe?! A loss of a half-point is a VERY severe error, especially when it is as simple as in this game or in Capa's above. How can you put that in the same meaning as "loss of the initiative"?
Jul-10-04  Everett: acirce, you are right. Loss of a half-point is very severe, but I guess what I was thnking there was, for example, an endgame scenario that's murky, maze-like and such where one side has a convoluted by clear advantage and should win. A couple of single "?" moves in a row can turn a potential win into a definate draw.

Of course it's all a matter of discretion, but "??" should be left for turning a potential win into a loss, or making a move that is blatantly inferior to an obvious better one.

To sum up, I think "?" has the most scope for interpretation, and many moves can fall into this category, ofttimes in the postmortem. "??" is a game blower, not neccessarily slipping from an advantage to win to a draw, but slipping from a CLEAR win to a draw or loss.

Just my thoughts. Of course I think losing the initiative is not as severe as losing a half point, but I believe it's hard to separate in terms of notation.

Nov-15-11  Nemesistic: Adams only had 30secs on his Clock when he played 33..Qc6! Nakamura should have taken the Draw
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 21)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
GAM's favorite games
by GAM
+1 -0 =1 vs. Nakamura (FIDE KO, Rd.4)
from Match Adams! by amadeus
+0 -1 =1 vs. Adams (FIDE KO, Tripoli, Rd.4)
from Match Nakamura! by amadeus
FIDE World Championship 2004
by Penguincw
E12 QID: Kasparov [Black]
by chess.master
B2a: Petrosian Variation
from Queen's Indian-Kasparov/Petrosian Var.-Black win by imsighked2
+1 -0 =1 vs. Nakamura (FIDE KO, Rd.4)
from Match Adams! by docjan
+0 -1 =1 vs. Adams (FIDE KO, Tripoli, Rd.4)
from Match Nakamura! by docjan

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC