| Mar-19-07 | | diabloprancer: Aronian is the man! |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | nikolajewitsch: What a weird game! Soem further analysis will be necessary to find out where Gelfand actually went wrong; or should Aronian's piece sac have been correct in the first place? Anyway, considering that Aronian was in big time trouble after move 20 already, it was a great success for him. |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | notyetagm: <diabloprancer: Aronian is the man!> Yes he is. His tactical skill is second to none. I wish some wealthy patron would sponsor a Mamedyarov-Aronian match. The tactics would fly! |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | notyetagm: Position after 34 ... ♗c8:
click for larger viewThe Black c8-bishop has one attacker (White a8-rook) versus one defender (Black d8-king), so it is <LOOSE> and defended -only- by other pieces, a precarious tactical situation. To me this means that the Black c8-bishop is almost equivalent to an <UNDEFENDED> piece. Add the fact that the <LOOSE> Black c8-bishop is lined up with the White c3-bishop and you have the makings of a <DISCOVERED ATTACK>, with the <LOOSE> Black c8-bishop playing the role of the <VICTIM> and the White c3-bishop playing the role of the <DISCOVERER>. |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | argishti: ARONIAN IS THE MAN!! yes indeed! he must have been realy pissed losing the blindfold game to such an easy tactics, so he had to come back to normal chess and show Gelfand who is the boss! And yes, it seems like a realy weird game, i cant make sense out of this. ill probably run it of the computer to see some analysis. LEVON!! u r my hero buddy! |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | notyetagm: Position after 35 ♖c1:
click for larger viewSimply amazing. Black has no defense to the <DISCOVERED ATTACK> threat because the Black c8-bishop is <WHOLLY PINNED> and the <EXPOSED> Black d6-rook is lined up diagonally with the <UNDEFENDED> Black f8-bishop. Unbelievable. White's <PIECE COORDINATION> is so great that Black cannot avoid losing material even though he has a spare tempo to meet White's threats! |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | notyetagm: Powerful tactical play by Aronian to end this game.
|
|
| Mar-19-07 | | DUS: Rapid is rapid. You have to be fast. The result of the game shows that in this rapid game Aronian's piece sac was correct. |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | nikolajewitsch: <DUS> No, that is not the definition of a correct sac (or any other move). An incorrect move can be successfull if the opponent fails to find the best continuation. If analysis shows that Gelfand could have played a better continuation and reached a winning position, than the sac was by definition incorrect. That would not take anything away from Aronian; it would simply mean that he mastered the very complex position after the sac better than his opponent. |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | DUS: <nikolajewitsch> Then what is the point of a rapid game? Simply there is no enough time to find the best continuation... And the players are humans, often only computers are able to find the best continuations. |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | dehanne: From the official site :
<Aronian hit back in the rapid game, but he wasn’t too proud about his achievement. Objectively he was worse and he only won because Gelfand lost the thread. Aronian knew before the game that he wasn’t fully informed about the line they played, but he wanted to try it anyway, as he was looking for a sharp fight. And a sharp fight it certainly was, which might be a good reason to forgive Gelfand the mistakes that he made. Probably 24…0-0-0 was stronger than 24…Kd8, and his 25th move was certainly a blunder. After 25…Bf4 there would still be all to play for. After the move in the game, 25…Bd7?, the game was essentially over. > |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | Shajmaty: <DUS: <nikolajewitsch> Then what is the point of a rapid game? Simply there is no enough time to find the best continuation... And the players are humans, often only computers are able to find the best continuations.> 19. Nd5! is simply the best move in that position. There is always some compensation for the Knight. A possible improvement for Black is 22...Rg5; 23. Bd4, Rxf5; 24. Bxc5, 0-0-0. Black is lost after 25...Bd7?? (instead of 25...Bf4!). Nice play by Levon, but do not forget Bc7! by Gelfand... blinfolded! |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | Shajmaty: Thanks, <dehanne>. Obviously, I was writing my comment while yours ("official") arrived. I agree with White being worse before 19. Nd5! and with Black's 25th being the loser. However, I don't find 24...0-0-0 much better than 24...Kd8, but 22...Rg5! as an improvement over 22...Bc8. |
|
| Mar-19-07 | | DUS: <dehanne>, <Shajmaty> thanks. <... Aronian knew before the game that he wasn’t fully informed about the line they played, but he wanted to try it anyway,...> If Aronian wanted to try, personally I would suspect he wasn't fully informed. If you remember, in one news report of 2007 Corus tournament was written that "it is not clear whether we should trust when Aronian says something like: "he was not fully informed, or hasn't looked that position, or doesn't know something...". <Aronian hit back in the rapid game, but he wasn’t too proud about his achievement.> As far as I know the "cheap tactician" (I would say, the deep tactician :) has never been too proud with any of his even big achievements. I don't have any intention to see an extraordinary play by GM Aronian in this game other than that he could manage to win the rapid game against such player as GM Gelfand. |
|
| Mar-20-07 | | themanfrommanila: I noticed that top GMs nowadays have elo of 2700 plus. Are these not inflated? |
|
| Mar-20-07 | | themanfrommanila: I mean, are they stronger than Karpov, Tal, and Spassky since these WCs never attained ratings over 2750 (I'm not sure if Karpov breach this mark). |
|
| Mar-20-07 | | argishti: you brought up an interesting point "themanfrommanila". The fact that WC like Spassky or petrosian or botvinik had lower ratings (although i dont think botvinik even had a rating) but it does not show that they are weaker. A match against a WC is probably way harder than having it with a 2700+ player. it takes alot to become a WC... |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 19.Nd5