|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-02-08 | | Wild Bill: Good job, kid.
|
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Eyal: <Gouki: 47.b4! should be winning now i think...> No, actually Black is better after 47...Ng4! 47.Rxa7 is the only way to win. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | apexin: good game by Nepomniatchi |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | ajile: um was it really necessary for Loek Van Wely to sac the exchange? :/ |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | malthrope: WoW! Nepo takes a slice out of 1st place! (with Leko and Gustafsson). Nice game! :^) |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Eyal: Van Wely has played this line several times lately (J Smeets vs Van Wely, 2007, Ponomariov vs Van Wely, 2007, Nisipeanu vs Van Wely, 2008 - in this game 14.Qe1 b4 15.Nd5 was played), so apparently Nepo was well prepared. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Eyal: <ajile: um was it really necessary for Loek Van Wely to sac the exchange?> Yeah, I was wondering about that myself - was it necessary to give up the exchange with 18...0-0? |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | percyblakeney: Nepomniachtchi blitzed out his first 18 moves and indeed seemed very well prepared in this line. van Wely dismissed for example 18. ... Rc8, maybe thinking that Rd1-d5-a5 would give him an uncomfortable position, but it was maybe to prefer even if it's hard to know what Nepo had planned in that case. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | whiteshark: Nepo is back yet. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | zanshin: <Eyal: <ajile: um was it really necessary for Loek Van Wely to sac the exchange?> Yeah, I was wondering about that myself - was it necessary to give up the exchange with 18...0-0?> Apparently, no.
Ian Nepomniachtchi - Loek Van Wely, Sparkassen Chess Meeting 2008
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.3 mp 32-bit (21-ply):
1. = (0.06): 18...Ra7 19.Nd2 0-0 20.Ne4 Rc7 21.Nxd6 Nb6 22.Rhe1 Qa5 23.Rd3 Bxd6 24.Rxd6 Nc4 25.Rd3 2.  (0.26): 18...Rb8 19.Rhe1 0-0 20.Nd4 exd4 21.Qxe7 Nf6 22.Qxd6 Rfd8 23.Qf4 Rbc8 24.b3 Qb5 25.Rd3 3. (0.30): 18...Rc8 19.Rd5 Nf6 20.Ra5 Qd7 21.g4 0-0 22.Rxa6 h6 23.h4 h5 24.g5 Ng4 25.Rf1 4. (0.37): 18...Rd8 19.Rd5 Nb8 20.Rf1 0-0 21.Be4 Rfe8 22.f6 Bxf6 23.Qh5 Kf8 24.Qxh7 Ke7 25.g4 5. (0.69): 18...0-0 19.Nd4 Rad8 20.Nc6 Rde8 21.Rhe1 Nf6 22.b3 Qb5 23.Qxb5 axb5 24.Nxb4 Rc8 25.Kb2 6.  (2.21): 18...e4 19.Qxe4 Rd8 20.Rxd6 Kf8 21.Rd4 Nf6 22.Rxd8+ Bxd8 23.Qa8 Qd7 24.Bf3 7. (2.21): 18...0-0-0 19.Qc4+ Kb8 20.Qd5
8. (2.21): 18...Qb5 19.Qxb5
9. (2.21): 18...Nc5 19.Bxa8
10. (2.21): 18...h6 19.Bxa8
|
|
| Jul-02-08 | | daniellovesbeer: After about move 27, nepo may be better but if you get the pawn rolling blacks position is fine. I think dat if instead of 27...Nxh2
27...h5 is very strong |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | OneArmedScissor: Van Wely lost again... what a surprise. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | percyblakeney: <(0.69): 18...0-0 19.Nd4 Rad8 20.Nc6 Rde8 21.Rhe1 Nf6 22.b3 Qb5 23.Qxb5 axb5 24.Nxb4 Rc8 25.Kb2> So Rybka recommends not accepting the exchange sacrifice, but the line Nepo chose seems to be good enough. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | messachess: This seems to be quite a weak performance by Van Wely. |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Artar1: Black could have played the natural 18...Rc8 and held on for the draw. 18. Bg2 O-O
<A) 18...Rc8 19. Rd5 (White is threatening to disrupt Black's queenside play.) Nf6 20. Ra5 Qd7 21. g4 g6 22. fxg6 hxg6 23. h3 O-O 24. Rd1 Rfd8 25. Qxa6 Qc7 26. Qe2 Qc4 27. Qxc4 Rxc4 28. Ra7 Rd7 29. Rxd7 Nxd7 30. Rf1 e4!? 31. Nd2 Rd4 32. Nb3 Rc4 33. Nd2 Rd4 Draw B) 18...Rc8 19. Rd5 Nf6 20. Ra5 Qd7 21. g4 g6 22. fxg6 hxg6 23. h3 O-O 24. Rd1 Rfd8 <25. Rxe5> dxe5 26. Rxd7 Nxd7 27. Bb7 Rc7 28. Bxa6 e4 29. Qe3 Nf6 30. Be2 Rdc8 31. g5 Rxc2 32. h4 Bc5 33. Nxc5 Nd5 34. Qxe4 R2xc5 35. Qh1 Ne3 36. Bd3 Rd8 37. Qe4 Re5 38. Qxe5 Rxd3 39. Qe8+ Kg7 40. b3 Rd1+ 41. Kb2 Rd2+ 42. Kc1 Rd1+ Draw> 19. Bxa8 Rxa8 20. g4 Qc6 21. Na5 Qc7 22. Nc4 a5 23. Nxd6 Bxd6 24. Qd3 Nf6 25. Qxd6 Qxd6 26. Rxd6 Nxg4 27. Rg1 Nxh2 28. f6 g6 29. Rg2 Nf3 30. Re2 h5 31. Re3 e4 32. Rxe4 g5 33. Rd3 g4 34. Rd5 Ra6 35. Rf4 Re6 36. a4 Re1+ 37. Ka2 Rh1 38. Rxa5 Kh7 39. Rd5 Kg6 40. a5 Re1 41. a6 Re8 42. a7 Ra8 43.
Ra5 Nh2 44. Rxb4 g3 45. Rb8 Rxa7 46. Rg8+ Kxf6 47. Rxa7 Ng4 48. Ra3 1-0 |
|
| Jul-02-08 | | Abejorral: Van wely seems stupid, he should have resigned at least 6 moves ago. |
|
Jul-03-08
 | | Mateo: <Artar1: Black could have played the natural 18...Rc8 and held on for the draw.> Such a long variation is not forced. For instance, after 21...g6?, White can improve with 22.Rd1!. Suddenly White threatens to open new lines in the center. Anyway, White retains a small edge after 18...Rc8 19.Rd5 Nf6 20.Ra5 Qd7 21.g4 followed by Rxa6. White would have a better Bishop, control of d5 and prospects of a king side storm if Black castle. |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | dycotiles: <zanshin: <Eyal: <ajile: um was it really necessary for Loek Van Wely to sac the exchange?> Yeah, I was wondering about that myself - was it necessary to give up the exchange with 18...0-0?> You didn't post the critical line. What is your engine eval for 18. ... 0-0 19. Bxa1 ? |
|
| Jul-03-08 | | zanshin: <dycotiles> I assume you mean <19.Bxa8>. Here's analysis to the same ply-level so you compare changes in evaluations: Ian Nepomniachtchi - Loek Van Wely, Sparkassen Chess Meeting 2008
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.3 mp 32-bit (21-ply):
1. (0.63): 19...Rxa8 20.Rhe1 Rb8 21.Qc4 Nf6 22.Qc7 Qe8 23.h3 h6 24.g4 Bf8 25.Nd2 Nd5 26.Qc4 2. (2.81): 19...a5 20.Bb7 Qa3 21.bxa3
3. (2.81): 19...Bg5 20.Bb7 Be7 21.Qxa6
4. (2.81): 19...Qb5 20.Qxb5
5. (2.81): 19...Bf6 20.Bb7
6. (2.81): 19...h5 20.Bb7
7. (2.81): 19...g5 20.Bb7
8. (2.81): 19...f6 20.Bd5+
9. (2.81): 19...Nb8 20.Bb7 Nd7 21.Qxa6
10. (2.81): 19...Nc5 20.Nxc5
|
|
| Jul-04-08 | | lentil: everywhere i go, i see kibitzers trashing van wely... "he's such a loser", "why didn't he resign 6 moves earlier". well, this "loser" is rated >2600. he's floated to his level of equilibrium. if ANY of you kibitzers is rated within 300 elo points of him, you MAY have a right to criticize him. otherwise, cork it, ARMCHAIR grandmaster! |
|
| Jul-04-08 | | DCP23: An excellent illustration for this game:
http://russiachess.org/images/stori... |
|
| Jul-06-08 | | Artar1: <Mateo>:
I found improvements for Black, in both the <18…Rc8> line and for <18…Ra7>. The examples below, with each ply tested to a depth of 18 to 20 ply-deep over an eight-hour period, clearly show that Loek Van Wely had drawing chances and missed them by playing 18…0-0? 18...Rc8
<[18...Ra7 19.Rd5 Nf6 20.Ra5 Qd7 21.Rd1 Qc7 22.Rxa6 (22.g4 h6 =) 22...Rxa6 23.Qxa6 0–0 =]> 19.Rd5 Nb6 (Instead of 19...Nf6.) 20.Ra5 Qd7 21.Rxa6 Rb8 22.Qe3 <[22.Re1 0–0 23.Qe3 Qb5 24.Ra7 Bf6 25.Qd3 Qxd3 26.cxd3 Nc8 27.Rc7 Ne7 28.g4 g6 29.fxg6 hxg6 30.d4 Rfc8 31.Rd7 Rd8 32.dxe5 dxe5 33.Nc5 Kg7 34.Red1 Rxd7 35.Rxd7 Rc8 36.Nd3 Rc4 37.h3 Kf8 38.Rd8+ Kg7 39.b3 Rc3 40.Rd7 Kf8 41.Nxb4 Rg3 42.Bf1 e4 43.Rd1 Bc3 44.Nd5 Nxd5 45.Rxd5 Rf3 46.Bg2 Re3 47.Kc2 Bb4 48.Rd4 Re2+ 49.Kd1 Re1+ 50.Kc2 Re2+ Draw]> 22...0–0 23.Re1 Qb5 24.Ra7 Bf6 25.Qd3 Qxd3 26.cxd3 Nc8 27.Rc7 Ne7 28.g4 Rbc8 29.Rec1 Bg5 30.Rxc8 Rxc8 31.Rxc8+ Nxc8 32.Na5 Bf4 33.Kc2 Bxh2 34.Kb3 Ne7 35.Kxb4 h5 36.gxh5 Nxf5 37.a4 Kf8 38.Kb5 g6 39.hxg6 fxg6 40.b4 Ne3 41.Bh1 Nd1 42.Kc6 Nc3 43.b5 Bg1 44.Kxd6 Nxa4 45.Nc4 g5 46.Nxe5 Bh2 47.Bf3 Nb6 48.Bh5 Bf4 49.Ke6 Be3 50.Nf3 Na4 51.d4 Nc3 52.b6 Bxd4 53.b7 Ba7 54.Nxg5 Draw Other tries for an advantage by White fail, either petering out to equal chances or giving an advantage to Black. |
|
| Jul-06-08 | | Red October: <Artar1> looking at this briefly <18...Rc8 19.Rd5 Nb6 (nice find) 20.Ra5 Qd7 21.Rxa6 Rb8 22.Qe3 > now what happens if say 22.Na5 ?
for instance 22...0-0 loses to 23.Nc6
so 22...d5 to block the LSB on the long diagonal but then after 23.Qxe5 I see the compensation for the pawn as very minimal 
click for larger viewdid I miss something or did I set up the position wrong ? (1AM here) |
|
| Jul-07-08 | | Artar1: <Red October>
It may be a little riskier for White to play <22.Na5>, for Black does get compensation for the pawn, and then achieves a material advantage of his own, but at the expensive of a somewhat awkward position, as this example shows: 18...Rc8 19.Rd5 Nb6 (Instead of 19...Nf6.) 20.Ra5 Qd7 21.Rxa6 Rb8 22.Na5 d5 (The only move.) 23.Qxe5 0–0 24.Rd1 Bf6 25.Qf4 Qa4 26.Bxd5 Qb5 27.Bc4 <[27.Rxb6 Qxb6 28.Nc6 Rb7 29.Ne5 Bxe5 30.Qxe5 Rd7 31.Re1 Qf2 32.Bc4 Qxh2 33.Bb5 (33.Bd3 Qd2 34.Qe3 Qxe3 35.Rxe3 Rb8  ) 33...Rdd8 34.f6 g6 35.Qe3 h6 36.b3 Qd2 37.Qe7 Qc3 38.g4 Rc8 39.Bc4 Rc7 40.Qe5 Qxe5 41.Rxe5 Rb8 42.c3 bxc3 43.Kc2 Kf8 44.Rd5 Ra8 45.Kxc3 Rc6 46.a4 Rxf6 47.g5 Rf3+ ]> 27...Nxc4 28.Qxc4 Qe5 29.Qb3 Rbd8 30.Rc1 Bg5 31.Nc6 Qe2 32.Nxd8 Qxa6 33.Nxf7 Rxf7 34.Re1 Qc6 35.Qxb4 Rxf5 36.Qb3+ Rf7 37.a4 h6 38.a5 Bf6 39.a6 Black can force a draw: 39...Qxa6 40.Re8+ Kh7 41.Qxf7 Qf1+ 42.Ka2 Qa6+ Draw I’m sure there are improvements for both White and Black, but the message remains the same: <18…Rc8> is quite playable and is preferable to castling kingside. |
|
| Jul-07-08 | | Red October: <Artar1> thanks! it was only a brief look and you have definitely gone much deeper into the line, but my point was probably that White has an advantage after 22.Na5 (may not be enough to win going by your lines) but Black would have been under some pressure but certainly 18...Rc8 is definitely preferable to 18..0-0
my point was perhaps that the position was full of possibilities and not a <sterile> type draw |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
