|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-22-10 | | PointSource: @GreenFacedPatzer: The number of positions in chess has already been estimated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanno...
Also it will be interesting to see whether in the future new realms of computing can solve chess or not (quantum computing is one possibility - though as of now only 2 problems are better on a quantum computer than a classical one - Shor and Grover). |
|
| Sep-24-10 | | Gegga: (This game was played 2009.02.25. Not the 19th.) |
|
| Jun-07-11 | | Indiachess: So far the ONLY game where Carlsen beat Anand in Classical time control. |
|
| Jun-21-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: DECOYS: ALIGNMENT: ROOK ENDGAME SKEWER [Event "ICC 3 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2011.06.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Shankypanky"]
[Black "zhong"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2908"]
[BlackElo "3050"]
[Opening "Nimzo-Indian: classical, 4...c5"]
[ECO "E38"]
[NIC "NI.22"]
[Time "01:39:18"]
[TimeControl "180+0"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 c5 5. dxc5 Qc7 6. a3 Bxc5 7. Nf3 b6 8.
Bg5 Be7 9. e3 a6 10. Be2 Bb7 11. O-O d6 12. Rfd1 Nbd7 13. Rac1 O-O 14. b4
Rac8 15. Qb3 Rfd8 16. Bh4 Nf8 17. h3 Ng6 18. Bg3 Qb8 19. Bh2 Bc6 20. Qa2 Qb7
21. a4 a5 22. b5 Be4 23. Nxe4 Nxe4 24. Nd4 Nc5 25. Bf3 Qc7 26. Nc6 Rd7 27.
Bg3 Bh4 28. Bh2 Bf6 29. Rd2 Ne5 30. Rcd1 Nxf3+ 31. gxf3 e5 32. Rd5 g6 33.
Qc2 Bg7 34. f4 Re8 35. fxe5 Bxe5 36. Bxe5 dxe5 37. Rxd7 Nxd7 38. Qe4 Nc5 39.
Qd5 Nxa4 40. Qd7 Qxd7 41. Rxd7 Nc5 42. Ra7 a4 43. Ne7+ Kg7 44. Nd5 Re6 45.
f3 h6 46. e4 g5 47. Kf2 Kg6 48. Ke3 Rd6 49. Ra8 Kg7 50. Rb8 h5 51. Ra8 g4
52. hxg4 hxg4 53. fxg4 Rh6 54. g5 Rh3+ 55. Ke2 a3 56. Nxb6 a2 57. Kd2 Rh1
0-1 |
|
| Jun-21-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: DECOYS: ALIGNMENT: ROOK ENDGAME SKEWER Carlsen vs Anand, 2009 60 Rb6-b8! White h7-pawn defended by alignment with Black e7-K |
|
| Jun-21-11 | | notyetagm: Game Collection: Magnus Carlsen Best Games |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: This game is another great example of sharp Shabalov Attack 7.g4 deemed a mistake by the venerable AJ in Morozevich vs Kramnik, 2008 see entertaining posts around Jul-05-11 there, I had posted 8...Qf6 as more desirable move. Game here in fact deviates with WC Anand's 8...Qf6 instead of former WC Kramnik's 8...Nxh2 both moves are good with 8...Nxh2 obviously sharper, truncated computer lines are shown below. Houdini_20_x64: 28/71 1:39:24 56,080,626,176
0.00 8. ... Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 Nf6 11.Rg5 Qh1
-0.05 8. ... h5 9.h3 Qf6 10.Be2 Nh2 11.Ng5 Ng4
-0.09 8. ... Nh6 9.c5 Bc7 10.e4 dxe4 11.Bxh6 gxh6
-0.12 8. ... Nxh2 9.Nxh2 Bxh2 10.Rxg7 Bd6 11.e4 dxc4
Game departed from computer line with 11.h3 this is also a good move, white had several possibilites here including 11.Bg2 and 11.Qe2 but 11...Qf5 was not terribly accurate, especially with 13...cxd5 instead of 13...cxd5 with black's 5 pawn islands vs. 3 white now had a clear advantage even if small. During many moves that followed struggle was very close, white kept some small long term advantage from pawn structure. 37.e4 was classic advantage trade, after 39.e5 each had 4 pawn islands but advantage became B over N. With nice outpost for N on e4 playing 40.b6?! was small but quite basic positional mistake I was surprised to see this from Anand. 44.f6?! was a second small error 44.Ng5 to block rook was clearly best here. But Magnus chose 46.Rxh6?! for nearly equal game, with 46.exf6 instead white would have sizable advantage. Nonetheless, after 47.Bc2 very good move, black only good choice was 47...Re1+ and Magnus capitalized nicely on the tactical mistake behind 47...Rh3+?! (50.Kg3 was even stronger). With 52.Rxf6+ white was now up two pawns it was now not-so-easy matter of cleaning up position. With 54.Kc1?! instead of 54.Ke1 this nearly did not happen, one pawn was lost back without compensation. But with 57...Nf3?! white was back in business. Solution here involving 57...Rh1+ was very tricky, not likely to find OTB. Great play from both in this long struggle, Vishy held on as long as possible with moves like 67...Nd5! mandatory but Magnus walked away with the hard-earned point. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
something which might interest you is what Alexey Dreev has to say on the 7.g4 line in his recent book <the Meran and Anti-Meran Variations> (Chess Stars 2011). Dreev has played the Semi-Slav his whole career, of course. <The positions arising after 7.g4 are very complicated and rather unclear and what is very important for the tournament players, using that move, is that their computer analyses are not so reliable. The point is that the present day computer programs of the type of Fritz or Rybka recommend after 7. g4, accepting the pawn sacrifice 7...Nxg4, or the line:7...dxc4, with the idea after 8.g5, to free the d5-square for the knight. They ignore the light squared bishop goes to the c4-square at once.....> (p.193) Dreev goes on to say he doesn't like those variations because he doesn't believe they are solid enough and recommends 7...h6, which he then goes on to present theory and analysis of in the chapter. An interesting comment, I think, on sharp lines and computers from the GM specialist. I wonder how long it will remain true? |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: <SWT> Thanx for the info, as usual you bring up a very useful topic. I have known Dreev long time this statement seems weird maybe reflecting something from Dvoretsky it sounds too old school for him. I do not have other engines any more, computer is new and only Houdini is installed, it initially chooses 7...h6 as slightly better. After 7...dxc4 it does not, of course "ignore" 8.Bxc4 it simply chooses 8.g5 as better move at greater than very shallow depth. Houdini_20_x64: 21/59 01:57 921,444,103
+0.04 7. ... h6 8.Bd2 Qe7 9.Rg1 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5
+0.04 7. ... dxc4 8.Bxc4 h6 9.Bd2 Qe7 10.Rg1 b5
0.00 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 Nf6
Houdini_20_x64: 22/59 03:18 1,579,048,117
+0.12 7. ... h6 8.Bd2 Nxg4 9.Rg1 Qf6 10.Rxg4 Qxf3
0.00 7. ... dxc4 8.g5 Nd5 9.Ne4 Bb8 10.Bxc4 e5
-0.04 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 h6
Alexy's statement is somewhat inconsistent, reason why 7...h6 is strong it prevents 8.g5 so it follows after 7...dxc4 move 8.g5 would be at least close to strongest if not strongest overall. Topic is useful because Shabalov attack is one of several key openings that makes test surrounding early positional sac, the three options and their various plans are at core of today's chess this is why opening is played at highest level like game here. It is ironic to me that someone with pretty good rating near ELO 2200 (need USCF-ELO translator LOL) would call 7.g4 Nxg4 a "mistake" to do so is equivalent to screaming aloud,"my understanding of chess is at very low level, any good rating I have is from playing stone age opponents who are clueless like me" LOL. We encountered a similar moronic statement on g4 in another opening Keres posting idiot called that a mistake as well. Regarding computer evaluation it is amazing to me how well engines work using primitive "expert system" based on sets of universal rules for Artificial Intelligence. Over time rules have expanded and become increasingly refined but for such complex game one would expect poor result under certain conditions. Condition that stresses performance most is, of course, positional sac because engine cannot find definite lines to prove one way or another. Instead, computer lines form best plan according to rules this sometimes coincides with ideas originally formulated for making move but usually overlap between two is partal or small. Making very accurate number representing material (centipawns, their legs are tiny indeed) to position quality or tempo lead/lag is mind boggling to me, the number itself must be taken with great suspicion. It is line behind number, representing idea or plan, that matters much more. Novelties are not so much about move itself but instead about ideas or plans behind move. Often if not usually novelty is old move forgotten and revived, it is novelty because it is unfamiliar to strong players well versed in modern theory, and player making it has, or at least thinks he has (earlier player using it may be long dead) new idea for it. I will break this into two parts I wrote too much for one post. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: In specific case of Shabalov attack the three options have very distinct and basic character. First option 7...h6 is positional move to stop g5 and try to avoid complications, much like h6 in Keres. Depending on play, this is likely as temporary measure that may backfire later on. As deeper computer line below shows, white can castle long and, if black castles short as often case, pawn on h6 instead of h7 is long term mistake, helping white open K-side. Second option 7...Nxg4 directly takes up challenge of positional sac, black says to white OK now you prove it. It is reason why top level players often prefer this option, position is classic double-edged and equal white has initiative as he should and black is rewarded with pawn to later either give back for thwarting attack should it start to succeed or keep to use as punishment should it fail. It is akin to Marshall attack or the likes except answer is more elusive it is newer question to answer. Third option is classic complicating move, black takes different pawn to make counterplay of his own. I hope by now even low level player reading this realizes that calling opening "mistake" is similar to calling Marshall attack mistake, all the many high level players in past who played it were wrong to even attempt to find its truth LOL. Here is deeper computer output, as one familiar with engines might expect, numbers are too close to have any meaning but, if high level player, one might be suspicious that engine was too conservative regarding value of positional sac when accepted via 7...Nxg4 because intuition tells that the initiative gained by such sacs is of greater value than computer can assess, black is under pressure and, unless black is computer, this pressure often adds intangible psychological factor and with sharp double-edged positiom small mistakes count more. Houdini_20_x64: 27/76 1:26:47 44,254,857,108
+0.03 7. ... h6 8.Bd2 Nxg4 9.h3 Ngf6 10.Rg1 Bf8 11.0-0-0 Nb6 12.Ne5 Nxc4 13.Nxc4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 Nd5 -0.01 7. ... dxc4 8.Bxc4 h6 9.h3 Qc7 10.e4 e5 11.Be3 0-0 12.0-0 exd4 13.Nxd4 Re8 14.f4 Nb6 -0.03 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 Nf6 11.Rg5 Qh1 12.Bd2 Qxh2 13.0-0-0 Qxf2 14.Be2 Qh4 Note that in intermediate depth evaluation above, something many players do not even have patience for computer to achieve, horizon is long enough such that 8.Bxc4 is considered strongest again, as opening expert like Dreev would expect. Perhaps he should use Houdini it is most accepted engine among highest level players anyway. Opening books are always slanted starting with author's personal preference making them already of little value to higher level players. It is also ironic to me when "master" brags of owning many books and referring to them, especially general reference such as MCO. But often book is purposely slanted to offer best advice to audience who uses them most, club player. Club player is struggling, working diligently to achieve mastery and understand chess at deeper level, there are quantum differences along the way club player already knows this from his success so far. I would also teach line that avoids anything complicated so that 7...h6 is obvious to emphasize. I guess if club player has ridiculous ego and is clueless to all this, he could actually go as far as to challenge whole opening calling pawn sac and its acceptance a mistake, it seems we have found unusual example of this, LOL, cheers. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: Here is re-evaluation at 28/76 instead of 27/76 before it is answer to expect often happens with positional sac. Houdini_20_x64: 28/76 2:27:43 75,652,419,755
0.00 7. ... h6 8.Bd2 a6 9.h3 dxc4 10.e4 c5 11.e5 cxd4 12.exf6 dxc3 13.fxg7 cxd2+ 14.Qxd2 Rg8 0.00 7. ... dxc4 8.Bxc4 h6 9.h3 Qc7 10.e4 e5 11.Be3 0-0 12.0-0 exd4 13.Nxd4 Bf4 14.Rfe1 Bxe3 0.00 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 Nf6 11.Rg5 Qh1 12.Bd2 Qxh2 13.0-0-0 Qxf2 14.Be2 Qh4 If computer had human body it would throw up hands and say, "I don't know here is best I came up with." It is correct, it cannot know at present maybe in decade or so computer will be able to determine definite lines to finally answer question better but it would still have to take into account factors of making mistake and consequences. Any higher level player would want to explore 7...Nxg4 nothing is "best" but it is clearly preferred because it delves into question of positional sac validity, and players can enjoy their fight to try and find out. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
thanks for your replies.
The curious thing is, after all he said about Bf1-c4, the variations he gives diverge from Houdini immediately after 8. Bd2: <8...dxc4!? This is the most modern and energetic reply for him.> He explains that after 9. Bxc4 b5, Black will place his bishop on b7 and pressure the centre and white squares after ...c6-c5. Black simply leaves the g4 pawn well alone. Looking at the game fragments in the notes, this has been played by: Anand, Smeets, Vallejo Pons and Nakamura et al. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: My pleasure <SWT> it is always enlightening to make kibitz with you I get new ideas/info and learn something too. Your side issue of 7...Bb4 brings up a few remarks about argument in Morozevich vs Kramnik, 2008 where AJ starts quoting his library on it too, as if we need to learn basics, few other very rude "masters" take this ridiculously arrogant approach as well, you know who I mean from discussion of Pirc not long ago. 7...Bb4 is old move making relatively weak attempt at counterattack, it carries much more risk than was thought in it's day (many decades ago in Soviet Union). Fact that AJ goes into this at all is reflection of his bookish patzer approach. AJ is boring subject, he is among a few incredibly boorish people on this site I have never encountered people comparable in real life during the nearly two decades and over two continents I have played with a title. But I do want too remark that rating is sometimes poor indicator of strength and understanding, it depends on how acquired, who one plays. If one plays in relatively closed circuit where opponents are similar goobers having little or no clue about modern chess, one can acquire 2200 or so rating via much perseverance, as he did and does. If USCF is going to maintain stupid title like life master with rating floor it is only fair to also give comprehensive test for rating ceiling as well. In case of Mr. AJ and few others like him from his many posts it is clear that his ceiling is somewhere around intermediate club player. Quoting books and dwelling on 7...Bb4 is clear evidence alone that his real ceiling cannot be above 1800 at present. Move was played by high level player at times but it was surely as attempt to mainly confirm, making sure latest conclusions are fully checked and correct. All this trash about touting rating particularly if clearly very much outdated and very inaccurate (referring to other player here too) is misleading to innocent bystanders. Good example is post by <keypusher> in Moro-Kramnik game. The few annoying misleading "masters" who really are certainly not, enjoy gathering fans, then their attitude gets even more arrogant and hostile. It is cause for most of rubbish on this site, little gangs have formed the whole thing is really childish. Whatever, site is still excellent, most on here are joy to kibitz with, including you of course, cheers. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | Appaz: <DrMAL> You are a dream of a public relations agent for <AJ>. I would like to see you and <AJ> to rip each other apart on a chessboard. I would root for <AJ>, and that should tell you a lot considering my past and present issues with him. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: <Appaz> LOL, no it does not tell me anything I don't know about issues, it just seems maybe you like serious underdog, maybe pawn or two is more interesting. Enough on that personal topic I probably wrote way too much it is boring topic but it did seem appropriate with latest ranting self-advert starting Oct-10-11 in Morphy vs Duke Karl / Count Isouard, 1858 to just finally put it out there, cheers. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | Shams: <DrMAL> You're missing the point: stop talking about how strong you are, it's tedious and nobody cares. Instead just put up great analysis and everybody will see that you are strong. Cheers. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: <Shams> Yes, good advice. I try to stay out of such crap it is annoying to see so much of it from same person, so it got to me I will avoid that topic in future, cheers. |
|
| Oct-13-11 | | DrMAL: Next level of depth, up to move 14 truncation point. Houdini_20_x64: 30/88 8:38:00 270,027,874,604
0.00 7. ... h6 8.Bd2 a6 9.Rg1 b5 10.c5 Bc7 11.g5 hxg5 12.Nxg5 Rxh2 13.a3 e5 14.Ne6 fxe6 0.00 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Qf6 9.Rxg4 Qxf3 10.Rxg7 Nf6 11.Rg5 Qh1 12.Bd2 Qxh2 13.0-0-0 Qxf2 14.Be2 Qh2 -0.02 7. ... dxc4 8.Bxc4 h6 9.Be2 b5 10.a3 Bb7 11.e4 b4 12.axb4 Bxb4 13.0-0 c5 14.d5 exd5 Line for 7...Nxg4 is same but other two changed. In 7...h6 line 9.Rg1 looks more active than 9.h3 and in 7...dxc4 line 9.Be2 looks more active than 9.h3 as well but clearly both moves are good in either case. These two cases, particularly 7...h6 are less sharp than 7...Nxg4 so there is more leeway in making choices for moves, sharper moves require greater accuracy. |
|
| Oct-14-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
I am thoroughly unconvinced by Houdini's line in the 7...h6 8. Bd2 line. Why would black want to block the q-side with 8...a6 9 Rg1 b5? Esp. when black has the clear positional plan mentioned by Dreev of 8...dxc4 with 9. Bxc4 b5 10. Be2 Bb7 with white square play and the pawn break ...c6-c5. Is Houdini fixated by the g4 pawn, which black isn't going to take, or does it want to break in the centre with ...e6-e5? White has tried 11. e4, 11. Rg1 and 11. g5 in this position. I would be interested to see what Houdini makes of those lines, if you fancy running them! Sample games:
I Rajlich vs Kaidanov, 2007
Svidler vs Karjakin, 2007
D Harika vs Nakamura, 2008 |
|
| Oct-14-11 | | DrMAL: <SWT> After 7...h6 8.Bd2 black can make various plans it seems core issue is long term K safety. For example, plan with 8...a6 9.h3 O-O 10.Rg1 e5 looked OK to me, double edged but seemed equal chances. Looking again with Houdini it was in fact chosen as best at depth 20/52 one minute into it. But apparently in deeper computation castling short so early (or at all) comes out as less than best thing to do. Plan with 8...dxc4 9.Bxc4 as Dreev suggests looks good of course too, but computer evaluates it as second best to plan starting with 8...a6 numbers are too close to matter plans clearly have different character. In 8...dxc4 plan computer prefers 9...c5 to 9...b5 both are good but of course they have different setup. To add to confusion, yet another plan follows from 8...Qe7 intermediate move then 9.Rg1 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5 11.Be2 b4 12.Na4 Bb7 scoring nearly the same. Fact is, so early in game there are simply many good plans. I suggest you install Houdini into your computer it basically defines advanced chess these days as you know. "Engine: don't leave home without it" LOL. |
|
| Oct-14-11 | | DrMAL: Sorry if my wording confuses you or anyone else. I associate "plan" with basic idea, first few moves of "line" and I associate "line" with execution of "plan" hope that makes sense. Actually, 7...h6 line from computer fascinates me, it chooses not to castle but instead close position, computers were traditionally weak in closed positions now they choose here as best. |
|
| Oct-15-11 | | DrMAL: <SimonWebbsTiger> I put Rybka 4.1 engine into Arena where Houdini 2.0 (and 1.5a) resides. It does not have it's big opening book which may affect output here, if engine computes long time I think it is best to not let book affect it anyway. In short computation Rybka did indeed favor 7...Nxg4 and in deeper computation it still favors 7...Nxg4 or, rather, slightly disfavors other moves here is example. Rybka 4.1 x64: 21 1:08:00 571,830,610
0.00 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Nxh2 9.Nxh2 Bxh2 10.Rxg7 Nf8
-0.06 7. ... h6 8.Rg1 e5 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Bd2 exd4
-0.07 7. ... dxc4 8.g5 Nd5 9.Bxc4 0-0 10.Ne4 Bc7
This must be basis of Alexey's statement I guess some players take 0.1 score difference seriously. They shouldn't and Dreev should emphasize this. Score difference like 0.3 may matter but trying to use engine like this is silly. Unless error is involved engine lines are much more important than score, as I stressed before. At greater depth Rybka finally gives up as well. Rybka 4.1 x64: 24 6:58:37 3,666,314,303
0.00 7. ... Nxg4 8.Rg1 Nxh2 9.Nxh2 Bxh2 10.Rxg7 Nf8
0.00 7. ... h6 8.Rg1 e5 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nb5 Bb8
-0.01 7. ... dxc4 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd2 Nxc3
I think only difference is that Houdini arrives at "I don't know, play it and find out" much faster. Of course, unless one pays even more for deep Rybka it only uses one thread, Houdini already comes in "deep" form and with four threads on quad core like i5-2500K here it uses all (four times more) computer resources. Houdini still seems more than four times more agile, I estimate maybe double this. I think Houdini is best engine its deep lines seem closer to "optimum truth" to me. Shirov was quoted for calling 7...Nxg4 easy draw while he is top player and very experienced with it, likely draw may be true (probably not, after accepting pawn sac 7...Nxg4 position is sharp and double-edged less likely than, say, 7...h6 to draw) but it is certainly not easy against strong opponent even for him. |
|
| Jul-21-12 | | LoveThatJoker: Guess-the-Move Final Score:
Carlsen vs Anand, 2009.
YOU ARE PLAYING THE ROLE OF CARLSEN.
Your score: 143 (par = 121)
LTJ |
|
| Jun-12-16 | | cormier: 
click for larger viewAnalysis by Houdini d 28
1.  (0.58): 44...Nf2+ 45.Ke3 Ne4 46.Bd1 Rc7 47.Rg8 Rc1 48.Bb3 f6 49.Re8+ Kd7 50.Ba4+ Kc7 51.Re7+ Kc8 52.Bb5 fxe5 53.dxe5 Ng5 54.Re8+ Kc7 55.Rh8 Re1+ 56.Be2 Ne4 57.Kf3 Ng3 58.Rh7+ Kd8 59.Bb5 Nxh5 60.Rd7+ Kc8 61.Rxd5 Ng7 62.b4 Rb1 63.Rd4 Re1 64.Be2 Rb1 65.Ke4 Re1 66.Kd3 Kc7 67.Rf4 Ne6 68.Rf6 Kd7 69.Kd2 Rh1 70.Ke3 2. (0.70): 44...Ng5 45.Re1 Rc7 46.Ra1 f6 47.exf6 Rd7 48.Rf1 Rd8 49.Re1+ Kxf6 50.Re5 Nf7 51.Rxd5 Rxd5 52.Bxd5 Nd6 53.Be4 Kg5 54.Bg6 Kf4 55.Kc3 Kg4 56.Kd2 Kf4 57.b3 Nb5 58.Kd3 Nd6 59.Kc3 Ke3 60.b4 Ke2 61.Bh7 Ke3 62.Bd3 3.  (0.83): 44...f6 45.Rg6 Rc1 46.exf6 Nxf6 47.Bxd5+ Kf5 48.Bf3 Rb1 49.Bb7 Nxh5 50.Rxb6 Rd1+ 51.Ke3 Nf6 52.Rb5+ Kg6 53.Bf3 Re1+ 54.Kf4 Rf1 55.d5 h5 56.d6 h4 57.Rg5+ Kf7 58.Re5 Rf2 59.Re7+ Kg6 60.Re2 Rxe2 61.Bxe2 h3 62.Ke5 h2 63.Bf3 Kf7 64.b4 Nd7+ 65.Kd5 Kf8 66.b5 Ke8 67.Bg2 Kd8 68.Bh1 Kc8 69.Bg2 Kd8 70.Bh1 4. (1.21): 44...b5 45.Ra1 Rg8 46.Ra6+ Kf5 47.Bxd5 Rg3+ 48.Kc2 Rg2+ 49.Kb3 Rd2 50.Bxf7 Rxd4 51.Rxh6 Nc5+ 52.Kc2 Kxe5 53.Rb6 b4 54.Rc6 Ne4 55.Kb3 Nd2+ 56.Ka4 b3+ 57.Ka3 Rd7 58.Bg8 Ra7+ 59.Kb4 Rb7+ 60.Ka5 Ne4 61.Rb6 Ra7+ 62.Kb4 Rg7 63.Rb8 Rg2 64.Kxb3 Nc5+ 65.Ka2 Rh2 66.Rb5 Kd4 67.Bf7 Nd3 5. (1.21): 44...Rd8 45.Rc1 Kf5 46.Rc6 b5 47.Rb6 Nf2+ 48.Kd2 Ne4+ 49.Ke3 Rg8 50.Bxd5 Rg3+ 51.Ke2 Rg2+ 52.Kd3 Rg3+ 53.Kc2 Rg2+ 54.Kb3 Rd2 55.Bxf7 Rxd4 56.Rxh6 Nc5+ 57.Kc2 Kxe5 58.Rb6 b4 59.Rc6 Ne4 60.Kb3 Nd2+ 61.Ka4 b3+ 62.Ka3 Rd7 63.Bg8 Ra7+ 64.Kb4 Rb7+ 65.Ka5 Ne4 66.Rb6 Ra7+ 67.Kb4 Rg7 68.Rb8 Rg2 69.Kxb3 Nc5+ 70.Ka2 Rh2 71.Rb5 Kd4 72.Bf7 Nd3 |
|
| Apr-23-19 | | dumbgai: <Jun-07-11 Indiachess: So far the ONLY game where Carlsen beat Anand in Classical time control.> Oof, that quote didn't age well. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 59.h7
icon.