|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-30-09 | | rogge: Sorry? FIDE rules in Norway, I checked. |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | timhortons: zanshin, guys please check out GM nakamura explanation on what happened to the game. http://www.hikarunakamura.com/main/... <I blundered horrendously in the second game when I allowed 24.Nf5.> Shockingly, I had seen Nf5 but forgot that after intentionally hanging the pawn on d6, Ba4 was not possible as my rook on e8 was en prise. This very unwelcome surprise wrecked my position and I almost certainly should have lost from here. However, caissa seemed to have different plans as I was able to complicate it a bit thereafter. Nevertheless, Magnus kept his wits and still had a completely winning position. Luckily, I was able to hang on long enough that we both were down to mere seconds.< It was at this point that Magnus went astray when he traded into a knights endgame. At this point I was still lost, but I found a way to trick Magnus into a losing king and pawn endgame. After he miscalculated the pawn race,> I queened first with check and went on to win the game. This balanced the score at 1-1 |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | zarg: <tpstar: In the video, notice Nakamura gets away with two-handed castling while Carlsen only uses one hand.> Yes, but since Carlsen didn't make an issue of it, it's a none-issue to my mind. |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | zanshin: Thanks for the link <tim>. Nothing escapes your attention ;-) I watched the video. I don't think I can play blitz... |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | rogge: <zarg: <tpstar: In the video, notice Nakamura gets away with two-handed castling while Carlsen only uses one hand.> Yes, but since Carlsen didn't make an issue of it, it's a none-issue to my mind.> Yes, of course. Naka is excused, he probably only knew the USCF rules. Carlsen knew the FIDE rules, but showed sportmanship ;)But USCF rules in Norway was kind of funny. |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | timhortons: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... So after a long day, the finalists settled down to play some predictably spotty blitz. Carlsen dominated the first two games, winning the first with black and reaching an "easily" won position in the second. But for a bullet player like Nakamura, things only get interesting when he's down to a few seconds. The less time there was, the better he played relative to Carlsen. Even that shouldn't have been enough in game two, but Carlsen missed win after win and Nakamura kept banging out complicating moves. Finally White played the horrible 62.Kf6?? to turn an endgame win by several tempi into a loss by one.< Of course you can hardly criticize the qualify of such games and moves, but you rarely see such a dominating position blown at this level. Well, Carlsen did it against Karpov in Moscow just a few weeks ago, so I guess "blitz is blitz" is a better way to put it. These games are for thrills and spills and that's what we got.> migs know what hes talking. |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | timhortons: 
click for larger viewbtw going to the finals facing carlsen , if im right naka scored 20-0, owning nielsen and lie in the process. how about magnus, whats his score going to the finals? |
|
| Nov-30-09 | | EeEk: Pretty much every federation play by the official FIDE rules. USCF is for some reason having their own rules that deviates from the main ones. So it's understandable if Nakamura does this. I suppose Magnus COULD HAVE stopped the clock and called the arbiter, but it's not a big enough violation of the rules to get more than a warning not to do it again. |
|
Nov-30-09
 | | Plaidpawn: I was perusing the FIDE rules page and came across this entry in 4.4 item c: "intending to castle, touches the king or king and rook at the <same time>, but castling on that side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king" Touching the pieces at the same time with one hand, at best, seems a bit awkward, especially queenside. The statement makes sense if two-handed castling is allowable. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | IraGraves: Art. 7 of the FIDE rules is on "Irregularities". There are no consequences mentioned for breaking rule 4.1, i.e. using two hands in making a move. So the only consequence of touching rook and king seems to be, as <Plaidpawn> quotes, that you have to castle. There is no time penalty or the like. Maybe if Magnus had called an arbiter he might have given Naka a warning, but that's discretionary and seems a bit silly (as you can only castle once during the game). So no big deal even under the FIDE rules. <EeEk: Pretty much every federation play by the official FIDE rules.> Have you played in pretty much every country? Impressive! I know many countries having their own rules <based> on the FIDE rules. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | rogge: <There are no consequences mentioned for breaking rule 4.1, i.e. using two hands in making a move.> Well:
<4.3
Except as providedin Article 4.2, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard: a. one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched which can be moved> |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | IraGraves: <rogge> Surely. But I assume Naka was smart enough to touch the king first or at least simultaneously. Then, as <Plaidpawn> has pointed out, the only consequence is that he must castle with that rook. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | rogge: Yeah, well I never watched the video. Anyways, no big deal. And Naka is excused :) |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | IraGraves: <Naka is excused> Absolutely. Just one of those nice little psychological tricks. As long as he doesn't castle with his mouth or something... ;) |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | IraGraves: To close the matter: It seems that the FIDE rules once allowed castling but were changed several years ago, and some people (and federations like the USCF in their Blitz rules) haven't yet adapted to that. I couldn't find a link to the old FIDE handbooks, but that's what a friend of mine who was a long-term arbiter in chess tournaments told me. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | IraGraves: <once allowed castling> insert "with both hands" ;-) |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | rogge: Lol, got it ;) |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | timhortons: <rogge: Yeah, well I never watched the video. Anyways, no big deal. And Naka is excused :)> FUNNY.
the fact that this is an international event and this tournament got an arbiter, you dont need to say you excuse somebody from wrongdoings rogge, the fact is no violation happened. |
|
| Dec-01-09 | | rogge: <the fact is no violation happened> You need to read this thread more carefully.
But no one cares anyway. |
|
| Dec-02-09 | | TheaN: I think we should simply say that Naka didn't win a lost position, but Carlsen lost a winning position. The player whom is losing is NEVER to blame the turning point in the game, it's the player whom is neglecting a win. Aside all the bashing, that same turning point is crucial endgame knowledge which cannot be left alone as an endgame patzer like myself: 
click for larger view<62.?>
A few points to look at when you get into such a pawn endgame, at least those which I have been told: 1) How many moves one is away from promotion? For Black it's simple; the easiest is taking the a-pawn and moving the b-pawn on, so in <six> more moves Black promotes. If White decides to capture the defending g-pawn, White needs <seven> more moves to promote (two King moves and five pawn moves), with current initiative <six>. This is the incorrect way to go, as when White is opting for a way to support the f-pawn's push to f5, we come at: f4 + g4 + f5-f8 which is <six> moves, with current initiative <five>. 2) Is the promotion with check? Here is where Carlsen ultimately went wrong. If there would've been no Black check involved, White would have ended up promoting with check, as after Kxa3, f8=Q† is check. He would have stopped the new Queen with this check and a skewer and won the game. However, after White stops the crucial defense of f5 with Kxg6, b1=Q† is with check also, and Black ends up stopping the f-pawn because White still has his g and h-pawns (otherwise this actually draws) on the board. 3) Tactics after promotion? This is not really the case here, as if White had played 62.f4 Kxa3 63.g4 b5 64.f5 White ends up promoting with check on f8 as we saw earlier, and will easily stop the b-pawn. Funny thing is, though, if the a-pawn and Black King were one rank lower, White has to use the winning skewer 67.f8=Q b1=Q 68.Qa8† Kb2 69.Qb8† Kc2 70.Qxb1† and the remaining pawn(s) will win for White. 4) Stings in the tail? Other defenses? Black may try the sneaky 62.f4 h5?! which stops g4 temporarily. White may continue with 63.h3!? winning, as White once more promotes with check after 63....Kxa3 64.g4 hxg4 65.hxg4 b5 66.f5 gxf5 67.gxf5 b4 68.f6 b3 69.f7 b2 70.f8=Q†, but this is an endgame that takes a while and one should know, and without the check the same skewer as on 3 won't work as White has no pawns left and has to win this as regular Q vs 7th rank P. Instead, White can now play 63.Kf6! without fear, as Black lost a crucial tempo with 62....h5. The f-pawn is advanced by one square whilst the Black b-pawn did not, White will promote with check, and win with the remaining pawns easily. Just my two cents... :) |
|
| Dec-04-09 | | Ulhumbrus: <zanshin: <matey: Carlsen blundered with 62.Kf6?, instead 62.f4! wins.>
Right! But just looking at the position, who would have thought <62.Kf6?> loses while <62.f4!> wins? Here's a head-to-head comparison of the two moves:> The advance g4 consumes just one tempo to prepare the advance of the f pawn, whereas the King manoeuvre Ke6-f6 and Kf6xg6 comsumes two tempi to prepare the advance of the f pawn. For this reason the f pawn gets crowned one move sooner if White plays f4 and g4 instead of Ke6-f6 and Kxg6 |
|
| Feb-07-10 | | Bobsterman3000: After 52...Kxa3 Magnus started pouting like a little girl. |
|
| Mar-19-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <TheaN>
Outstanding points. |
|
| Mar-20-10 | | Gilmoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rK5...
[00:14] <camera lens moves out of way -- revealing the spare wQ + bQ, on Naka's side of the table, to Naka's right>[07:30] 41.Rd1 <both motionless>
[07:51] <Magnus extends left hand and> [07:52] <takes the spare wQ -- and palms it>
[08:04] <Magnus places the 2nd Q from his left hand onto table at his left>
[08:14] 41..Nc3
[09:08] 59.Nb5+ <slap; Naka motionless>
[09:11] <Naka right index finger: dit dat dit>
[09:13] <Naka right hand comes up -- pulls back>
[09:14] 59..Kc(6, um --) <still holding it>
[09:15] 59..Kc5 <holds it -- slap>
[09:17] 60.Ke5 <slap>
[09:19] <Naka right hand> 60..Kxb5 [09:20] <slap>
[09:23] 61.Kxe6 [09:24] <slap> Ka4 <slap> [09:26] <Naka right hand goes rightward to a dead Rook, then> [09:27] <plucks his spare bQ> [09:28] 62.Kf6 Kxa3
[09:29] 63.Kxg6 b5
[09:30] 64.f4 b4
[09:31] 65.f5 [09:32] b3 <Magnus leans back, inhaling -->
[09:33] <looks left, bites lower lip in, pantomines a double fist bang on table edge -->
[09:34] <straightens up and> 66.f6 b2
[09:35] 67.f7 [09:36] b1=Q+
[09:48] 74.h5 <a spectator cruelly chuckles at Magnus throwing pawns away> Qxh5 [09:50] 75.g4 <Magnus knocks it over; right hand pans back> [09:51] <fixes it> [09:52] <slap; sags in his seat. Naka pulls both his hands down, leans back, pulls his chair forward, sits up, crosses arms, leans them onto table> [10:02] 75..Qxg4 [10:03] <slap> [10:04] 76.Ke7 [10:05] Qg7 <Magnus right hand twitches forward, returns to table>
[10:06] <Magnus looks left, extends right handshake>
[10:07] <looks right, avoids eye contact, arises half-turning and>
[10:08] <exeunts image left -- clapping begins> |
|
| Dec-21-10 | | elohah: 30. Yeah.
I realize that White's approach beginning with this move is prob. a risk free win. But just so somebody doesn't 'own' you henceforth, you really should try a more challenging move here. As it happens, 30 h4! fits the bill, after which Black can flop about for a while, before he expires more rapidly than he does after 30 Kh1. Altho it's true that 30...Nh3+ 31 Kh2 Nxh4 32 gxh3? Nxf3+ 33 Kh1 Qf4 34 Bg1 ( 34 Kg2? Bxh3+!) Qg3 creates some needless annoyance, and 30...Nh3+ 31 Kh2 Nxh4 32 Qxc7? Qf4+! also allows Black to scam out (33 g3 Nxf3+ 34 Kg2 Nh4+), there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular after just 30...Nh3+ 31 Kh2 Nxh4 32 Bxh4! Qxh4 33 gxh3 (or 33 Rxc7), when Black loses. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
