(March 26th, 2014, 10:08)zakalwe Wrote: Zakalwe vs. Pindicator
Looks like game over... I was planning to play 44. Rg1 but stupidly changed my mind at the last minute. I do wonder what his plan was after Rg1; perhaps I missed something in that line, too.
I don't think it would have mattered in the end. 44.Rg1 Qxd4 45.Qg4 Qxg4 46.Nf6+ Kg7 47.Nxg4 Re4 48.Nh2 Rxh4 is -4.0.
Black just has too many pawns in the long run.
Because Gustaran would win on tiebreak--this means that Jkaen's suicide against Gustaran doesn't matter anymore.
Meanwhile, Anand has a one-point lead in the Candidates with two rounds left. He's probably going to win it obviously but everyone expect Topalov is not mathematically eliminated .
GG zak. That was probably my best played game of the tournament, at least it felt that way - it'll be fun to see what the computer says. Sorry about knocking you out of contention for the win, but I needed this to pass MJW for 3rd place
I'll probably go back and comment on spoilers in a bit, but after the knight sac my strategy was basically to sit back and make you find the good moves. I knew you were cramped in space and had a lot of pawn weaknesses, so I wanted to make you defend those.
Thanks again for sending our games to the GMs to be picked apart It is fun to see the different spots where I didn't see possibilities that were there in the game (like Qf3 for instance).
What stuck out to me is how a lot of us (I'm guessing everybody except in the tournament except Gustaran?) are just using the chess.com opening book because we're afraid we're going to screw up and put ourselves in the bad position out of the opening. But the chess.com book may not always lead us to a good position or give us good moves, as the GM points out.
(April 5th, 2014, 19:46)pindicator Wrote: Thanks again for sending our games to the GMs to be picked apart It is fun to see the different spots where I didn't see possibilities that were there in the game (like Qf3 for instance).
I had followed the game closely, so it was interesting for me as well to see where my analysis was correct. As a matter of fact the actual game moves turned out be superior to what I had analyzed so good thing I wasn't playing.
Quote:What stuck out to me is how a lot of us (I'm guessing everybody except in the tournament except Gustaran?) are just using the chess.com opening book because we're afraid we're going to screw up and put ourselves in the bad position out of the opening. But the chess.com book may not always lead us to a good position or give us good moves, as the GM points out.
I don't know if following the opening explorer necessarily leads to a bad position. It might lead to a passive position, but more important I think playing moves you don't understand inevitably leads to a subpar plan. It is probably a good thing to have at least 1 book or a dvd on your main defense against 1.e4 and 1.d4.
I was indeed too passive, and too afraid to be down material. And also too pessimistic when I played c4. At that point I was having the feeling that I had to make a break or be pressured into submission, when actually I had managed to solve most of my problems and just needed to be a bit more patient to preserve realistic drawing chances.
I also mentioned the Qf3 move in one of my spoilered comments, as that was the move I was expecting at the time, rather than the passive Qf6. Things were looking bleak if you had played Qf3. But overall, your play was very precise, and my mistakes were punished ruthlessly.
I do wonder what his plan was after Rg1; perhaps I missed something in that line, too.
