Position after 25…Rfd8??
Even world-class grandmasters can make horrendous blunders. GM Gelfand just walked into a self-destructed one move blunder against GM Aronian at the Sochi Grand Prix.
GM Aronian (2737) – GM Gelfand (2720) [E15]
12.08.2008 – Sochi Grand Prix 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Bg2 c6 8.Bc3 d5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Nd2 0–0 12.0–0 Rc8 13.e4 c5 14.exd5 exd5 15.dxc5 dxc4 16.cxb6 Nxb6 17.Re1 cxb3 18.Qxb3 Nd7 19.Nf3 Bc4 20.Qb2 Bf6 21.Bxf6 Nxf6 22.Ne5 Bd5 23.Rad1 Qa5 24.Bxd5 Nxd5 25.Nd7 Rfd8?? (25…Rfe8 =) 26.Qe5! 1–0
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
That’s too bad for Gelfand, right following his great win over Ivanchuk yesterday. And Aronian closes in on overall victory.
This is a good illustration of why non-GM chesplayers rarely glean anything useful from what GMs say. WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER QE5???? Why is the situation hopeless? Some explanation would help. Chess is not intuitive at all. Things must be spelled out very simply with no presumptions about what other people know or don’t know. STATE WHATEVER IS SO OBVIOUS TO YOU!
I agree with my fellow idiot chess player (we should have a game sometime). Why can’t the black RxN?qxcufv
ll, the white knight cannot be taken in view of the back rank mate (after Qe8+). And the white knight is pinned in frot of its queen, yet attacked twice, with no choice of being protected further without losing material. Hence the resignation.
“This is a good illustration of why non-GM chesplayers rarely glean anything useful from what GMs say.”
No it isn’t. It is a good illustration of how much to say and how much to let find out self for training effects.
The ending position is won for white for reasons ano 1:02 pointed out.
Took me just some seconds to find the basic idea with the back rank weakness and far less than a minute to check out if black has any defenses left.
So this was a simple/good training for me and so for many others, too.
Some may see and calculate this quicker than me, others will need more time, others won’t find it as you did.
Take time and try to find out yourself – if you succeed, well done, if not that doen’t care but you can than simply ask but do not gripe as you did.
If you had asked kindly someone would have answered as ano did now.
Saying everything at all times right out would spoil the training effect for those who want to learn, and I am glad that Susan thinks of those, too.
Got it – thank you. (qxcufv)
I am a weak patzer, but don’t need any explanation why Qe5 is winning. You only need to know the rules of chess. Knight on d5 cannot move, coz the queen on a5. And as said, Rxd7, and you get back rank mated. Very simple, indeed.
Unfortunately, this post has given a platform to folks like Jochen and “anonymous 2:12pm”, who are representative of the most irritating chess demographic: people who have a fetish for bellowing about how things are so simple because they are so clever. Shut up and go away.
@Anon 12:35 and 2:22: I agree with you…ok sometimes it’s ok to let readers find the correct continuation, especially when there is something interesting to find out or to learn, but I also feel offended many times by the “obvious” question marks which I hardly understand, or would need 10 minutes of my time to find out. Unfortunately, few chess commentators make these explanations and help most readers. Would a GM feel offended or stupid if he read something which is obvious? I don’t think so. At least not as stupid as someone feels after reading e.g. “Nxe4?? 1-0” and trying to figure out why the 2 question marks and why did the other player resign?
For example, I don’t know if anyone remembers GM Marin’s analysis comments on Chessbase: very clear, easy to follow and easy to understand, even for a patzer. And I don’t think that any GM fell offended by such type of analysis. Time to let some egos go.
Why don’t you shut up and go away?
GM’s are not there to teach basics!
It’s like Einstein would teach in elementary school.
“Unfortunately, this post has given a platform to […]”
Wrong, again. It gave me a platform to (once more) show Susan that I like the way she does present the chess here and that I (for myself) find this way the correct one in sense of chess teaching.
So shut up and go away if you do not like the way chess is presented here.
Or do not do so, I do not care at all.
You folks really have to much time on your hands… While it was pretty easy to see (at least after Aronian’s move) why Gelfand resigned I undertand that some players may not immediately spot it.
However, why do you then start whining and demand a kind of chess school approach here. Just post your commentary in a more sensible way, i.e. by simply asking “Sorry, I do not see it, why did Gelfand resign?” and be sure somebody will respond sooner or later.
Personally, I very much like this website. Nice mixture of stories and puzzles – and I would very much prefer if the latter remained exactly that: puzzles. Solutions in the commentary, okay, but please stop complaining. This is really silly.
DV
No one is demanding any chess school approach, all that a chess commentator can do is write only ONE explanatory sentence. Or at any rate, write the suggested variant which follows after any “Qe5!” move.
The reason for this is that we DON’T have an infinite amount of time in our lives to spend around every chess diagram we run into on the Internet.
“School approach” is exactly the opposite…don’t write ANY comment after “Qe5!”, and let the reader figure it out….as I said, that’s perfectly ok, and educational, but how do you know if you’ve found the correct continuation?
The “why don’t you shut up and go away” yeomen are seriously undermining the high quality of this blog, maybe Susan needs to do something about them.
The two persons who wrote “the solution” were attacked and have been told to shut up and go away.
I think that in a CHESS blog people who clearly know very very litle about chess (based on the fact that they demand that the rest should spell everything out) should shut up and go away.
It doesn’t take more than basics chess concepts to figure out why black resigned.
Absolutely agree.
@anonymous4:23: Did Susan appoint you as her lawyer or something? Who are you to say who is to stay here and who is not? Who are you, anyway?
Maybe what this blog needs is more manners from some of its readers (thanfully a minority, or maybe just one person we all know who he is) and less yeomen around.
Just to point out that anyone with rating above 1600 should understand why black resigned with no explanation in no time. This is not speaking of GM-level chess.
And indeed, if someone didn’t get it (everybody is welcomed, from absolute patzers to GM’s in this blog I suppose) can politely ask and will get an answer.
No Susan didn’t appoint me as her lawyer and that was my first post here.
Go and read again:
1) Two asked for the solution.
2) Three people answered.
3) After they answered they have been requested to shut up and leave.
4) Then the person who said that was asked to shut up and leave.
etc.
Anonymous, sorry, my mistake, I read again the discussion from the top. The initial attack to the people who offered the solution was unjust. I agree with you. So many anonymous users, I got mixed up. I still believe what I said about the commentator offering some hint about the winning variant (in general, not necessarily in this case), but I am totally against any rude behavior from either side. Cheers.
I am the “anonymous 2:12pm” and I’m attacked for giving the solution and call it simple, and ordered to leave this blog. Yes, compared to most ‘puzzles’ this is very easy. That’s a fact, and why I’m attacked I cannot understand. Maybe the attackers felt a little stupid when they saw how simple it was? I’m not saying it was easy to find Qe5, coz it was not. But to see why Qe5 was winning,is easy if you can calculate two moves ahead in a simple position. Forgive me for doing just that.