02 Feb 09
Originally posted by KorchDid anyone play through the Caruana-Short game? Short blundered horrendously!
in B group Short lost in last round to Fabiano Caruana who managed to take 1st place. (In previous year he won group C).
One simple (-ish) move and the tournament was his...I don't know if it was time trouble or not, but move 47 seems a strange move to be short of time??
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by KorchWhy is 47...Nxh4+ not a blunder?? Short is completely winning if he plays 47...cxd2 - the lines are not very difficult. Instead the move chosen turns a win into a draw at best.
Here is that game.
[pgn]
[Event "Corus (Group B)"]
[Site "0:00:33-0:17:33"]
[Date "2009.01.31"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "13"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fabiano Caruana"]
[Black "Nigel Short"]
[ECO "E05"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "2"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.Qxc4 b5 9.Qc2 Bb7 10.Bd2 Bd6 11. ...[text shortened]... blunder after which White lost - 57...Qd3+ would force perpetual check.
57...Qb5+ is his second blunder which turns a draw into a loss.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by Mephisto2Something must have been distracting Short - it appears there was plenty of time to "prepare" for the perpetual check. I mean that in the sense that there was no sudden change in position, and the moves leading up to the moment appear to be working towards a climax - the perpetual check. Instead he chooses a pointless check that totally "frees" the King...? Perhaps he thought Caruana played 57. Kg5? Then Qb5 would work but the "simple move" 57. ... Qg2+ would work more easily.
Perhaps he didn't want to play in the A-group next year?
And regarding Nh4+ it can happen, he may have thought it won on the spot. I can imagine that. But missing that perpetual check...?
02 Feb 09
I was at Corus yesterday and saw the game. Caruana was in time trouble and Short was pushing him. Also, before the games began Short was very annoyed with a letter he got from the organisers and was talking to everyone about it. So I think he got distracted a bit, plus he really was playing fast to make caruana blunder in time trouble.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by GarnothBut at that point in the game, you can set all time trouble there can be for either side on the sideline and play the perpetual check. Was Short intending to win on time by playing Qb5+ then?
Caruana was in time trouble and Short was pushing him.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by streetfighterWhy is 47...Nxh4+ not a blunder?? Short is completely winning if he plays 47...cxd2 - the lines are not very difficult.
Why is 47...Nxh4+ not a blunder?? Short is completely winning if he plays 47...cxd2 - the lines are not very difficult. Instead the move chosen turns a win into a draw at best.
57...Qb5+ is his second blunder which turns a draw into a loss.
Because agree to the following definition:
"In chess, a blunder is a very bad move which is quickly recognised as a very bad move by the player who made it, typically before or directly after his opponent has made his reply move"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)
47...Nxh4+? does not seem SO obviously bad.
- Joined
- 16 Dec 04
- Moves
- 56692
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by streetfighterI'm probably being a bit dense here - what was the point of 47...Nh4+ ?
Did anyone play through the Caruana-Short game? Short blundered horrendously!
One simple (-ish) move and the tournament was his...I don't know if it was time trouble or not, but move 47 seems a strange move to be short of time??
I can only think that Short was aiming to play cxd2 and this meant he could keep hold of his rook after the exchanges. If so, why not 49...cxd2 which looks to be winning?
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by KorchI wish people would stop quoting Wikipedia stuff! These are generally not written by experts, but by people like us : )
[b]Why is 47...Nxh4+ not a blunder?? Short is completely winning if he plays 47...cxd2 - the lines are not very difficult.
Because agree to the following definition:
"In chess, a blunder is a very bad move which is quickly recognised as a very bad move by the player who made it, typically before or directly after his opponent has made his reply move" ...[text shortened]...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)
47...Nxh4+? does not seem SO obviously bad.[/b]
A blunder to me is a move which changes the assessment of a position from winning to drawn or to lost. It doesn't have to be 'quickly recognised'.
In Short's game I immediately thought 47...Nxh4+ looks wrong, but that 47...cxd2 is a very easy to calculate win.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by streetfighter".... very easy to calculate win" ... if you don't forget the underpromotion to knight that is needed in order to not give the advantage to white.
In Short's game I immediately thought 47...Nxh4+ looks wrong, but that 47...cxd2 is a very easy to calculate win.
02 Feb 09
Originally posted by Mephisto2Of course! that's the move screaming out at me at least - the promotion to a knight with check is pretty obvious isn't it?
".... very easy to calculate win" ... if you don't forget the underpromotion to knight that is needed in order to not give the advantage to white.