Some people have a wrong impression about the relative strengths of chessplayers. Have a look at this game:
Here is a not-so infamous game where Judit is facing an opponent rated some 370 points lower (my former student, and very good friend WGM Botsari). The game is used as a model game for Black in the recent Palliser's Benoni book- something that would surely make GM Antic (who prepared Anna for that game) to laugh out loudly.
Palliser, using engines, databases and all assorted stuff fails to realize how precarious Black's position actually is. Anna conducted her attack in great style, and had she played the simple 28.f7! Black had no choice but entering the forced continuation 28...Rg7 29.Re8+ Nf8 30.Qd6! Qh4+ 31.Kg1 Qxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Rxf7+ 33.Kg1 Rxe8 34.Qxc5, when Black has two rooks for the Queen, but her king is constantly very exposed, and that huge pawn on d5 is going to cost Black material. Houdini initially evaluates the final position as +0.24, but after due thought the avaluation changes to +1.16, which translates to "Black is basiclly toast". Palliser does not mention 28.f7 at all in his analyses.
Instead, Anna preferred to further complicate this, while already in time trouble, and blundered the game away a couple of moves later (29.Qd4? which ovelooked Black's very strong reply).
Would Polgar had "her bad day" if she lost that game against a player who's fairly strong, but for sure much weaker than Godena?
A couple of rounds earlier, Judit had mild trouble drawing as white against WGM Zawadska, rated 300 points lower than her.
Are you still arguing that a 2700 and a 2300 at are the same level?
I think Pfren needs to have a conversation with the FIDE rating committee so they can explain to him the significance of rating differences. He makes it sound as is Judit constantly draws or loses against 2300-2500 players. If that were the case, then why is she rated 2700? Oh yeah, that's because she usually crushes anyone in the 2300-2500 level.
A four hundred to three hundred point difference isn't exactly nothing.
Some people have a wrong impression about the relative strengths of chessplayers. Have a look at this game:
Here is a not-so infamous game where Judit is facing an opponent rated some 370 points lower (my former student, and very good friend WGM Botsari). The game is used as a model game for Black in the recent Palliser's Benoni book- something that would surely make GM Antic (who prepared Anna for that game) to laugh out loudly.
Palliser, using engines, databases and all assorted stuff fails to realize how precarious Black's position actually is. Anna conducted her attack in great style, and had she played the simple 28.f7! Black had no choice but entering the forced continuation 28...Rg7 29.Re8+ Nf8 30.Qd6! Qh4+ 31.Kg1 Qxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Rxf7+ 33.Kg1 Rxe8 34.Qxc5, when Black has two rooks for the Queen, but her king is constantly very exposed, and that huge pawn on d5 is going to cost Black material. Houdini initially evaluates the final position as +0.24, but after due thought the avaluation changes to +1.16, which translates to "Black is basiclly toast". Palliser does not mention 28.f7 at all in his analyses.
Instead, Anna preferred to further complicate this, while already in time trouble, and blundered the game away a couple of moves later (29.Qd4? which ovelooked Black's very strong reply).
Would Polgar had "her bad day" if she lost that game against a player who's fairly strong, but for sure much weaker than Godena?
A couple of rounds earlier, Judit had mild trouble drawing as white against WGM Zawadska, rated 300 points lower than her.
Are you still arguing that a 2700 and a 2300 at are the same level?