Spot the blunder

Quite an obvious blunder was made in the game with Aronian and Dmitry. Can anyone spot it?

http://chess-news.ru/node/15077

*spoiler*

The fact is on move 20 white blunders by moving closer to the bishop, black had a winning chance with Bxd1. 

lol, I love when people authoritatively say that super GMs have blundered. White would have more than enough compensation for the exchange.

+1; I'm amazed that some people would honestly think that a Super-GM would overlook Bb3xd1.

I disagree. In fact, I analyzed it by a computer, it wins well over a point. It flips whites chances big time.

Agree all you want. The statistics my computer tells me is different. 

The reason, according to aronian, is that he had to win that game. After Bxd1, white would most likely construct a fortress, and the game would have been a draw. Though, in hindsight, he was worse anyways, so he had no chance.

Well, according to my analysis, it isn't as clear as that. White had a winning advantage until they move their king toward the bishop, allowing the exchange. But the exchange isn't sound, because it then favors black as winning. In my book, that's called a blunder.

Pretty sure the actual resurrection of Tal wouldn't be so critical of Kb2 

i wouldnt call it a blunder because its not engines playing against one another. in practical play winning the game after the exchange-sac would be very VERY difficult and white would have good counterplay with possibly a passed pawn. not excepting the exchange-sac was propably a blunder though because after Bxa3 white is clearly better.

I actually saw it irrespective of computer analysis, in fact the very act of not taking the rook led me to analyze the position because I was convinced it was an error.

i agree, like i said, not taking the exchange was a blunder. offering it though was fine by andreikin and a pretty creative idea i think.

in your initial statement you said white blundered and that is not the case in my humble opinion.

Yes, white blundered with a king move. It was obvious to me the clearly best move was to just move the rook. So I then checked it by a computer, and I was definitely on the spot. White was clearly winning up to the point of moving the king away towards his undefended pawns. However, black would have been able to steal the winning advantage... but no. Black blunders himself by not taking the rook. 

Sorry, I typed so fast there were errors in my spelling.

please look at my analysis (further up) and show me a variation where white can force a win by moving the rook. if white moves the rook hes losing the a4-pawn and possibly the b5-pawn later (at least black can get a bind on b6 so b5-b6 is impossible for white). i think with the exchange-sac but two passed pawns on the a- and b-file (like in the variation i gave) winning would be much easier for white and defending for black much harder.

just putting a position into an engine and reading the number from the evaluation doesn't make an analysis. you have to give a plan where you also factor in the counterplay by the opponent. you didn't do that. you just said "computer says no" (little britain-reference xD) and didn't explain why. im curious as to what would be your, or your computers plan in the position after moving the rook.

see also this analysis by your landsman CM(!!) Tryfon Gavriel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBFme1r1gsA

he agrees, that Kb2 is better than moving the rook in practical play.

I love little britain. I responded the way I did, because of the way people entered this thread.

''I love it when people assume GM's make mistakes.''

This was what I was hit with and then other people came into to... support the statement, with one saying ''

• I'm amazed that some people would honestly think that a Super-GM would overlook Bb3xd1.

Well, now, I never said that they overlooked it... or how much overlooking is involved, I just said a blunder was made. So... my computer says ''no'' attitidue is really from the blunt attitude which was more directed at attacking me than the actual proposition in hand. 

It turns, out... plainly using the computer, the computer agrees with my analysis. How to play that further on in the game would have made a nice discussion if I didn't get the impression people were so argumentative.