<iframe border="0" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="574" height="434" src="http://www.chess.com/emboard.html?id=587257"></iframe>
wtf??
Sort:
after seven hours he got tired and did not see the skewer?
Well there was an incident with a gang of badgers and...well you can finish the rest.
Batchers? We don' need no steenking batchers!
zhbolinger, you're an 1800. perhaps you can look at the diagram for 2 seconds and see the skewer that comes along that makes it certain black loses.
[COMMENT DELETED]
yes that game between magnus and erwin sure was a "wtf!?" game.....
see erwin miss taking rook on move 65....or did i miss something there?
and the next few moves also were messy
it happens to the best of them also..
El_Gremio wrote:
yes that game between magnus and erwin sure was a "wtf!?" game.....
see erwin miss taking rook on move 65....or did i miss something there?
and the next few moves also were messy
it happens to the best of them also..
ok ok! i did miss something! on move 65..im sorry
The game in question:
My WTF moment in this game was 26. a4. I'm sure there was a reason why that was better than Nxb7, but I don't see it.
66. ...Rd2+ was pretty cute (threatening stalemate of course), and if I'd been playing White in a blitz game, I would have fallen for it. Took some chutzpah to play that, but I guess even GMs make mistakes.
Otherwise, I thought the ending was pretty satisfying.
[NO COMMENT]
@ scotchfaster. If 26.Nxb7, then 26....Rdb8, thus winning the pawn on b2 with Black being positionally better to boot as he can threaten the a pawn and then double his rooks on the b flank later.
El_Gremio wrote:
yes that game between magnus and erwin sure was a "wtf!?" game.....
see erwin miss taking rook on move 65....or did i miss something there?
and the next few moves also were messy
it happens to the best of them also..
Well... There is the Bishop on c1.
i believe the purpose of the "Wtf" title is due to the sneaky attempt at stalemate there at the end, with the rook checks. Confused me at first too
lol guys, like spaghettio said it wasn't an attempt at stalemate (it didn't "threaten stalemate" either).
If anything it threatened a perpetual and to avoid it white gave up the bishop. Therefore it's even more accurate to say 65.Ne3+ was to trade a pair of pieces and hope for a R vs R+N endgame which is normally a pretty safe draw.
GM's don't come up with ideas on the fly from the current position like crappy club players do (unless something crazy happens like a terrible blunder). As early as move 61 both players could have calculated as far as the Ne3+ with the stalemate theme. Neither player was excited or surprised to see 66...Rd2+ on the board.
Just to be clear, I have no illusions that I'm any great shakes at this game or that there's any chance that I'll see something that a GM missed. As I said, "I'm sure there's a reason". Thanks for clearing that up.
And yeah, "threatening stalemate" was a poor choice of words. I just hadn't seen a situation quite like this before.
Its all good. I often ask people to explain why another set of moves would not be better on the daily puzzle. Its only obvious when someone else points it out.
65. ...Ne3+ ???
Why 67. Kc1 ??? instead of 67. Kxd2
...Again, why 68. Kb2 instead of 68. Kxd1
...Again, why 69. K....................... ............OH! duh... wow that IS sneaky!
uhohspaghettio wrote:
zhbolinger wrote:
65. ...Ne3+ ???
Dude, first of all don't put question marks after moves, it is VERY ANNOYING.
Question marks are put after moves by professional editors. I also find it very annoying when people here put exclaimation marks on an ad hoc basis, like "oh I never expected that move, I'll put an exclaimation mark after it because it looked good to me", when the move could have been obvious to both sides. The problem is that when you put an exclaimation mark after a move, you have to understand the whole game at an extremely detailed level. There can't be anything you overlooked. Just throwing punctuation around like that isn't right IMO, I wouldn't ever put punctuation in like that.
He moved 65. ...Ne3 to try to salvage the game by getting it down to a rook + piece vs rook, which is normally a safe draw. If he had allowed a different continuation, it was a dead loss.
zhbolinger wrote:
Why 67. Kc1 ??? instead of 67. Kxd2
...Again, why 68. Kb2 instead of 68. Kxd1
...Again, why 69. K....................... ............OH! duh... wow that IS sneaky!
Okay, I think you've seen it.
Dude, punctuation in general. That's for, like, professional posters who understand English on a really high level. It's super annoying that you're using commas and periods. And quotation marks and all caps? Who do you think you are? Gore Vidal?
What happened at the end of this game?