the position arrises on whites 21 st move . 21 . nb3d4 ?! now its quite possible this is just a horrible move which im starting to beleive . but since it was played by a fide master and not under time pressure im mistified . there is also a few other "questionable" moves after this 21st move ...
soo here is what im asking , can brunetti , cairo and anyone else who wants to give it a shot .. take a little time and help me out =) , can you annotate the game from whites move 21 . nb3d4 on to the point where its obviously lost ... i need a few other points of view on this move just for my own sanity and learning =)
much appreciated to all who reply , a free + to you all .
Thanks in advance , and take your time if needed !
132 ( +1 | -1 ) WellI think you might have an error in notation or something...I find it hard to believe that these moves were played. 21. N3d4 is not entirely unreasonable (white sacrifices the exchange for some compensation) but 21... 0-0? and 22. Ra3? Surely a FIDE master would not have missed the fact that 22. Nxc6 wins a piece and the game straight out. Furthermore, the knight remains en prise for several moves (until you play Rc8). And after 22. Ra3? (exposing the rook to simple capture by the e7-bishop?) White not only neglects the opportunity to win the game immediately but allows black to play 22... Nxd4 23. Nxd4 (23. Rh3 Nf5) Bxa3.
White could have again just won the knight with 24. Nxc6. Why would white choose a sharp, complicated line when he could just win the game?
Assuming the given 21st move position is correct, then 21... Nxd4 22. Nxd4 Bxf1 23. Qxf1 gives white some compensation: his queen would be better placed, he could play f5, he could play Bc3 and Bd3-b5+ or Qd3, which essentially translates into a kingside attack. Whether this would have been sufficient compensation or not is probably very difficult to assess at the board, less so in correspondence play. Anyhow, maybe I'll try to give 21... Nxd4!? an analytical try, but: why not just win the game simply after 21... 0-0? and 22. Ra3?
69 ( +1 | -1 ) atrifix ...that is exactly my point .... there is no time trouble .. there is no error in notation because i even watched the game and this is how it was played out ... and i was curious how black lost because i saw the win over the board at the tourney .
and after getting the notation and looking , analysing .. pondering .. i cannot find why white plays those moves that you also question ... he IS a fide master ... so is it possible he was having a really really bad day .. or is there something we are bothing missing .. because im almost positive a few of those where HORRIBLE moves .....
i was astonished to see black lost when she clearly had the win in my mind ..
guess i just want to make sure im not going crazy ...
60 ( +1 | -1 ) ClarificationThere is one cute idea behind 22. Ra3: after a subsequent Bxa3 the bishop is deflected from the h4 square, and white can then play Bxh7+ Kxh7 Qh4+. Perhaps white thought his attack was so powerful that he simply declined the piece. But these lines are unnecesarily complicated, for example, White couldn't possibly have foreseen all the consequences of 22. Ra3 Nxd4 23. Nxd4 Bxa3 24. Bxh7+ Kxh7 25. Qh4+ Kg8 26. Rf3 Be7!?. Why complicate the game when there's a free piece? (White could again have played 23. Nxc6, still maintaining his attack and eliminating a couple of defensive pieces)