This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The l'Ami vs. Adhiban diagram (Round 7) is wrong.
Also, some of this is "original research" and opinion, which I personally don't mind too much, but Wikipedia likes sourced material. For instance, Caruana had a worse position during most of the game and seemed to be in trouble but Harikrishna made mistakenly offered queen exchange on move 35 that blew out his advantage should have a better citation than a ChessGames page in my opinion (on the other hand, the exact same sentence as a synthesis from a cited game analysis by a noted player would be OK). 129.78.68.110 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
The diagram with the position after move 35 from the l'Ami vs. Adhiban game is correct. The comment about Caruana's game versus Harikrishna was reworded from an analysis made in a news published by ChessBase (please see here and note that the article uses exactly the word "trouble") and is referenced at the end of the paragraph. I could have put it at the end of the exact sentence but it doesn't make much sense to use a single reference at the end of each sentence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the diagram after move 35 from l'Ami vs. Adhiban is correct, then the analysis is wrong. 36.Rd1 is OK, after 36. ..Bxc4 37. Bf3?? is the blunder - if White had played 37. Bxf7+!, he regains the pawn PLUS an exchange because the black rook on d6 is undefended. Might be drawn with perfect play because of the opposite color bishops, but White is clearly better since the g7 pawn can't be taken without dropping another exchange, and all of black's pawns (and black is still down two pawns) are effectively blocked. 2600:8805:B400:DC00:29CB:93D8:243A:6950 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@2600:8805:B400:DC00:29CB:93D8:243A:6950: If White plays 37.Bxf7+, then Black has a strong tactical response by re-capturing on f7 with the rook (37... Rxf7!) and exploiting the back-rank weakness with a mating threat on f1 in case White plays 38. Rxd6??. Black will eventually end up with a rook for two pawns and a clearly winning position.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
