Blunder or brilliancy? | Jan-Krzysztof Duda vs Shakhriyar Mamedyarov | Aimchess Rapid 2022

[@PowerPlayChess]

If you ❤ my videos do *subscribe* bit.ly/powerplaysubscription and do checkout the *supporting* *options* through Patreon: bit.ly/patreondanielking or through *PayPal* (links in the description)

[@waterskym]

It was amazing to see such tactics from a near-symmetric position; thank you for showing us so clearly, because much would have flown over my head.

[@AllBlackErryThin]

I would never find Rook b7 at 17:30 but King f7 looks equally crushing and more intuitive to my eyes. This was a fantastic game and really enjoyed the depth of lines that you chose to show.

[@robinesperoza]

Thanks for the coverage. The game was fun to watch live as well as to relive in it the video. It wasn't brilliant of Shak to reach a losing position. But it was great to see him take a huge risk (queen sac), rather than play a pawn down in a depressing ending. I think Duda was thrown off by a thought like "I just need to defend against the attack first, and then I will be a queen up", I feel that's why he didn't play c5! counterplay earlier in the game. Sometimes you best fight fire with water, sometimes with fire.

[@misha4422]

Amazing tactical variations. Thank you for the detailed analysis.

[@kenspencer9895]

At 17:12 mark, I think the IM missed a simpler move. Instead of Rb7, just Kf7, with h6 mate coming up.

[@drinkxyz]

Perhaps Robert just edits out the "boring" lines to keep the run time reasonable, but kf7 does seem like a faster mate

[@JWalkLance]

At 17:28, instead of Rb7, can you play Rbg2 threatening Rxg3? If Bxg2, then Rh5 mate. If g4, then Rh5 anyway because of the pin. Really enjoyed your analysis, Robert.

[@joseraulcapablanca8564]

Duda and Shakare two very creative and attacking players, who have played well all week. This game suited your more tactical analysis. Thanks Robert and keep doing a good job for Daniel.

[@paulgreen7906]

Brilliant analysis Robert. Many thanks.

[@ricj441]

Another fabulous analysis. Thanks Robert!

[@Amazing-xk2kz]

Thank you Antonio soprano for this analysis ❤

[@henni1964]

Smells a bit like Shak discovered a new idea in this opening line by engine analysis at least up to Rb2 from black. There seems to be a refutation, but it's very very hard for a human to spot over the board. Nowadays it's all about surprising your opponent with some crazy computer lines, at least at the top level. Phantastic presentation, enjoyed it very much. 🙂

[@rebuznardo]

Nice video. Good job! Thanks for your analysis. Very insightful.

[@nickjackson6962]

Powerplay to 100k!!!

[@zahirruh]

Amazing Mamedyarov. Our super star!

[@1sweettime207]

I watched the game life and thought it was a amazing and excellent game. 🙂great analyze.

[@uhsejackson3827]

Amazing game.. another fun game from Shakh ❤

[@tobiasschoofs7006]

Marvellous! And, yes, it's a queenless middlegame. Not an endgame, as "some" use to call it 🙃

[@AgustinGiannastasio]

Thanks for the analysis!

[@tonimuellerDD]

Thank you for nicely covering the game. though the analysis focused too much on the technique for my taste ( far too many variations for my small brain and too little context/evaluation).

[@roqsteady5290]

Great analysis!

[@andrewhaldenby4949]

Wow what a game! Ty RR!

[@ingoos]

wow! very nice. thank you.

[@mpeterll]

At 20:44, why can't white just take on h6 instead of g6. I tried following up with both Rxh2 and Rxc1, hoping to trap the queen with a skewer, but I couldn't quite make it work for black. What am I missing?

[@seyyednaserbahador6641]

I checked briefly with engine (although not a powerful one) and it seems 36.Qxh6 fails brilliantly to 36. ... Raa2 (only move) when white is cooked in mating nets, same move (Raa2) does not work before playing h6 (and attracting white Queen to h6) due to white having Qxe5 recourse. One more thing to mention is that white does not need to play 35.Qg5 and can actually take 35.Qxe5 and after 35. ... Rxc1+ 36.Bd1 Rxh2 37.Qb8+ Kg7 38.Qxb6 Rh1+ 39.Ke2 Rcxd1 the game is still complicated and unclear

[@roland_k1889]

Thanks for this. This bothered me too

[@ChrisTopher-nr1vb]

Wonderful game

[@TessaTestarossa]

Some call it a blunder, some call it a Tal move.

[@Horuspoes]

Thanks for showing chess is a wonderful game

[@lazynut81]

With all those options ,I had lost the game.

[@roland_k1889]

Seems the queen sac was deliberate, Mamedyarov thought he was at least equal. Towards the end of kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGnGo51-oLKJosU

[@hoemberchess]

Nothing special. Just like I blunder away my 👑 and then win in the chaos. ;-)

[@Straight_Talk]

Excellent analysis, but we don't use the word "would" as repeatedly used here.

[@waterskym]

Slightly unusual because more modern would be "had" or "would have had" but the meaning is perfectly clear and actually more nuanced if anything. Let's not be nitpickers though.

[@Straight_Talk]

@Han Boetes No alternative is required; simply omit the word entirely. I assume he is translating Dutch to English, word for word.

[@Straight_Talk]

@@waterskym It should be "if you play" or "if you played" (without "would"). Clear it may be; correct it most definitely isn't. Nothing remotely nuanced about it.

[@AllBlackErryThin]

@@Straight_Talk The point is that it is rude to nitpick perfectly lucid complex analysis delivered in a second language, not whether your comment about grammar is technically correct.

[@DG-ss2zd]

@@Straight_Talk are you ok?

[@zoranignjatovic9386]

Great comm.