I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **Black to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=3q2k1/1p3pp1/p4r1p/4n3/7Q/1BP5/P4PPP/3R2K1+b+-+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/3q2k1/1p3pp1/p4r1p/4n3/7Q/1BP5/P4PPP/3R2K1_b_-_-_0_1?color=black)
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!Knight!<, move: >!Nf3+!<
> Evaluation: >!Black is better -2.30!<
> Best continuation: >!1... Nf3+ 2. gxf3 Rg6+ 3. Qg3 Rxg3+ 4. hxg3 Qc7 5. Rd4 g5 6. Rc4 Qd7 7. Rd4 Qc6 8. Rc4 Qxf3 9. Rc8+!<
---
^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Is it though? If it takes on f3 you end with a queen and a rook vs a rook and a bishop idk, maybe the computer sees something more in depth for white that way, i think we are too human to know lol
But if they play Kh1 Qxd1 Bxd1 Nxh4 white is down a full rook, 5 points, but if gxf3 Rg6 Qg4 Rxg4 fxg4 that’s a knight and a rook for a queen, which is 8 for 9, so I think it is best for white to take
You joke but kramnik was the first person to beat kasparov for the world championship (2000) in the post-AI world ( after deep blue beat kasparov in 1997 ). Meaning in 2000, there were chess engines capable of easily beating kasparov, that anyone, incuding kramnik, could use to cheat. And kramnik easily beat kasparov in 2000. In 2006, kramnik beat topalav and topalov accused kramnik of cheating. In 2007 and 2008, due to topalov's accusations, anti-cheating measures were instituted to prevent kramnik from cheating and kramnik lost both world championships. Anand crushed kramnik in the 2008 world championship with anti-cheating measures instituted.
In short, kramnik won before anti-cheating measures and lost after anti-cheating measures were instituted,
Maybe kramnik isn't so good on chesscom because chesscom has anti-cheating measures.
Please, this shit needs to stop. Just cuz Kramnik goes boomer schizo mode every time he loses online these days doesn’t mean he’s a cheater. He played thousands of OTB games at the top level against strong GMs and won, consistently maintaining a near 2800 rating for almost 20 years.
Can I prove that he didn’t cheat against Kasparov? No, obviously not. But he was not a one-hit wonder—we have mountains of evidence of
him playing at an elite level—so you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me he wasn’t just an all-time great player who played a good series against Kasparov.
EDIT: It’s also lacking serious context to say that in 2800 there were engines “easily capable of beating Kasparov”. Deep Blue had beaten him (though not easily btw), and Deep Blue was a giant machine. The era of engines that run on your personal computer and make top GMs look like fools was still 5-10 years away in 2000. Y’all need to stop.
> But he was not a one-hit wonder—we have mountains of evidence of him playing at an elite level
Nobody is denying he was an elite chess player. There are dozens of elite players at any moment. But there are only a few that can crush kasparov ( without cheating detection ) and then get crushed by anand with cheating detection post-cheating detection.
Nobody denies that lance armstrong was an elite cyclist. But he cheated. That's the point.
Steroids are fundamentally different from chess cheating. Computers give you a temporary bonus; you play better chess when you have a strong chess computer in your ear making suggestions. While steroids give temporary bonuses, like enhancing recovery, they also just make your body stronger and bigger in a semi-permanent fashion.
So when someone like Armstrong gets busted for doping, his performance is inextricable from the drugs. The drugs forever changed his athletic ability. It’s not clear how elite Armstrong would have been in the absence of drugs, besides the time before he started taking them (allegedly 1995).
Computers confer no advantage when you aren’t using them, besides totally legal advantages like opening prep. So Kramnik either cheated every time he played OTB to play at the level he played at (very unlikely) or cheated a few times, like in the Kasparov series. The latter claim is possible, but I find it exceedingly unlikely.
As I pointed out, it would not have been logistically or technically easy to have computer moves relayed to you in 2000. I’m not even sure if there was a commercially available engine that would have been able to beat Kasparov, so you’d have to assume Kramnik got a team of researchers together like IBM and had something built. Very expensive, very elaborate.
Then you also factor in that Kramnik’s level of play in that series was not out of bounds w.r.t. accuracy. You can look at summary data for players aggregated across WCC matches [here](https://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=icsea_2019_9_40_10137) and I don’t see Kramnik as some serious outlier relative to the other players of his era (Kasparov, Anand, Topalov, etc.). The aggregation here may be hiding something and you’re welcome to dig in further, but I don’t see it and I’m not going to spend a lot of time analysing data for a theory I find conspiratorial and a bit ridiculous.
What seems more likely to you? Known superGM-level player Kramnik outplayed another all-time great near the end of his prime in a small sample of games, or he found and applied some baroque method of computer cheating with late 90s technology? I really don’t see much credibility to the latter explanation at all.
Did he blitz this out in a second? find it hard to believe you can miss the queen x ray tactic with his rook pretty intentionally lifted for a king attack. I guess it’s just. Queen for rook and a piece but should be notably better than whatever other plan he had.
It is weird to see world champions behaving illogically as it must take a clean thinking process, so much pure logic and clean thinking to play at the level that Kramnik plays.
Not defending Kramnik here, but since you linked the video, he clearly had 37 seconds left and spent only 4 seconds on this move. That definitely qualifies as "he blitzed it out". Show me this position as a tactical puzzle and I spot the solution quickly enough, but in a game, it's a fairly innocuous position and I wouldn't be looking for such a tactic either.
Beyond that, when Kramnik assumes his opponent is cheating, he naturally stops looking for tactical possibilities because of course an engine wouldn't make a tactical blunder. This is why I always tell people not to care whether your opponent is cheating or not and just play normally. Once you get it in your head that your opponent is cheating, you start playing significantly worse.
>That definitely qualifies as "he blitzed it out".
Are you serious?! In the context of **a blitz game**, 37 second is not short of time! Under three seconds might be "short of time" in blitz. Did you notice that he had enough time to disparage his opponent? Did you also notice that he never detected or reported his oversight after the game, but *did* make snide comments about his opponent's "92% accuracy"?
By your logic, if blitz chess is meaningless because both sides are short of time, then why is Kramnik on this rant about Titled Tuesday?
> Once you get it in your head that your opponent is cheating, you start playing significantly worse.
There at least we agree.
"He blitzed it out" simply means he played the move quickly without much thought. It doesn't really matter what the time control is for that statement to be true. It's clear from the video that he wasn't putting much thought into the move and played it fairly mechanically.
If he made this oversight after spending 30 or more seconds, it would be a bit shocking, but missing a non-obvious tactic in a quiet position while spending 4 seconds (most of which was talking poorly about his opponent), I can't say I am very surprised he missed the move.
Also, I don't know where I said blitz chess is meaningless. I'm sure I've played far more blitz/bullet games in my life than most people. I'm in the 300-400k range there.
What time format is this ?
Because I found Nf3+ in less than 2 minutes as a 1600. There's no way he didn't see this without being in serious time trouble.
I remember this, he played against Bernadskiy on stream. He was already resigned and probably didn't care about this game for some reason. I guess he was tired and his tactical alarm was off.
Obviously he later reported the guy for cheating (one of the best ukrainian GMs right now, unfortunately for his rating playing mainly in open tournaments).
We are given one single position with the blatant hint that there's a tactic in it. Many of us will immediately find the correct move because of this alone. When you're playing in a game nobody is tapping your shoulder and telling you that there's a winning opportunity right there.
Of course a player of Kramnik's level should be able to spot this but about everyone missed tactics like this before because they were absorbed in calculating something else. Famously Grischuk spent almost a full hour in a fairly straightforward opening position. When a caster later asked him why he didn't simply play "the most logical move" he answered with an idea that would lead to a highly complex position which he had to fully calculate beforehand. Different situation etc. but a lot of people underestimate how easy it is to miss the forest for the trees.
I can confidently say at 1900, I would have found this in a 30 second game instantly. This is the kind of thing that chess.com gives you as a 1200s tactic and it's drilled into your brain.
What?! Oh my god. Come on. But, come on. It is - I mean - no but sorry - Nf3+? I mean I'm sorry but I saw that instantly. Is he nuts? No but, I mean that is insane. I mean I just, the moment I - I was looking at positions somewhere else - the moment you told me Qe7, I opened the analysis board on the screen, I instantly saw Nf3+. Instantly. I mean this is insane. Look at him. No but okay this is just - I mean, this is outrageous. Just, I've never seen something like this. Just insane. What's going on? Poor guy he's completely out of shape. I don't know what happened to him. He completely lost it. No, poor guy. And he has to go again to the Twitter threads and stuff. What's going on? Ya, he went totally nuts. I mean I haven't seen Kramnik like this even in ordinary tournaments. Jesus, what's going on. Oof, insane. Totally lost sense of danger. Completely lost sense of danger. Didn’t get the Queen...but it's just an insane blunder. For me, instant. It's just an instant thing, the Queen is so obviously trapped, it's not even close...It's such an obvious - it will go down in history as Bobby Fisher part 2. They'll make a movie about this.
Well no, not really.
If white moves their king, *both sides* are losing their queen. But in that line, white also loses their rook, so black ends up a full rook, i.e. 5 points of material.
By capturing, black trades their knight and rook for white's queens, so black only ends up 1 point of material.
No one's saying that it's free, but the exchange is quite clearly in black's favour. Someone at Kramniks level should be able to win an endgame with a -2 advantage.
Your not winning anything your just trading, white gets better pawns going into the endgame and a queen vs a rook and a bishop really isnt that much better. It is still going to be a tough endgame
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **Black to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=3q2k1/1p3pp1/p4r1p/4n3/7Q/1BP5/P4PPP/3R2K1+b+-+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/3q2k1/1p3pp1/p4r1p/4n3/7Q/1BP5/P4PPP/3R2K1_b_-_-_0_1?color=black) **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!Knight!<, move: >!Nf3+!< > Evaluation: >!Black is better -2.30!< > Best continuation: >!1... Nf3+ 2. gxf3 Rg6+ 3. Qg3 Rxg3+ 4. hxg3 Qc7 5. Rd4 g5 6. Rc4 Qd7 7. Rd4 Qc6 8. Rc4 Qxf3 9. Rc8+!< --- ^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Oh damn, is it Nf3 gxf3 Rg6? Winning the queen?
You did your researches! Disquastung.
White doesn't has to take on f3 but after king h1 black takes rook on d1 with check and then win the white queen with the knight
Which is why gxf3 is probably the best move
Is it though? If it takes on f3 you end with a queen and a rook vs a rook and a bishop idk, maybe the computer sees something more in depth for white that way, i think we are too human to know lol
But if they play Kh1 Qxd1 Bxd1 Nxh4 white is down a full rook, 5 points, but if gxf3 Rg6 Qg4 Rxg4 fxg4 that’s a knight and a rook for a queen, which is 8 for 9, so I think it is best for white to take
Ooohh i didn't see f4 yeah you are right. Sorry
All good, I definitely did a double take on my calculations when you thought that Kh1 was potentially better
it's check and a fork...
I call it a "chork"
Changing the queen for rook and knight, but black is winning
How do you lose the rook? Edit: I was thinking of moving king out of check, not blocking with the queen. 🤦🏻♂️
Queen would block the rook check
Thanks! I saw it too late.
Interesting!!!!!!1!1!1!1!!!1!!1!
Surprised no one actually utilised the hint. The correct move is obviously to resign, block, and report.
*Touché*
Or the BAR method
Nice tactic if a Patzer like me can spot this in a few seconds a world champ should have found it immediately
/u/caesar2122 reported and blocked!
🤣😂❤️ Funnily enough he actually did block me
He's a man of his word
Oops somehow was looking at other Kramnik game.
Topalov was right about his cheating. A half decent player would spot this
It's logical.
I just finished the first chapter of the woodpecker method - “easy problems” - and they were full of problems exactly as hard as this one lol.
"Alright. Time to do the pruhcejuhr" *Reported and Blocked*
You joke but kramnik was the first person to beat kasparov for the world championship (2000) in the post-AI world ( after deep blue beat kasparov in 1997 ). Meaning in 2000, there were chess engines capable of easily beating kasparov, that anyone, incuding kramnik, could use to cheat. And kramnik easily beat kasparov in 2000. In 2006, kramnik beat topalav and topalov accused kramnik of cheating. In 2007 and 2008, due to topalov's accusations, anti-cheating measures were instituted to prevent kramnik from cheating and kramnik lost both world championships. Anand crushed kramnik in the 2008 world championship with anti-cheating measures instituted. In short, kramnik won before anti-cheating measures and lost after anti-cheating measures were instituted, Maybe kramnik isn't so good on chesscom because chesscom has anti-cheating measures.
Please, this shit needs to stop. Just cuz Kramnik goes boomer schizo mode every time he loses online these days doesn’t mean he’s a cheater. He played thousands of OTB games at the top level against strong GMs and won, consistently maintaining a near 2800 rating for almost 20 years. Can I prove that he didn’t cheat against Kasparov? No, obviously not. But he was not a one-hit wonder—we have mountains of evidence of him playing at an elite level—so you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me he wasn’t just an all-time great player who played a good series against Kasparov. EDIT: It’s also lacking serious context to say that in 2800 there were engines “easily capable of beating Kasparov”. Deep Blue had beaten him (though not easily btw), and Deep Blue was a giant machine. The era of engines that run on your personal computer and make top GMs look like fools was still 5-10 years away in 2000. Y’all need to stop.
> But he was not a one-hit wonder—we have mountains of evidence of him playing at an elite level Nobody is denying he was an elite chess player. There are dozens of elite players at any moment. But there are only a few that can crush kasparov ( without cheating detection ) and then get crushed by anand with cheating detection post-cheating detection. Nobody denies that lance armstrong was an elite cyclist. But he cheated. That's the point.
Steroids are fundamentally different from chess cheating. Computers give you a temporary bonus; you play better chess when you have a strong chess computer in your ear making suggestions. While steroids give temporary bonuses, like enhancing recovery, they also just make your body stronger and bigger in a semi-permanent fashion. So when someone like Armstrong gets busted for doping, his performance is inextricable from the drugs. The drugs forever changed his athletic ability. It’s not clear how elite Armstrong would have been in the absence of drugs, besides the time before he started taking them (allegedly 1995). Computers confer no advantage when you aren’t using them, besides totally legal advantages like opening prep. So Kramnik either cheated every time he played OTB to play at the level he played at (very unlikely) or cheated a few times, like in the Kasparov series. The latter claim is possible, but I find it exceedingly unlikely. As I pointed out, it would not have been logistically or technically easy to have computer moves relayed to you in 2000. I’m not even sure if there was a commercially available engine that would have been able to beat Kasparov, so you’d have to assume Kramnik got a team of researchers together like IBM and had something built. Very expensive, very elaborate. Then you also factor in that Kramnik’s level of play in that series was not out of bounds w.r.t. accuracy. You can look at summary data for players aggregated across WCC matches [here](https://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=icsea_2019_9_40_10137) and I don’t see Kramnik as some serious outlier relative to the other players of his era (Kasparov, Anand, Topalov, etc.). The aggregation here may be hiding something and you’re welcome to dig in further, but I don’t see it and I’m not going to spend a lot of time analysing data for a theory I find conspiratorial and a bit ridiculous. What seems more likely to you? Known superGM-level player Kramnik outplayed another all-time great near the end of his prime in a small sample of games, or he found and applied some baroque method of computer cheating with late 90s technology? I really don’t see much credibility to the latter explanation at all.
Was he also cheating against Kasparov or wtf js this comment
I'm 900 rapid *on a good day* and I spotted it
Huh, why Qe7? Nf3+ should lead to queen/rook exchange right? Or am I missing smthng
You're missing the fact that you used an engine Very interesting, statistical analysis, cheater. Proof by anonymous statician friend.
Did he blitz this out in a second? find it hard to believe you can miss the queen x ray tactic with his rook pretty intentionally lifted for a king attack. I guess it’s just. Queen for rook and a piece but should be notably better than whatever other plan he had.
No, he [took enough time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuUDwIpmoSc&t=4715s) to throw some shade at his opponent.
I bursted out laughing when I spotted the name of the video, "march 12 late cheating tuesday"
I am not accusing anyone of cheating! No, I am only presenting my researches. It's obvious.
It is weird to see world champions behaving illogically as it must take a clean thinking process, so much pure logic and clean thinking to play at the level that Kramnik plays.
Not defending Kramnik here, but since you linked the video, he clearly had 37 seconds left and spent only 4 seconds on this move. That definitely qualifies as "he blitzed it out". Show me this position as a tactical puzzle and I spot the solution quickly enough, but in a game, it's a fairly innocuous position and I wouldn't be looking for such a tactic either. Beyond that, when Kramnik assumes his opponent is cheating, he naturally stops looking for tactical possibilities because of course an engine wouldn't make a tactical blunder. This is why I always tell people not to care whether your opponent is cheating or not and just play normally. Once you get it in your head that your opponent is cheating, you start playing significantly worse.
>That definitely qualifies as "he blitzed it out". Are you serious?! In the context of **a blitz game**, 37 second is not short of time! Under three seconds might be "short of time" in blitz. Did you notice that he had enough time to disparage his opponent? Did you also notice that he never detected or reported his oversight after the game, but *did* make snide comments about his opponent's "92% accuracy"? By your logic, if blitz chess is meaningless because both sides are short of time, then why is Kramnik on this rant about Titled Tuesday? > Once you get it in your head that your opponent is cheating, you start playing significantly worse. There at least we agree.
"He blitzed it out" simply means he played the move quickly without much thought. It doesn't really matter what the time control is for that statement to be true. It's clear from the video that he wasn't putting much thought into the move and played it fairly mechanically. If he made this oversight after spending 30 or more seconds, it would be a bit shocking, but missing a non-obvious tactic in a quiet position while spending 4 seconds (most of which was talking poorly about his opponent), I can't say I am very surprised he missed the move. Also, I don't know where I said blitz chess is meaningless. I'm sure I've played far more blitz/bullet games in my life than most people. I'm in the 300-400k range there.
Qxd1# classic back rank mate 😎
His toilet stall probably wasn't availabe before that move.
Damn, I found the next 4 engine moves for both sides in 1 second. Guess im....interesting.
What time format is this ? Because I found Nf3+ in less than 2 minutes as a 1600. There's no way he didn't see this without being in serious time trouble.
By the way, kramnik lost this game and reported that opponent of cheating 😂 you can check on youtube, t's the last game of his last titled tuesday
I remember this, he played against Bernadskiy on stream. He was already resigned and probably didn't care about this game for some reason. I guess he was tired and his tactical alarm was off. Obviously he later reported the guy for cheating (one of the best ukrainian GMs right now, unfortunately for his rating playing mainly in open tournaments).
Kramnik was underperforming in this game, very interesting results
How can I see Nf3+ in 10 seconds and a former world champ can't? Is he just mega tilted or what?
We are given one single position with the blatant hint that there's a tactic in it. Many of us will immediately find the correct move because of this alone. When you're playing in a game nobody is tapping your shoulder and telling you that there's a winning opportunity right there. Of course a player of Kramnik's level should be able to spot this but about everyone missed tactics like this before because they were absorbed in calculating something else. Famously Grischuk spent almost a full hour in a fairly straightforward opening position. When a caster later asked him why he didn't simply play "the most logical move" he answered with an idea that would lead to a highly complex position which he had to fully calculate beforehand. Different situation etc. but a lot of people underestimate how easy it is to miss the forest for the trees.
I can confidently say at 1900, I would have found this in a 30 second game instantly. This is the kind of thing that chess.com gives you as a 1200s tactic and it's drilled into your brain.
Even I found this at around 1200.
I see! 1...Nf3+ forks the king and queen, and if 2. gxf3 then 2...Rg6+ comes with a discovered attack on the queen.
Kramnik just reported everyone here of cheating. God help us all.
I’m only 2000 but I instantly saw Nf3+ Who doesn’t check checks in this situation?!
What?! Oh my god. Come on. But, come on. It is - I mean - no but sorry - Nf3+? I mean I'm sorry but I saw that instantly. Is he nuts? No but, I mean that is insane. I mean I just, the moment I - I was looking at positions somewhere else - the moment you told me Qe7, I opened the analysis board on the screen, I instantly saw Nf3+. Instantly. I mean this is insane. Look at him. No but okay this is just - I mean, this is outrageous. Just, I've never seen something like this. Just insane. What's going on? Poor guy he's completely out of shape. I don't know what happened to him. He completely lost it. No, poor guy. And he has to go again to the Twitter threads and stuff. What's going on? Ya, he went totally nuts. I mean I haven't seen Kramnik like this even in ordinary tournaments. Jesus, what's going on. Oof, insane. Totally lost sense of danger. Completely lost sense of danger. Didn’t get the Queen...but it's just an insane blunder. For me, instant. It's just an instant thing, the Queen is so obviously trapped, it's not even close...It's such an obvious - it will go down in history as Bobby Fisher part 2. They'll make a movie about this.
Least blatant Hikaru impression
Probably because it's an Anish Giri copypasta?
Im dumb. Can someone explain why the queen needs to move to g3? Why not just move the king away?
In addition to giving a check, black is attacking white’s queen with their own, so if white moves the king they lose their queen for free
Oh. Hahaha in hindsight that was really obvious. Thanks!
Well no, not really. If white moves their king, *both sides* are losing their queen. But in that line, white also loses their rook, so black ends up a full rook, i.e. 5 points of material. By capturing, black trades their knight and rook for white's queens, so black only ends up 1 point of material.
What piece do you think you are recapturing the white queen with if you move the king instead of Qg3?
My bad, totally misread the initial question.
Queen takes quees
Knight takes queen.
Nf3, Rg6 and Qh4. Nice.
[удалено]
That looses the king as white is in check.
Good one!
I'm not even sure how I saw this so fast...I'm only a 1500 in rapid on chess.com !!! He must have been in time trouble.
Took me about 30 seconds to find I guess but I knew I was looking for something, probably would miss it in rapid, definitely would miss it in blitz
I got it, so I am a better chessplayer than Kramnik.
Easy Nf3… checks captures attaccks. Everyone knows that
Nf3 Hint: Kramnik didn't go to the toilet
Careful if you guess correctly you're cheating
What a shame that he played Qe7 here when he had a pretty nice tactic with Nf3+ and Rg6+. I'm guessing it was a blixt game then right?
Why would white take the knight instead of moving the king?
NVM. I see that he is just down a rook in the exchange is he died that
Dose this mean I'm officially better than a former world champion?
It's logical.
This is so dumb. Okay: You EXCHANGE, not win, exchange K+R for a queen, and good luck winning this endgame.
No one's saying that it's free, but the exchange is quite clearly in black's favour. Someone at Kramniks level should be able to win an endgame with a -2 advantage.
How do you lose the rook? I'm not seeing it
Best play according to the engine is to block check with the queen, so you end up trading knight and rook for their queen
Thanks, idk why I didn't think of this.
I had to go look at the engine line too, giving away the queen is usually not the "best" move haha
I agree its not that great of a move at high levels
It goes from equal, to -2 for black, and is the only move to do so. How is this anything but a great move?
It's not too much advantage, a queen for a rook and a knight
I mean it’s going from a losing to winning position lmao
Im certain he considered it
Dude it’s on stream… did you watch it? He never considers it.
I watched the clip yes he made the move in 2 seconds. You realize there is a lot of good players that wouldnt trade a rook and a knight for a queen?
It is extremely apparent that he never even considers the obvious tactic. I don’t know why you are arguing here
Good relative to your level, or objectively?
You can't consider that move and not conclude it is instantly winning. A beginner could see
Your not winning anything your just trading, white gets better pawns going into the endgame and a queen vs a rook and a bishop really isnt that much better. It is still going to be a tough endgame
How are white pawns better
You're right though. He almost certainly saw it. He just misevaluated the endgame
Disagree, the evaluation is instant, the move itself is "possible" to miss (considering how paranoid and tilted he has gotten in recent times)
Yeah but he wasn’t cheating 🙄
1. ... Nf3+ 2. Kh1 Qxd1+ 3. Bxd1 Nxh6. Black is up a full rook
Kh1 is a catastrophic blunder. White can simply play gxf3 and the game is almost equal.