Nice fight Riazantsev 0 - Karjakin 1 (round 8)!

Not all draws were boring, Riazantsev - Naiditsch being an example.

Actually, three players (Bologan, Jobava and Motylev) were involved in all of the short draws, and at least Bologan may be sick - this is the only speculation I could find on why his game against Onischuk yesterday was postponed.

It may be a bit odd to single out Sokolov for fighting spirit, an alternative explanation for his many decisive games (but Jakovenko also has just 33% draws) could be that the others singled him out as the man to beat?! After all he's the lowest-rated player.

Whether Sokolov's sacrifices against Karjakin were "very bold" and "stunning" is a matter of taste - objectively (as black was simply lost after a few more obvious moves) they were simply incorrect? Would "?" be a better characterization than "!?" for 25.-Ng2: and 26.-Ra5: - I fail to see the point of the exchange sacrifice, could white's Na5 return to the king's defense in some lines?

Does anyone know why Onischuk-Bolognan was postponed?? Very unusual... :o

No, Thomas. The rook was hanging, atacked by the B in e3. The desperate atack Nxg2 includes the idea that, if white takes the rook first, then the knight on g2 survives and becomes a piece more in the said atack. White having taken Kxg2, it's at least the minor evil black trading the rook imediately by the white knight, because there is nothing imediately SO forceful on the king side yet (nor it would be later :-) ).

Right, Sokolov was already busted against Karjakin, maybe right after 15...a5.

According to Karjakin's own comments at http://chesspro.ru/_events/2010/poikovskii3.html (Google-translated as far as I am concerned), Sokolov already went wrong in the opening. Karjakin critized the combination of 12.-Qd7 and 13.-g6 ("a strange kind of mixed plans"), and later 18.-Nh5?! (18.-Rad8 with the idea of 19.Na5 Ba8 +=). On 25.-Ng2: he merely wrote "do not save, but nothing else remains". So the knight sacrifice was desperation rather than creativity or "uncompromising chess"!?

in sutovsky -onichuk: in the final position isn't black winning if he plays Qxf2... (Rxf2 Rd1#)

No, because Rxf2+ is CHECK! ;-)

By the way, very nicely played by Sutovsky!

Yep, see Sutovsky's Google-translated comment on the game, also at Chesspro: "Of course, it was necessary to calculate that 25 ... Qxf2 + 26.Rxf2 + Boat strikes with the Shah, and no matte black motives do not pass. To do this, I lured the black king on the line f." (this should refer to 26.-Qf2:+ 27. Rf2: CHECK!)

@Thomas

1. Lol !! Those translations produce worse and more laughable English than my own!

2. The final moves he should envisage were those Qxf2+ Rxf2+, but he was refering to the manouvre 24.Qg3+, which, other than bringing the queen to the defence of f2, paradoxicaly also serves to prepare the same f2 to not need the queen's defence! (Luring the black king to the f column where it receives a deceptive check, by the rook, in case black tried his last hope Qxf2+)

I find it quite impressive that Google can produce rather accurate, albeit "funny" translations. In most cases, you can understand what the Russian guy meant to say, with some information taken from the context: a boat is a rook, an elephant is a bishop, ... .