Pinkamena (1541) vs M. Sidorovskiy (1949). Chess Fight Night. CFN. Rapid 

De qué estás hablando?

@@lucaspenaflorperez1077 Get a dictionary.

@@gerry4b ya traduje y no entiendo de lo que estás hablando.

@@lucaspenaflorperez1077 I sympathize…

@F Robber that is a bit harsh. Pinkamena was playing well and was even up a pawn. But at the end she fell victim to some trickery. Even before she blundered by trading rooks with Rxf2?? she had to deal with the threat of ...Nd3 overworking her rooks with a win of material and also threatening ...Rf1+ leading to mate. Thus Nb3 would not have worked because then ...Rf1+ would have won on the spot. So it was very easy to go wrong in that position. At that point instead of trading rooks she had to return her extra pawn with Rd3 to prevent ...Nd3 but even then she would have been in serious trouble. This was a tough loss for Pinkamena against a higher rated opponent after she more than held her own for a long time.

@@Steveross2851 Sidorovskiy had each of his pieces aimed at her K and Pinkamena wanted to traded pieces. Wrong.

​@@frobber150you're being too harsh. Her desire to trade some of the pieces aimed at her king was reasonable except that it didn't work tactically. And by the time she blundered by trading rooks relatively few tournament players would have defended correctly.

@@Steveross2851 She lost the game before the blunder on the first rank. Her pieces were at the edge of the board. His pieces were aimed at her King. She traded Queens and had no way to attack his King. He stacked his Rooks and won the game.

@@frobber150 Not that it matters to your argument... but 7,600 views... versus one like, makes it easy to overlook pedantic negativity.