< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 44 OF 44 ·
|Jul-16-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <timhortons> I think you are right. Svidler isn't easy for Naka in blitz. I recently watched a video in the internet of Svidler beating Naka in blitz.|
I hope to see Naka play Anand in blitz and rapids soon.
<dx9293> Please read my profile. I also placed my views on Kasparov's treatment of Shirov there.
<It's true that for the 1999-2004 World Champions (other than Anand), winning the Title was their greatest achievement up till now. That doesn't in any way detract from their accomplishment>
As I have said, this is in dispute. The fact that we disagree bespeaks of the reality of this dispute.
|Jul-16-09|| ||Landman: Anyone have the full pgn for the second blitz game? Transmission error seems likely.|
|Jul-16-09|| ||timhortons: <landman>
check this out...this is playchess.com transmission.
[Event "European Cultural City 2016 Tournament-T"]
[Site "Donostia-San Sebastian/Spain"]
[White "Ruslan Ponomariov"]
[Black "Hikaru Nakamura"]
[Annotator "Robot 3"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Nbd7 8. O-O
Bb4 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O 11. Bd3 Bh5 12. Bf4 c5 13. e5 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Nd5 15.
Bd2 cxd4 16. cxd4 Nb8 17. h3 Nc6 18. g4 Bg6 19. Bb5 Rc8 20. Rfc1 Nde7 21. Kg2
Nxe5 22. dxe5 Qd4 23. Qe3 Qxe3 24. Bxe3 a6 25. Bf1 Bc2 26. Kg3 Nd5 27. Bd2 Rc7
28. a5 Rd8 29. Ra2 Rdc8 30. Rb2 h6 black wins. akamura wins the tiebreak 2-0.
|Jul-16-09|| ||Landman: Thanks. So the presumably corrected pgn (moves 21-22) would be 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Nbd7 8. O-O Bb4 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O 11. Bd3 Bh5 12. Bf4 c5 13. e5 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Nd5 15. Bd2 cxd4 16. cxd4 Nb8 17. h3 Nc6 18. g4 Bg6 19. Bb5 Rc8 20. Rfc1 Nde7 21. Kg2 Nxd4 22. Nxd4 Qxd4 23. Qe3 Qxe3 24. Bxe3 a6 25. Bf1 Bc2 26. Kg3 Nd5 27. Bd2 Rc7 28. a5 Rd8 29. Ra2 Rdc8 30. Rb2 h6...|
In the earlier diagrams White's Nf3 should be removed.
As I recall, in the concluding combo Naka had Bc6, Re2, Nd2 vs. Pono's Bb6, Bg2, Rg1 and Kh2. Then Nf3+ won shortly.
|Jul-16-09|| ||timhortons: <Landman>
whats the machine evaluation in the final position of game 2?
|Jul-16-09|| ||Landman: More data: Short had defeated first Timman and then Karpov in FIDE Candidates matches. Short was the designated FIDE challenger to Kasparov in 1993. So the subsequent Karpov-Timman FIDE championship was tarnished, even though the FIDE World Champion title was fully legitimate.|
As I recall, no sponsors could be found for Kasparov-Shirov, owing in part to Kasparov's dominant record against him up until that point.
|Jul-16-09|| ||RonB52734: Has anyone noticed that cg has the tournament score wrong at the top of the page? (Naka 7/9, Pono and Svidler tied at 5.5/9) Sorry if I'm the millionth person to point this out...|
|Jul-16-09|| ||timhortons: im waiting for cg to post the games...
i caught the qxg5 of naka in the act!
as i posted it here...its brutal..i thought at first he blundered.
|Jul-16-09|| ||Landman: <RonB52734> I noticed also - you're the first to point it out.
<timhortons> That I don't know. Pono ran low on time, his position collapsed (Nf3+ Kh1 Nxg1), then he lost (probably on time). After Bxc6 bxc6 Kxg1 White's down an exchange and a pawn. R on the open 7th, King trapped on the first rank, no counterplay, Black passer on c6 - the eval would probably be -5.00 or so.|
|Jul-16-09|| ||parmetd: I don't think karpov has ever gone winless in a tournament.|
|Jul-16-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <dx9293>
<Problem is, Kasparov chose Short (who we can say earned a World Championship match by winning the Candidates cycle), ran a PCA cycle with Anand that had much fairness to it>
So really, Kasparov did not chose Short, or Anand. They both qualified. Short did so entirely from within the traditional FIDE system.
<Blunderdome>, the PCA/FIDE cycle split was not really analogous to conference championships, because the strongest challengers (at least, judging from the results) played in both cycles. Kramnik, Kamsky, Anand, Adams, and Gelfand all participated. Anand and Kamsky (the eventual winners) each knocked each other out in one of the cycles. They were not perfect, but were certainly much closer to the traditional candidtate's matches than anything we've seen since.
<but then chose Kramnik in 2000! He seemed determined to not play a match with Shirov, despite having a bunch of wins (can't remember how many at the time) and zero losses against him. Kasparov wasn't afraid, I don't think, I think he said "well, Kramnik is higher up on the rating list, so he should get the match." I love Kramnik, but that's not right.>
What actually transpired was somewhat different. Please read:
Check out http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/989...
Quite recently, Kramnik himself has addressed the situation and its aftermath:
|Jul-16-09|| ||VaselineTopLove: Why did they go into rapid tiebreaks if Pono already had a higher tie-break score? It sucks that classical tournaments have to be decided in such a manner.|
I can understand it if the same is deployed in a world championship match, as a world champion is required to prove his superiority in all areas against his opponent, but tournaments that are based on classical time controls should not be decided in such fashion.
|Jul-16-09|| ||Blunderdome: <SetNoEscapeOn>, sure it is, because I'm not concerned with <the strongest challengers>, but with the strongest player, Garry Kasparov. Surely, a Superbowl played between the AFC champion and the NFC runner-up, with the NFC champion not participating, would forever have an asterisk in the record books.|
For that matter, imagine if the winners of each conference played the runners-up from the opposite conference, instead of each other -- how would you know who was the real champion?
I'm going to stand by my analogy. I think it's quite good.
|Jul-16-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <timhortons: im waiting for cg to post the games... *** >|
If you're looking for the two blitz tie-break games, they are available here: Donostia Blitz Tiebreak (2009)
|Jul-16-09|| ||Shams: <Why did they go into rapid tiebreaks if Pono already had a higher tie-break score?>|
He only had that according to a tie-break system that wasn't in use at the tournament, I believe.
|Jul-16-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <I'm not concerned with <the strongest challengers>, but with the strongest player, Garry Kasparov.>|
Well, that's very interesting interesting. Originally you said
<Garry's selection of opponents is a blemish on his championships 1993-2000, so surely you can see why the FIDE championship also diminished in value. Neither the PCA nor FIDE had all the world's best players. No one could say with certainty that he was the best or even that he had beaten the best.>
But now you say that it is not about who Kasparov played against, but only Kasparov himself. All right.
There are two major problems with your analogy:
1. The AFC and NFC fields are mutually exclusive. For the most part, the PCA and FIDE fields were comprised of the same players- especially the strongest ones (for instance, both winners participated in both cycles).
That is to say: both the PCA and FIDE challenger could have been the same player, and almost were (Anand collapsed, albeit against a very strong Gata Kamsky, in the FIDE cycle).
Given that fact, what basis do you have for comparing the PCA and FIDE candidates to the AFC and NFC in the first place? What makes them similar at all?
2. Unlike in football, the champion does not even participate in the playoffs; therefore it is a mistake to compare Kasparov with a conference champion. When you say "For that matter, imagine if the winners of each conference played the runners-up from the opposite conference, instead of each other -- how would you know who was the real champion?" not only do you make it seem as if there were two separate sets of players, you make it sound as if Kasparov managed to prove himself against only one of them.
There was only one strong player who was prevented from playing against Kasparov because he was excluded from the 1994 cycle: Anatoly Karpov. After the two Ks managed to win their matches, they were supposed to play each other yet again (Kasparov had already defended his title from Karpov's challenges three times, before the difference in their strength became even greater). Alas (or perhaps for Karpov's sake, thankfully), the dawn of FIDE's KO era interfered with these plans.
Is Karpov your reason for claiming that "No one could say with certainty that (Kasparov) was the best or even that he had beaten the best"? If not, what was?
|Jul-16-09|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <VaselineTopLove: Why did they go into rapid tiebreaks if Pono already had a higher tie-break score? ***>|
The tie-break playoff, a pair of <blitz> games <not rapid> was in accordance with this clause in Article 10 of the tournament regulations: "If there are only two players tied for the first place, they will play two 5 minute games. If they are still tied, they will play an Armaggedon game (5 minutes for white and 4 for black; if they draw, then black wins)."
I share your dislike of such a system for breaking ties in the final standings, but this practice is, of course, very common nowadays and was clearly specified in the applicable regulations.
|Jul-16-09|| ||Shams: From Kramnik's article that <SetNoEscapeOn> linked to:|
<"I thought that with time Garry could ‘digest’ his London defeat and would become more objective with the passing years, but I see that this isn’t happening. That’s why after Vishy Anand recently provided me with a certain amount of free time, I decided to use it to explain my position on various issues to the readers concerning the ‘newest’ chess history...">
Kramnik has a great dry wit.
|Jul-17-09|| ||Blunderdome: <SetNoEscapeOn>, the two fragments you clipped will not look so contradictory if I confess that I am young guy who knows very little about the history of the PCA and was conceding a point I didn't necessarily agree with but didn't know enough about to argue (namely, that there was something wrong with Garry's process of determining his opponents).|
My point was only that GK didn't play in the FIDE tournaments, so FIDE did not have <<all> the world's best players>.
Obviously, my AFC/NFC analogy falls apart under a literal interpretation (many do). It was only meant to illustrate a scenario in which a team attained a championship despite not competing against <one> very important competitor. Chess handles its championships unlike most other sports -- perhaps I'd have done better with tennis?
The last point you quote (not about Karpov) was meant to argue that a title is less valuable if all the players are not in direct competition. I might as well have said, "No one could claim to be the best because no one beat Kasparov," but out of courtesy to a kibitzer who seemed to have a low opinion of GK, I extended it to acknowledge that both titles were disputed. Again, I was relying on some earlier comments which disparaged GK's selection of opponents. Perhaps I was misled and he did in fact beat the best players in the world -- but the FIDE champions did not.
|Jul-17-09|| ||timhortons: <Peligroso Patzer>
|Jul-17-09|| ||znsprdx: Regarding any tiebreak playoff system: be it rapid/blitz/ Armaggedon,(the most ridiculous concept ever) unless increments are used - then any victory on the clock fails the most elementary mathematical notion of time in Chess, which is a contemporary illustration of Zeno's Paradox.|
Until the digital era we were technologically handicapped to address this problem (cost)effectively, but now that it has become available - why do we still use such anachronistic methods?
The easiest illustration of the problem is the following position, where Black already handicapped by being a move behind is to play the Queen check in the maximum 5 move(9 half moves)forced checkmate mate sequence of the Philidor (or ---)smothered mate.
As the queen is being sacrificed the flag falls( be it prior to classical time controls or one of the accelerated forms) it is categorically absurd to give the player being check-mated the full point...
at the very most perhaps as a compromise, a draw would still be more reasonable than a loss for the clearly winning player.
The problem is how do you explain something so obvious to those either incapable or more often than not stubbornly unwilling to comprehend? This problem continues to contaminate legitimate results; the argument that this inequality is the same for everyone begs the question. First and foremost being that chess is not defined under its rules to be decided by time.
Of course time is a necessary convention, but it must not contradict the finite notions of the rules of Chess. Equally absurd would be losing while effecting a fixed consecutive 3 move repetition cycle, or a 'wild rook' perpetual check situation.
The use of increments which allow enough time to at least physically make the move is essential.
|Jul-20-09|| ||DCP23: Chesspro got a new photo report on this event:
|Jul-20-09|| ||whiskeyrebel: Thanks, those are better pics than I've seen anywhere else of the event.|
|Jul-20-09|| ||siamesedream: Video - blitz tie-breaks Nakamura - Ponomariov; Ponomariov - Nakamura:|
|Jul-20-09|| ||boz: The body language tells you everything.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 44 OF 44 ·