< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-19-06|| ||Brown: <thegoodanarchist> perhaps Bareev was finding something more fruitful and satisfying than analyzing openings, or, worse yet, kibitzing like us.|
|Oct-19-06|| ||RookFile: It's hard to imagine Bareev playing such a stupid opening.|
|Feb-10-07|| ||dejavu: I got the feeling that bareev up to the crushing Rg3 by gazza was under the impression that he was winning. even karpov is so vigilant against gazza and he got caught.|
|Mar-09-07|| ||ToTheDeath: Great play by Kasparov. The extreme criticism of young Bareev is unwarranted- the position was level for most of the game and the manuever Rb2-b3-g3 is not easy to foresee.|
18. a4? is the losing move. After 18.Rad1 Qe5! Black is a little better but White is still very much in the game.
19.Rad1? walks into mate but even after the best defence 19. Rac1 Rg3 20. Qc6 Rxg2+ 21.Kh1 Rxf2+ 22. Bf3 Qxc6 23. Bxc6 Rxf1+ 24. Rxf1 Bxh3 White is completely lost.
|Mar-09-07|| ||shalgo: <Everyone seems to be overlooking the
fact that a top-level GM lost in the opening in the 1990's. Seems inexcusable to me, even if your opponent is Kasparov.>|
It is ridiculous to single out Bareev, or this game, for this fault. Other top players have had games in which they have lost in the opening.
A Zapata vs Anand, 1988
Deep Blue vs Kasparov, 1997
Anand vs Kramnik, 2005
Everyone is fallible.
|Aug-26-07|| ||Jim Bartle: Another example is Kasparov-Anand, Dortmund 1992.|
|Aug-26-07|| ||aazqua: Another thing we are overlooking is the tremendous vision of Kasparov. He must have seen this continuation 5 or 6 moves earlier. It's tough enough to simply see the final move let alone everything that leads up to it.|
|Aug-26-07|| ||Jim Bartle: Also in Bareev's defense, and in praise of Kasparov, this was a rapid game. It was the second game of the semi-finals of the Immopar tournament (Timman defeated Kasparov in the final), and Bareev had to win to reach a blitz playoff.|
|Nov-04-07|| ||Ernest van der Sar: <fgh> The reason you don't see it, is because it's not on the board yet.
I'm sure you'll agree that on GM-level missing a mate in 3 is called a blunder. |
<ToTheDeath> Young Bareev? The guy was 25 at that time. His opponent was officially the best player in the world at that age.
|Jun-28-10|| ||FSR: West Indian Defense? What the heck is that? It looks like a Gruenfeld (by transposition) to me.|
|Jan-08-12|| ||King Death: <FSR> It looks like it to me too, but even under similar games it lists a bunch of different openings (KID and Old Benoni among others). The only consistent thing in all of this is that White has a bad score with the line.|
|Jan-08-12|| ||mrbasso: It's a Tarrasch reversed.It can't be that bad. Can it?
I suggest 10.Re1 as improvment.|
|Jan-08-12|| ||FSR: <mrbasso> Good suggestion. White scored 2.5/3 with that move in the database. Opening Explorer White's playing the line with Nf3 and e3 against the Gruenfeld (or, as you say, a reversed Tarrasch). Not earthshaking stuff, but certainly playable for White. I think IM Tim Taylor wrote a book some years ago advocating this line for White.|
|Jan-09-12|| ||King Death: One of the interesting things about playing some of these aggressive openings with colors reversed (the Grunfeld, KID and Dutch are some that come to mind) is how they're much less aggressive when played as White.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||FSR: <King Death> Yes, I address that phenomenon in my award-winning Wikipedia article, <First-move advantage in chess> (formerly Today's Featured Article), in the section on <reversed openings>.|
<In a "reversed opening", White plays an opening typically played by Black, but with colors reversed and thus an extra tempo. Evans writes of such openings, "If a defense is considered good for Black, it must be even better for White with a move in hand." Former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik reportedly expressed the same view. Watson questions this idea, citing Suba's thesis that Black, by moving second, has more complete information than White. He writes, "everyone has such difficulties playing as White against a Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5), but ... leading masters have no qualms about answering 1.c4 with 1...e5." To explain this paradox, Watson discusses several different reversed Sicilian lines, showing how Black can exploit the disadvantages of various "extra" moves for White. He concludes, "The point is, Black's set-up in the Sicilian is fine as a reactive system, but not worth much when trying to claim the initiative as White. This is true because Black is able to react to the specific plan White chooses; in Suba's terms, his information is indeed a move greater! Furthermore, he is able to take advantage of dead equal positions which White (hoping to retain the advantage of the first move) would normally avoid."
Watson also observes, "Similarly, the Dutch Defence looks particularly sterile when White achieves the reversed positions a tempo up (it turns out that he has nothing useful to do!); and indeed, many standard Black openings are not very inspiring when one gets them as White, tempo in hand." GM Alex Yermolinsky likewise notes that GM Vladimir Malaniuk, a successful exponent of the Leningrad Dutch (1.d4 f5 2.g3 g6) at the highest levels, "once made a deep impression on me by casually dismissing someone's suggestion that he should try 1.f4 as White. He smiled and said, 'That extra move's gonna hurt me.' "
Yermolinsky also agrees with Alekhine's criticism of 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3, a reversed Alekhine's Defense, in Réti-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925, writing that Alekhine "understood the difference in opening philosophies for White and Black, and realized they just can't be the same! White is supposed to try for more than just obtaining a comfortable game in reversed colour opening set-ups, and, as the statistics show—surprisingly for a lot of people, but not for me—White doesn't even score as well as Black does in the same positions with his extra tempo and all." Howard Staunton, generally considered to have been the strongest player in the world from 1843 to 1851, made a similar point over 160 years ago, writing that Owen's Defense (1.e4 b6) is playable for Black, but that 1.b3 is inferior to "the more customary [first] moves, from its being essentially defensive".
Watson concludes that (a) "most moves have disadvantages as well as advantages, so an extra move is not always an unqualified blessing"; (b) "with his extra information about what White is doing, Black can better react to the new situation"; and (c) because a draw is likely to be more acceptable to Black than to White, White is apt to avoid lines that allow drawish simplifications, while Black may not object to such lines.>
|Jan-10-12|| ||King Death: <FSR> THat's some good stuff. In the next section though I find Fischer's claim that Black was better in the KIA to be just a bit much.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||FSR: <King Death> I agree. I don't know if anyone, with the possible exception of Fischer himself, believed that. Essentially, his contention was that after five symmetrical moves by the two players, a position of mutual zugzwang is reached?! Bizarre.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||Nemesistic: <FSR> I can see there being a case for first move advantage in a chess game,but not in a chess match where there's an equal amount of games..|
Surely the match is won by the better player,regardless of who starts off with the White pieces?
|Jan-10-12|| ||FSR: <Nemesistic> It depends on the format. If the format is, say, "first player to win six games wins the match," the player with White in the first game has a slight edge. In every odd-numbered game, that player will have had one more White than the opponent (for example, after 17 games, that player will have had 9 Whites and 8 Blacks). If the match is tied at five wins apiece and the player then wins, say, the 21st game as White, the match is over. The larger the number of games that have to be won to win the match, the smaller this advantage is. It would be greatest if the stipulation were "first decisive game wins the match."|
|Jan-10-12|| ||Nemesistic: Hey <FSR>, i just scanned my way through your wiki article ( link above ) and your knowledge on openings is immense,and more than anyone i personally have seen posting on this site!|
You've certainly forgotten more than i'll ever remember anyway.. Have you ever thought about writing a book,aimed at say 1600 rated players,it'll pay better than Wikipedia ever would?
|Jan-10-12|| ||FSR: <Nemesistic> No, maybe I should. Wikipedia pays nothing, so it wouldn't be hard to do better than that.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||JoergWalter: <FSR> install a paypal link to your site. money will come in plenty. Just ask <LMAJ>.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||FSR: <JoergWalter> Why didn't I think of that?! Duh! <slaps forehead>|
|Jan-10-12|| ||JoergWalter: <FSR> that is my job here. please, don't forget about my consultancy fee.|
|Jan-10-12|| ||Penguincw: Kasparov takes advantage of the pin.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·