< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 61 OF 62 ·
|Sep-29-05|| ||arielbekarov: Now I have been reading the comments by Susan Polgar and Nigel Short and it is interesting to notice that they differ in opinion about Judit's queenside castling. Nigel Short is not really praising it, but found it the best what she could do. Susan Polgar on the other hand finds it
a clear mistake because it weakens, according to her, Judit's defence terribly and her attempted kingside attack has no future anymore.|
My conclusion is that, even though, Anand played excellently, he was well helped by Judit Polgar's not well coordinated defence and attack.
I think, it's too early to say, whether Anand's impressive victory is a sign for his success for the rest of the tournament or as Susan Polgar points it out; even GMers with 2700 ELO must put their King in good safety.
|Sep-29-05|| ||ChessMan94: Polgar did not "help" Anand win his game. Anand played better, period.|
|Sep-29-05|| ||csmath: <<Polgar did not "help" Anand win his game. Anand played better, period.>>|
Yes, this is an elegant and a very nice game by Anand. Judit could have gone for more peaceful game though but then that would not have been her.
|Sep-29-05|| ||arielbekarov: <ChessMan94> Obviously, you understand what I mean by "help",
but I will try to clarify it better.
There are games when both competitors are playing excellently, but one of them eventually manage to outconquer the opponent. The game of Polgar vs Anand does not fit into this category of games, I think.
Without any doubt Anand played better, but Judit Polgar didn't find any good lines against Anand's Caro Kann. I have been looking now more in detail and I can understand so much that she didn't give Anand a real fight in this game. One can say that Anand punished Judit Polgar for her uncoordinated play and with the long castling the whole infrastructure of her pieces were terribly weakened.
So, I think the combination of Anand's great skill, and Judit Polgar's flaw in this particular game can be regarded as a "help" for Anand by winning without too much effort.
|Sep-29-05|| ||ChessMan94: <arielbekarov>
Yes, I understand your point but your latest analysis applies for any game where one side is victorious. The only way you can conquer the opponent is by making better moves. Whether a game is a real fight, almost drawn, or a game where one side is too passive, at some point one side will make a weak move (not necessarily blunder) and the game is over. Following your logic we could then say all games that don't end in a draw were caused by the loser "helping" the winner.
Also, how can you say Anand won "without too much effort"? This game was not a miniature!
|Sep-29-05|| ||crazy monk: I think 12..Qa5 kind of suprise Polgar. Maybe 12.0-0 much safer. She got caught between two plans. 12.g4 playable?|
|Sep-29-05|| ||Ezzy: 8 Bd3 Bg4 There is only 1 game in my database that has this position. It was from a game in the 1964 Argentinian championships, Julio Luna v Marcos Luckis. I wonder if Polgar chose this line trying to use a bit of Argentinian influence!|
|Sep-29-05|| ||tud: Could we have another explanation like for example Judith and Anand are not exactly in the same league ? With all respect for Judith Polgar of course ?|
|Sep-29-05|| ||artemis: <Ezzy> that is a fascinating fact. What I am more interested in is Anand's choice of opening. The Caro-Kahn hardly seems to be in his character, but the slow build up of the forces seems to be even less in Polgar's character. If Anand chose to use this because it was polgar, and not inorder to gain pratical experience with the opening, (which I believe to be the case) it was a very shrewd move.|
<by the way Ezzy> I have made a post on the Leko Topalov game. I reviewed some of my posts and while I still feel some of the posts were over the top, mine were probably the furtherst over the top.
|Sep-29-05|| ||artemis: <Tud> Yes Anand has a +22 -8 =10 against polgar. Whether that means that they are in seperate leagues or if polgar's style is a good fit for anand, that is up to you, but I feel that Anand played chess better in this game, and he psychologically out played Polgar. It felt like he was the one forcing her to play wild lines for an attack, not her forcing her attack upon anand.|
|Sep-29-05|| ||notyetagm: This game was such a smooth win by Anand, I thought I was watching Capablanca playing. Anand controlled the game from beginning to end.|
|Sep-30-05|| ||ahmadov: I wonder why chessgames.com does not display the players' rating on the board. (Sorry, if this has been discussed before me)|
|Oct-01-05|| ||khense: When the game got to 35...Bxc3 I lost all hope for white, but I'm sure the handwriting was already in stone.|
|Oct-01-05|| ||SEMENELIN: Judit had some bad exchanges on this round and castling too.|
|Oct-01-05|| ||thathwamasi: <chesswonders> Well!!! When I met Anand in chennai, he told me he doesnt follow cricket....I wonder, a country like australia which shines in a lot of sports hasnt produced a great chess player...any australian chess players that u could think of???|
|Oct-01-05|| ||snowie1: I have been trying to play the C-C for a long time, but cannot find good games from which to draw upon...until now. Wow! And vs such a powerful player.|
|Oct-02-05|| ||offramp: <thathwamasi> Only Cecil John Seddon Purdy and
Walter Shawn Browne spring immediately to mind.|
|Oct-02-05|| ||tpstar: <thathwamasi> Ian Rogers|
|Oct-02-05|| ||Benzol: <...any australian chess players that u can think of???> Apart from the 2 <offramp> has named I can think of the following : |
Darryl K Johansen
Aleksandar H Wohl
John Spencer Purdy
Charles Gilbert Marriott Watson
|Oct-02-05|| ||offramp: The population of Australia is 20,125,000. The population of India is exactly 1,086,640,002 (a similar number to the speed of light in miles per hour, but without a decimal point).|
The population of Mumbai is 16,368,084, just 4 million less than the whole of Australia.
So it could be that it is India that is underperforming in both cricket and chess!
|Oct-02-05|| ||thathwamasi: <offramp> Sorry if u misunderstood me that I am trying to underrate aussies. I infact admire the spirit of aussies. Its just that, I regret that they never produced a chess player to play with the likes of the guys who are playing in san luis. Infact, when I met steven waugh in Chennai, in 2001, I told him "for ur kinda composure, had u taken up chess, it would have been a tough challenge for kaspy"...lol and he as usual gave a saintly smile....|
|Oct-03-05|| ||Averageguy: Good finish by Anand.|
|Oct-04-05|| ||BishopBerkeley: <thathwamasi>, <Benzol>, & <offramp>|
And now, two newly-minted Australian Nobel Laureates in Medicine take their places alongside those mentioned above in the pantheon of intellectual achievement from "down under":
<offramp> Just a bit of a tweak on your light-speed number...
Speed of Light =
(approx.) 186,000 miles/second
186K m/s * 3600 seconds/hour
= 669,600,000 miles/hour (approx.)
Even so, for many practical purposes, your estimate would be quite good (notwithstanding the fact that it exceeds the velocity-ceiling that Albert Einstein bumped his head on.)
<thathwamasi> If I may ask respectfully, I wonder if your name here at this fine site is a version of the sublime two-part Sanskrit utterance often rendered in English as
I believe this esoteric pair originate in the Upanishads, one of the sacred writings of the Hindu tradition (specifically, the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya Upanishads, if memory serves). They are sometimes "translated"
I am Brahman (the Supreme Self)
Thou art Brahman.
Though I'm sure there are many meanings associated with these utterances, I have always interpreted them to refer to the identity-yet-distinctness of the individual "smaller" self with the Collective Universal "Supreme Self" (Paramatman) spoken of by philosophers from many different traditions.
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
Incidentally, longtime friends Albert Einstein and Dr. Emanuel Lasker exchanged some interesting thoughts about the speed of light:
From Einstein's forward to Dr. Lasker's biography:
...Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker's critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker's keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexnder, whom historians have dubbed "the Great," did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker's attempted solution was based on the following idea: "Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circimstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?"
|Oct-05-05|| ||visceral infestation: It's good to see the Caro-Kann alive|
|Oct-06-05|| ||Drifter: Chess isn't very big here in Australia.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 61 OF 62 ·