|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-24-06
 | | ahmadov: <jamesmaskell> Check this here: http://linares.soloajedrez.com/ |
 |
| Feb-24-06 | | jhoro: <That's a very nice sequence starting with 29. Qh1> I'm note sure black had to play 30... Rxc1 then. 30...Qf8 or 30...Bf8 may be better |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | weisyschwarz: Oh my gosh...did they really play 48? In those moves Ivanchuk tries to make a comeback, even gets a pawn queened, to no avail, but redeems himself in part. CG.com! What is going on? |
|
Feb-24-06
 | | Ulhumbrus: 9 Bxf6 concedes the bishop pair, and on this occasion Ivanchuk did not get away with it. |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | Fan of Leko: If 29 Qh1 f6 and the rook defends the 2nd rank. Qh6 is met by Qf8. Naive to think that Topalov would miss white's threats with so much time advantage. Better than what white played of course, but the 2 bishops still give black a slight edge. |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | weisyschwarz: I agree with LekoFan. I might have missed it, being a patzer, but Topalov would have played 29...f6. I think a bigger issue here is: was it 40 or 48? |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | DutchDunce: Another possibility is that Ivanchuk ran out of time on move 40, but decided along with Topalov to play on for fun...although I would think that would be kind of strange at this level. I'm sure we'll hear the scoop eventually from either Base or Ninja. |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | underrated: Is there an easy way to view a game pgn like the one <Ezzy> posted? |
|
Feb-24-06
 | | WannaBe: <underrated> Not really, there are comments in there marked with <> which is not pgn's commenting style, pgn uses {} as comments. If not for the comments, I'd recommend copy/paste it into a chess engine. I know Fritz, Shredder supports paste game data. |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | underrated: maybe a find <> and replace {} with notepad?
i was hoping for something like chessbase has where you can play throgh the other lines...
my winboard/GNUchess just dosnt cut it... |
|
Feb-24-06
| | WannaBe: <underrated> yes, you can do a global find/replace. The other option is to open a second chessgames.com window, go to a game (any game) change your viewing board to sjkbase, and then you can actually move those pieces. Kinda crude, but it works. |
|
| Feb-24-06 | | jhoro: <underrated: my winboard/GNUchess just dosnt cut it...> Winboard works fine. Just put the comments in {}, save the file as file_name.pgn and use "File + Load Game" to open. You can also use other free engines with Winboard, e.g. Crafty, Zappa. You can also use Winboard to load/save positions in .fen format. |
|
Feb-26-06
 | | acirce: <Really a pathetic game. Kasparov and I talked about the games and he was beyond disgusted.> Mig Greengard, http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... Then Ivanchuk plays like the genius he really is against Svidler. The fact that you don't necessarily meet the same resistance just because you play the same opponents is a key argument as to why it's absurd to use tournament play, to decide who the best player is. |
|
| Feb-26-06 | | Ezzy: <acirce - The fact that you don't necessarily meet the same resistance just because you play the same opponents is a key argument as to why it's absurd to use tournament play, to decide who the best player is.> 99.99% of professional chessplayers have only ever played tournaments(including the world number 1 Topalov) O.1% of players who have played matches, have qualified for their matches by playing 99.9% of tournaments. So for you to say that matches determine the best player is rather absurd. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | Ingolf: <acirce> Matches aren't unproblematic either. If (hypothetically) Kramnik beat Topalov, Topalov beat Anand and Anand beat Kramnik, how would you decide who is best? |
|
Feb-27-06
| | acirce: <Ingolf> Kramnik would be better than Topalov in their match, Topalov would be better than Anand in their match and Anand would be better than Kramnik in their match. Of course you can never say anything beyond who is best *at the moment* - tournaments don't even say that unless one of the players dominate entirely. Matches on the other hand only involve two players at a time. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | gus inn: when one lives in a Kramnikworld it is essentiel to stress out that matchplay
is better to determine "who is better".
So when <acirce> goes to the local club
and winds up as , let us say , nr. 5 , he can allways claim that he defeated the later winner.As when Sweden wins olympic gold , that doesnt really count for him as one of the opponents may have had a bad day.
Alas in my opinion it really takes a singleminded approach not to take
the achievements in tournament play into prober consideration.But drawing with Leko in Brissago makes someone the best. |
|
Feb-27-06
| | acirce: <gus inn> Another one in your truly impressive streak of stupid posts. What does any of this have to do with Kramnik, when did I say that I don't take achievements in tournament play into consideration, and when did I indicate that tying a match with Leko makes someone "the best"? |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | gus inn: <acirce> thanks for your reply.It is good to have you back again.
and read the post again : it said PROBER consideration.
And read your own post above - one more time.And the post of <Ezzy>.
Then you will see that the anwers of your questions to yours truly are there.Provided by yourself.
But dont feel stupid when your are reading my posts.Unless you need that feeling to carry on. |
|
Feb-27-06
| | acirce: <gus inn> Kramnik is only there because <Ingolf> asked a hypothetical question. I didn't bring him up and my point has nothing to do with him personally or his WC status. But you ran to the opportunity of posting another lame attack against him and people who "live in a Kramnikworld". I am fed up with people who have that kind of immature attitude. By prober I take it you mean proper. If then it's clearly a subjective issue and what you are saying then truly becomes <It really takes a singleminded approach not to agree with me>. The problem is, anyhow, that you don't seem to know what I think about tournament achievements. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | Ingolf: <acirce> I'm sorry if I caused any trouble by mentioning Kramnik. It could just as well have been Lasker, Maroczy and Rubinstein. As to WC, I guess you are right that matches are preferable - if only they could take place regularly. Let's hope Seirawans 2002 proposal will be revitalized soon. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | gus inn: No <acirce> I may dissappoint you here.I did NOT launce an attack vs Kramnik.So read the lines above.And yes, I find it singleminded , not to take tournamentplay into PROPER consideration.
and yes, there are subjective issues when i give my points of view.Off course.so if you think you can prove all importaant issues by objective standards , you will most likely limit yourself beyond your natural capacity.
E.g. if you read N.I.C. youll also see
the Kramniknotes and conclusions to his games ,ALSO, based on subjective
estimations.Go ahead and help yourself and good luck '! |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | ughaibu: In any case Kramnik was selected by rating achieved in tournaments. |
|
| Feb-27-06 | | alex97: Nice game
|
|
| Aug-24-08 | | erad1288: I wonder what engines like Rybka 3 think about this position after the suggested 29.Qh1? It would be interesting if RV or someone with a strong computer could just set the position up after 29.Qh1 and see what it thinks at depth 25-27. Well, we can only hope :) |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
