< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·
|Nov-29-06|| ||chancho: <sheaf> No problem.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||alicefujimori: Some were remarking that Kramnik played very well in this game, but for the first time in this match I have to say that DF was the one that played very well in this game. Despite winning a pawn, DF was not in any particular disadvantage and neutralized all the threats posed by Kramnik rather easily. It even had a slight advantage close to the end, only to allow Kramnik to reach a theoretically drawn rook vs bishop ending with ease. Compare this to how DF played during the first two games, this game was quite an achievement for DF, really.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||spirit: me am not the anti-christ!!!|
|Nov-29-06|| ||lunacyfrog: Deep Fritz looked very impressive and very unimpressive at different times in the game. But this is the first game the computer had anything close to winning chances, so that has to be encouraging for the Fritz team.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||argishti: well, i personally think that it was good game by kramnik because he didnt have any chance of winning this one. It's good that he made that sac, and drew the game. He has 3 more shots. Slowly, the tension is rising!|
|Nov-29-06|| ||svbabu: < percyblakeney: Seirawan not only won against both Karpov and Kasparov when they were World Champions, some scores (all time controls, only counting wins):|
A couple of less comfortable opponents:
Seirawan-Anand 1-5, another less comfortable opponent!
|Nov-29-06|| ||keypusher: <Seirawan's score against Karpov doesn't look bad at all> Just to stick up for my second-favorite apparatchik, it looks like 6-2 at classical time controls. Not sure about that 1990 Haninge game. Did Karpov really get into time trouble at move 10?|
|Nov-29-06|| ||keypusher: I guess those Hamburg TV games shouldn't really count as classical time controls either, though.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||Karpyan: I agree that Seirawan is a very strong player, but his results come against:|
1. A Tal who was on his death bed;
2. Korchnoi past his peak;
3. Timman ok - not much in it;
4. Portisch was finished by then;
5. Karpov past it.
How are his scores against contemporary players? I guess his peak must have been around 1997-2000
|Nov-29-06|| ||Karpyan: ...@#$% he's doing better than Mickey against the computer with 16 heads. One mistake (a big one) otherwise its dead even.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||percyblakeney: <1. A Tal who was on his death bed>|
Not bad to win all four games played between 1980 and 1988 though, Tal was still a strong player and rated as number 2 in the world in 1980 and number 6 in 1988.
<2. Korchnoi past his peak>
Absolutely, even if Seirawan did win against Korchnoi in 1980 and 1981 as well.
<3. Timman ok - not much in it;
4. Portisch was finished by then>
Can't disagree too much on that :-)
<5. Karpov past it>
A bit harsh, most of the games were played 1982-90 and the decisive games between 1982 and 1994. With classical time controls it seems to be 4-2 for Karpov, which still is an acceptable score for Seirawan, who has a plus score in shorter time controls.
|Nov-29-06|| ||percyblakeney: I don't know why I suddenly got stuck with Seirawan, but I hadn't noticed his best results before... Anyway, in the Keene-Divinsky ranking of the greatest players in the history of chess up until 1987 Seirawan ended up ahead of among others:|
I can't say that I would list him as high as they did though :-)
|Nov-29-06|| ||chancho: Seirawan has a +5 -7 =9 against Short and that was during the englishman's prime.|
search "short vs seirawan"
He has a win and a draw against a young Topalov.
search "topalov vs seirawan"
|Nov-29-06|| ||slomarko: Seirawan being ahead of
is an anbsolute joke.
|Nov-29-06|| ||RookFile: Listen, Seirawan wasn't the greatest player, but he wasn't the worst, either. He was capable of beating anybody on any given day.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||ajile: I don't know about you guys but it looks to me like Kramnik is going for draws as White.|
|Nov-29-06|| ||Victor G.: Game 3:
A draw which could have been a win for Kramnik.
The end of the middlegame determined the result of this game. Kramnik played 25. bxc4 and this gave space to black's rook on the c file giving fritz attacking possibilities on row 2, instead 25. Qxe5 should have been played, this takes the pressure off the b3 square controlled by white's pawns since black's queen then would have too give the exchange or move his queen out of the way, any of these should have given Kramnik the win with the 1 pawn advantage.
Kramnik played 26. Bxe5, what it does:
1. It mantains black's queen pressure on Kramnik's b2 pawn, and after blacks rook moves to c2, it gives control of row 2 as it instantly double attacks white's b2 pawn and at the same time attacks white's pawn on e2 thus temporarily committing the queen for its defense or implementing a king move to defend the pawn.
2. It Pins white's bishop to his own queen, giving fritz an extra move when the bishop would leave the pin to the only non-losing square after 26...h6 (the queen has restricted movements since black's rook is on the 4th row), also white's bishop would blocking his own e2 pawn after exchanging queens on the e3 square, but white still wins.
Then fritz plays 26. h6 this is some kind of a trap, but at the same time opens a escape route for his king and developing a better pawn structure and a possible threat of its bishop going to g5 attacking white's queen, but mainly hoping that white does not move the bishop out to f4 to exchange queens(taking pressure off white's a2 pawn)(which would still give fritz an extra move and an own temporary block of white's e2 pawn but defending the material and still winning the game for white)(in the actual game the trap by black was not stopped), so then black could play rook c2(this would only work if the white bishop does not move the f4). So This trap could have been stopped, but it did not happen on the game as Kramnik played moves like:
27. Rd1 losing a pawn and equalizing the material. Instead if he played 27. Bf4 white still wins.
If black played 26...Bf6 it would have been better for black , black's bishop to f6 would further attack white's pinned bishop for an attack against the pinned bishop of kramnik and another pin this time against white's rook on a1, then that would leave white 2 possibilities:
1. Pawn to f4 (27. f4)(possibly the best option), to protect protect his bishop,(now white cannot take the bishop anymore or loses queen unless white moves the king to f2, but it is black's turn now). So black takes white's bishop at e5 (27...Bf6xe5), then white can only take the bishop with the pawn from f4 (28. fxe5) or loses it at e5 if it takes with queen, after white Q takes bishop at e5 followed by black Q takes white Q and white pawn takes black Q, and then black's R can take that e5 pawn easily. White still cannot do anything to stop black from regaining the pawn it lost. White's rook at a1 is not developed as black's rook and cannot defend the e5 pawn while the black rook can attack the e5 pawn after Rc8, Re8. Resulting with black equalizing the material and having a slightly queenside advantage and has the win.
2. Taking black's bishop at f6 (27. Bxf6), then black's Q takes white's Q at e3 (27...Qxe3) which would give white a stuck pawn after taking black's Q (28. fxe3), then black's pawn on g7 takes white's bishop on f6 (28... gxf6).
In this position this stuck pawn on the e3 square would not have a chance to go far and it also blocks white's own e2 pawn, so there would not be any advantage for white on the kingside, and black has a slight advantage on the queenside and has the win.
|Nov-30-06|| ||whatthefat: <percyblakeney: Anyway, in the Keene-Divinsky ranking of the greatest players in the history of chess up until 1987 Seirawan ended up ahead of among others:|
Was that system meant to be a measure of objective strength, or relative strength within eras (like a standard rating system)? I can only assume the former, in which case it might not be so ridiculous.
|Nov-30-06|| ||VargPOD: <Viktor G.>, if 27.Bf4 then 27...Re4 and the e-pawn drops and black has a very comfortable position. Just like if 26.Qxe5 then 26...Qxe5 27.Bxe5 Re4 and there goes the pawn. |
Also, I'm not convinced that 26.Bxe5 Bf6 27.Bxf6 Qxe3 28.fxe3 gxf6 is a black win. Seirawan considered it a draw during live commentary. Black's king cannot come to support to queenside, or white's e-pawns run through and without a king black cannot make process in the queenside.
|Nov-30-06|| ||Victor G.: I suppose I didnt consider Re4 by black in those two given situations, but if 25. Qxe5 white wins(of course with good play).|
And your second point of 26. Bxe5 Bf6 27. Bxf6 Qxe3 28.fxe3 gxf6 yeah it would be a draw that I didn't see at first, since the white king can go back and forth to protect his e3 pawn while black's rook can try back and forth attacking the e3 pawn and trying to position his rook on c1 after it positions a pawn on b2.
|Nov-30-06|| ||alicefujimori: It's quite interesting to see how chessbase annotated the third game more than usual. It was pretty obvious that this was to advertise Fritz's abilities. It was definitely biased when they gave 33.Bc3 a <?>, considering that it was the move that actually forced a draw.|
|Nov-30-06|| ||you vs yourself: <whatthefat> To get an idea, here's part of the list:|
If it's based on objective strength, how can anyone put Morphy ahead of Tal; Lasker ahead of Petrosian...if it's overall accomplishments, who in the world would put Seirawan ahead of Steinitz and Euwe...definitely ridiculous
|Nov-30-06|| ||TefthePersian: Tal should always be #1 on any list ever. Even if it's a list of people who suck the most. Tal should always win, because Tal is Tal. (naturally Tal does not suck at all, and will slay you if you say that he does, even in his currently maybe dead form).|
|Nov-30-06|| ||whatthefat: <you vs yourself>
Yeah okay. Looks like it's back to the drawing board for them then. :)
|Dec-03-06|| ||Fisheremon: <Victor G.> I think 28. Qb3 slipped away White's advantage (28. a3 could give a win for White).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·