|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Sep-16-07
 |
| acirce: http://main.uschess.org/content/vie...
Selected comments:
<8...0-0
The real test of Kramnik's idea was 8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 although after 10.Rb1 Bxd4 11.Nxc4 White has considerable pressure for the two pawns. "Of course I looked at taking on c3 but I was out of theory, I saw some variations and decided that 8.0-0 was safer," said Morozevich.> <10.Nxd5!?
Already preparing the following peice sacrifice. 10.a4 was the major alternative.> <11.b3! c6 12.e4! f6 13.exd5!!
The point behind Kramnik's play. "I thought that the piece acrifrice gave me good play - it is objectively not clear but the position is difficult to play for Black, said Kramnik. "I couldn't see a clear [defence] for Black but probably a computer could find the right way - after all, Black is a piece up!"> <17.c7
"Now I knew I was better," said Kramnik, although many computer-assisted commentators were not so sure. 17...Qd4?! Another major decision which cost Morozevich 7 of his remaining 19 minutes on the clock. 17...dxc2 18.cxd8Q Rxd8 19.Bxa8 is at least slightly better for White since 19...Bc3 20.Bg5! keeps everything under control.
However 17...Qd6! was a serious alternative, leaving the position totally unclear. When asked about this move Morozevich plaintively replied "I considered this move but there were so many options and I was very short of time..."> <21...Qf8??
"A terrible move," bemaned Morozevich. As soon as he played 21...Qf8, using up 2 of his final four minutes to reach move 40, Morozevich saw 21...Qd5!! with the idea 22.Qxb4 Qf3 and Black turns the tables.
"After 21...Qd5 it is the same attack as the game except I have more pieces on the board," said Morozevich.> It seems like the knight sac was an OTB conception indeed. I'm still annoyed about 21.Bf4 - almost ruining such a wonderful game just by one single slip. |
 |
Sep-16-07
 |
| VargPOD: This game is brilliant. And a good reminder in the time of silicon beasts that chess is a practical game. You play your opponent, not necessarily the "objective" move. Lasker and Tal are prime examples of making sharp and/or counter-intuitive moves, which opponents just couldn't handle over board. This game might be later refuted by computer analysis (like many Tal games have been), but as a practical game it is awesome! A future classic, I predict. |
|
| Sep-16-07 |
| IIIIIIIIII: Kramnik is very very sharp player. |
|
Sep-17-07
 |
| notyetagm: <acirce: ... <21...Qf8??
"A terrible move," bemaned Morozevich. As soon as he played 21...Qf8, using up 2 of his final four minutes to reach move 40, Morozevich saw 21...Qd5!! with the idea 22.Qxb4 Qf3 and Black turns the tables. "After 21...Qd5 it is the same attack as the game except I have more pieces on the board," said Morozevich.>> Two comments:
1) Have the Silicon Oracles reached a verdict on 21 ...  d6-d5!! ? Does Black win or is it a draw with best play? Or is it still unclear? 2) Moro had to make 19 moves in two minutes to reach the first time control! Yikes! No wonder he lost. |
|
Sep-17-07
 |
| Resignation Trap: What an innocent appearance at the opening stage of this game: http://www.chesspro.ru/_images/mate... . |
|
Sep-17-07
 |
| aazqua: There goes Kramnik, just playing his boring drawing chess again. |
|
Sep-18-07
 |
| Richard Taylor: <aazqua: There goes Kramnik, just playing his boring drawing chess again.> !! Good one! I started playing this over thinking it would be a boring "positional" game (although tactical is positional and so on) but it looked like some interesting opening prep plus some hope that Morozevich would go wrong under pressure which was a great game (and good psych) by Kramnik. Shows he can do the rough and tumble... if need be. But draws are still a good way to go IF NECESSARY..not all games can be like this! Maybe Kramnik is getting high or a bit boozed before or while he plays? Gets his tactical juices going perhaps? |
|
| Sep-19-07 |
| BlackNightmare: for each 'kramnik hater' = there are at least two kramnik fanboys as proven in this thread! (have fun spoting them) nuff said! oh and since Qd5 does exist well lets say this game cant be deemed so great keep fantasising...maybe u ll learn what chess is really about |
|
Oct-03-07
 |
| zdigyigy: I don't see the tactical follow up, for white, after eighteen Qa4. Can someone provide the line please?
Even without the tactics whites' pawns are already devastating, so why all the cat and mouse? |
|
Oct-31-07
 |
| Karpova: Best game in september:
http://www.e3e5.com/article.php?id=... |
|
Jun-03-08
|
| dabearsrock1010: this is a really sharp game for a man usually known for some degree of conservatism in his approach to the game |
|
Jun-19-08
|
| notyetagm: <Karpova: Best game in september:
http://www.e3e5.com/article.php?id=...;
Indeed. This is a -STUPENDOUS- game by Kramnik that just may win the Chess Informant Best Game Prize for <Informator 101>. Check out the chesscafe.com website on Saturnday to find out. |
|
| Jul-19-08 |
| Woody Wood Pusher: wow Drawnik had done some computer analysis and Moro fell into it big deal. If that sacrifice had come later and not been blatantly prepared at home I would be impressed, but this is what the champ is supposed to be able to do anyway. |
|
| Sep-09-08 |
| Cactus: <Woody> Seeing as it <wasn't> home analysis, that's the most bitter comment I've ever heard. You sound as if the game has physically hurt you. You don't have to like Kramnik, but give credit where credit is due. <This is a great game>. |
|
Sep-09-08
|
| sallom89: <Woody Wood Pusher> you need a break sir! |
|
| Jan-02-09 |
| KKDEREK: Thats a tactical gem. Brilliant
|
|
Jul-02-09
 |
| Bridgeburner: I understand that nobody wants to spoil the magic of this game by applying engine analysis, so I won't reveal what I found. But I would like to share something of interest. Rather than engage in my usual analytical techniques, I thought I'd leave the engine to run after <12.e4>: For the first quarter of an hour and 15 ply, the engine was convinced this was a dead loss for White, not seeing past <12...f6 13.Nf3>. Here's the final line in that train of evaluation before it changed tack: <12...f6 13.Nf3 dxe4 14.Qxe4 g6 15.bxc4 Bc3 16.Bh6 Re8 17.Qd3 Bxa1 18.Rxa1 bxc4 19.Qxc4+ Be6 20.Qc5 Bd5 21.Rb1 Re7 22.a4 a5> evaluated as winning for Black. After 20 minutes, the engine re-evaluated and looked at the sacrifice <12...f6 13.bxc4> which was undoubtedly one of the complicated lines the players had had needed to ponder. After 75 minutes and 19 ply, the engine displayed the following preferred variation: <12...f6 13.bxc4 fxe5 14.exd5 exd4 15.dxc6 Ra7 16.cxb5 Kh8 17.Qb3 Ba5 18.a4 Bf5 19.Bf4 d3 20.Be3 Bb6 21.Qd5 Qxd5 22.Bxd5 Bxe3 23.fxe3 axb5> with significant advantage to Black. It took another hour and a 20 ply evaluation before finally discovering the line actually played, evaluating it at as a slight advantage for Black. I won't reveal what I found except to agree that moves 12 and 13 were utterly brilliant moves. If Kramnik had played this variation against Fritz, I'm sure he would have won. |
|
| Aug-02-09 |
| Everett: <bridgeburner> Kramnik would not have won if white played 17.Bf4 as in this game! |
|
Aug-05-09
 |
| tamar: <Everett> Now this is a <complex> game!
It is like downhill ski racing, but in a blizzard.
Kramnik basically is lost unless he creates a pawn avalanche he can ride to victory. Each little pawn engagement 11 b3 12 e4 adds complexity to the position, and at a certain point, the whole Black structure breaks, like a fault line in snow. |
|
| Aug-05-09 |
| Everett: <tamar> Any more thoughts on complexity? Are my posts at Arpad Elo making sense? |
|
Aug-05-09
|
| tamar: <Here would be an example of a complex game, and <bridgeburner> at the bottom describes why. Kramnik vs Morozevich, 2007 Yet, I hesitate, as it seems that if Kramnik saw all the other variation clearly as losing, and saw only something murky with his 12th and 13th move, was it truly complex for him, or just practical? He certainly admits to not seeing all the consequences of the moves played until four moves into the combination... Another one of those gray areas re: complexity...> <Everett> on ELO page I would not disqualify a game from being complex just because it has only moves contained within it. To use the mountain analogy again, if Kramnik is trying to descend from K-2,
and sees only one path that won't kill him, that path can still be extremely difficult to navigate, and filled numerous only moves along the way. I think he may have not been in this exact position before in his prep, as he claims, but his study of the Catalan led him to similar positions where a path opens up magically if you pressure Black's wide and mostly fixed pawn structure. So he could calculate a lot, but even the computers could not see the end at move 12. But that leads to another question. Does complexity come from one player alone, or is it a transaction? |
|
| Aug-06-09 |
| Everett: I think it depends, on so many levels. An ultra-solid player may "force" their opponent to play provocatively to make the position less straight-forward. Another, sensing he's about to be crushed methodically, randomizes to confuse the opponent. I feel "responsibility" has some importance in these instances, but I don't see how it can be assessed. |
|
Aug-11-09
|
| Bridgeburner: <Everett: <bridgeburner> Kramnik would not have won if white played 17.Bf4 as in this game!> You mean <21.Bf4> I think? Agreed. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 13.exd5
