< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·
|Sep-15-07|| ||euripides: <orio, sneaky> <61.g4> perhaps then Kf4 62.gxh5 Kg4 (rather than Kxf5 Kf3) and Black picks up the h pawns before turning to the f pawn.|
|Sep-15-07|| ||you vs yourself: If Kramnik won the position after 35.f5, not too many people would've been surprised. After 24.dxe7, this was a good save by Anand.|
Great game by both players. If Kramnik can put this much pressure on Anand with black, he's looking good for the rest of his games.
|Sep-15-07|| ||euripides: They've learned something in the last hundred years:|
Chigorin vs Tarrasch, 1905
|Sep-15-07|| ||RookFile: Well, stalemate at the end, pretty humorous.|
|Sep-15-07|| ||orio24: <euripides: They've learned something in the last hundred years:|
Chigorin vs Tarrasch, 1905>
Right, that's the reason white have to move to 1 rank when black f1. Thanks.
|Sep-15-07|| ||sderby: I wish they'd <chessgames> give some kind of annotation for time per move. When do you think Anand realized 57.Kh1 saved the game.|
|Sep-15-07|| ||geraldo8187: nobody can ever complain about kramnik not playing it out til the end after this|
|Sep-15-07|| ||acirce: But guess what, of course some people complained because Kramnik <did> play it out to the end. What's he supposed to do to please people?|
|Sep-15-07|| ||Jim Bartle: Elegant position after black's 31st.|
|Sep-15-07|| ||boz: I'm just glad it wasn't a short draw as so many boringly predicted.|
|Sep-15-07|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <keypusher: <I wonder when was the last time that a game for the world championship actually ended in stalemate.>
I know it happened in 1978. Not sure if it's happened since.>|
Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1978
|Sep-15-07|| ||hkannan2000: Another stalemate ending occurred in a World Ch cycle. The 2nd game of Anand - Dreev (Madras)ended in a beautiful stalemate.|
|Sep-15-07|| ||you vs yourself: <Kramnik said that he was well prepared, and that Black had some practical chances. However, technique was not enough at the end. His opponent admitted that he had lost endings similar to this - especially four years ago, one being a loss to Kasparov - but not this time. Kramnik went on to observe that this was one of the toughest games he had played so far, so a draw was a fair result. There was no reason to be dissatisfied. Answering a question about how he was coping with the Mexican environment, he said he was fine, and that problems might only arise if he started to move about! I would suggest commentators should explore Black's chances before playing ...a2. There are technical wins if the superior king can sneak into a2 to escape rook checks.>
|Sep-15-07|| ||keypusher: <hkannan2000: Another stalemate ending occurred in a World Ch cycle. The 2nd game of Anand - Dreev (Madras)ended in a beautiful stalemate.>|
Thanks, I didn't know about that game. Here it is.
Anand vs Dreev, 1991
|Sep-16-07|| ||Ezzy: Kramnik played on in the endgame not just because Anand had to defend accurately in the endgame, but because Anand has misplayed this exact ending before - ironically in the same opening|
Leko vs Anand, 2003
Anand must have done lots of endgame study after this loss. It certainly served him well today.
So it seems Anand is having his problems dealing with the Petrov. Back to the Petrov drawing board for him it seems.
Great finish to the game by two legends of the game.
|Sep-16-07|| ||you vs yourself: <but because Anand has misplayed this exact ending before> And this rook endgame too: Kasparov vs Anand, 2003 I think this is also the game they're refering to in the twic link I posted.|
|Sep-16-07|| ||sheaf: kramnik was better prepared in petroff than anand, not much can be said since there arent any obvious missed wins anywhere. good game and a just result.|
|Sep-16-07|| ||Red October: < acirce: But guess what, of course some people complained because Kramnik <did> play it out to the end. What's he supposed to do to please people? > probably play the Kings Gambit... shudder to think what would happen if that ends in a draw ;-p|
|Sep-16-07|| ||Ulhumbrus: Anand appears to have played this ending well. Here is one question and one answer to the question on Rook and pawn endings, which may be useful to ordinary players. The question is: Given that Rook and pawn endgame technique consists partly of incomprehensible moves, how may one play incomprehensible moves? One answer is : Learn to play something easier first.|
|Sep-16-07|| ||jamesmaskell: "What's he supposed to do to please people?"
People only demand that Kramnik sacrifice three pieces per game playing blindfold at a rate of 10 seconds per move whilst simultaneously reciting War and Peace, backwards. He is the World Champion after all!
|Sep-16-07|| ||euripides: The ending where one side is up by an outside passed pawn and has a rook in front of the pawn is often described as 'drawn' in the books but is very difficult in practice. The f5 pawn's weakness is just the sort of wrinkle that can easily change the result. |
I wonder how much the players saw when they went into this endgame on move 30.
|Sep-16-07|| ||Marmot PFL: I wonder why Anand even went into this ending. 22.Bxc7 looks tempting but it shouldn't take a player of his ability very long to see that it actually favors black. To expect Kramnik to allow something like that if it was good is so unlikely that Anand should have been much more careful. Both games with white he was somewhat lucky to draw.|
|Sep-16-07|| ||acirce: <"I was lucky to get my preparation on the board," said Kramnik. "Up to 26...f6 it was all preparation and surprisingly then it is Black who is playing for a win. I couldn't see anything better than what Vishy did - he lost a pawn but the rook endgame he reached should be a draw. If my pawn was on f7 in this endgame there would be certain practical winning chances but on f6 it is much worse.|
"Still, there is no reason to be dissatisfied - Black against Vishy is not a dream - it is one of the toughest games in the modern chess world."
Asked why the game had continued until stalemate, Kramnik replied, "I wanted to show the stalemate variation to the spectators - but of course both players had seen [the idea] 20 moves earlier."
Anand was torn between annoyance at emerging so poorly from the opening and satisfaction at holding the endgame.
"Of course it was not my dream to defend a bad endgame straight from the opening. In the ending I went through stages of thinking it was an easy draw and then panicking. However once I played h4 I was very happy and sure it would be drawn. I even had the small satisfaction of forcing him to move his king all the way to b8 before he could move up the board.">
|Sep-16-07|| ||euripides: <acirce> thanks. If they only saw the stalemate 20 moves earlier then perhaps Anand was a bit lucky, as without it I guess the whole endgame would be lost. He needed to see it 35 moves before :-)|
|Sep-16-07|| ||znprdx: <Sep-15-07 timhortons: fischer didnt have any single game done publicly in fischer random...what force he had to mutilate the royal game?its up to the public to accept frc or not in the future> As previously posted
Robert James Fischer [page 736]|
On the other hand I wish people would stop crediting him with the concept of a randomized opening array. It originated with Maxwell Lawrence (of Brooklyn) as the ineptly named 'Transcendental Chess' -(1980's) 'transformational' better - which technically goes back to the '60's boardgame "Strateego"...Another point: FischerRandom 960 is NOT random...it specifies the precise permissable Chess piece arrays which respect the laws of Chess...unlike in TC castling is always possible.
One of the reasons (aside from being a patzer) I did not persue Chess beyond the occassional tournament or Club round robin - is that I found myself losing to a move in an opening which I'd not come across. The point being that it did not originate with my opponent. We are already off on the wrong path trying to formulate a data base for what could breathe some life into the sterility of rote opening theory.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 27 ·