|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jun-05-08
 |
| acirce: Well, Kramnik has said more than once that he does not think he will keep playing after 40. He'll be 33 in a few weeks. I think he may even retire earlier. |
 |
| Jun-06-08 |
| Atking: Seeing this game again, 16.Rac1 look as the kind of move Kramnik plays when he is sick or to confident and lazzy. Isn't the move pointless? What about 16.Qg4!? (xe6 xg7 and Qh5) Just add that on h6 h4 should be possible as h8 square will be difficult to defend after hxNg5; hxg5 (Rh1~Qh3) Did somone make an analysis of this fantastic game. |
|
| Jun-18-08 |
| apexin: apparently after the 24th both players believed that white has advantage here.Objectively speaking it was time to play 25Qc2 with a draw. |
|
| Jul-03-08 |
| Salaskan: Why no 29. Rxb6? |
|
| Jul-12-08 |
| Jolly Wally: I think you mean why not 39. Rxb6? and the answer is because after 39. Ra1 it's game over, with the knight trapped and horrible mate threats to Kramnik. In fact these were recurring motifs of the end of the game. Kramnik's peices were badly coordinated and Carlsen was all over him. Pawn-grabbing in such a position is fatal. |
|
| Jul-20-08 |
| Sleeping kitten: Something is strange: if Black is willing to play a Hedgehog, then isn't 2...c5 a more logical move order, leaving White with fewer dangerous options? |
|
| Jul-24-08 |
| sharpnova: Ahh nothing better than watching Kramnik the cheater get his lights knocked out. Go Carlsen! |
|
| Jul-24-08 |
| Atking: I was wrong when I suggested 16.Qg4. 16...h6 17.h4 f5 18.Qh5 BxNg5 19.NxBg5 Qa8 is quite embarrassing. I note only now that Nf6 Qg6 Ne7 traps the queen. No more attack. Actually I realised too that another idea which occured in my mind during the game 17.Bxg7 KxBg7 18.Qg4 Kh8 19.Qh5 f6 20.Rxd6 isn't correct because of 20. ..fxNg5 as 21.RxNc6 Qa8... This square is quite magic and Carlsen execution very impressive. |
|
| Sep-14-08 |
| Piti: King Magnus!! |
|
| Sep-16-08 |
| jovack: <Salaskan>
Did you mean 29. Qxb6?
That move loses if you look just a few moves down the road... they are forced, but in OTB it might be easy to overlook29. Qxb6 Reb7
30. Qd4 Bf6
31. Kg2 Nd7
32. Qd3 Bxb2
and you're up a piece for the pawns... a fair trade, considering it's still well in the middle-game. black is really winning here.
Everything else results in harder losses for white, so Qb5 was correct, even though Qxa6 was not, since it lead to this whole trade down. |
|
| Sep-16-08 |
| jovack: I also love the tactic here.
If at move 51, white takes the passed pawn....
51. Rxb4 Rxb4
52. Rxb4 Rd1
53. Ne2 Ne1+
54. Kfgh1 Nc2+
55. Kg2 Nxb4
winning the rook, at first glance, it is almost a clever mate, which is what i thought, but after seeing the knight defense, I later saw the discovered attack on the rook, all because the black king is trapped akwardly this is definitely a good game for tactics and position |
|
| Dec-22-08 |
| morphchess1857: What a display by Carlson a future World Champ one day.even the great Morphy of old would have been proud. |
|
Jun-09-09
 |
| ajile: < cionics: tatarch: Carlsen is obviously a genius, but I wonder-- how much of his skill is innate, and how much did he work for?
I always find it interesting the way people set up the "nature vs. nuture" dichotomy: Did Magnus earn his ability by hard work, or was he simply born with it? What people consistently overlook is that the very ability to work with this kind of determination and perseverence is itself, almost certainly, genetically determined. Given a minimally decent upbringing, a healthy diet, and exposure to the game at an early age, extraordinary chess performance is largely attributable to genes in my opinion.> There's no such thing as a "gift". All such abilities/skills are earned. Carlsen has obviously developed his skills in past lives. Reincarnation is real. |
|
Jul-18-09
 |
| Check It Out: That's an interesting post, <ajile>. I often have the same thought about guitar players who at maybe 13 or 14 years of age, like Kenny Wayne Shepard or Derek Trucks, play the blues like they have several lives of playing under their belts. |
|
| Aug-03-09 |
| volodos: We really don't know what Carlsen is in his past lives, if he had any. Only one thing is for sure: Magnus Carlsen is the FUTURE OF CHESS. |
|
| Sep-14-09 |
| Cercatore: Absolutely Incredible. |
|
| Sep-15-09 |
| ycbaywtb: he just shoved him into the wall and didn't leave him with any good moves |
|
Sep-27-09
 |
| twoinchgroup: < cionics: tatarch: Carlsen is obviously a genius, but I wonder-- how much of his skill is innate, and how much did he work for? I always find it interesting the way people set up the "nature vs. nuture" dichotomy: Did Magnus earn his ability by hard work, or was he simply born with it? What people consistently overlook is that the very ability to work with this kind of determination and perseverence is itself, almost certainly, genetically determined. Given a minimally decent upbringing, a healthy diet, and exposure to the game at an early age, extraordinary chess performance is largely attributable to genes in my opinion.> Honestly, DOES IT MATTER!?!?!? What sane person cares about such a thing??? It would seem that you're the kind of spoiler who would wonder if real eggs or real dairy were used in the recipe for your own birthday cake and end up ruining the celebration for everyone around you. You are witnessing genius (whatever the blend of skill might be is irrelevant). Would it be a let-down if it was ALL innate (genetic)/0% hard work or vice-versa?!? Do you wonder the same about Einstein, Mozart, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and et al? For your own sake I recommend that you enjoy the game for what it is instead of pointlessly wondering about the blend ratio of his abilities...or at least let the rest of us enjoy it without your wandering and distracting musings. The game was a GIFT to all of us to inspire our play and to reinforce our love and passion for the game of chess. Truly a gift of the Divine. |
|
Sep-27-09
|
| twoinchgroup: "...Nature vs. Nurture dichotomy..." Oh my God, its amazing how some of you take yourselves so serious. Somehow you equate your curiosity of trivial crap to that of intelligence. I will point out though that the "Nature vs. Nurture" idea has done more to ruin the legal system and put more innocent people at jeopardy than almost any other argument. Its a ruinous and distracting concept and especially out of place here. |
|
| Sep-27-09 |
| KamikazeAttack: <Honestly, DOES IT MATTER!?!?!? What sane person cares about such a thing??? It would seem that you're the kind of spoiler who would wonder if real eggs or real dairy were used in the recipe for your own birthday cake and end up ruining the celebration for everyone around you. You are witnessing genius (whatever the blend of skill might be is irrelevant). Would it be a let-down if it was ALL innate (genetic)/0% hard work or vice-versa?!? Do you wonder the same about Einstein, Mozart, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and et al> hahahahaha |
|
| Oct-03-09 |
| gargle: "What people consistently overlook is that the very ability to work with this kind of determination and perseverence is itself, almost certainly, genetically determined." Yes. Even Rawls does this...he thinks no-one "deserves" his birth or social standing or genes, but can't quite bring himself to deny in the same forthright way that no-one deserves his ability to work hard. Character traits are somehow not cashed out the way everything else is. "Honestly, DOES IT MATTER!?!?!? What sane person cares about such a thing??? It would seem that you're the kind of spoiler who would wonder if real eggs or real dairy were used in the recipe for your own birthday cake and end up ruining the celebration for everyone around you." Eric Cartman say you have sand in the vj. |
|
| Oct-04-09 |
| Pjalle: Lazy people tend to justify their own mediocrity by blaming bad genes or lack of 'talent' but behind every 'genius' lies years and sometimes decades of hard focused work. |
|
Oct-08-09
|
| twoinchgroup: Pjalle said:
<Lazy people tend to justify their own mediocrity by blaming bad genes or lack of 'talent' but behind every 'genius' lies years and sometimes decades of hard focused work.>YESSSSS!!! Well said. |
|
| Oct-08-09 |
| Kaspablanca: Vladimir Kramnik beat Magnus Carlsen 7 to 1, with 8 draws. |
|
| Oct-09-09 |
| KKDEREK: <Kaspablanca: Vladimir Kramnik beat Magnus Carlsen 7 to 1, with 8 draws.> Yes..But classical time controls is +2-1 Kramnik..
And time is on (Carlsen) side..(Yes it is!) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
