< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 44 OF 44 ·
|Oct-17-08|| ||Red October: maybe the missed opportunity for Bc2 was playing on Anand's mind, that can happen even to the very best, sometimes knowing you missed a stronger move can affect you in OTB play|
|Oct-17-08|| ||notyetagm: <blindhermit: <notyetagm> Pardon me if you've been asked this before, how far along are you to Grand Master status?>|
Not very far, unfortunately. I have only just reached USCF class A status (1804 rating) after about two years of club play.
|Oct-17-08|| ||notyetagm: <Red October: maybe the missed opportunity for Bc2 was playing on Anand's mind, that can happen even to the very best, sometimes knowing you missed a stronger move can affect you in OTB play>|
Well it sure wasn't on his mind in Game 3, was it? :-)
|Oct-17-08|| ||Open Defence: it may have been actually but in a more positive sense, when you have time to reflect and possibly think constructively about the recent past it can spur you on to greater achievement|
|Oct-17-08|| ||wollkay: 12. c6... i think kramnik could play 12... Nc5 instead leading to an interesting position. it also put pressure on whites e4 pawn|
|Oct-18-08|| ||amadeus: Statistical curiosity concerning the 0.75 advantage given by Rybka -- I did a quick survey on the Karpov-Kasparov matches, in order to verify how unusual this event is.|
Karpov - Kasparov: 144 match games, 104 draws. The final evaluation was beyond 0.75 in only 5 of the 104 draws. (Rybka, 16+plies)
2 dead draws from Sevilla (1987), two games from the last quarter of the first match (probably wina by Kasparov), and the final game from 1990 -- winning position (+2,14/17) for Kasparov, but he only needed a draw to take the money and the crown, so...
Median eval (modulus, final positions, 104 draws): 0,08
Mean eval (modulus, final positions, 104 draws): 0,21
[0.00 - 0.10] : 57 games
[0.11 - 0.30] : 25 games
[0.31 - 0.50] : 11 games
[0.51 - 0.74] : 6 games
The 5 [0.75+] games above mentioned:
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1987
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1987
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1990
|Oct-19-08|| ||VaselineTopLove: This is a good game. Spectators and Anand himself should be happy about the result and not complain, considering that he (Anand) at least chose to take risks and start with 1.d4 in a WC match. Since Anand has little experience with 1.d4, and since every game here counts, it's natural for him to play slowly and a little more cautiously than usual and a draw seems a fair outcome.|
|Oct-19-08|| ||Fusilli: Thanks for the research, <amadeus>|
|Oct-21-08|| ||kamalakanta: <wollkay: when anand played c6... i think black should have played Nc5. please analyze these..>|
That is an interesting possibility...
|Oct-21-08|| ||DarthStapler: 12...Nc5 13. Bb5|
|Oct-22-08|| ||wollkay: <kamalakanta> i never used computers in analysing because i dont have one at home. after the Nc5 the position becomes very challenging..|
|Oct-22-08|| ||wollkay: <darthStapler> after 13. Bb5 just continue to find the best reply. i will post my analysis tomorrow.|
|Oct-23-08|| ||piatos blue: <wollkay: when anand played c6... i think black should have played Nc5. please analyze these..>|
<12...Nc5 13. Bb5> <DarthStapler> is correct.
12. c6 Nc5 13. Bb5 bxc6 14. Bxc6+ ---rook and K is forked
12. c6 Nc5 13. Bb5 h6 14. c7+ plus Black Q is threatened by c7 --- queenless.
|Oct-24-08|| ||Joshka: Just a little update with "Foidos". They DID give me a refund for the 4 game package I purchased. So they are honorable in their business practice. Thanks Foidos, sorry I could not utilize your new service for this match!|
|Oct-26-08|| ||wollkay: <piatos blue> if i am kramnik i will not play the worst you are saying take a GOOD look at this|
if white plays 13. Bb5 after 12...Nc5 it will be good to play 13... 0-0!
a) 14. cxb7 Bxb7 white e pawn is hanging and cannot be defended because of 15. e5? Be4! 16. Qa2 Ng4 Nf3? Qb6! 18. a4 a6 19. Bc4 Rad8 white is on serious trouble if he play 20. 0-0?? Nd3+ 23. Kh1 Ngf2+ 24. Rxf2 Nxf2 25. Kg1 Rd1+ 26. Bf1 Nh3+ 27. Kh1 Rxf1+ 28. Ng1 Qxg1#
|Oct-26-08|| ||wollkay: kramnik is not foolish for playing 12. c6 Nc5 13. Bb5 bxc6 14. Bxc6+ ---rook and K is forked|
now follow this after 12... Nc5 13. Bb5 0-0! 14. Bg5!? Ncxe4! 15. Qxe4 Nxe4 16. Bxd8 Rxd8 17. cxb7 ( c7? Rd6) Bxb7 black is clearly better (18. Rd1?? Rxd1 19. Kxdi Nxc3+)
(18. c4?? Nc3! 19. Nf3 a6 black wins)
|Oct-26-08|| ||wollkay: this is another possibility
12... Nc5 13. Bb5 0-0! 14. e5 Nfe4! 15. Nf3? Rxf3! 16. gxf3 Qh4+ 17. Kf1 Ng4 wins the rook
12...Nc5 13. Bb5 0-0 14. cxb7 Bxb7 15. e5? Be4 16 Qf2??(Qb2? Rb8) Bd3!! 17. Qxc5 Ne4 18. Qe3 Rf1#
|Feb-10-09|| ||acirce: <In Game 2 you had better position but went for a draw because of time trouble. Was that a new experience, playing under time pressure?|
Not really, I was in time pressure in Game 3 as well but I have been in time pressure quite often recently. Often still far less than others, but for me often enough.
I’ll put it this way. Game 2 I think I have spoiled it anyway. His knight has already come to d4, my bishops are sort of plodding in the side. I don’t feel I’m really better anymore. Maybe if I had an hour I could give it a shot but under the circumstances I decided to take his draw offer. Also it is funny, I needed two minutes to decide whether I was still better and then I had only two minutes left so it was a good decision.> http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil...
|Feb-13-09|| ||acirce: Bareev begs to differ about the final position in New In Chess 2008/8: <White has an enormous advantage, of course>|
|Aug-18-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 1
Anand vs Kramnik, 2008 is the <second game of the 2008 title match>. Quantitative mapping of this game between these players is below. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are the corrected engine evaluations generated on the return slide. The reverse slide smoothed out many, but not all fluctuation in the engine’s evaluations. The complexity of some variations was very likely too great to enable a fuller reconciliation from the forward slide. <General methods used are described in the bio.> The evaluation values in the opening come at the end of a full forward slide to the last move of the game and a full return slide back to the starting position. Engine preferences, with evaluations, are included where they differ from players preferences.
After the cautious preliminaries in game 1, this was a colossal struggle. The game was extremely complex and will repay deep study. Black had a small advantage in a complex Sämisch Nimzo-Indian, but White equalized by move 8. White took advantage of the dubious <21…Ndf6> before dissipating that advantage with <31.Bc2>. A couple of inaccuracies at moves 31 and 32 by Black could have cost the game in a long and complex ending, but due to time trouble, the soon to be World Champion (and one time Blitz and Rapid Play Champion of the world) was unable to penetrate the thicket of possibilities in time and accepted a draw when he was in a position of strong and potentially winning advantage.
Although there were some inaccuracies, there were no blunders or bad moves as such, as defined in the methods used. However, a combination of a couple of the aforementioned dubious moves 31 and 32 could have lead to a lost game for Black, and accordingly they have together been treated as one bad move, especially as sliding analysis revealed continually increasing advantage that could have extended the combined error of these two moves into an evaluation shift exceeding the nominal 0.96 that has been deemed a bad move for the purposes of weighting the game.
This game demonstrates there are occasions when even World Champions are out of their depth.
|Aug-18-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 2
<1. d4> (=0.16) <1…Nf6> (=0.16)
<2. c4> (=0.14) <2…e6> (=0.14)
<3. Nc3> (=0.14) <3…Bb4> (=0.14)
<4. f3> (=-0.23) <4…d5> (=-0.23)
<5. a3> ( -0.29) <5…Bxc3+> ( 0.29)
<6. bxc3> (=-0.23) <6…c5> (=-0.23)
<7. cxd5> ( -0.45) <7…Nxd5> (=0.06)
<8. dxc5> (=0.06) <8…f5> (=0.06)
<9. Qc2> (=0.03) <9…Nd7> (=0.14)
<10. e4> (=0.14) <10…fxe4> (=0.14)
<11. fxe4> (=0.14) <11…N5f6> (=0.14)
<12. c6> (=0.03)
<Engine’s preferences>: <12. Nf3> (=0.14); <12. Bc4> (=0.14)
<13. Nf3> (=0.03)
This marks the end of theory in respect of this opening as shown in the chessgames.com database. The only other game in the database to reach this point was Portisch vs G Kluger, 1962 which continued with <13…Qc7>, with White winning in 54 moves.
|Aug-18-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 3
<Engine preference:: <13…Ng4> (=0.03)
<14. Bd2> (=0.00)
<Engine preference>: <14. Be2> (=0.06)
<15. c4> (=0.00) <15…Qc5> (=0.00)
<16. Bd3> (=-0.02 )
<Engine preference>: <16.Qd3> (=0.00), a line given as a draw by repetition. Thankfully, White chose the fighting option.
<17. Bb4> (=-0.02) <17…Qe3+> (=0.19)
<Engine preference>: <17…Qb6> (=-0.02)
<18. Qe2> ( 0.28)
First preference of both engine and Anand. The engine’s evaluation of this move did not stabilize following forward and reverse slides and re-slides, a prima facie indication of a very complex variation. Most evaluations tend to settle down on the reverse slide. When it doesn’t, it’s indicative of more significant moves within the engine’s horizon than is usual.
<18…0-0-0> ( 0.50)
<Engine preferences>: <18…c5> ( 0.28); and <18…Rd8> ( 0.29)
<19. Qxe3> ( 0.39) <19…Nxe3> ( 0.39)
<20. Kf2> (=0.10)
<Engine preferences>: <19…Rg1> ( 0.39); <19…Be7> (=0.21)
<21. Kg3> (=0.10) <21…Ndf6> ( 0.89)
<Top three engine preferences>: <21…Nge5> (=0.10); <21…h5> ( 0.36) and <21…Nde5> ( 0.44)
Under weighting methods A and B, the evaluation shift of 0.79 is very close to the project definition of a <bad move>. However, it meets the definition of a <dubious move> under method B. <Weight = 0.5, cumulative weight = 0.5>
|Aug-18-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 4
<22. Bb1> ( 0.89) <22…h5> ( 0.89)
<23. h3> ( 0.89) <23…h4+> ( 0.89)
<24. Nxh4> ( 0.89) <24…Ne5> ( 0.89)
<25. Nf3> ( 0.89) <25…Nh5+> ( 0.89)
<26. Kf2> ( 0.89) <26…Nxf3> ( 0.89)
<27. Kxf3> ( 0.88)
<Engine preference>: <26. gxf3> ( 0.89)
<27…e5> ( 0.88)
<28. Rc1> ( 0.87)
<Engine preference>: <28. Bc3> ( 0.88)
<28…Nf4> ( 0.87)
<29. Ra2> ( 0.87) <29…Nd3> ( 1.00)
<Engine preference>: <29…Rh6> ( 0.87)
<30. Rc3> ( 0.88)
<Engine preference>: <30. Bxd3> ( 1.00)
<30…Nf4> ( 0.88)
Forced: <30…Nxb4> ( 2.29) or <30…Ne1+> ( 2.37)
<31. Bc2> (=0.17)
An evaluation shift against White of 0.71, representing a <dubious move> under weighting method B. <Scores 0.5> <Cumulative weight = 1.0)
<First three engine preferences>: <31. Rf2> ( 0.88); <31. Rc1> ( 0.87); and <31. Rb2> and <31.Kg3> ( 0.65)
<31…Ne6> ( 0.60)
<Engine preference>: <31…Rh6> (=0.17)
<32. Kg3> ( 0.60) <32…Rd4> ( 1.13)
<Engine preferences>: <32…Rh6> ( 0.60); <32…c5> ( 0.77)
Black’s last two moves were inaccurate and resulted in a combined evaluation shift against his position of 0.96 that could have, on balance, lead to a lost position with best play on both sides. <Accordingly these two moves are deemed to constitute a bad move, and add a weighting of 1.> <Cumulative weighting = 2.0).
This abandons a position of moderate advantage evaluated at 1.13 by White, and accordingly is a <bad move>. <Weighting =1, cumulative weighting = 3.0)
|Aug-18-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 5
<Note> The fluctuations generated in the relatively low (16 minimum) ply forward slide were smoothed out in the equivalent return slide. The corrected evaluations extracted from the return slide are used in this analysis, as they are considered more reliable than the raw evaluations generated on the initial forward slide. All moves have been evaluated on forward and return slide for completeness.
Between <=/ 0.45> applying to <7. cxd5> - representing a small advantage for Black - and < 1.13> in respect of the move <32…Rd4> representing a significant/moderate advantage for White.
<The largest evaluation shifts>:
- for White was 0.71 between <30…Nf4> ( 0.88) and <31.Bc2> (=0.16).
- for Black
was 0.79 between <21. Kg3> (=0.10) and <21…Ndf6> ( 0.89)
• 93.8% of the ply in this game (50/64) coincided with engine preferences 1, 2 or 3
• 87.5% of the ply in the game (56/64) coincided with engine preferences 1 or 2
• 65.6% of the ply in the game (42/64) coincided with the engine’s first preference
• 96.9% of Kramnik’s moves (31/32) coincided with the engine preferences 1, 2 and 3
• 90.6% of Anand’s moves (29/32) coincided engine preferences 1, 2 and 3
• 87.5% of Kramnik’s moves (28/32) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2
• 81.3% of Anand’s moves (26/32) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2
• 71.9% of Kramnik’s moves (23/32) coincided with the engine’s first preference
• 53.1% (17/32) of Anand’s moves coincided with the engines first preference.
<The engine evaluation of the final position>:
was < 1.13> in a position agreed drawn.
<Using method A, the game is weighted at 2, representing 1 bad move and 0 blunders by Anand and 1 bad move and 0 blunders by Kramnik.
Using method B, the game is weighted at 3.0, representing 0 blunders, 1 bad move, and 1 dubious move by Anand, and 0 blunders, 1 bad move and 1 dubious move by Kramnik.>
|Mar-15-11|| ||NARC: Somebody test 11. ... Nxc3 with a computer and mail firstname.lastname@example.org the 2 best refutations. It could
be good for blitz.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 44 OF 44 ·