< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 21 ·
|Mar-05-09|| ||MaxxLange: Another common pitfall in using statistics goes like this: a line scores well for White, but is eventually refuted. People stop playing it once this is known, so the stats stay about where they were. If you browse a database and reason, "hey, this line scores 70% with White, it must be good", you are setting up for a nasty beating the first time you play it against someone who knows the theory.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||rogge: <firebyrd: Also following Carlsen vs Anand, 2008, where Carlsen got close to winning before finally losing. It's hardly guessing, saying that Carlsen has studied that game - what went right and what went wrong.>|
Carlsen might've prepared a few tricks for the right occasion :)
|Mar-05-09|| ||Mulyahnto: My point is, statistics are good guidelines at worst.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Aspirador: Churchill: I don't believe in any statistics that I haven't forged myself.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Mulyahnto: <MaxxLange: Another common pitfall in using statistics goes like this: a line scores well for White, but is eventually refuted.... > That's why you also have to look at when the games were played, and who played them. That's why you also look at the elo rating of players playing the line.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Ybrevo: <MaxxLange> Right! So I always prefer to play opening lines that I know - but could be dubious - to openings that has a high percentage of wins, but I have no idea how you get there. Okay, maybe because I grew up with the Bent Larsen kind of approach.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||hoodrobin: Black is trying to react.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Mulyahnto: Nxc6 now suggested by rybka but never played by a GM.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Fiberking: <Aspirador: Churchill: I don't believe in any statistics that I haven't forged myself.> Thank you for that excellent quote.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||MaxxLange: My last post describes a hasty misuse of statistics, right. You have to look at the details is all I am saying.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Robin01: Looks like black deviated from the Carlsen v. Anand game. Perhaps Grischuk thought that Carlsen had prepared an improvement from that game.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||firebyrd: FWIW, more playing around with the CG opening explorer: 12 ... Bf8 was the statistically most drawish of the alternatives, just what the doctor ordered for Grischuk at this stage. A sharp continuation for white may be 13. g5, but it isn't much tried, 9 times scoring 4 white wins, 4 draws and a black win. Also the games played does not seem to be on the very top level, except a game where Grishuk himself won with white: Grischuk vs Khalifman, 2002|
|Mar-05-09|| ||AdrianP: Great, a Scheveningen!|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Mulyahnto: People who don't know/understand statistics have a general aversion to it, because it can be so complex and confusing.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Slaven MNE: You know how mathematicians say: "There is lai, big lai and statistics"|
|Mar-05-09|| ||PinnedPiece: <Mar-05-09 Udit Narayan: Anand - Ivanchuk draw>|
Big chance for Carlsen now! A win makes a critical move in the standings.
|Mar-05-09|| ||Eyal: In the Carlsen vs. Anand game (from Corus 2008) Anand made a rather elementary mistake at an early stage with 14...Bd7 instead of e5, which got him into trouble quickly (he said himself after the game that "his wires got crossed" when he made that move), so there wasn't any reason for Carlsen to expect a meaningful repetition of this game anyway.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||AdrianP: g4 would be usual to get the kingside attack going (and why play Kh1 otherwise).|
|Mar-05-09|| ||firebyrd: <Perhaps Grischuk thought that Carlsen had prepared an improvement from that game> IIRC, a winning line for Carlsen was found in analysis, just too complicated to find over the board. If so, Grischuk does indeed need to be the one who deviates.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Mulyahnto: <A sharp continuation for white may be 13. g5> g4, I assume? Only played once at GM level in Grischuk-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee, 2002, 1-0|
|Mar-05-09|| ||autolycus: <aspirador>: I don't believe in any quotations I haven't written myself... :)|
On a side note, I think that Churchill and Kennedy are probably the two people who are most named as the originators of sayings which weren't theirs.
It's like attributing chess quotes to Nimzovich or Tarrasch or Fischer...
|Mar-05-09|| ||AdrianP: There will be many similar games without the inclusion of a4, so the opening explorer may not be that much help.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||AdrianP: Rb8 prepares b5 or less ambitiously ...b6. It's important to get the R off the long diagonal because of tactics with e5 uncovering the f3 bishop.|
|Mar-05-09|| ||Aspirador: <I think that Churchill and Kennedy are probably the two people who are most named as the originators of sayings which weren't theirs.> Wonder who faked this statistic. :)|
Btw, Anand-Ivanchuk are still playing on the live page. I think this draw is a rumor yet.
|Mar-05-09|| ||eightsquare: <<<<<<<<<looks like a draw.why should he play bf8?>>>>>>>>>>>|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 21 ·