< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
|May-21-09|| ||whatthefat: <Eyal>
Nice point. Goes to show I didn't even calculate properly without the pressure of the clock ticking! :)
|May-21-09|| ||David2009: I seem to have lost the plot here. What is the refutation of 33...Qxc7 ?|
|May-21-09|| ||alexmagnus: <David2009> Ng5+. Then, if Kh8, Nf7+ Kh7 Qxg6#. If hxg5, Qg6+ Kh8 Qh5+ Bh6 Qh6#.|
|May-21-09|| ||alexmagnus: <extremepleasure2> Just for the curiosity, what is your rating?|
|May-21-09|| ||David2009: <alexmagnus> Thanks Alex|
|May-22-09|| ||metatron2: <alexmagnus: <extremepleasure2> Just for the curiosity, what is your rating?>|
He is not going to answer that, I already asked him twice. The guy is probably not even rated but has no problem trolling, describing combinations that #1 rated player in the world misses, as being easy and "basic".
We talked about the length of the combination and I asked him to explain why Carlsen played like that from move 28 if he didn't see the combination from there, but it seems like extremepleasure2 didn't even understand the question, he probably can't even imagine someone planning something like that so far ahead.
So instead he focused on lengthy explanations as to why he would have spotted 31.Rc7 (while assuming that the combination started from move 31 and not 28), that was pretty funny actually. I mean almost every dude who learnt moving the pieces Yesterday, could spot 31.Rc7 - it's the most <obvious> move in that position (dahh?!). The issue is obviously that if one is good enough to see black's Qd8 reply, most chances are that he would have dismissed the 31.Rc7 option, thinking that it was losing. Unless one plans it in <advance> (the way Carlsen probably did), finding a refutation move like Qd3 is not very likely to happen while u already have the feeling that your candidate move (i.e. Rc7) is a blunder. Apparently that is what happened to Topalov under classical time controls (not blitz), and to Hiarcs.
Asking me why I think the combination was difficult after my explanation about its deepness starting from move 28, and after I mentioned both Topa's and engines difficulties to spot it, was quite weird (to say the least).
Asking other kibitzer to "explain" to me how easy that combination was in view of their fit backs here, such as: "Fantastic game", "amazing game", "great game", "Qd3 is an amazing shot", "Wonderful show", "He [Magnus] has developed some extremely impressive calculation abilities", "Good attacking game!!", "impressive play", "Great finish by Carlsen!", "Wunderkind played it very, very well", "Carlsen is really something", "Amazing Carlsen!!!", "Magnus Carlsen played like a 2900 player in this game", etc. Was even weirder.
Considering also that he chickened out the blitz match I offered him twice after his continuous bragging about his blitz skills, leaves no doubt that this guy is a <Total Patzer>, who can't even tell the difference between a high level combination and a scholar's mate.
Now there is nothing wrong with being a total patzer of course, but when someone with such low level chess skills sees a combination that #1 rated player in the world has missed, and goes around bragging about how he would have found it in blitz, Diminishing Carlsen's achievement and making fun of all the kibitzers who were impressed by it, the way < extremepleasure2> did here, That is simply the <worst> kind of trolling as far as I concern.
And then he asks me if <I> am a troll. Some people are just Unbelievable..
|May-22-09|| ||alexmagnus: <metatron2> Actually <extremepleasure>'s explanation would be OK, assuming the position before 31.Rc7 is <given as a puzzle>. In a puzzle, Rc7 would probably be even my candidate move (though I wouldn't have solved it - I'm too weak to calculate all the lines from this point). But genarally that's how f.x. I solve puzzles. Don't know if stronger players do it the same way.|
|May-22-09|| ||alexmagnus: <In a puzzle, Rc7 would probably be even my candidate move (though I wouldn't have solved it - I'm too weak to calculate all the lines from this point> But I think some ~2000 player would have solved it.|
|May-23-09|| ||metatron2: <alex: assuming the position before 31.Rc7 is <given as a puzzle>>|
Yes but <whole point> was that he wasn't talking about a puzzle, he wasn't even talking about classical time controls, he was talking about finding it in a <blitz> game...
<alex: In a puzzle, Rc7 would probably be even my candidate move>
Well, as I said: <every dude who learnt moving the pieces Yesterday, could spot 31.Rc7 - it's the most <obvious> move in that position (dahh?!) [..]>, But the big difference is that in a puzzle you don't have this part: <finding a refutation move like Qd3 is not very likely to happen while u already have the feeling that your candidate move (i.e. Rc7) is a blunder.>, that you do have in a real game.
The most difficult part in big discoveries of geniuses, is having the intuition of <where> to look for when they <don't know>, that there is actually something to look for in that path they have chosen (out infinite number of possibilities).
<But I think some ~2000 player would have solved it>
The knowledge that there actually <is> a (short) combination in a given position, may very well worth an astronomic amount of rating points such as 800, in some cases.
But there is another issue here: It all started with him responding to my: <[..] It was about the depth and the originality of the whole Ne7+h5+hg+Rc7+Qd3 idea, that was tough to spot even on its last move (Qd3), let alone <6 moves> ahead> , with his: <ep2: After the white's <27th move> [..] screaming for combinations [..] I won many similar games to that while playing blitz.>
So he was actually saying he would have found the combo starting from move <28> (and not 31) in a blitz game (that is, if he actually understood what he was talking about).
Now considering also his attitude to rating and blitz matches questions, wouldn't u say this is a classical case of Patzer-Trolling ?
|May-25-09|| ||notyetagm: 21 a2-a4
click for larger view
<19.Rc2 Rdc8 20.Rdc1 Qf8 21.a4
(<<<By pressuring b5 Carlsen makes c6-c5 harder to organise>>> but Topalov has to free himself) >
|May-25-09|| ||notyetagm: A Carlsen masterpiece.|
|May-25-09|| ||notyetagm: Game Collection: Prophylaxis against freeing pawn moves|
Carlsen vs Topalov, 2009
click for larger view
By pressuring b5 Carlsen makes c6-c5 harder to organise -- Pein
|Jun-03-09|| ||Brown: Ne7 is great, but the time for a "new phase" in chess of any significance is past.|
Some are kibitzing about this like they've never seen a Tal/Stein/Kasparov/Alekhine game in their life.
|Jun-06-09|| ||notyetagm: Stupendous victory over Topalov by Carlsen.|
|Jun-19-09|| ||notyetagm: http://www.chessvibes.com/advertise...|
<Carlsen’s brilliant win: New In Chess 2009/4
NIC 4/09 Magnus Carlsen annotates his brilliant win over Topalov, <<<his first victory over a 2800+ player>>>, in New In Chess 2009/4.>
|Jun-19-09|| ||WhiteRook48: what about 36...Kh8|
|Jul-02-09|| ||TommyC: I played through Carlsen's annotations this morning on the bus. 28.Ne7+ is passed over in silence, unadorned even by a single exclamation mark.|
Carlsen does write that 23...Bxe4? was a "huge mistake" and after 27.f4 writes that "Black can hardly stir." By contrast 31.Rc7! is described as a "very pleasing move", 32.Kf2 gets a ?, and then the thus-necessary "trick" 33.Qd3 gets a !
It also seems the game was not quite as smooth as many spectators supposed, including myself. In particular, 21.a4 gets a ?! because then the "simple" 21...b4 would have given Topalov "even a slight initiative".
|Jul-02-09|| ||TommyC: <WhiteRook48> After 36...Kh8 the thematic 37.Rxg7 wins. Even better though -as the computer points out in no time- is 37.Rd8+ Kh7 38.Qd7! winning immediately.|
|Nov-09-09|| ||magikk: We fell like Topalov wanted to lose with this ridiculous opening where he can't breath anymore.He strangled himself.héhéhé.|
|Jan-26-10|| ||RandomVisitor: After the suggested improvement 21...b4:
click for larger view
<[-0.11] d=21 22.Nd1> c5 23.dxc5 b3 24.Rd2 Rxc5 25.Rxc5 Nxc5 26.Bxa8 Rxa8 27.Rd4 Rd8 28.Qc4 Rxd4 29.Qxd4 Qe7 30.Ne3 Qc7 31.Ng4 Nd7 32.g3 Qc6 33.Qf4 Qc2 34.Qd4 Nc5
[-0.19] d=21 22.Nb1 c5 23.Bxa8 Rxa8 24.dxc5 Rxc5 25.Nbd2 Rxc2 26.Rxc2 Rc8 27.Rxc8 Qxc8 28.Nc4 Qc6 29.b3 Nc5 30.Nfd2 Qd5 31.Qe3 Nd3 32.f4 f6 33.exf6 Bxf6 34.Nf3 Qc5 35.Qxc5 Nxc5 36.Ncd2 Nd3 37.Ne4
21 31:14 167.313.195 91.416
|Jan-26-10|| ||chessgames.com: For the upcoming 10 days, we'll be featuring the games voted "best of 2009" by Chessgames members. (See Game Collection: 2009's Greatest Chess Games for more information.) This is the 10th game on the list, we'll work our way up to #1.|
|Jan-26-10|| ||kevin86: White chases the queen away and garners a distant mate.|
|Jan-26-10|| ||RandomVisitor: After 20...Qf8:
click for larger view
<[+0.22] d=22 21.b3> c5 22.Bxa8 cxd4 23.Nxd4 Rxa8 24.f4 Qd8 25.Qf2 g5 26.g3 Nf8 27.hxg5 hxg5 28.Rd1 Qb6 29.Ne4 Rxc2 30.Nxc2 Qxf2+ 31.Kxf2 gxf4 32.gxf4 Ng6 33.Kf3 Bh6 34.Rg1 Rc8 35.Nd4
[+0.21] d=22 21.Qe3 c5 22.Bxa8 Rxa8 23.d5 c4 24.Rd1 Qc5 25.Qf4 exd5 26.Rxd5 Qe7 27.h5 g5 28.Qf5 Rd8 29.Rcd2 Nc5 30.Rd6 Qf8 31.Ne4 Nxe4 32.Qxe4 Qe8 33.Qd5 Rxd6 34.exd6 Rd8 35.Qb7 g4 36.Nh2
|Jan-26-10|| ||JohnBoy: <whatthefat: <Eyal> |
Nice point. Goes to show I didn't even calculate properly without the pressure of the clock ticking! :) >
Eyal is strong and I always take his comments seriously. I'm a 2250 player and can verify that you ain't the first to have your errors detected by him. LOL
|Jan-26-10|| ||Julian713: <David2009: I seem to have lost the plot here. What is the refutation of 33...Qxc7 ?>|
<alexmagnus: Ng5+. Then, if Kh8, Nf7+ Kh7 Qxg6#. If hxg5, Qg6+ Kh8 Qh5+ Bh6 Qh6#.>
My question exactly, and answered exactly lol. I second the thanks, alex!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·