< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·
|Oct-04-09|| ||Red October: < kamalakanta > the thing is, these guys work out end games like this OTB with the clock ticking no less.. while we need engines and hours if not days together to work it out...|
|Oct-04-09|| ||A Karpov Fan: I learned only recently a knight can draw a rook so this endgame made some sense as Carlsen traded down.|
|Oct-04-09|| ||slomarko: <Honestly, when Leko forced the exchange of Queens, I thought Carlsen was lost.> the exchange of queens was by no means forced. Carlsen could have avoided it by playing Qb2 with an equal position.|
|Oct-04-09|| ||Gambitor: For any interested, here's another game (this time with Carlsen trying to win) with an ending where engines are useless. The eval is always 2.33 in Fritz 11. Recognizing long term fortress is a weak point even for Rybka or Fritz. Carlsen vs Wang Yue, 2009|
|Oct-04-09|| ||HeMateMe: You can see how badly Leko wanted the full point. He may be the one who comes closes to beating the Magimater this tournament. Very instructive in the ending how Carlsen's Knight repeatedly makes the prophylactic moves to box out white's king. Its a real gift in these endings, if you have the rook, to keep the pawns from being exchanged. MC, of course, found a way to liquidate all the Queenside pawns. Leko could just offer the half point, at that time in the game.|
|Oct-04-09|| ||reyjf: I would have liked to have seen 17. Nxd6 for black!|
|Oct-04-09|| ||zarg: <timhortons>
Whatever you do, try to keep your disrespectful nonsense away from games you are not able to judge the quality of.
There was a couple of kibitzers during the game, who believed this endgame was going toward 1-0, but they where of course wrong, as WGM commentator and others explained.
This was a masterful game by both Leko and Carlsen. In my view, perhaps the best Pearl Spring game by Carlsen so far, he was taken out of prep on move 1 and we can only wonder how many in the world could have saved this game, after such a position from the opening.
|Oct-04-09|| ||Open Defence: <zarg> thats a bit unfair..|
|Oct-04-09|| ||zarg: <Open Defence>
<"how come he escape lossing?leko must be drunk.">
<"carlson make mistake exchanging queen here.looks like magnus nerve is giving up">
|Oct-04-09|| ||Red October: no, bit with so many people layin into him.. c'mon the guys copped a fair bit aint he ?|
|Oct-05-09|| ||kakarot: For most of the chess-players, trying to get the full point this way it's ok.The reasoning is that since white (in this case) has no real chances of loosing, has no reason at all to accept the draw without torturing his opponent.Furthermore many believe that it's actually in the "spirit" of the game doing this, since the "rule" is to try to win at all costs with everything you have left.It goes without saying that I completely disagree with these views. To me, trying to win a drawn endgame is in the same level with trying to hold a totally lost position, (like when amatures keep playing with a piece down) or trying to win on time.I consider these situations disrespectful to chess itself because they reveal that you r actually not playing for the game but for the points and the result .The will to dominate (in kasparov words) and override your opponents by winning them in a real fight r qualities of the true chess-players, because they respect above all themselfs and know that they don't have to win in such a doggy style.They know their strenghts and they know that they have the creativity needed to win <their> opponent and not get the win <by> them..|
I know that carlsen use to do the same thing before but i really doubt that the new-carlsen will ever try it again...
|Oct-05-09|| ||Pjalle: <kakarot> I don't believe Leko or anyone else actively tries to 'torture' their opponents or act out of bad spirit.|
In hindsight it's easy to say that this was a draw and 'impossible' for white to win but the stakes are high (after all these guys are professionals and have to win to cover their salaries) and nothing is worse than taking a draw only to discover you actually had a winning position.
Then it's better to keep playing for a while until you are totally sure there are no options left. I don't see anything wrong in this and I'm sure Carlsen will 'torture' his opponents in the future as well.
|Oct-05-09|| ||kakarot: <Pjalle>
By saying torturing his opponent I just wanted to say "torturing his opponent in order to get the full point"..of course i didn't mean that he did that for psychological reasons..:)
Also I think you r missing the fact that the above endgame is a theoretically drawn one..
|Oct-05-09|| ||tpstar: <torture> One scenario is when your opponent declines a draw offer, but then the tables turn = E Alekseev vs I Nepomniachtchi, 2006|
Are people seriously criticizing Leko for trying to convert this endgame?! Too many times the discussion is the other way: short draws right out of the opening. With all the Pawns on one side of the board, White's winning chances were slim but not zero. In fact, there was real risk that he might miss a Knight fork and lose the sure draw, whereupon he would never hear the end of it.
We should see more of these endgames, not less. =)
|Oct-05-09|| ||Pjalle: <kakarot> Yes you are absolutely right, it was a theoretically drawn endgame and I'm sure Leko knew that all along but Magnus is not a computer and Leko wanted to test him a little bit. |
Also, even the best GMs don't have all the tablebases in their heads, sometimes it's possible to win endgames that looks very drawish. If you are not a computer it may take some time to figure out if the position on the board is one of those rare wins.
|Oct-05-09|| ||jokerman: Someone around here mentioned 17. d6 Nxd6
I think black ends up in a losing position that way.
18. Nd5 if black wants to keep his knight, he has to defend it. so, Qc6 is played.
19. Nxe5 queen has to move, or bishop has to take. 19. ... Bxe5
20. f4 if bishop moves, say... Bg7
21. e5 wins back the piece (queen has to move = 22.Nf6+ in the air)
That is why i think Carlen didn't take the pawn.
please note that i didnt use a machine, so i might be wrong. But its a nice line i wanted to share.
|Oct-05-09|| ||MarvinTsai: <RedOctober: not quite since according to Vas the Rybka eval is the % for a win...> Then I think the idea from that Vas guy is misleading. The problem of engine is it can't judge dead drawn game and the really promising one. It's annoying if it just can't win but keeps thinking "hey I'm winning I got +2 advantage". But in most cases it's okay: it just plays the best move over the others.|
Someone may try to write an engine based on percentage -- never heard of it yet, except for openning database.
|Oct-05-09|| ||percyblakeney: <according to Vas the Rybka eval is the % for a win>|
Endgames are special though, many are evaluated around 0.00 while both have no winning chances (Radjabov vs Leko, 2009), while a complicated middlegame can give much better winning chances than that to a player with a minus evaluation (D Jakovenko vs Topalov, 2009).
|Oct-05-09|| ||percyblakeney: One example of an endgame that is hard to evaluate is the one with rook plus bishop against rook. It's a draw "on paper", and usually evaluated very close to 0.00 by strong engines, but it is won by the side with the bishop in 40 percent of the games.|
|Oct-05-09|| ||Eyal: <One example of an endgame that is hard to evaluate is the one with rook plus bishop against rook. It's a draw "on paper", and usually evaluated very close to 0.00 by strong engines, but it is won by the side with the bishop in 40 percent of the games.>|
But I don't think that's strictly relevant to the issue of computer evaluations being discussed here. I mean, objectively this endgame is indeed drawn with best play by both sides (something which is confirmed by tablebase, in this case) - so the computer evaluation should definitely be 0.00. The fact that - for whatever reasons - human players tend to find this theoretical draw more difficult to hold in practice than other theoretical draws shouldn't be a relevant factor in this context.
|Oct-05-09|| ||benjinathan: My kid had this identical endgame on ICC this morning (maybe he was playing someone here?).|
He got it down to the point where he had a knight and two pawns vs a rook but in horrible time trouble, and lost on a blunder when the other guy was essentially repeating moves (while avoiding 3 times repetition) in order to kill clock.
When you play with clocks time is a crucial part of the game, but I have to admit just shuffling pieces in order to kill time is a bit of a drag.
|Oct-05-09|| ||radu stancu: That's why in some rapid games the rules say that the arbiter will have to decide whether the side who "won" on time was actually trying to win at the end, otherwise the game can be pronounced a draw. Of course, you still have to keep from blundering before the time expires.|
|Oct-05-09|| ||percyblakeney: <I don't think that's strictly relevant to the issue of computer evaluations being discussed here. I mean, objectively this endgame is indeed drawn with best play by both sides (something which is confirmed by tablebase, in this case) - so the computer evaluation should definitely be 0.00>|
Yes, practical winning chances is something the engines never measure since they expect perfection. But on the whole Rybka evaluations tend to be a bit unreliable in endgames, especially some (excellent) online resources give rather low ply lines that shouldn't be taken too seriously as a measure of winning chances.
|Oct-09-09|| ||freeman8201: Leko choose a more reserve line of the Grunfeld--does any know how to add the double dot "u"? Leko being a proponent of the Grunfeld he must like the positions of White in Grunfeld mainline theory.|
|Jul-08-10|| ||TugasKamagong: A u with an umlaut? As in "ü"?. Try pressing ALT and 129 (use the numeric keypad on the righthand part of the keyboard). Grünfeld.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·