|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 24 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-06-09
 | | SatelliteDan: <whatthefat:
I am all for a longer time control, but not for the sake of perfect games - even Fischer didn't play that many such games. I don't want to see the kind of junk chess that blitz and rapid time controls produce; I want to see contests where the players are able to give a true display of their chess understanding under a high pressure situation, and I feel classical time controls strike a great balance there. The move towards shorter time controls is sad, especially in this kind of event where we often have to wait more than a day between rounds, it actually reduces the amount of spectator time. I'm with Dvoretsky on this one - it's the competitive struggle that's fascinating. There's a great quote by Sanakoev about the meaninglessness of improvements discovered after a game is finished.>
Perhaps a sign of the fast food people with short attention spans? |
 |
Oct-06-09
 | | SugarDom: I prefer no other commentator than Ms Natalia Pogonina... Be natural. Speak your mind...
Whiners get lost... |
|
| Oct-06-09 | | 2Towers: Morozevich vs Korchnoi, 2004 |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | ozmikey: Well, even if the players were not at their best, what a thrilling game! Was enthralling enough just playing over it now, I'm sure it would've been nerveracking following it as it happened (let alone being one of the two players!). |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | DeepTrouble: Twinlark:
<Carlsen missed 32. Rxc6 with an easy (for a super GM) win.> Eyal responded to my post earlier in this thread. He believed you were talking about Rxc6, and my response was: "I agree that Rxc6 would've given Magnus a decisive advantage, but that doesn't mean that Rcb1 (which he actually played) was a bad move. It was just inferior compared to Rxc6: After all, Rcb1 still retains white's small advantage and keeps up the pressure. Also remember that Magnus was short on time when playing this move (I've mentioned the time factor before). He'd probably already made a plan, and didn't want to spend more time analyzing other moves given the short amount of time he had left." <When both sides miss winning chances and there are other mistakes made, I think you can justifiably claim the game is below par for super-GMs> No, I don't think so, because you need to see the moves in context. And mistakes or oversights are common even at super GM level. I've written a longer post about this in the Nanjing main thread, so I don't want to start another discussion here. I'd also like to point out that many other GMs and expert commentators disagree with her assessment. Nigel Short believed that she was plain wrong. |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | ruyv: I think the reference to Korchnoi is very well thought but for the wrong reasons.
Korchnoi is most recognised by his uncompromising fighting spirit not by his "perfect" games |
|
Oct-07-09
 | | Raf: thnks 2towers! LOL |
|
Oct-07-09
| | percyblakeney: <Carlsen missed 32. Rxc6 with an easy (for a super GM) win. When both sides miss winning chances and there are other mistakes made, I think you can justifiably claim the game is below par for super-GMs (perhaps not sub-master level - that may have been a teeny bit over-critical)> At least saying that both players made unbelievable mistakes far below Elo 2000 level does sound a bit over-critical :-) IM Reeh also seems to exaggerate in his Chessbase annotations when he gives 32. Rxc6 two exclamation marks, but I don't think Carlsen's mistakes in this game were that many and bad, I'd say that he played an excellent game after being badly outprepared. Both players were in time trouble during parts of the game, Carlsen had less than two minutes for his last seven moves before the time control and not much more when he missed 32. Rxc6, double exclamation mark or not :-) |
|
Oct-07-09
 | | twinlark: <DeepTrouble>
Fair enough. I don't have any problems with that. |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | MindBoggle: Pogonina writes:
<"Unbelievable mistakes for their level. That's what is expected from A-class or lower players, not super GMs.
Inexplicably weak play by Wang Yue, and Carlsen's performance has been far from outstanding."> This, in my opinion, is not only rude, as some have pointed out, but it's also a good example of bad reasoning. What's more, it's a well known mistake in reasoning that beginners often make. A beginner who just lost to a stronger player will say: "I played inexplicably weakly, making such and such mistakes that I normally never make." I always answer:
"No. You played exactly as you always do. But unlike always, you played someone who took advantage of your mistakes, and so they didn't pass unnoticed like they always do." This case is no different. Wang and Topalov play exactly like they always do - they just met somebody who knows how to exploit weaknesses they didn't even knew they had. Carlsen is a stronger player. That's how he manages to make everybody else in this field look weak. - and Pogonina is too strong to not know that. Pointing out theoretical imperfections is fine, but concluding that the players are playing weakly is just stupid, frankly. They're not. And if she played them, she'd find out soon enough. |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | kamalakanta: <Peter Zhdanov: “Am I the only one to whom it seems that Magnus isn’t, strangely enough, playing especially well. At the same time, his opponents seem to be playing terribly.” GM Michael Krasenkow, one of the world top players, FIDE rating: 2651, highest rating: 2702 Reply: “I agree, the game quality has been far from perfect. It’s probably due to an unusual time control & acclimatization issues. But the conditions are equal for everyone…” GM Sergey Shipov, world-class chess commentator & Kasparov’s ex-second, FIDE rating: 2557, highest rating: 2662 As far as chess authorities are concerned, here’s what they say. On the other hand, there are many commentators who are hypocritical and trying to be nice, e.g. calling every Magnus’s win “a brilliant and hard-fought victory”, pretending not to notice the overall low chess quality of the games. As to the audience: I perfectly understand that people are looking for the next great champion after Kasparov’s retirement. That’s why every month or so we have a new “hero” whom everyone praises, cherishes and labels as one of the greatest players in history. Unfortunately enough, these people seem to have a short memory: once this young talent fails in the next tournament, they instantly forget about him, and rush to honor the next chess prodigy. Just like with pop stars… While some of Natalia’s remarks may have been rather blunt, they are candid, justified, and based on her love for the game. And, remember, she knows what it’s like to be a top player from the inside. Trust me, strong GMs never comment on their own games and games of others in the tolerant and official way. You can usually see one 2700+ player get up from the board after the game saying “I had you at move 20” and the other responding: “Yeah, my position has been totally f…ed up by that time. I played like a moron!” And Natalia is far from offending players, or doubting their high level of play in general. She’s just trying to be a decent commentator, and that is: 1) provide plans and ideas 2) share insight about chess in general 3) respond to all types of questions 4) entertain people by sharing her top GM experience – that is stories, funny remarks, etc. 5) give precise evaluations of what is happening on the board (including critique of the imprecise chess engines’ evaluations), and the level of chess demonstrated by the players. Personally I don’t see anything bad about any of the points. Most of the suggestions I’ve heard were about praising, highlighting any move that is pretty good, sticking to the board, etc. But this type of commentary could suit only a person who lacks a sense of humor, completely doesn’t understand chess, and thinks that Rybka is the perfect commentator. Isn’t it sensible to make the most out of the chance to communicate with an open and friendly top GM who is ready to answer your questions & help you to understand chess better? Or would you rather try to insult her, urge Natalia to provide only PC evaluations, and expect her to act like a dumb populist chatterbox – “magnificent move, totally shocking, great, wow”?! It’s up to you to decide.> Finally, someone who knows speaks with some sense! |
|
Oct-07-09
| | percyblakeney: Annotations and comments:
http://games.chessdom.com/nanjing/c... http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil... http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/c... http://chesspro.ru/chessonline/onli... http://translate.google.com/transla... |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | Valandil: Henric Carlsen commenting on the delayed relay at Rc3: "The live transmission stopped with the move Rc3?? The reason was, Wang put the rook on c3 temporary, but did not let go of the rook, and put it back on the original position. He then desperately spent several minutes trying to find a rook move that would not lose. He seemed stressed at this point, probably realizing he lost the game. Magnus quickly saw that he could win the knight exactly as in the final position. But he was unsure how swift and easy it would be winning with the 2N+R+K vs R+K+2P, so he spent some minutes (in futility) to try find a forced mate directly, before he continued the game." My translation from Norwegian from this chess blog, in the comments field: http://sjakkfantomet.blogg.no/12548... |
|
Oct-07-09
| | twoinchgroup: <<cade: I think it's really sad how patzers armed with Fritz criticize GMs so dismissively. It's quite annoying to see people who couldn't take a half point off Carlsen (or any of his opponents) in 50 games talk as if his 2700+ rated opponents in this tournament have been worthless and gifted Carlsen free wins and thus denigrate his massive achievements.>
It's so true. If you go back and analyze tournaments like Fischer at Palma 1970, Tal in the Candidates 1958, etc., you find that they all made their share of errors between the brilliancies. For instance, go and see what the engines make of rounds 7-10 and 14-15 at Palma 1970 for Fischer. I've done it, and believe me, it's not exactly flawless chess being played, yet it is widely considered one of the greatest tournament performances of all time, and rightly so. Part of the beauty of chess is the human struggle, and it's sad how often that seems to be overlooked.> whatthefat and cade,
Thank you for your elucidations. It's nice when one realizes that there are others out there who understand a matter in kind. |
|
Oct-07-09
| | twoinchgroup: <People can say whatever they want about Magnus's form in this tournament, but the results are all that matter. Did he play some poor moves against Wang Yue? Maybe so, but Wang played worse. This is a chess tournament played by humans, not machines.
All this computer analysis, while beneficial to chess understanding, often comes at the cost of ignoring the human (psychological, emotional) aspects of the game. Staring at a bunch of lines and what-ifs instead of focusing on the tension between the players takes the magic out of chess for people like me. To illustrate my point: If Mikhail Tal were alive and active in chess today, the computer-reliant kibitzers on this site would probably call him a patzer every time he played an imperfect (but psychologically effective) sacrifice that didn't jibe with Rybka's analysis. But they'd be missing the point.> AMEN BROTHER!!! PREACH IT!!! Thank God there are those who see this matter clearly.
Thrajin has nailed it on the head. Well said. |
|
Oct-07-09
| | twoinchgroup: MindBoggle writes in reply:
<Pogonina writes:
<"Unbelievable mistakes for their level. That's what is expected from A-class or lower players, not super GMs. Inexplicably weak play by Wang Yue, and Carlsen's performance has been far from outstanding.">This, in my opinion, is not only rude, as some have pointed out, but it's also a good example of bad reasoning. What's more, it's a well known mistake in reasoning that beginners often make. A beginner who just lost to a stronger player will say: "I played inexplicably weakly, making such and such mistakes that I normally never make." I always answer:
"No. You played exactly as you always do. But unlike always, you played someone who took advantage of your mistakes, and so they didn't pass unnoticed like they always do." This case is no different. Wang and Topalov play exactly like they always do - they just met somebody who knows how to exploit weaknesses they didn't even knew they had. Carlsen is a stronger player. That's how he manages to make everybody else in this field look weak. - and Pogonina is too strong to not know that. Pointing out theoretical imperfections is fine, but concluding that the players are playing weakly is just stupid, frankly. They're not. And if she played them, she'd find out soon enough.> Nothing more need be added...truth has been spoken and that is enough. Thank you MindBoggle. |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | SimonWebbsTiger: This discussion reminds me of Kasparov. In an interview he spoke of how his wins needed a critical eye as they too contained mistakes. That interview is on youtube. Garry talking sense again and showing why he was so great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KK... |
|
| Oct-07-09 | | SimonWebbsTiger: something else worth noting on GM games and their mistakes are the comments made by Tal in his famous book of the 1960 match versus Botvinnik. See his introduction to game 12 where he finishes by saying a tense, full blooded struggle, free of mistakes, is only to be found on interplanetary tournaments! |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | tanuri: Yeah yadda yada, she;s not a robot yeah yeah..
I am just saying, you cant say stuff like "These kids don't know the meaning of chess" and go unnoticed. She spoke without reason and with heart, because, yes, chess is a sport also, and lot of people talk without reason. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | DeepFriedLiver: all my friends say...
that of course it's...
gonna get better...
gonna get better...
better better better better...
better better better! |
|
Oct-08-09
| | Xeroxx: I think that ILikeFruits and I Like Fish most certainly are Nigel Shorts joke accounts. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | Matt Tsjakk: Wow. Weird stoner poem. Really made me laugh. Fantastic stuff. Stopped at the right place too. |
|
| Oct-08-09 | | donehung: Is it just me or is Carlsen playing like a man possessed. Poor Wang seems to be cannon fodder for Magnus. |
|
Oct-09-09
 | | notyetagm: 32.Rcb1? Both players were not in bad time trouble. [Here many spectators wanted to see the dramatic shot 32.Rxc6!! , partially without knowing exactly why. Here's why: 32...Rxd4 (32...Rxc6 33.Nxc6 Rxd3 34.Nxa5 also produced two extra white pawns; 32...Bxd4 33.Ra6+ ) 33.Rxd4 (33.Rxc7? works after 33...Rxd3 34.Rc8+ Bb8 35.Rbxb8+ Ka7 36.Ra8+ but Black simply plays 33....Rxb4.) 33...Rxc6 34.Rxh4  and White has two extra pawns.] |
|
Oct-09-09
 | | Eyal: <WannaBe: Following 17. b4, black have never won with this opening/line!!
Quite surprised that Wang chose to go down this path...> This just goes to show that opening statistics can be misleading - especially where there's a very small sample of games, like here. Wang Yue actually came out very well of the opening, and would have had excellent winning chances had he found 23...Ne7! Until move 20 they were following Ngoc Truongson Nguyen vs B Predojevic, 2008, where Wang Yue deviated by playing 20...h5! instead of exchanging pawns on g3 before that. Apparently it's better to leave the pawn on f4, since it prevents White from playing e3 as Nguyen did, limiting the scope of Black's bishop and thus the pressure on White's K-side. Carlsen's 21.Rab1 was criticized
(instead of 21.a5, which however seems to allow Black at least a draw by perpetual after 21...h4 22.g4 Bxf2+ 23.Kxf2 f3) - but perhaps the fault already lies at 20.Nb3, and White should play instead Nf3 to help defend the K-side. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 24 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
|
