< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-12-10|| ||acirce: <Notwithstanding the fuss about his losses in the first two rounds of Bilbao, I think Carlsen he was in form then too, and played well except for a few inaccuracies. Most in-from GMs probably would have lost were they in Carlsen's shoes, given the accuracy that Kramnik and Anand displayed to take advantage of every little mistake; and no one would have complained since their name isn't Carlsen.>|
Sure, but when was the last time Carlsen lost two games in a row, to anyone, in any (classical) tournament?
|Oct-12-10|| ||anandrulez: Carlsen won other 4 games against lower rated opponents . Intrestingly when Anand was in Olympiad , he managed to win ony a single game over some FM ( who sacrificed a piece ) rest all games were draws .His result was +1 -1 =3or something like that . Carlsen scores or loses which is indicative of his risk also . Risk is one reason why he is losing so many besides form imo .|
|Oct-12-10|| ||Marmot PFL: Carlsen is only 20 so his brain has not yet fully matured.|
|Oct-12-10|| ||whiteshark: There are some examples in Genrikh Kasparian's <Domination in 2545 Endgame Studies> where + are capable of acting in coordination against the , setting up batteries, Knight forks and geometric motifs (nos. 1317-1363)|
|Oct-12-10|| ||acirce: I am actually a bit surprised that B+B+N doesn't win against the lone queen in positions like this. Am I really the only one?|
|Oct-12-10|| ||HeMateMe: If white has to organize his pieces to have two or three attackers against one pawn, the queen will jump out and check, breaking up every attack motif. That's what Shirov had to do. Maybe if black had had one more pawn, to force a passer....|
|Oct-12-10|| ||tamar: Carlsen had two good reasons to play it out.
First, white must continue to make optimum moves to hold the balance, and second, his history with Shirov provided an example where Shirov blundered in a drawn ending. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYE7...
|Oct-12-10|| ||Gypsy: <acirce: I am actually a bit surprised that B+B+N doesn't win against the lone queen in positions like this. Am I really the only one?> |
No, you are not the only one. During the game, I thought that Carlsen had an excellent winning chance ... if he could attack White position while also keeping
his own position from becoming too breezy in the process. At the end, Black had to advance a bit too far and his king became a bit too open.
But, in general, a 3-man light brigade light can be a frustrating force for a Q to handle.
<Kinghunt: A couple games involving BBN vs. Q, although all with different pawn structures:
Karjakin vs Navara, 2009
Spassky vs Geller, 1959
Lautier vs M Gurevich, 1993 >
|Oct-12-10|| ||kingfu: Appaz,
Brevity is the soul of wit!
Boxers or briefs??
It would be amazing to see these two great Chess players go after it for 174 moves!
This is Chess!
|Oct-12-10|| ||lostemperor: This is a complicated game eg. 21. Nf6 sacrificing the exchange. Can sombody tell why not retreat the rook there?|
|Oct-12-10|| ||Sastre: If 21...Re8, then maybe <22.cxb5 Nf6 23.bxa6 Ba8 24.Bb5 Re7 25.exf5 Rxe1+ 26.Qxe1 Nbxd5>. White would have three pawns for the piece and more active bishops.|
|Oct-12-10|| ||Monoceros: "I am actually a bit surprised that B+B+N doesn't win against the lone queen in positions like this. Am I really the only one?" Coincidentally, a few days before this game, I purchased Reuben Fine's BASIC CHESS ENDINGS. It's a thick book but it has almost nothing to say about Queen vs. three pieces, just a curt note that Q vs. 3 minor pieces should usually draw except in "a few positions" where the pieces win. There's almost no analysis given, just one instance of a special case. Q vs. 3 pieces + pawn is said to win, with no examples at all. Mind you, it's quite an old text, but how many fresh examples of this unusual endgame have emerged since then? I don't blame Carlsen for trying as hard as possible to seek an advantage in an unusual situation. That's how "theory" is written.|
|Oct-12-10|| ||crazybird: Q vs 3 minor pieces is a very rare ending. No wonder Magnus was unfamiliar with it. See table below. |
The table below lists the most common endings in actual games by percentage
8.45 Rook vs. rook
6.76 Rook & bishop vs.rook & knight
3.45 Two rooks versus two rooks
3.37 Rook & bishop vs.rook & bishop (same color)
3.29 Bishop vs. knight
3.09 Rook &knight vs.rook & knight
2.87 King & pawns vs.king (& pawns)
1.92 Rook+bishop vs. rook+bishop (opp color)
1.87 Queen vs. queen
1.77 Rook & bishop vs. rook
1.65 Bishop vs. bishop (same color)
1.56 Knight vs. knight
1.51 Rook vs. bishop
1.42 Rook & knight vs. rook
1.11 Bishop vs. bishop (opp color)
1.01 Bishop vs. pawns
0.97 Rook vs. knight
0.92 Knight vs. pawns
0.90 Queen & minor piece vs. queen
0.75 Rook vs. pawns
0.69 Queen vs. rook & minor piece
0.67 Rook & pawn vs. rook
0.56 Rook & two pawns vs. rook
0.42 Queen vs. pawns
0.40 Queen vs. rook
0.31 Queen vs. two rooks
0.23 King & one pawn vs. king
0.17 Queen vs. minor piece
0.09 Queen & one pawn vs. queen
0.08 Queen vs. two minor pieces
0.02 Bishop & knight vs. king
0.01 Queen vs. three minor pieces
|Oct-12-10|| ||unferth: K & pawns vs. K & pawns in only 2.87% of endgames? surely that can't be right.|
|Oct-12-10|| ||crazybird: <unferth: K & pawns vs. K & pawns in only 2.87% of endgames? surely that can't be right.> |
The website says that the table lists the percentage of games, not percentage of endings.
|Oct-12-10|| ||unferth: <crazybird: The website says that the table lists the percentage of games, not percentage of endings.>|
thanks, you're right--but that still seems very low to me. I wonder what the game sample was.
|Oct-12-10|| ||unferth: hmm, I just scrolled through the first 50 CG games of a random GM (Evgeny Bareev) without finding a single K + Ps v. K + Ps ending, so I guess I was mistaken. I sure would've guessed the percentage to be much higher.|
|Oct-12-10|| ||Bdellovibrio: <unferth> Draws are often agreed upon when the players see that the pieces will be traded for an equal pawn endgame.|
|Oct-13-10|| ||crazybird: "Alexei Shirov suggested a possible winning plan for Black in chesspro forum: leave pawns on g7 and h6, put bishops on e8 and g5, then move king to h7 and bishop to g6. After that, Nh5 forces g3 and the resulting ending is evaluated by Shirov as winning for Black." |
A comment by user:Andrey at Chessmind blog
|Oct-13-10|| ||Bobby Fiske: <crazybird>The notation doesn't make sense. Black leaving all his pawns and pieces on HIS side of the board doesn't force anything... ;-)|
|Oct-13-10|| ||crazybird: <BF> thats what Shirov appears to have said, anyhow. |
Here's a direct quote, "Pri slone na g6 i korole na h7 u belyh proigrano, no ne fakt, chto chernye etogo dobivaiutsia, nuzhno esche i chernopol'nogo slona zaschischat'. Vprochem, mne seichas ne do analiza endspilia. :) Hotia... Slon perehodit na g5, drugoi na e8, potom Krh7, Bg6, Nh5, g3 uzhe vynudili, dalee, vidimo, neslozhno."
Scroll to user: Fandorine
|Oct-13-10|| ||jacklovecaissa: Hmmm... if this is the game of the day... what pun should it be?|
What if... Transformers: Revenge Of The Carlsen :P
The game is waaaay too long like the movie, the dark side (black) is trying to win desperately and the good guy (white) is outnumbered LOL :P
p.s.: I don't mean Carlsen is evil. I was just kidding
|Oct-13-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: An alternative to 14 Bd3 is 14 b4, transposing into the game Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 and an alternative to 13 a4 is 13 Nf1 as in the game Fischer vs Spassky, 1992|
|Oct-14-10|| ||Indiachess: This is the longest game played by either Carlsen or Shirov in the available game database here!|
|Feb-10-11|| ||Penguincw: Weird that black created a "3 minor piece fortress".|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·