chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Magnus Carlsen vs Teimour Radjabov
Bazna King's Tournament (2011), Medias ROU, rd 3, Jun-13
Queen's Gambit Declined: Harrwitz Attack. Two Knights Defense (D37)  ·  1/2-1/2
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 51 more Carlsen/Radjabov games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gypsy: <lost in space: draw?> Yup. And all because <Tamar> brought up Smyslov.
Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: There is enough play here for a good player to win, but these are too evenly matched.
Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  watwinc: Why the pawn sac?
Jun-13-11  dakgootje: Karjakin - Naka draw as well by-the-way.

But Nisi-Chucky is quite interesting

Jun-13-11  Ulhumbrus: <chessgames.com> Another game, or is this game the last one today?
Jun-13-11  dakgootje: <Why the pawn sac?>

Ke4 is probably a transmission-error. When a game is done, they place the kings at the middle of the board.

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: Great fighting draw.

Smyslov was outstanding in endgames, starting with Queenless middlegames. He was not known for short draws, but his technique could hold inferior positions.

Schlechter was the Drawing Master.

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  MrSpock: 38. Ke4? - looks strange because of Rxg2.
Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gypsy: <MrSpock: 38. Ke4? - looks strange because of Rxg2.>

Yes it does. But the likely sequence of events is like this:

Black moved <37...h5> and offered draw. White accepted, and placed his king in the center as a sign that the game is over. Automatic chessboard did not 'see' their hand-shake and reported 38.Ke4 as the next 'move'. In reality, however, the <37...h5> was the last move of the game.

(Sorry if this is too pedantic.)

Jun-13-11  kia0708: another draw ....... :-/
Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: It's time to do away with these actual physical handshakes. A nasty germ-laden remnant of a historic era long past, where an open palm wasn't holding a dagger.

A smart palm-reader beside the board would do the trick: "I offer a draw and a handshake, OK? Fine, now I'd better tell the board..."

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: <Domdaniel> Agreed.

Suggest that instead of a handshake, players should at the moment of the draw offer reverse out their pockets disclosing no smart phone or electronic device.

Player accepting could pass over an electronic hoop over their head indicating acceptance.

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tomlinsky: <tamar: Suggest that instead of a handshake, players should at the moment of the draw offer reverse out their pockets...>

I thought you were going to say... 'and do an elephant impression' there for a moment. Which would be novel I suppose.

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: Why not the old inuitrick : noserobbing !?

Have you ever seen a greenlander loose a game of chess ?

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: According to the Arab historian Al-Mas'udi, Indian chess players wagered body parts on games of Shatranj, about 1000 years ago. After a defeat they would cut off a finger with a dagger, and when they ran out of fingers they moved on to hands, forearms, elbows, 'and other parts of the body'.

The original nose-robbers?

Famous people with artificial noses include the astronomer Tycho Brahe.

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: <Famous people with artificial noses include the astronomer Tycho Brahe.>

Yup, that is him.This is the man.The forefather of Sepp Bladder.

Unfortunately they never met.

Jun-13-11  BobCrisp: <A nasty germ-laden remnant of a historic era long past, where an open palm wasn't holding a dagger.>

Was the codpiece's main function to protect against a knee in the groin?

Jun-13-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <moronovich> Lucky they never met: we'd probably live in a galaxy called the Seppy Way or The Big Bladder.
Jun-13-11  PokerPro: i sorry but what's the idea behind 7.a3?
Jun-14-11  bronkenstein: <i sorry but what's the idea behind 7.a3?>

Idea is , probably , to deviate from the main line (according to my comp , 7.c5 is the main line here , on master+ level, and 7.a3 ˝second best˝ choice) giving the black the option to play c5 and get an isolated pawn (as he did), but the move is not...ahem...too strong anyway , since Carlsen (in his own words , after the game) got nothing out of the opening...black even had slight, annoying plus for quite a long time.

Jun-14-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <PokerPro> In your language, that's something like a 'semi-bluff'.
Jun-14-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: Actually, the poker analogy is not completely fanciful. Most 2700+ players could draw every game in a tournament by playing maximally safe and solid moves: by being 'rocks'. They would have little risk of losing, but also few winning chances.

To win, they look for moves on the very edge of playability - the moves the computer thinks are 3rd or 4th best, but not actually losing. A string of such moves - and an opponent playing the same meta-game - leads to an unbalanced position, and a win for whoever has seen most in the fog of war.

There's a lot of bluff, semi-bluff, 'representation' of plans that may not work in practice but take time and calculation to refute. It's also the reason they sometimes avoid the 'obvious' move that the human and silicon kibitzers expect.

Jun-14-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: Good point <Domdaniel>

7 a3 puzzled me but makes sense as a semi-bluff. When met with Radjabov's strong play, Magnus still had his outs.

Hort used to advocate studying second best moves 1) in order to escape home analysis and 2) because the second or third best move was nearly as good as the best.

Now with computer evals, a guy like Magnus can take it further, knowing he can risk a slight minus because that is still in his playable range.

Jun-14-11  kia0708: GM Shipow would call it a novelty.

<because the second or third best move was nearly as good as the best>

Jun-14-11
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <tamar> Another way of looking at it is this: if the Black Nb8 had gone to c6, then a3 would be unremarkable - a standard advance to prepare b4 and keep the enemy Knight out. This kind of QGD-Tarrasch position was common 100 years ago, before g3 emerged as the main anti-Tarrasch line.

Here, though, the Knight is on d7 and ...Nb4 is not a threat. And a3 is slightly strange because it creates a weakness on b3, which can be exploited by Nd7-c5-b3, as in the game.

There are pitfalls to putting a Knight on c5, though. I managed to take advantage of them in this game a couple of years ago. One of my shorter efforts: G McCarthy vs H Khonji, 2007

As for poker etc, I think the comparison stands up. The game theory line is that chess is a game of complete information (both players see everything on the board) while poker is not. But in fact "everything on the board" is far too complex to be visible, so chess players are as susceptible to bluff as any poker expert.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC