< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jun-13-11|| ||Gypsy: <lost in space: draw?> Yup. And all because <Tamar> brought up Smyslov.|
|Jun-13-11|| ||Marmot PFL: There is enough play here for a good player to win, but these are too evenly matched.|
|Jun-13-11|| ||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|| ||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|| ||MrSpock: 38. Ke4? - looks strange because of Rxg2.|
|Jun-13-11|| ||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|| ||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|| ||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|| ||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|| ||moronovich: Why not the old inuitrick : noserobbing !?
Have you ever seen a greenlander loose a game of chess ?
|Jun-13-11|| ||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|| ||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|| ||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|| ||Domdaniel: <PokerPro> In your language, that's something like a 'semi-bluff'.|
|Jun-14-11|| ||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|| ||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|| ||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.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·