Jul-05-11
 | | Bobsterman3000: Was this the armageddon game? |
 |
Jul-05-11
 | | HeMateMe: It must be. If they had played in the tournament, that game would have been a tiebreaker. |
|
Jul-05-11
 | | parmetd: They played in the tournament to a draw. And in Goichberg events that would NOT be the tiebreaker. |
|
Jul-05-11
| | parmetd: Kamsky vs Adams, 2011 |
|
| Jul-05-11 | | shogirules: That is one bad bishop! |
|
| Jul-05-11 | | DrMAL: Indeed. Kamsky got his advantage via clever maneuvers starting with 32.b3 while black struggled to get both minor pieces (particularly the bishop) into play. It would have been smarter for black to play 34...Nb8 to keep his knight (the bishop was not worth taking). Swapping queens via 40.Qa5 would have amplified the difference but 46...Qd6 buttoned it up anyway, nice positional game (and tournament) for Kamsky! |
|
| Jul-10-11 | | cormier: 3...c5 4.c3 Nc6
click for larger viewAnalysis by Fritz 12:dpa
5.Nbd2 cxd4 6.cxd4 Nd5 7.Be5 Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qb6 9.Qc2 Bc5 10.Ne4 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 d6
 (-0.75) Depth: 11/29 00:00:00 288kN
5.Qb3 Be7 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.e3 d6 9.Bd3 Na5 10.Qc2 e5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh7+ Kh8 13.Bh4
 (-0.54) Depth: 15/38 00:00:28 26896kN
5.e3 cxd4 6.cxd4 Qb6 7.Qb3 Qxb3 8.axb3 Bb4+ 9.Nbd2 Nd5 10.Bg3 0-0 11.Bb5 f5 12.0-0 Bxd2 13.Nxd2 f4 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.exf4
= (-0.10) Depth: 19/49 00:07:43 450mN
5.e3 cxd4 6.cxd4 Qb6 7.Qc2 Nb4 8.Qb3 Nbd5 9.Bg3 Qxb3 10.axb3 b6 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Be2 Nh5 13.Bh4
= (0.05) Depth: 21/52 00:43:04 2583mN |
|
| Jul-10-11 | | cormier: 3...d5 4.e3 Bd6 5.Bxd6 cxd6:
click for larger viewAnalysis by Fritz 12:dpa
6.c4 Nc6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Rc1 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bd7 10.0-0 Rc8 11.Nb5 Qe7 12.Qe2 h6 13.g3 a6 14.Nc3 d5 15.Bd3 e5
= (0.19) Depth: 21/49 00:08:06 506mN
6.c4 Nc6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Rc1 Bd7 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Qb3 Rc8 12.Be2 Qa5+ 13.Rc3 Ne7 14.0-0 Rxc3 15.bxc3 b6 16.Rc1
= (0.19) Depth: 22/49 00:16:58 1074mN
6.c4 Nc6 7.Nc3 Qb6 8.Qb3 Qxb3 9.axb3 Nb4 10.Kd2 Bd7 11.Be2 Ke7 12.Rhc1 Bc6 13.cxd5 Nbxd5 14.Nxd5+ Nxd5 15.Ng5
= (0.09) Depth: 23/53 00:43:07 2607mN |
|
| Jul-10-11 | | cormier: 3...d5 4.e3 Bd6 5.Bg5:
click for larger viewAnalysis by Fritz 12:dpa
5...c5 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.c4 Nc6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Qb3 Be6 11.Qxb7 Nb4 12.Qb5 Rc8 13.Rc1 h6 14.Bf4
= (0.13) Depth: 16/43 00:00:52 54561kN
5...h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.c4 0-0 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.c5 Be7 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Ne5 Qf5 13.g4 Qf6
= (0.09) Depth: 22/52 01:12:36 4386mN
5...h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.c4 0-0 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.c5 Be7 10.Bb5 Bd7 11.Qc2 Rad8 12.0-0 Qg6 13.Qxg6
= (0.19) Depth: 23/55 01:43:40 6403mN |
|
Jul-11-11
| | mahmoudkubba: If this is the armageddon game, then where is the bishop sacrifice for nothing but to lose the game... and which side should be the winner??? or is it a diagonal or horizontal against side i.e. both players r playing for goodness??? In fact in this site some more than 4 years ago I mentioned armageddon game and forcing the losing of the bishop completely from one side. These were mentioned in some methodological schools of thoughts and some of these stories sound true. Yet I don't know did the armageddon happened or didn't happened yet??? |
|
Jul-11-11
| | mahmoudkubba: One of the hypothetical theories for losing the bishop if it is a bishop any how is: 1-e4e5, 2-Bb5a6, 3-Ba4Knc6, 4-b3 ... and here it is the possible chance that wasn't notices by wh. 4- ...b5. This is of course when wh is the one who is going to lose. 
click for larger viewYour replies and criticisms r highly appreciated.
With thanks |
|
Jul-11-11
| | mahmoudkubba: This was the simplest situation but might be not the real game, dest, match, and/or whole tournament ... etc ... ... |
|
Jul-11-11
| | mahmoudkubba: I really wonder if the game bet. Gata Kamsky vs Michael Adams was the real match or one of the matches really of armageddon whole blitz game. Yet there might be even a possibility that this game was the primitive theory of what was going to happened according to one side of the famous historical theory. Before and/or after and/or within the present time: No body really knows or remember HaHaHa. (!!). (These !! meant to be chessical ones HaHaHa) |
|
Jul-20-11
| | mahmoudkubba: I can't figure it out ... why no one dared to say anything. Its sometimes annoying that I knew for example that Fisher for example might was able to win his games and stayed the champion of the known world to us yet they said he was afraid from something. I really also think that sometimes being an opponent in a game (Raseel) yet one is afraid of even loosing. These things happen in ch world. In fact I do remember playing an armageddon game/match/tournament/dest ...etc and winning yet kept wonder if the real opponent used to be a Raseel or a bad person or a person who doesn't know that he/she should lose from the start and help me winning. These things sometimes happen i.e. that the six relations in ch. have an extra one apart from the zero not well defined factor and this factor do have the personnel item that is including the two players themselves or whoever with them. It is a big matter anyhow. |
|
