< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-12-11|| ||Everett: <Tamar> Thanks for posting that interesting Rybka line, which I imagine Kramnik saw the shape of when he played 25.Nd5|
Looking at the position, even just after <26...Qd6 27 Bxa7>, we can see a quite common occurrence in a Kramnik game; namely, a couple of q-side passed pawns. Maybe this game is not so chaotic and bizarre after all.
Playing it out a bit further, after <26...Qd6 27 Bxa7 Ne5 28 Be3 Nxc4 29 Bxc4 Rxc4 30 Rd1> Kramnik would have very clear positional compensation, understandable by humans; safer king, centralized knight, influence over the dark-squares around the black king and an outside passed pawn for the exchange.
|Aug-12-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: 24...Bh6? is a serious mistake because it leaves the square e7 defended inadequately.|
Because of this the move 25 Nd5! not only offers the exchange for Black's black squared Biahop (after Black has played ...g6 and weakened himself on the black squares) but also threatens the fork Ne7+.
In the final position after 53...Nf3+ 54 Nxf3 Bxf3 55 c6! White's a pawn can't be kept from its coronation
|Aug-12-11|| ||BobCrisp: <I like this new Kramnik of the last 2 tournaments. Is he taking courage pills or something?>|
I think he's realised that his world championship ambitions are now behind him, and he's made the decision to enjoy himself more at the board. As champion, he would often intone that he had 'too much respect for chess' to play unsoundly.
|Aug-12-11|| ||newton296: Nd5! just amazed me. I had to pop this move into houdini and get some lines and to my surprise the sac appears totally sound. V Kramnik - I Nepomniachtchi, Russian Superfinals 2011
click for larger view
Analysis by Houdini 1.5a w32:
1. = (-0.10): 25...Bxc1 26.Rxc1 Qd6 27.Qa4 Re6 28.Bc3 Ne5 29.Rd1 Nxc4 30.Ba1 Qc5 31.Nf6+ Rxf6 32.Bxf6 Bb5 4
2. (0.57): 25...Re6 26.Rc2 Bf8 27.Ba1 Bh6 28.Nb4 Qc5 29.Qa4 Nb8 30.Bd4 Qc7 31.Nd5 Qc6 32.Qa3 Bf8 33.Qe3 Bc5
3. (0.78): 25...Bf8 26.Bxa7 Re6 27.Bd4 Bh6 28.Nb4 Qc7 29.Qxc7 Rxc7
great evaluation by kramnik, black has to make alot of best moves just to avoid total implosion and kramnik's young opponent can't quite measure up against the world champs pressure!
|Aug-12-11|| ||JoergWalter: < BobCrisp: I think he's realised that his world championship ambitions are now behind him, and he's made the decision to enjoy himself more at the board. As champion, he would often intone that he had 'too much respect for chess' to play unsoundly.>
Compared to Anand and Gelfand he is a youngster. So the future is his. In the meantime he is enyoing himself and puzzling all.|
|Aug-12-11|| ||acirce: <As champion, he would often intone that he had 'too much respect for chess' to play unsoundly.>|
I wish he still had.
I don't like this Bluffnik guy.
|Aug-12-11|| ||chancho: Bluffnik...lol|
|Aug-12-11|| ||JoergWalter: great line:
"...see you can't please everone, so you got please yourself..."
|Aug-12-11|| ||BobCrisp: Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...you're not just playing for yourself, you're playing for posterity. |
From an interview <Short> gave before the 1993 WC match:
<Kasparov is engaged in constant battles to prove himself. Very strange battles. Many people would be quite happy to become world champion. He has been world champion for a very long time, so he wanted to become the highest rated player in chess history. Garry's involved in constant battles with the living and the dead... If you approach things from that point of view, he is not going to be defeated by a human being. That would be some sort of admission. So it has to be by something else, a computer.... For him, Paul Morphy is a rival. I'm not joking. In his time, in the 1850s, Morphy was much better than his contemporaries, and the same can be said of Garry. So he sees Morphy as a rival, even though he has been dead for more than a hundred years. For a long time, Fischer was his main rival, because they said Fischer is the greatest player of all time. When Fischer played the match last year against Boris Spassky, for Garry it was very important to "rubbish" the chess that was played. It was not so bad. I mean, it was not an outstanding match, but it was not bad. But it was important for Garry's own security. It is strange,he constantly has to prove himself.>
|Aug-12-11|| ||tamar: I think <Bluffnik> was always there, but the all-seeing <Drawnik> could see the deep refutation for his suggestions.|
That may be the reason Kramnik preferred rapid chess earlier in his career, when he could give freer rein to his imagination without the feeling of responsibility to find chess truth.
|Aug-12-11|| ||polarmis: On the same line as that Kasparov quote, Kramnik talked about what being World Champion was like after Dortmund 2009: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2...|
<Kramnik: In recent years I’ve played a number of World Championship matches. Played and prepared for them. And it really restricts you. Firstly, a certain psychological stress almost never leaves you, you’re always thinking about the coming match, trying to protect something, to avoid using some novelty. And now… I simply decided to play chess. And while playing I’ve been trying to go all out, to use everything I can. Somehow I felt liberated – and that came across here in my play. I played two rapid tournaments, in Monaco and Baku, and everything went great, I felt that my long lost freshness was coming back. Dortmund confirmed that. And I’m very glad that I managed to put an end to last year’s poor streak. I hope that after that poor run a good one’s now started and I’ll try to carry it on.
Q. Your fans hope so too. But, in general, we end up with a paradox: normally after becoming champion a sportsman rises to a new level, getting even stronger, while you’ve got stronger after losing the crown.
Kramnik: There’s no paradox. Always living up to the status of champion isn’t all that easy. For some, perhaps, it helps, mobilising them, but for me… For me it created additional – and entirely unnecessary – stress. I feel as though I play well in relaxed, creative conditions. When I don’t think about anything and simply play chess things go much better for me. It might seem strange, but after the match with Anand, when you’d have thought that I should have been really upset, I managed to feel liberated and started to play chess for my own pleasure again.>
|Aug-12-11|| ||JoergWalter: Does anyone remember good old Spassky? I think he was best man on Kramnik's wedding.|
|Aug-12-11|| ||BobCrisp: As long as he wasn't the best man on the honeymoon.|
|Aug-12-11|| ||JoergWalter: that i don't know.|
|Aug-12-11|| ||BobCrisp: No wonder he had a stroke.|
|Aug-12-11|| ||JoergWalter: a stroke while being happy? it could have come worse than that.|
|Aug-12-11|| ||DrMAL: <polarmis> Thanx for that information. It seems ole Vlad is indeed happier playing the kind of creative chess that always suited his style. Kramnik always considered himself a disciple of Tal, and his style of play, similar to Kasparov, was a reason for Kasparov's early interest in him...as well as possibly a key reason for the outcome in 2000. By then, Kramnik had all the solidity to balance his amazing tactical ability as an attacker.|
|Aug-13-11|| ||BobCrisp: <Kramnik always considered himself a disciple of Tal, and his style of play, similar to Kasparov, was a reason for Kasparov's early interest in him...>|
Please stop your public campaign of misinformation!
From a 1993 interview with <NIC>:
<Q: Was there anything out of the ordinary that impressed or struck your teachers at the Botvinnik-Kasparov school when you first went there? Any remarkable feats you performed?
(Smiles) Yes, there was. I had a very original style for a boy of my age. I was very fond of the endgame and liked to exchange pieces. Of course, Botvinnik found this fantastic. This came as a complete suprise to him. At that time already I had a good understanding of which squares I should put the pieces on and which plan I should go for. I remember that when I was ten years old I studied <My System> by Nimzowitsch, a book which contributed a great deal to my chess education.
Q: In what manner? You say that you already had this natural feeling of where to put the pieces. What did Nimzowitsch add to that?
No, I did not mean that I had such a natural feeling. Now I would say that probably I got this feeling from reading this book and that later I developed this further.
Q: Did you have easy access to chess books?
I can say that my style may be explained by the fact that my favourite book was Anatoly Karpov's <Sixty Best Games>. I played through these games over and over again and this probably helped form my style. I only had very few chess books. There were not many chess books in the local bookshop. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the books chose me than that I chose the books (laughs). It is quite possible that my style would have been completely different if my first book had been a games collection of Kasparov. But this was just the way it went.>
|Aug-13-11|| ||Everett: <Polarmis> thanks for the interview. The questioner seems to not know history so well, as many WCs lose strength after winning the title, not gain. Arguably only four have managed to improve; Lasker, Alekhine, Karpov and Kasparov. For all the rest, their best chess was leading up to and winning the crown, not afterward.|
|Aug-13-11|| ||JoergWalter: <Everett> that is a wellknown statistical phenomenon.|
|Aug-13-11|| ||Gypsy: <JoergWalter: <Everett> that is a wellknown statistical phenomenon.>|
Look under <Regression towards mean>.
|Aug-13-11|| ||BobCrisp: It's called getting better and then getting worse, and then you die.|
|Aug-13-11|| ||Everett: <JeorgWalters and Gypsy>|
Yes, I get the idea, which is why I wonder why the questioner says the following:
<Q. Your fans hope so too. But, in general, we end up with a paradox: normally after becoming champion a sportsman rises to a new level, getting even stronger, while you’ve got stronger after losing the crown.>
|Aug-14-11|| ||JoergWalter: <Everett> The interviewer made his first mistake when saying <normally after becoming champion a sportsman rises to a new level, getting even stronger> "normally" according to the regression phenomenon this does not happen. Whether Kramnik's development is an exception to the rule I haven't checked. Maybe the questioner wants to be flattering, keep the interview going etc. etc..|
|Aug-14-11|| ||JoergWalter: <It's called getting better and then getting worse, and then you die.>
fish and chips?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·