< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
|Oct-01-11|| ||jmboutiere: Naka is better, after Qc4 Kb2 white is better.|
|Oct-01-11|| ||Domdaniel: Magnus at press conference says that 8.a3 was new to him too.|
He played ...Kh8 to prepare ...f6 without having to worry about Bh3. But then he may have over-estimated his position.
He couldn't understand why Chuky didn't play 22.bxc3, which would have been level. After 22.b3 he was always better, though both made some mistakes.
Can't fault him there.
|Oct-01-11|| ||karnak64: Choosing the French in this came was a gutsy move by Carlsen. Winning with it -- priceless.|
|Oct-01-11|| ||wordfunph: game quote..
"Beat Ivanchuk today, now anything is possible in Bilbao! Not a great game by any means, but I could not care less about that right now."
- GM Magnus Carlsen
|Oct-01-11|| ||achieve: From the above linked report, Mark Crowther in TWIC:|
<Magnus Carlsen defeated Vassily Ivanchuk with black in an interesting French Defence but there were a number of strange decisions from Ivanchuk and it was more his loss rather than Carlsen's win.> Strange eh? But Vassily is not "your average fellow," dear Mark!
<It wouldn't surprise me if Ivanchuk's recent heavy schedule with the World Cup is<n't> catching up on him a bit.> Then I'll have a surprise in store for you, Markymark!
<Perhaps the break comes at an ideal time for him <as his general form is obviously excellent.>> General form, eh? Obviously excellent, hmm? That's lazy parrot journalism, clichéed pseudo-psycho-babble, Mark! But I agree it sounds "kinda ok"...
<Hikaru Nakamura eventually defeated Franciso Vallejo Pons to move to 2nd place. Vallejo <will be hoping> the break <will allow him to regain his confidence <a bit.>>> Surely! Let's stay on the conservative side, Marky!
<He is being targeted, getting into time trouble and <his confidence looks low> - darn, it probably is, Mark... Are you going to say <any>thing of <any> relevance or additional value?
<he could easily have no points <or at most one> given Carlsen's gift to him.> Too much, mark! Stop it!
<Viswanathan Anand against Levon Aronian was a draw not without its interesting moments.> That would be <but> not ... ?
- - - -
I've never seen a short summary report with so many vagaries and unintelligible ill-constructed sentences in it.
|Oct-01-11|| ||achieve: PS - just kidding around a bit; Crowther's summary was "obviously" well intentioned, perhaps he was a bit tired. ;)|
But I couldn't help noticing this one, and how nonsense and speculation can be packaged so that it sounds rather nice, as we say in Dutch "kicking in a few open doors", for good measure.
You can see this quite a lot in sports reporting, especially in those "short" text-service reports... It's become sort-of an accepted style of reporting, treating the public as the brainless sponges that most of them are. ;)
|Oct-02-11|| ||Khapablanca: Master piece.|
|Oct-02-11|| ||WiseWizard: Look at how Carlsen transformed the position at move 14 into 20...RxQ. Incredibly powerful. After that burst of creativity and imagination, he switches to iron logic and cuts Chucky's throat.|
|Oct-02-11|| ||JoergWalter: After 7. Be3 Be7 8. a3 is a novelty according to CG database.
"Normal" reaction would be 8. dxc5
as played by Ivanchuk before.
|Oct-02-11|| ||swissfed: accurate play here by Carlsen.|
|Oct-02-11|| ||Aspirador: Well, Crowther certainly means the move 22.b3? which is clearly playing for a loss. I think 22.bxc3 would have been a pretty quick draw on such a high level. After 22.b3? Re8! the black rook invades and white has to work hard to hold. Maybe Chucky saw a rook trade somewhere on the horizon, after which c3 could have become a weakness. Without rook trade, c3 is a nail in the coffin.|
|Oct-02-11|| ||Domdaniel: <Niels> Ouch, even *I* felt that. Pity the poor hack journalist, who has to fill space with vacant babble.|
It wouldn't surprise me to find that I will be hoping for something better some day, but right now I'm not.
|Oct-02-11|| ||DrMAL: After 37.Kf2?! (game was nearly equal before)
Houdini_20_x64: 34/73 2:02:31 73,502,568,132
+0.99 37. ... Bg6 38.Bb4 c2 39.Ba3 Kf7 40.Bd7 Kf6
+0.97 37. ... Bf5 38.Bb4 Bg6 39.Ba3 Kf7 40.Kg2 Bd4
+0.97 37. ... Bh7 38.Bb4 Bg6 39.Ba3 Kf7 40.Kg2 Bd4
+0.93 37. ... Bd3 38.Ke3 c2 39.Bd2 Bg6 40.b6 Bxg3
After 39.Be4? (decisive, 39.b6 was required)
Houdini_20_x64: 27/69 07:44 4,795,282,049
+4.54 39. ... Bxe4 40.Kxe4 c2 41.Bd2 Bxg3 42.Kd3
+4.54 39. ... c2 40.Bxc2 Bxc2 41.Be1 Kf7 42.b6
Also, back to key move we had some discourse on during the game. After 19.O-O which way to take?
Houdini_20_x64: 30/65 51:09 26,762,625,110
-0.04 19. ... dxc3 20.Qxd8 Raxd8 21.Rxd8 Rxd8
-0.07 19. ... dxe3 20.Qxe3 Qc7 21.Bg2 Rae8
They both evaluate as basically the same but I think positional sac 19...dxe3 has better winning chances, as I stated during the game I would have played it. It's a matter of style/taste and it does not surprise me that Magnus played the safer 19...dxc3 it is more his style. Naka (or Kramnik or of course Shirov), on the other hand, would have more likely played positional sac.
<Domdaniel: Magnus at press conference says that 8.a3 was new to him too.> It seems an interesting novelty with unclear purpose except clearly not very strong move 8.Qd2 is probably strongest after 7.Be3 (Boleslavsky variation of Steinitz 4.e5 Nfd7).
Houdini_20_x64: 29/73 7:02:21 187,640,951,639
-0.03 8. ... 0-0 9.Qd2 b6 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Rad1 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nc5 14.Bb5 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Qc7 16.Qe3 Bc6 17.Be2 Ne4 18.Nxe4 dxe4
-0.04 8. ... Qb6 9.Rb1 0-0 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Bd3 b6 12.Nb5 Qb7 13.0-0 a6 14.Nc3 Qc7 15.Qf2 Bb7 16.Qg3 g6 17.Rbd1 Rac8 18.Be2 b5
-0.07 8. ... b6 9.Bd3 0-0 10.0-0 f6 11.Qe1 f5 12.Bf2 a6 13.Na4 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.b4 Bb7 16.Bxd4 b5 17.Nb2 Nb6 18.Be2 Bh4
Keep in mind that computer evaluation involves assigning a material-equivalent number to non-material aspects such as quality and tempo. Moreover, they try to do it uniformly for all cases using the set of criteria. So, always use with caution, computer serves as guide not absolute judge.
|Oct-02-11|| ||scormus: <Aspirador ... 22 b3?> glad to see someone agrees with my on the spot judgement about that move. |
I liked 8 a3 at the time but I thought Chuky got a bit over-excited after that. 11 h4 looked rather dubious with the WK still on e1. Pity.
|Oct-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <Oct-01-11 DrMAL: b3 was not bad does not seem to do much either way. maybe b4 instead for that idea> 22.b4 does indeed evaluate slightly better for same idea, the difference costed white a tempo later on (29.b4) no big deal.
24.Rc1 looked ugly but not a big problem, with option 23...Be4 it was best move.|
Houdini_20_x64: 28/68 10:10 5,067,712,354
+0.30 23. ... Be4 24.Rc1 h5 25.b4 Rd8 26.Be3 Rd2
+0.26 23. ... Re2 24.Bf5 Kg8 25.Re1 Rd2 26.Bd3 Bd5
|Oct-02-11|| ||kamalakanta: So what happens if 30.Bxh5? maybe 30...g4 and the bishop is trapped! Black will then play 31...Kh6 and win the bishop, no?|
|Oct-02-11|| ||DrMAL: 32.Bd5 was obvious best to protect pawn on c2.
Houdini_20_x64: 27/69 05:07 2,583,270,817
-0.16 32.Bd5 Re2 33.Bb3 b5 34.Kf1 Rd2
-0.51 32.Bc6 Re2 33.Bxb6 Be5 34.b5 Rxc2
-0.71 32.Bd1 Be5 33.Ra1 Be4 34.Bxb6 Bxg3
<kamalakanta> Yes, we are talking master level play here (actually, far above) 30.Bxh5? is not "trap" to play for LOL.
|Oct-02-11|| ||JamesT Kirk: 30. Kf1!|
|Oct-04-11|| ||Kanatahodets: <achieve: From the above linked report, Mark Crowther in TWIC:...
I've never seen a short summary report with so many vagaries and unintelligible ill-constructed sentences in it. Well, "never"...>
The guy just expressed his point of view. Something personal? Or you have problems with anyone who cannot build well-structured sentences in English? In that case, you are in the wrong place. I think Chucky and Levon will irritate you as much as Marky (though not as Toefl guys) and me:) Hope not too harsh? I need some adrenalin:)|
|Oct-05-11|| ||achieve: <Kanata> <Something personal?> No, or I should say, hardly - <The guy just expressed his point of view.> And another guy, me, expressed his point of view on the first guy's report.|
<Or you have problems with anyone who cannot build well-structured sentences in English?> Yes, though not all the time of course, not with <any>one, in case a person's (foreign) language skill is simply too limited. It's predominantly laziness and lack of care, and stupidity, that turns me off, or "on", if you catch my drift. But yeah, I'm a tad touchy when it comes to language when treated badly, lazily.
<In that case, you are in the wrong place.> Am I? There are some wonderful linguistically privileged posters at <chessgames>.
<I think Chucky and Levon will irritate you as much as Marky (though not as Toefl guys) and me:)> Sorry, I didn't get the "Toefl" reference, yet...
<Hope not too harsh? I need some adrenalin:)> Of course not! - I need my daily dose of adrenaline as well! ;)
|Oct-05-11|| ||brankat: <achieve> "Toefl" usually stands for: |
Teacher(s) of English (as) Foreign Language :-)
P.S. We may need to consult Jess :-)
|Oct-08-11|| ||achieve: <brankat> Very creative! Thanks for clearing that up, heh|
|Oct-09-11|| ||brankat: <achieve> Welcome back :-)|
|Nov-14-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: What an incredible game ... hard to believe that the French would work out well.|
|Aug-24-12|| ||Cemoblanca: "Some scientist needs to explain to spectators Einstein's relativity theory. Before his explanation, he says: 'I have to suffer a lot explaining something I don't understand myself.' This relates to my game: I didn't understand anything!" (on losing to Magnus Carlsen at the 2011 Sao Paolo/Bilbao tournament) ~ Vasily Ivanchuk|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·