|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-18-11 | | Chessfugitive: @Chesscubers. This game is a demonstration of Carlsen's true strength. |
 |
Nov-18-11
 | | lost in space: A very nice game. Excelent play from Carlsen.
From my perspective it is nonsence to ask/look for perfect play OTP("Computer found better moves"). THIS IS THE TAL MEMORIAL and not a computer WCC tournament. |
|
| Nov-18-11 | | s4life: <HeMateMe: I wonder what Gelfand miscalculated in his attack, that gave him the impetus to let Carlsen have open play through the C file? Maybe he thought he could stabilize the position, after a pair of Rooks were swapped off.
Bad decision to castle Q-side, great vision by Carlsen.> He did not miscalculate.. game was even until the second to last move. |
|
| Nov-18-11 | | frogbert: < 37. f4? was a big mistake by Magnus. Black could have exploited this as follows> hesam7, i clearly disagree with that conclusion: black's defence is extremely difficult - and the game doesn't necessarily lead to a table base draw. in your line, instead of 47. Kf5? - which you even gave a question mark - white has the move f5! instead: 
click for larger viewanalysis diagram, after 37. ... Bxf6! 38. Nxf6 Nc5+ 39. Kd4 (39. Kc3?! Rg3; 39. Kc4?! Rc2+) 39. ... Rc2 40. b4 Nxb7 41. Nd7+ Kc7 42. Nf8 a5 43. bxa5 Nxa5 44. Nxg6 Nc6+ 45. Ke4 Nb4 46. Bb3 Rf2 47. f5! the defence for black is incredibly difficult from here (47... Nxa2 loses, btw). <Magnus came out of the opening with a small plus which he squandered with 14. d5?> hesam7, giving the principled move d5 a question mark because there are computer-evals of +0.2-0.3 for other moves (that lead nowhere, seemingly) is strange. 14. d5!? is the critical move in the position, and saying that carlsen "squandered" a small plus because he enters the most complicated line with best chances for the opponent (and himself!) to go wrong, makes no sense to me. that carlsen didn't see that there's a deep, deep line where black forces a repetition after d5 is completely irrelevant imho. |
|
Nov-18-11
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakr... |
|
Nov-18-11
 | | Ulhumbrus: <Hesam7: Magnus came out of the opening with a small plus which he squandered with 14. d5?. Then the game is balanced until 26. Qe2 after which a comedy of errors ensues:
26. ... Rg1? (26. ... Bxg3+! =)...> If the knight sacrifice 18...Ng4 leads to no more than equality after 26...Bxg3 instead of 26...Rg8, an alternative is 18...bxc6 playing instead for the pawn attack ...g5 and ...g4 |
|
Nov-19-11
 | | Hesam7: <frogbert: hesam7, i clearly disagree with that conclusion: black's defence is extremely difficult - and the game doesn't necessarily lead to a table base draw.> No it does not but compared with the game the difference is night and day, if White has indeed a win then it is by no means obvious. Also Magnus could have avoided all this with 37. Bxe5! which is why 37. f4? was a major mistake. |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Hesam7: <lost in space: From my perspective it is nonsence to ask/look for perfect play OTP("Computer found better moves"). THIS IS THE TAL MEMORIAL and not a computer WCC tournament.> From my perspective it is nonsense to ask/look for perfect play in computer WCC tournaments. |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: If the knight sacrifice 18...Ng4 leads to no more than equality after 26...Bxg3 instead of 26...Rg8, an alternative is 18...bxc6 playing instead for the pawn attack ...g5 and ...g4> After 18. ... bxc6 19. Kf1 g5 20. Na4
click for larger viewwhat do you suggest? |
|
Nov-19-11
 | | anandrulez: Gelfand saw Bxg3 draw but he thought he had more and hence played on ! This was a wrong decision from Gelfand . |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Hesam7: <frogbert: hesam7, giving the principled move d5 a question mark because there are computer-evals of +0.2-0.3 for other moves (that lead nowhere, seemingly) is strange. 14. d5!? is the critical move in the position, and saying that carlsen "squandered" a small plus because he enters the most complicated line with best chances for the opponent (and himself!) to go wrong, makes no sense to me. that carlsen didn't see that there's a deep, deep line where black forces a repetition after d5 is completely irrelevant imho.> So my only reason to criticize the move is computer eval? There are other methods, like looking at what happened in the game, which clearly indicates Carlsen's move was a mistake. For the record this is from GM Naiditsch's live commentary: <<15. d5> a very logical move but it seems to be a tactical mistake! 15...e4! now is leading to a maybe already better play for Black!! Amazing how quick things change on the chess board. It is very strange to understand this 15.d5 by Carlsen, of course he sees 15...e4 and of course 16.dxc6 Qe5 17.cxb7 Kb8 is also easy to calculate...where does he want to avoid and where he sees the advantage? <15... e4 16. dxc6 Qe5 17. f4 exf3 18. Rxf3> The position is super sharp, but clearly Black is doing fine. I think if Black manages to find now the 18...Ng4 he will be clear favorite to win the game. Also 18...Kb8 a nice prophylactic move cant be a bad move either> And this is not the first time you are arguing against reality when it concerns your favorite player: Grischuk vs Carlsen, 2011. |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Ulhumbrus: <
<Hesam7: <Ulhumbrus: If the knight sacrifice 18...Ng4 leads to no more than equality after 26...Bxg3 instead of 26...Rg8, an alternative is 18...bxc6 playing instead for the pawn attack ...g5 and ...g4>
After 18. ... bxc6 19. Kf1 g5 20. Na4 what do you suggest?> The move 20 Na4 displaces the N on c3 which defends the square e4. This suggests 20...Ne4 but for the fact that the move 20 Na4 also discovers an attack on the c6 pawn. This suggests attending to the c6 pawn first, before playing ...Ne4. This suggests defending the c6 pawn by either of the two moves available, 20...Kb7 or 20...Qe4. Following this Black's KN may go to e4 or else the g6 pawn may try to advance to g4. |
|
| Nov-19-11 | | frogbert: hesam7, it's certainly not arguing against reality to say that d5 is the most principled move in the position. and it's not obvious that naiditsch is right and carlsen is wrong when it comes to assessing what continuation is most likely to give the desired result. <The position is super sharp, but clearly Black is doing fine. I think if Black manages to find now the 18...Ng4 he will be clear favorite to win the game.> in reality carlsen won the game, and gelfand never had better than a draw (in the Bxg3+ followed by Rf1+ lines); it's not like gelfand missed a way to play for the win. this way or other carlsen has ended up with winning positions in 3 of 4 games so far in tal memorial. that's reality. arguing that he doesn't have a good idea about how to play in order to maximize the chances for that happening... well, you can try. but naiditsch's words don't help much. neither do computer lines that confirm that gelfand had a draw. |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Hesam7: <frogbert: naiditsch's words don't help much. neither do computer lines that confirm that gelfand had a draw.> I guess if Carlsen himself said that in retrospect he would avoid 15. d5 would not help much either. You have shown us no analysis showing that the alternatives to 15. d5 are harmless. Instead you call 15. d5 "critical" and "principled", nice words but what do they mean actually? |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Hesam7: <frogbert: this way or other carlsen has ended up with winning positions in 3 of 4 games so far in tal memorial. that's reality. arguing that he doesn't have a good idea about how to play in order to maximize the chances for that happening... well, you can try.> 1. What are the 3 winning positions? Can you post them with analysis showing the wins Carlsen missed? 2. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "he doesn't have a good idea about how to play in order to maximize the chances". My point is that Magnus's opening preparation so far has been subpar. Something any impartial observer would agree I think. |
|
Nov-19-11
| | Hesam7: <frogbert> does GM Shipov help? <Gelfand’s aggressive intentions were clear when he met Carlsen’s modest handling of the Slav Defence with 12…e5 and then 14…0-0-0!?. If this line is repeated white players are likely to try 15.Nb5!? (suggested by Shipov), as after Carlsen’s 15.d5 (which he felt was the only move) 15…e4! gave Black a powerful attack and, it seems, at least equality.> http://www.whychess.org/node/3008 |
|
| Nov-19-11 | | frogbert: <My point is that Magnus's opening preparation so far has been subpar. Something any impartial observer would agree I think.> oh, i would certainly agree that carlsen's openings have been subpar. d5 wasn't prep from carlsen - it was something he found over the board. his prep was exhausted before that point in the game. and in later games d5 will be useless since it's known that black can more or less force a draw there (for instance after Nd4 instead of Bc3 as carlsen played, there's a forced repetition). also, i would certainly not be unhappy if carlsen had more punch in the opening part of the game - my point is that he's very good at getting the most out of his positions. |
|
| Nov-19-11 | | frogbert: <What are the 3 winning positions?> i was not talking about after the opening, but during the games. 1) against gelfand obviously
2) before move 37 and 39 against karjakin today
3) i assume the end position against kramnik was winning after Kb8 instead of Kd8. if you want to, we can dig into the two last positions (or the one you doubt was winning) later. assuming you think none of them were winning. i'm not 100% sure about the kramnik one, but it looks that way. |
|
Nov-20-11
| | Hesam7: <frogbert: if you want to, we can dig into the two last positions (or the one you doubt was winning) later> But how? You said engine analysis and GM commentary are unhelpful, if we disagree how should we resolve it? |
|
| Nov-21-11 | | frogbert: hesam7, i basically have the option of using the combination of my chess understanding and engines, with the latter doing most the work. i've mostly seen shallow gm analysis of <any> tal memorial game so far - including that of the very read-worthy shipov. live analysis by naiditsch/shipov or hasty comments made by "littlepeasant" (his icc nick) for chessbase isn't too revealing. i haven't looked at anish giri's website yet - he seems to be more thorough than most others in addition to being a 2700+ gm. i'm certainly inclined to listen to what he says, for instance about kramnik-carlsen. and if you and i disagree, we can simply "play" the position out until the disagreement disappears. i don't think i've claimed engine analysis to be unuseful in getting knowledge about a position. but arguing whether +x.y means some side is winning or not obviously isn't what i have in mind. :o) in which of kramnik-carlsen and carlsen-karjakin do you think there <never> existed a winning position for carlsen, btw? you can offer that insight just as a start, can't you? |
|
| Nov-22-11 | | frogbert: you seemingly misunderstood this comment:
<neither do computer lines that confirm that gelfand had a draw [help much].> such computer lines don't "help" in the sense that i've never questioned that gelfand had enough for a draw at various points; for instance the forced simplification to an ending with 2B + R for white against Q + N (following Bxg3+ and Rf1+) which carlsen assessed as drawn. what's really interesting is that gelfand played Rg1?! instead of the mentioned simplification, <even> if he saw that line and considered it equal. why? my guess is that it's because he felt that he'd been better previously; numerous times i've fell for the same illogical desire to continue playing for a win even after any advantage objectively is gone - because i've (felt that i've) been better earlier in the game. it typically ends badly... i don't claim that carlsen knowingly tries to take advantage of such psychological elements, but i do think he more than once has benefitted from them. |
|
Nov-22-11
 | | Richard Taylor: Gelfand made all the play there. Good thing he is playing the World Champs. I cant see how he lost that. Carlsen didn't play in the WC cycle so perhaps he will never be the World Champion. He has talent but he cant take things for granted. He is mainly a good "positional" player (a bit) like Capablanca or Fischer. |
|
Nov-25-11
| | lost in space: <From my perspective it is nonsense to ask/look for perfect play in computer WCC tournaments.> You may not belief it, but I agree in this. My post was more trying to explain that humans never ever will play perfect chess-at least I hope so. This leave us the room for the brilliant players and brilliant moves - and after a while we find that this brilliant move was nonsense. Love it |
|
| Dec-23-11 | | regi sidal: Similar final position:
D Gormally vs Sutovsky, 2005 |
|
| Dec-31-12 | | fgh: That b7 pawn reminds me of the following game: Anand vs Lautier, 1997 |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
