< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 8 ·
|Dec-07-11|| ||sarah wayne: Anand avoids 11.Ng5.12...g5 13.Nc4 is evidently an innovation.Black starts going downhill after13...h6.Nunn gives 12...fe.|
|Dec-07-11|| ||offramp: What engines don't realize is the threat of ....Qh4, which frequently wins for black. But the event-horizon is too far away for machines to see. This was a great game. Computers might say a lot of errors were made but that is not so!|
|Dec-07-11|| ||King Death: < Marmot PFL: Tal would have loved this scoring system, and probably produced many more sacrifices.>|
Which Tal? The 1950s model or the 1970s/80s one? He went pretty solid by the 70s, even though he still had a streak of imagination.
|Dec-07-11|| ||AVRO38: <Born in Japan, came here when he was two, it seems <kevin86>'s observation is an apt one>|
Doesn't matter where he was born. A U.S. citizen traveling to the U.S. is not an immigrant. Am I an immigrant when I come back from vacation?
John McCain was born in Panama, did he come to the U.S. as an immigrant?
There are thousands of U.S. citizens born in other countries to American parents each year. They are not immigrants when they come to the U.S.
The only reason you think <kevin86>'s observation is an apt one is because of your ignorance.
|Dec-07-11|| ||messachess: Congrats. to Naka.--impressive win over a player you wouldn't think could lose like this.|
|Dec-07-11|| ||Rob Lob Law: <Riverbeast> Bob Lob Law Lobs Law Bomb. :D |
Maybe: Do you guys know where I could get one of those gold T-shaped pendants?
George Michael: That's a cross.
Maybe: Across from where?
|Dec-07-11|| ||Llawdogg: Wow! Congratulations to Nakamura!|
|Dec-07-11|| ||Garech: A couple of questions for those levelling abuse at Nakamura:|
1. Have you beaten Anand at chess?
2. If you had, would you care how?
|Dec-07-11|| ||hedgeh0g: It's not like Anand hung a piece and threw the game away; the position was incredibly complicated, he made one slip-up and was lost all of a sudden.|
If you evaluate a mainline KID with your computer, it will often claim White has a big advantage, but this opening is still played at the top level, which suggests there's more to the KID than some ambiguous Houdini evaluation. Get off your engines and try actually playing the game - you'll probably reach the same conclusion.
|Dec-07-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: In spite of the KID's typical complications, I think that Anand was easily winning. What could have happened was that he let his guard down, overlooked a tactic that kicked his bishop out of the h3-c8 diagonal, and got psychologically rattled. There was no way that any player on the Black side could have beaten a master of Anand's caliber with his bishop on the h3-c8 diagonal blocking any Black kamikaze attack.|
Anand then started playing more weakly, committing inaccuracies.
This looks bad to me for Anand because it shows that he can still get psychologically rattled. In 1995, it is my opinion that he had grown as strong as Kasparov except for his psyche. (Kasparov in 1995 was probably already weaker than Kasparov in 1985.) If he did not psychologically collapse, Anand might have had even chances of beating Kasparov then. His relatively weak psyche remained a problem until the early 2000s. Thereafter, in spite of him supposed to be on the slow down because of aging, Anand instead began to perform better than he did in the 1990s.
This game looks more of a regression back to the 1990s to me- Anand seemed to have offered weak resistance after his blunder (overlooking 29... Qe8 and the Qb5 threat that threw his bishop off the h3-c8 diagonal).
In addition, Anand may also not be very familiar with KID positions and patterns. However, I agree that this is good practice for him, as Gelfand does employ the KID. Anand should get used to it.
|Dec-07-11|| ||Shams: <vbd><What could have happened was that he let his guard down, overlooked a tactic that kicked his bishop out of the h3-c8 diagonal, and got psychologically rattled.>|
Isn't the point that he didn't have to leave the diagonal at all, but chose to anyway?
|Dec-08-11|| ||ianb902: Isn't 40. Be6 be a better move compared to Rxa5? I haven't analyzed this line that much but I think it's more sound because it has the idea of the LSB going to g4 or should black play 41... Bxa3, white can capture the knight on d7.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||Jambow: I'm tired of all the poo pooing about the KID the last champion to use it frequently was Kasparov no less and in this database he shows 63 wins vs 18 losses and 83 draws giving him 63% with black and a 3.5 to 1 win loss ratio. All the talk about his masterful opening prep and this patzer didn't even know he was playing a bad defensive line.|
Before him was another hack named Robert James Fischer who had 45 wins and 19 losses or 2.3 to 1 win loss ratio and with 51 draws for a 61%.
Not buying it's unsound for black since the two greatest players of the last century excelled with it and both are remembered for intensive opening prep too?
Again as others have stated computers might give an advantage in a complex position that humans are unlikely to find but Nakamura only had to outrun Anand not Houdini or Rybka so leave the bear out of it for those that understand what I'm saying.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Jambow: Besides in this format using Sofia rules the risk vs reward it is sufficient to go for it and play entertaining chess.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||whiteshark: <Quote of the Day>
Chess computers do not sweat during time pressure and commit costly blunders. Furthermore, the strength of these programs (over and above their faultless recall processes) lies in their capacity to make relatively superficial tactical decisions with incredible speed. Positional values, long-range strategy, aesthetic judgment, and political astuteness remain staples of human performance, man vs. machine results in the foreseeable future to the contrary not withstanding.
-- Ira Carmen
|Dec-08-11|| ||Garech: Sure, Kasparov and Fischer both employed the KID with success. But - in Fischer's day, the strongest lines against it were only just being discovered, and Kasparov discarded it after Kramnik carved him up with the bayonet attack. This, along with the Be3-f2 and pawn to f3 line (d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 0-0 Be2 e5 0-0 Nc6 d5 Ne7 Nd1 Ne8/d7 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2) amongst other lines, have discouraged almost all top players from using it - the percentage of top GMs using it as a defence has fallen drastically since the sixties (with the Grunfeld taking over, of course). It still retains some notable users - Radjabov, Nakamura, occasionally Gelfand etc but the simple truth remains that with perfect play from both sides, white enjoys a big opening advantage, as the engines confirm. Don't get me wrong, I love playing the KID myself, and at the club level it's fine - but when you get to the 2800 region it simply doesn't cut the mustard.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||hedgeh0g: Tell that to Radjabov.
An eval of +1.12 in a closed position doesn't mean very much when Black has a big initiative on the kingside. Mainline KIDs are essentially a race, which is why the opening is a bit of a gamble: sometimes the gamble pays off, sometimes it doesn't.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Everett: <Marmot PFL: ...Talk about stupid advice...Aronian probably gave advice like that to Carlsen too, but Magnus was smart enough to ignore it. If you aren't totally sure of your plan one thing to ask is what would I do here if i had the other side, then look for a way to stop him from doing it.>|
I think this is an issue of emphasis.
This reminds me of some things Botvinnik said of Petrosian and Bronstein, and then Spassky about Karpov; they couldn't divine what the other guy wanted. If one gets mired into thinking about what is in the other guy's head, one may forget his own plans.
IMHO, Aronian's advice of "paying attention to one's own plan," is not necessarily bad. As a wrestling coach, I see time and again the best combatants playing "their" game, perpetually putting the challenge to the opponents: "how are you going to stop me?"
I can see a Karpov or Petrosian politely disagreeing with Aronian, but I could see Kasparov nodding in agreement.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Marmot PFL: <<Quote of the Day>|
Chess computers do not sweat during time pressure and commit costly blunders.>
? Can't remember the last time I even saw a computer in time pressure. Generally they manage their time much better than humans. Carlsen and Anand (at his peak) are exceptions and they are the only humans I would give much chance against a computer.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Domdaniel: I think the late great Rory Gallagher put it best:
"You call it what you want to, I call it messin' with the KID ..."
|Dec-08-11|| ||Kaspablanca: visayabraindoctor:(Kasparov in 1995 was probably already weaker than Kasparov in 1985.) It`s all contrary, how can you dare to say Kasparov was probably weaker in 1995 than in 1985?|
|Dec-08-11|| ||King Death: < Garech: Sure, Kasparov and Fischer both employed the KID with success. But - in Fischer's day, the strongest lines against it were only just being discovered, and Kasparov discarded it after Kramnik carved him up with the bayonet attack...the percentage of top GMs using it as a defence has fallen drastically since the sixties (with the Grunfeld taking over, of course).>|
Not only the Grunfeld. The Nimzo/Queen's Indian was extremely popular at all levels through my active career (to the late 1980s).
< It still retains some notable users - Radjabov, Nakamura, occasionally Gelfand etc but the simple truth remains that with perfect play from both sides, white enjoys a big opening advantage, as the engines confirm. Don't get me wrong, I love playing the KID myself, and at the club level it's fine - but when you get to the 2800 region it simply doesn't cut the mustard.>
How about some other defenses for Black against 1.d4 that nobody ever plays at the highest level, like the Benko/Benoni?
In about 1984 or 1985, Kevin Spraggett (a notable KID practitioner) was interviewed by NIC.
One of the events he discussed was Kavkasian 1983 (New York). He had a hard time in that tournament and was starting to mix some Modern Benonis with his KIDs.
His rationale was that when you lost with the Benoni, you often got blown away quickly, whereas in the King's Indian, you were stuck with that awful dark squared bishop and got ground down when you played at the international level.
I can vouch for what Spraggett said about both of those openings with both colors. There were some nice wins and pretty nasty losses, though I hardly ever played the Benoni.
|Dec-08-11|| ||bronkenstein: <It`s all contrary, how can you dare to say Kasparov was probably weaker in 1995 than in 1985?> |
Botvinnik himself shared that opinion , and he didn`t even use the word probably ( interesthing that his comment relates to almost exactly the same time interval , 84(5)-94(5))
<...Garyk is playing weaker than some 10 years ago , and his style has changed. Earlier he played as Capa , the way I taught him , according to the position , but few years ago I noticed that he , for safety reasons , simplifies , applying only then his tactical genius .
No, I don`t think it`s age , he simply understood that he needs to , firstly , be safe from losing the game. You know that each tenor can perform , in his life, limited number of high Cs. Maybe every chessman has limited number of good games as well , just pushing the wood meantime?
IMO , the only salvation for him would be to simply leave all that nonsence he is involved in ...>
Translated from http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j... , interview from 1994-5.
|Dec-08-11|| ||frogbert: i haven't seen anyone of those claiming that "engine evalations here are wrong" or that improving on anand's play required "engine perfect play" actually try to back it up by any analysis of the game itself. why don't we analyse the game?|
<An eval of +1.12 in a closed position doesn't mean very much when Black has a big initiative on the kingside.>
that's probably true most of the time. when houdini is nearly +4 in a materially balanced position, though, i think there's a reason to consider the soundness of either a) houdini's heuristic algorithms, or b) black's position. i only hear general statements about how incredibly difficult the position was to play for white - but are those claims actually true? how do we become any wiser?
no, it was <not> a single, big mistake from anand that lead to his downfall in this game. he started to lose the thread around move 22 and made many mistakes from there and until he resigned. maybe only one real "blunder", the Nc4-move, but at that point nakamura already had the worst behind.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Domdaniel: One GM (Baburin) who usually plays g3 systems against both the KID and Gruenfeld, told me that - despite the KID's decline at top levels - many GMs still include it in their repertoire, alternating with the Gruenfeld. |
They may whip out their KID when they need a win - many Gruenfeld lines can be drawish, especially in the Fianchetto variation (D76-D79). Or they may play it when they outrank the opponent sufficiently to make losing unlikely.
Openings go through natural cycles. An 'unusual' move - like Short's 3...h6 in the French vs Adams - will often score surprise victories when first introduced. It trickles down to amateur players as a result, and becomes more popular. But meanwhile the top players find the optimal antidotes, and start to win gradually against it.
Many openings have almost vanished from high-level play: Pirc, Robatsch/Modern, Scandinavian, certain lines in the Winawer French. Even the Sicilian is seen much less often than it used to be.
The Slav, Spanish and Gruenfeld are currently dominant, for many reasons. All are 'rich' enough to contain novelties, new ideas, drawing lines and winning attempts. But don't write off the other openings. And if your opponent is rated below 2400, play whatever you like.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 8 ·