< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Sep-27-13|| ||chessdgc2: boz: yeah, agb2002 pointed out ...Bf1 being shorter. I never saw that move, but it very well may decide this game|
|Sep-27-13|| ||agb2002: < chessdgc2: agb2002: Thanks, I missed the ...Bf1 move>|
A relatively difficult move: I initially thought the bishop blow would come through the other path.
|Sep-27-13|| ||Marmot PFL: Grischuk's first game with black since losing to Fressinet in the Queen's Indian. So maybe he varied the opening for psychological reasons but played very well in any case.|
|Sep-27-13|| ||whiteshark: There's always something!|
|Sep-27-13|| ||chessdgc2: Marmot PFL: But can we base this on Grischuk's "Better" play rather than I-chuk's "Inferior" play?|
|Sep-27-13|| ||chessdgc2: Whiteshark: But that doesn't mean it's any good :)|
|Sep-27-13|| ||Gypsy: Well, this was a tour de force...
|Sep-27-13|| ||agb2002: Giri-Bacrot looks interesting.|
|Sep-27-13|| ||chessdgc2: Gypsy: Yes, 1..Bf1 was such a subtle, but powerful move...I wonder if Chukky ever saw it coming, I suire dind't|
|Sep-27-13|| ||boz: It's easy to see after 30...Bc4 but not before.|
|Sep-27-13|| ||Gypsy: <chessdgc2, boz> I just joined the broadcast after the <30...Bc4> was played and was still getting a feel for the position before chiming in with first impression. I just came to a conclusion that White was not altogether healthy; then suddenly, double-take, dancing rook after <31.Nc3 Bf1>.|
That <31...Bf1> definitely is an inconspicuous move from a few moves out.
|Sep-27-13|| ||HeMateMe: 31...That's why I call a nasty surprise!|
|Sep-27-13|| ||csmath: Just about the opening.
This is clearly completely anti-positional play with Ivanchuk violating a number of positional principles.
This move is on the book but it is not played at the top level. The reason is simple - it is anti-positional as creates weak white f2-c5 pawn chain that can be easily attacked at any link.
In the spirit of previous move and it would only make sense if white would have a time to proceed with queenside action which he cannot.
This is ordinarily how amateurs play, one would not expect this from a player as Ivanchuk. After this move white has no advantage at all and has to play carefully to avoid kingside attack by black.
Standard answer in QG but it temporarily puts black development in awkward disharmony. The problem will be resolved though before white has any chance to exploit it. Immediate 8. ...Nh5 is probably a better move which Grischuk will realize in the next couple of moves.
This is another anti-positional move, obviously in response to previous pawn moves. The score of weaknesses in white position are now glaring. The game is already positionally lost for white and only a serious tactical player could find resources to fight on. Ivanchuk did not.
The only way one can look at these opening is an experiment and not the good one by any stretch of imagination. Typical Ivanchuk that can win a magnificant game and then lose a game without any fight. This inconsistency is the main reason why he has never been and will probably never be a serious contender for WC.
|Sep-27-13|| ||perfidious: White was utterly unrecognisable in this game-it might well have been played between players of vastly different classes.|
|Sep-28-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: <boz: It's easy to see after 30...Bc4 but not before.> One lesson which one can learn from this game is that with the Black rook on g8 the manoeuvre ...Be6-c4-f1 becomes a potential threat|
|Sep-28-13|| ||latvalatvian: Since Ivanchuk is over 1000 points above me, I refuse to criticize his play. Every move he makes seems okay to me. Whatever the result, it doesn't seem to matter.|
|Sep-28-13|| ||Conrad93: This game makes Ivanchuk look like a 2600+ rated player, which he is not.|
It is definitely not a true representation of his strength.
|Sep-28-13|| ||LoveThatJoker: I asked Stockfish to solve the final position for me, should White have played 32. g4.|
Here is its solution:
32. g4 Nxg4 33. Nxg4 Rxg4+ 34. Kh1 Qg6 35. Qh2 Rh4 36. Rc8+ Kg7 37. Rg8+ Kxg8 mating
|Sep-28-13|| ||Domdaniel: <csmath> You don't know what you're talking about, do you? 'Amateurs' typically *avoid* moves like 7.c5, because they hold on too strongly to classical principles. It takes a strong player like Ivanchuk to play such a move -- it may not have worked out here, but that proves nothing.|
|Sep-28-13|| ||tamar: Ivanchuk was disillusioned with c5 after the game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IK... |
Ivanchuk: "c5 was an unfortunate choice, especially after my loss to Kramnik, it was a bad idea to play such pawn structure."
...Tiviakov: "But very natural, if you can close the center and complete development."
Ivanchuk: "After game against Kramnik it is impossible to play such structures"... Ivanchuk vs Kramnik, 2013 0-1
Grischuk: "But c5 is a very rare move. It was played in Wang Yue and Carlsen and no one has repeated it Wang Yue vs Carlsen, 2009
"But I think it is..., I think if White does not play c5, it's like some forced draws. After c5 some interesting positions"...
|Sep-28-13|| ||SoUnwiseTheKnight B4: <Since Ivanchuk is over 1000 points above me,> Yeah me too |
<I refuse to criticize his play.> questioning a move or two is allowable
<Every move he makes seems okay to me.> This could magically change overnight if you get yourself an engine!
<Whatever the result, it doesn't seem to matter.> On the contrary, everywhere he goes Ivanchuk is the elephant in the room.
|Sep-28-13|| ||csmath: <Ivanchuk: "c5 was an unfortunate choice, especially after my loss to Kramnik, it was a bad idea to play such pawn structure.">|
That sums it up nicely. Creating pawn chains is only a solid idea when :
A. you have a space advantage and your opponent has opposing pawn chain.
B. ***the position is blocked.***
[As Tiviakov says: <But very natural, if you can close the center and complete development.>]
This is not the case here.
There is no other reason why would a player intend to create a pawn chain. They are always weak, they are always possible to break. Pawn chains are very often in amateur games and fairly rare in master games.
I think if you want to improve your own chess you need to be able to recognize anti-positional features in this game (by white).
|Sep-28-13|| ||csmath: By the way, I am 100% sure that Ivanchuk knows this very well and more ... he is even aware of that during the game. Yet, for some reason he plays that! |
I think he is probably the only top level GM that does "experimentations" during supertournament play. It has been a major characteristic of his play and he lost many games that way.
Perhaps he simply loves chess and likes to experiment but he gets also very depressed when losing which it seems to be contradictory.
I've seen Peter Svidler playing conceptual experiments sometimes but he does not get so depressed when losing and his "experiments" do make more sense in general.
Both are super-talented and neither will be a world champion. :-)
|Sep-29-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: One justification for the move 7 c5 is that Black has obstructed his own e pawn by 6...Be6. The justification does not however have to be sufficient.|
It is possible that the move c5 could suffocate Black but for some tiny fatal flaw somewhere, and that Ivanchuk intended some plan which had a flaw, a flaw which he saw too late.
Notice how he replies to 9...Nh5 with 10 Nge2 placing the knight passively but avoiding doubling his f pawn. This suggests 9 h3 instead of 9 Bd3 and this points to the possibility that there was something which Ivanchuk noticed too late.
|Oct-11-13|| ||Natalia Pogonina: Annotations by GM Naiditsch:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·