< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 25 ·
|Nov-21-14|| ||Geordi: Are you interested in the exchange of rook vs. knight or bishop? http://tinyurl.com/chessgamesexchange is the address of a new scientific study of exchange sacrifices you are invited to participate in.|
|Nov-21-14|| ||Penguincw: Analysis of this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Bn....|
|Nov-21-14|| ||jphamlore: <Sally Simpson:
Back then I saw 3 sets of minor bits coming off leaving a pair of Rooks each and then one of the players will get blind swine on the 7th.
Going for Blind Swine is all I know about in KRR + KRR endings.
Amazing how sparce coverage is on KRR v KRR endings compared to KR v KR (and of course pawns)....just a side note.>
Capablanca discusses at least three KRR vs KRR endings, examples 57, 60, and 61, in his <Chess Fundamentals>
Capablanca vs Kupchik, 1913
Capablanca vs A Kreymborg, 1910
Capablanca vs Janowski, 1913
Capablanca writes in the preface to <Chess Fundamentals> <The reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed.>
So I guess others took Capablanca at his word ...
|Nov-21-14|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: One problem with double rook endgames is they tend to simplify to R endgames quickly.|
There is, though, a book which devotes 39 examples to double rook endgames: "Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics" by Glenn Flear, published by Everyman Chess, 2007. (An excellent book which I recommend.)
|Nov-21-14|| ||schweigzwang: <Fusilli: <schweigzwang: Bird of Paradise? What is that, a cocktail or something?>>|
Fusilli, the last question asked of the players at the press conference was whether they do yoga. Then Carlsen was asked if he would try a Bird of Paradise--I didn't quite follow his answer, but neither did I follow the question.
Turns out Anand didn't either. As they were leaving the table some open mike caught Anand asking Carlsen, Bird of Paradise? What is that, some kind of cocktail?
I had to Google it to find out that it was some yoga position.
|Nov-21-14|| ||Geordi: Is this exchange sacrifice sound? You are kindly invited to visit http://tinyurl.com/chessgamesexchange to participate in our new scientific study on human decision making in the domain of chess.|
|Nov-21-14|| ||nariga: I think these has some possibilities:
26. a3 Nc6 27. Bd5 Re8 28. Bxc6 bxc6 29. g3 and then attack black's doubled pawns.
|Nov-21-14|| ||nariga: Also, I didn't understand why white didn't play 26. Bg4?? gaining an exchange|
|Nov-21-14|| ||mike1: Nariga: Bg4 does not wine the exchange as Black can play f5.|
|Nov-21-14|| ||nariga: Mike1: yes, then the play may go something like:
27.Bf3 with the idea of getting white Bishop to d5 etc.
32.Rxc5 etc seems winning for white
|Nov-21-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,
Of course if you could tweak them so it knows one player needs a win and the other is happy to draw.
Also the player seeking the win may be at +0.50+ but is willing to accept -0.50 just so long as the position is complicated enough to give his opponent a tough series of only moves to find.
This is what Anand is and was looking for. When the 'thing' can come up with sugestions that fit this criteria, then you are talking about a worhtwhile tool.
But if the lads want to enter the moves into a box and see what it says. Who am I say to say it will not make them a better player. I got good without one. But that does not mean to say today a beginner won't get good using one.
Here I'd say no because the lad will never be able to spot and look for human errors. In OTB human play the two trick is King.
These things don't leave two move tricks on unless you dumb them down to the level of a soap dish and beating them at that level soon becomes boring and a waste of time.
Nor will our lad get use to playing a farting, belching, candy munching, table knocking, coughing, smelly human, this is an acquired skill in itself.
I'm talking about endgame books in general. Double Rooks endings tend ro be ignored. The best plan appears to be if you cannot get blind swine - chop a Rook and go into a single Rook ending. :)
Some end game books don't even mention them at all. Apparently this includes Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. I don't have it (hell will freeze over first before I buy another endgame book - I have two, dont need another.) so I cannot confirm.
You will often find a load of end game configurations one may encounter once every 1,000 games (totally useless to the average club player.) but nothing on Double Rook endings which are fairly frequent.
Not the first to notice this. As I said it was just a side note.
|Nov-22-14|| ||jphamlore: <Sally Simpson: I'm talking about endgame books in general. Double Rooks endings tend ro be ignored. The best plan appears to be if you cannot get blind swine - chop a Rook and go into a single Rook ending. :)|
Some end game books don't even mention them at all. Apparently this includes Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. I don't have it (hell will freeze over first before I buy another endgame book - I have two, dont need another.) so I cannot confirm.>
The reason for this omission in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is simple, as explained in the From the Author (First Edition) section:
<Dvoretsky: I also prepared a series of lectures on the general principles of endgame play. By the way, the main ideas of that series became (with my permission) the basis of the popular book Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky (I recommend that book to my readers).>
Thus the material from Dvoretsky's lectures on endgames where both sides have two or more pieces was deliberately left to Shereshevsky's book.
Shereshevsky's book is strongly influenced by an article by Sergey Byelavyenets whose article in turn seems intent on interpreting the writings of Capablanca on endgame strategy. So everything does lead back to Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals.
|Nov-22-14|| ||Anandite: AlexandraThess, where art thou? You have been conspicuously silent of late. I miss your comments on Carlson's shortcomings.|
|Nov-22-14|| ||perfidious: <Anandite>, he/she/it often takes long sabbaticals from the labours of demeaning 'Carlson' or waxing rhapsodic of Gelfand.|
|Nov-22-14|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
|Nov-22-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi jphamlore,
As I said I don't have the book and very rarely/never read an intro. In Rampant Chess I told the reader to skip this bit and get on with the games.
"So everything does lead back to Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals...."
What we is need is the book that taught Capablanca.
|Nov-22-14|| ||Absentee: <Sally Simpson: Also the player seeking the win may be at +0.50+ but is willing to accept -0.50 just so long as the position is complicated enough to give his opponent a tough series of only moves to find.>|
It doesn't quite work like that. When an engine evaluates a position as -0.50, that means it's the side with the disadvantage that has to come up with some only moves, not the other way round.
|Nov-22-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Absentee,
I'm thinking of positions where the +0.50 player has to play the only moves to maintain his +.
It is how many theoretically won games are lost. The winning position becomes too difficult to maintain, the human player has to steer the game through a very narrow path to get the win.
If it's complicated with pitfalls all over the board then anything can happen.
"Nothing is more difficult than winning a won game."
But getting a computer to understand it's OK to discard 5 = moves to select a 6th -0.50 move because it offers the best practical chance of a win v a human is (at the moment) beyond it's capabilities.
|Nov-22-14|| ||Chessmusings: Please enjoy my analysis of game 10 including some missed chances for both players: https://chessmusings.wordpress.com/...|
|Nov-22-14|| ||jphamlore: Is it possible the perception that Anand ever had much of an advantage this game is an illusion due to particular software, software that isn't even used by the players involved? Houdini apparently never showed Anand having much of an advantage, Houdini I think is what many of the chess pros still use, and the players at the board agreed there was no win for White.|
|Nov-22-14|| ||Ulhumbrus: After 7...Na6 Black intends obviously ...c5.
According to Golombek White prevails in the Gruenfeld defence if he can conquer the central point d5.
This suggests making White's KB contribute towards an attack upon d5 by Bc4 instead of Be2 eg 8 Qb3 c5 9 d5 e6 10 Bg5
Another way to answer the threat of ...c5 is to pre-empt it by d5 as Vidmar did in the game Vidmar vs Tartakower, 1929
|Nov-22-14|| ||metatron2: Anand was again afraid to get into complex variations, that would have been more double edged maybe, but would have given him real winning chances. Instead he chose the quiet none-risky moves all the way:|
20. Bb5, more or less forcing the exchage sac 20.. Bd5 was a real test to Carlsen's 19.. Bd4! (Anand saw it of course and mentioned it in the press conference but went for 20. Ne4).
With 23. Rd2 instead of 23.a3 with 24.Rfe1, or even 23.Rfe1 immediately. Anand was again going for the passive drawish option, although he obviously saw the other active options (and mentioned them in the press conference).
And 25. Rc1 was another passive move from Anand, aiming for a draw, instead of the more active 25. Rb1 move, although here, the winning chances were already low.
Even 19. d6 instead of Anand's 19.Ng5 would have been more active and challenging than trading more pieces with Ng5 (especially when Anand was so afraid of black's exchange sac options..).
Being lead by fear is obviously not the way for Anand to come back with a win. Anand just doesn't seem to have inside him what it takes to make a comeback. I mean I'm not saying that he could have done it of course had he taken the chances, but he didn't even really try to take his chances..
|Nov-23-14|| ||Chessinfinite: <Anand was again afraid to get into complex variations, that would have been more double edged maybe, but would have given him real winning chances.>|
I am not sure he was afraid at all. Playing d6!? earlier was not clear, and by no means would have guaranteed a better position.
yeah, just because evals said 0.9 and Anand played a move that showed 0.5 does not mean that Anand was afraid, he knew better. If anything, he may have missed that ..Qf6 ! was very strong, and he might have missed some chance to apply pressure later in the game, with Rfe1 instead of the played Rd2?!.
<Being lead by fear is obviously not the way for Anand to come back with a win.>
Lol, Anand may have just made the best moves in the game, instead of being naive and try to play for a win in a well analysed position by the opposition. I would not call that lead by fear.
<Anand just doesn't seem to have inside him what it takes to make a comeback>
How do you know, Did he tell you that ?
|Nov-23-14|| ||Geordi: http://tinyurl.com/chessgamesexchange is the address of a new scientific study of exchange sacrifices. Be kindly invited to join!|
|Dec-06-14|| ||anandrulez: Carlsen on this game: "White needed to play 24.Rfe1! and keep the pressure on. If 24...Nxa2? 25.Re7! and if Rad8 26.Bd5! is nasty, attacking f7 and the knight on a2"|
I though Re1 would have been the candidate for a great game .
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 25 ·