chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Fabiano Caruana vs Ivan Saric
Tata Steel Masters (2015), Wijk aan Zee NED, rd 2, Jan-11
Spanish Game: Closed Variations. Zaitsev System (C92)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 3 more Caruana/I Saric games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-12-15  visayanbraindoctor: Nice game. Caruana concedes the two Bishops to Saric. If you have two bishops against two knights, theory recommends 'thou shalt open up the position for the two bishops'. Saric duly tried to do that with 26... c6 27. Nb2 f5.

Now that may look superficially alright but as concrete play later shows, 27.. f5 may have been premature. Why? Because Black's two rooks were still undeveloped. Another theoretical rule is that 'thou shall not open up the position if still undeveloped'. It may have been better to close the center temporarily with 27... c5 and then later try to release the bishops with an f5 push once Black was more developed.

Black's position began to look shaky after opening up the center prematurely but it was the tactical error 30... Qb7?? that probably did him in. Saric placed his Queen on a position where it could be attacked with tempo by Caruana's knight should it jump to c5. The game had now opened up and every tempo would now count, and Saric effectively wastes two tempi, moving his Queen to a vulnerable square. He proceeds to lose almost by force. Perhaps removing one of White's attacking knights with 30... Bxe3, followed by attempting to close the center again with 31... e4 was a better, but still ugly, option.

Caruana playing with his vaunted accuracy never gives him a chance to recover.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <1971: Lol I'll let you clownsplay together if you like. 30-0. No one with the character of perfidious can be a truly strong player.>

Depends on how one defines 'truly strong'.

If personal character were the definition of playing strength, some of chess' greatest players would have but little to offer.

Me? I am just an ordinary US master who makes no pretensions to anything more.

As for you, look into your heart before presuming to pass judgement.

Signed, Life 1200 hasbeenusetawas

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <AylerKupp> Perhaps so; but <Dom> is bang on in his assessment.

So far as I can see, one kibitz by <u> is very much like another, and when he insists on tilting at windmills in the face of reasoned advice from players stronger than you or I, not to mention such rants as he once favoured us with on a Kasparov-Karpov game from the 1984 match, explaining why the Keres Attack in the Scheveningen is a bad idea, time to have done with his foolishness.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <ajile> Ironic indeed. Though I think 'error' is a sort of technical term in Xtian philosophy. During my university days, there was a (Christian) professor of philosophy who argued that *all* philosophical problems had been solved by Thomas Aquinas about 750 years ago. Philosophy since Aquinas (Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Nietzsche ... all those guys) was just a catalogue of error: all of them, in fact (he said), had been refuted in advance by Aquinas...

And now we ask: "Should old Aquinas be forgot?"

Yep, he should.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Dom....During my university days, there was a (Christian) professor of philosophy who argued that *all* philosophical problems had been solved by Thomas Aquinas about 750 years ago. Philosophy since Aquinas (Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Nietzsche ... all those guys) was just a catalogue of error: all of them, in fact (he said), had been refuted in advance by Aquinas...>

Lovely.

By the way, what do you think of Locke?

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <perf> As I wrote in a satirical college magazine: "Locke up your daughters."

I'm afraid my deeply callow reading of Locke hasn't really advanced since those days. Though I was amused by the scenes between Locke and Newton in Neal Stephenson's superb Baroque Trilogy.

Jan-12-15  ajile: <Domdaniel: <ajile> Ironic indeed. Though I think 'error' is a sort of technical term in Xtian philosophy. During my university days, there was a (Christian) professor of philosophy who argued that *all* philosophical problems had been solved by Thomas Aquinas about 750 years ago.>

There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. It's the same difference as between a philosopher and a mystic. The philosopher argues about spiritual reality using just his intellect. The mystic experiences spiritual reality directly in meditation. The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.

It's like an astronaut trying to explain weightlessness. He can write or speak in explicit detail what it is but he can never give the actual experience to another.

The sceptics would have you believe that such emotions as love are merely the firing of nerve synapses in the brain but the mystic understands that the brain doesn't produce emotions or consciousness it simply channels it.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <ajile> Indeed, yes. Though the non-mystic philosopher might also point out that, whatever 'spiritual' may mean, it isn't really a form of knowledge.

And no, I don't think the weightlessness analogy is valid. This is simply obscurantism: an appeal to a type of experience which most people have not had, and may thus be assumed to be ignorant of. But these non-astronaut non-weightless folk aren't really missing out on some ineffable essence of weightlessness.

And why do you say that emotions such as love are "merely" the firing of synapses? I'd rather say that they are produced by the firing of synapses, and aren't synapses amazing? "Merely" has nothing to do with it.

Jan-12-15  Rookiepawn: <The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.>

True. Therefore the mystic usually resources to marketing.

Spiritual realities beyond physical measurement are wonderful as long as you don't try to sell them. Too bad it is almost impossible to find one of those mystics not trying to sell you a book, making concrete money out of the intangible.

Jan-12-15  Rookiepawn: <And why do you say that emotions such as love are "merely" the firing of synapses? I'd rather say that they are produced by the firing of synapses, and aren't synapses amazing? "Merely" has nothing to do with it.>

This is very true. It seems that some people turns to mysticism just because they cannot find reality as it is fascinating enough.

Thus every wonderful process of the matter becomes a "mere" phenomenon, not incredible enough. You need to pile up UFOs, gods, fairies, dwarfs, invisible friends and that sticky shapless mass of new age potpourri of religions on top of everything.

To me "mere" science is far more interesting than all the "spiritual worlds" men have created as bad sci fi. But as long as you don't try to <sell> inexisting worlds it's OK by me. My advice would be not to buy them, but that is your money.

Jan-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Domdaniel: <Rookiepawn> Well said. 'Mere' science is pretty damn amazing.

<ajile> -- <There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. > Is there, really? What about mathematics? I know a cast-iron proof that says the square root of 2 cannot be a rational fraction -- which seems to be both an experiential and an intellectual conclusion. What's the supposed difference between the two?

Jan-13-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <whiteshark> Thanks for the links - very informative. I wondered why Black didn't try 31 ... d4 & 32 ... Bxg2 but missed the 33. Qg4 fork.

Both commentators mentioned the bravery of 35. g4 consolidating the Pawn despite White's airy Kingside.

Jan-13-15  Rookiepawn: Totally off-topic:


click for larger view

I have no idea about general principles, even less about concrete tactical issues (I'm a patzer, that's it), but I find 31...d4 much sexier. I feel beyond this point Black never gets to get anything from the central pawns.

32. Qg4 dxe3
33. Qxg5 exf2+
34. Kxf2 ...

Is this worth a look?

Jan-13-15  Rookiepawn: <tpstar> thanks for noticing, will check <whiteshark> links...
Jan-13-15  ajile: <Domdaniel: <Rookiepawn> Well said. 'Mere' science is pretty damn amazing.

<ajile> -- <There's a difference between intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge. > Is there, really? What about mathematics? I know a cast-iron proof that says the square root of 2 cannot be a rational fraction -- which seems to be both an experiential and an intellectual conclusion. What's the supposed difference between the two?>

Here is another analogy. Try to explain what "horny" is to an 8 year old. You KNOW what it is because as an adult we experience the result of hormones in the body that an 8 year old doesn't possess. The 8 year old will say "horny" isn't real since he can't experience it or perceive it.

Similarly if you haven't experienced deep meditation you don't know what your existence is without thoughts. It's actually kind of comical really to think you need to stop the mind completely to experience this. And please understand that this isn't a denial of the intellect at all. The intellect isn't discarded, it's added to a new and more advanced level of knowing.

Jan-13-15  ajile: <Rookiepawn: <The mystic by definition can't ever prove to the philosopher the existence of spiritual realities since these realities are beyond physical measurement.>

True. Therefore the mystic usually resources to marketing.

Spiritual realities beyond physical measurement are wonderful as long as you don't try to sell them. Too bad it is almost impossible to find one of those mystics not trying to sell you a book, making concrete money out of the intangible.>

I'm using the term "mystic" for the very rare type of enlightened being that has no attachments to money or fame. This doesn't mean a person of this type doesn't have and use material tools in their lives. They just aren't attached to them. For your definition I would use a term such as fraud guru perhaps. I agree the vast majority are fakes whether they realize it or not.

The problem is there are so many frauds that a lay person might suppose they are ALL frauds which isn't the case. The second problem is the real mystic doesn't broadcast their insights because they aren't attached to fame, money or power.

Lastly as far as the brain this is a key point in the discussion. There are 2 basic First Premises that are foundations that logic can proceed from.

1. The brain Produces consciousness.
2. The brain Channels consciousness.

And when I say channel please don't automatically roll your eyes. I mean channel like a TV channels programs. The TV doesn't produce the programs and similarly IMO the brain doesn't produce your consciousness. It may appear that way since if the brain is damaged behaviour is also distorted.

Jan-13-15  Pulo y Gata: And the winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mystic?

Sorry, can't resist.

Jan-13-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Pulo y Gata> Don't let the ghost of the good Dr Tartakower hear you say that....you'll be sued for plagiarism!
Jan-13-15  Pulo y Gata: But, <perf>, I was doffing my hat to him as I daff 'round here!
Jan-13-15  Rookiepawn: <ajile> Interesting explanation. Please, be aware I have nothing against it, I just don't get it and ask for enlightment: If those mystics are so perfect as to be unnoticeable... How do you notice them? You even name them in plural, so it seems either you are one, or know more than one.

Perfection is null, it needs nothing, it gives nothing, therefore it needs no transfer. Being a personal experience, a unique kind of perfection suits a unique being, so transfer is even more useless.

A perfect human being does not have to be a guru, it may well be anybody. It may even be that dumb guy laughing with a beer and a hoagie. He may enjoy the enlightment I lack, who knows?

Perfection? That's a damn word for an ignorant like me. Define it, picture your perfect guru.

<The wise student hears of the Tao and practises it diligently.

The average student hears of the Tao and gives it thought now and again.

The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.

If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.>

I am very attached to smoke, music, laugh, among other worldly chains. Good luck with all those mystics who attained perfection and then suddendly felt the need to tell you.

Jan-13-15  ajile: You obviously like the word "perfection" but I never used that word once. Perfection implies an end and IMO evolution is ongoing probably even for mystics. The idea that the human intellect is the pinnacle and the top is not only ridiculous but arrogant in the extreme. And the problem with arrogant is that it really doesn't want to change or admit it isn't the best.
Jan-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Rookiepawn> Ship me a dollop of that there perfekshun, will ya??
Jan-18-15  Rookiepawn: <perfidious> Yeah, well... It's not the <perfect> Perfection, you know. It's more or less a version made by <Mose Shrute>. Don't use it for anything you want perfect. Or good. Or decent.

<ajile The idea that the human intellect is the pinnacle and the top is not only ridiculous but arrogant in the extreme>. Could not agree more, trust me. It's just prejudice and old-fashioned dogmas which keep managers relying more on human programmers than chimpanzees, or even fishes (fishes cannot type, true, but this is just our lack of ergonomic integration efforts).

But in the end I agree with you: only the human being is <actively> idiotic. As some guy said:

<We wouldn't take ideas so seriously only if we considered for a moment the fact that they came from mammals.>

And by the way: many thanks for not answering my question about how do you know those unknown ones. It's such a known stuff even I should already know.

Jan-18-15  Rookiepawn: <ajile Perfection implies an end and IMO evolution is ongoing probably even for mystics>

I will give you that this is an interesting idea. Can perfection be a dynamic concept? A path rather than a state? Good. But still you have to fill the blank: evolution towards what?

Not even in chess can we still know what a "perfect", or "ever improving" game is; much less in life. Too many criteria, too slippery.

For instance: I evoluted to the point of being perfectly me right now. You cannot beat me at that, mind you. Not much of an achievement, you'd say, and I would agree. But again, which is then the "golden criterion"?

Maybe the secret of human perfect evolution path is <Mose Shrute> after all. Who knows?

Jun-16-15  Mr. V: So why not 32... e4?
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Nice game. Caruana concedes the two Bishops
from Instant Repertoire-10 by FLAWLESSWIN64
Omnis stultia laborat fastidio sui。
by hanwubai
Spanish: Zaitsev: 12. d5
from W e4 Compiled by pekda by fredthebear
Spanish: Zaitsev: 12. d5
from W e4 by pekda


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC