< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Apr-01-15|| ||detritus: I think Holt just missed that interposing the rook on f7 snuffed out his attack long enough for Black's tactics in the vicinity of the White king to take hold. Probably a combination of Holt's time trouble and Naka's superior tactical acumen.|
|Apr-01-15|| ||ToTheDeath: Nice scrap, Holt definitely burned too much time on 14.exf5 and other moves, but the position was right up Nakamura's alley.|
|Apr-01-15|| ||perfidious: <ToTheDeath....the position was right up Nakamura's alley.>|
Those who wish to denigrate Naka's play have a field day with such positions as those he reaches from the Black side of the KID; one need only see the cries of 'he was losing till so-and-so screwed up', but this remains OTB chess and the very top players are there for more than one reason: great resourcefulness in difficult positions is merely one facet of their armoury.
|Apr-01-15|| ||1d410: <HMM> Naka just made it up on the spot. No prep except by Conrad.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: I knew a strong player who always selected a King's Indian formation vs. 1.c4 or 1.d4, and he would always sacrifice something at the earliest possible opportunity without even thinking about the move. He sometimes lost, but he usually won.|
So one day, after he had speculatively sacrificed first a pawn and then a piece against me and then administered a comprehensive walloping, I asked him, "Did you think either of those sacrifices were sound?!"
"Oh, I don't even bother to analyze my sacrifices before playing them. I've learned that if my sacrifices are sound, I lose, but when they're unsound, I win. Since I usually win, I must play a lot of bad moves."
|Apr-02-15|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
|Apr-02-15|| ||whiteshark: cb r1 report w/ analysis of this game: http://en.chessbase.com/post/u-s-ch...|
|Apr-02-15|| ||perfidious: <An Englishman> Delicious.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||RookFile: From what the experts say, if white had found 22. Ng2 with the idea of Rh4, we might have been talking about a white victory for this game.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||Karne: Nakamura is another tactical juggernaut, whose ideology is antique. Ofcourse, playing like Tal against worthless patzers like Holt may endow him with a win, but not against Carlsen or any other respectable player in this matter.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||plang: Where I come from referring to a GM as a "worthless patzer" is just plain rude.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||RookFile: Holt had a very good opening concept and deserved a better fate in this game.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||Conrad93: Nakamura rewarded for his childish tactics.
A common theme in most of his games.
|Apr-02-15|| ||perfidious: All those so-called worthless patzers actually have a great understanding of the game and it is clear that those who comment thus regarding GMs haven't got a clue how difficult it is to play well, much less at that august level.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||Conrad93: No one is calling him a patzer, but it's not fun seeing bad play rewarded.|
|Apr-02-15|| ||Conrad93: Now a thousand other players are going to try and play this exact line...|
|Apr-03-15|| ||breaker90: Conrad93, the worthless players they were talking about was Holt, not Nakamura.|
|Apr-03-15|| ||Conrad93: Meh. I wouldn't take the insults seriously.
Dubious moves are really difficult to play against.
|Apr-03-15|| ||ToTheDeath: <Where I come from referring to a GM as a "worthless patzer" is just plain rude...>|
Yes, what a stupid and ignorant comment. Quite pretentious as well.
|Apr-04-15|| ||Everett: <premium
memberApr-02-15 Karne: Nakamura is another tactical juggernaut, whose ideology is antique. Ofcourse, playing like Tal against worthless patzers like Holt may endow him with a win, but not against Carlsen or any other respectable player in this matter.>
Well, Naka has done this to Kramnik too
|Apr-04-15|| ||Everett: And Anand, and Caruana. All, pretty much, save Carlsen.|
|Apr-04-15|| ||Fusilli: <plang: Where I come from referring to a GM as a "worthless patzer" is just plain rude.>|
We must have come from the same place! I come from planet Earth. You?
<perfidious> <it is clear that those who comment thus regarding GMs haven't got a clue how difficult it is to play well, much less at that august level.>
It sometimes is pretty clear whether a poster has competitive tournament experience or not. The most obvious sign to me is ignoring all the psychological factors that come into play in competitive chess. It's easy to condemn a strong player when the computer finds better lines, but your goal is not to play perfect but to outplay your opponent, who is a human, like you. I welcome posts from everyone, I just wish all factors were taken into account, not just mathematical computer-like precision in moves.
|Apr-04-15|| ||Everett: <Fusilli> I agree that, if polled, most of the most critical kibitzers have not played OTB chess, and likely avoid such direct confrontation in other competitive endeavors. Thus they are here tapping away at the keys bad-mouthing those who are brave enough to put it on the line for all of us to see.|
|Apr-06-15|| ||kingscrusher: <fusilli> you are so right. Time pressure is so critical to blunders or comebacks. I managed to draw with GM Peter Wells last December after being two pawns down - he got into sone time pressure znd blundered a pawn back ...|
People need the real experience of OTB to have empathy ...
|Jul-31-15|| ||LionHeart40: This is an example of psychological capitulation. 22. Bf1 is the losing move, trying to redirect the light-squared bishop in a sharp positions. 22. Bh5, Ng2, and Qe3 are all fine. Passive pieces are the seeds of defeat.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·