< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Sep-26-17|| ||keypusher: <DanQuigley: I think Tarjan as he was coming up in the 1970s made a deep study of hypermodern chess. I doubt modern GMs, on the other hand, could define hypermodern, much less cite a hypermodern game. Their lack of chess erudition is surpassed only by their lack of knowledge of chess history. The Be1-Rc2-Qc1 maneuver employed by Tarjan was no doubt a complete non-sequitir to Kramnik, but would not have been to Reti or Nimzowitsch, or Keene or Douglas Root, to name another forgotten US player who knows hypermodern principles. Tarjan was smart to set out hypermoderning Kramnik.>|
You're wrong. It's not on his website any more, but Kramnik did a long interview with Barsky discussing the WCs and the development of chess since Steinitz. Kramnik is quite knowledgeable about chess history in general, hypermodernism included.
As Tarjan explained after the game, he had no strategic goal beyond survival. Quoting a chess.com article (link below), <Tarjan didn't offer many of his own ideas. He just kept saying that his goal was to avoid getting checkmated!> Strong players are used to seeing that kind of chess from their opponents. Kramnik blundered this time, that's all.
To my knowledge you're the first person to suggest that this game is some kind of strategic masterpiece, or has anything to do with superior erudition. I hope you are the last.
|Sep-27-17|| ||perfidious: <dicer the remora: Has Tarjan ever played Borislav Ivanov?>|
Have you ever made a comment which makes you appear half bright?
|Sep-27-17|| ||DanQuigley: Sometimes a fiction author writes a book that contains more meaning and is of greater depth than the author intended. It is often the reader/critic who comes along behind that shows appreciation and points out significances.|
I find Tarjan's hypermodern style of play breathtaking and inspiring and mentioned a specific sequence of particular aesthetic beauty. If you lack the chess understanding and artistic soul to appreciate beauty where it's to be found, that's a little bit sad, but not tragic.
I am not the only one to find Kramnik's lack of understanding of hypermodern principles surprising. Seirawan is too polite to say directly so, but if you listen carefully for the meaning behind his words, you'll hear the same thing in his analysis of Kramnik's handling of a Pirc Defense, another opening that requires an understanding of hypermodern principles, something Suttles too mastered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1g...
Now, so far keypusher, you have offered nothing but hot air, no moves, no analysis. If hot air is all you offer, you may have the last word.
|Sep-27-17|| ||Magpye: Really nice game by Tarjan.|
|Sep-27-17|| ||perfidious: Tarjan pulled off his finest imitation of Muhammad Ali performing the rope-a-dope.|
|Sep-27-17|| ||alfamikewhiskey: Carlsen maintains that he likes the "underdog story and everything", however, "[i]t was a one-move-blunder [from Kramnik, obviously 31...Nxg3], apart from that, Tarjan was completely outplayed"(!)|
Carlsen <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oZ...> @16:05
|Sep-27-17|| ||keypusher: <I find Tarjan's hypermodern style of play breathtaking and inspiring and mentioned a specific sequence of particular aesthetic beauty. If you lack the chess understanding and artistic soul to appreciate beauty where it's to be found, that's a little bit sad, but not tragic.>|
Sorry, <Pompous Ass> -- er, <Dan> -- but I think you know even less about hypermodernism than I do, to say nothing of what Kramnik knows. Generally it refers to undermining extended center pawns and/or controlling the center with pieces from a distance, viz. Nimzo-Salwe or Reti-Bogo. But Bc3-e1, which is one of those moves that sent you swirling into ecstasy, in fact attacks a5 from the back rank. It's extremely difficult to shoehorn that into any conception of hypermodernism (or <particular aesthetic beauty>).
Of course the move has nothing to do with attacking the center or the wing. What the bishop is really doing is guarding f2, and anyone who's cracked <My System> knows that massing pieces around your king is not what Nimzowitch meant by "overprotection".)
The other moves that tickled your coccyx were Rc2 and Qc1. But doubling heavy pieces on an open file isn't particularly hypermodern (or beautiful) either. Even if you put the queen behind the rook.
I don't know what Tarjan thinks, or what he's studied, but looking at his games, currently or back in his prime, he doesn't seem to have much use for hypermodern openings with white or black. The one time in this database that he began 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 he immediately followed up with e2-e3 and d2-d4. Reti would have vomited.
Tarjan vs H Bohm, 1979
His employment of a hypermodern system here appears to have been a <rope a dope> as he put it.
<Sometimes a fiction author writes a book that contains more meaning and is of greater depth than the author intended. It is often the reader/critic who comes along behind that shows appreciation and points out significances.>
God, I hope you didn't write that little piece of poo with a straight face.
Thanks for the link. But I'm not going to sit through an hour-long Yasser Seirawan video in the hopes that he'll provide you with an argument.
|Sep-27-17|| ||ACMEKINGKRUSHER: What can I add except...
JAMES TARJAN - The Great "OLD" Hope For ALL US OLD FARTS Everywhere!
ACME KING KRUSHER
|Sep-27-17|| ||perfidious: <keypusher....The other moves that tickled your coccyx were Rc2 and Qc1....>|
Sounds like a manoeuvre I would enjoy in certain circumstances--just not at the board.
|Sep-27-17|| ||Big Pawn: <Perfidious: Have you ever made a comment which makes you appear half bright?>|
As always, <perfidious> spreads his hate and mean-spiritedness around the whole website, apparently unable to offer any valuable contributions.
Stop the hate.
|Sep-28-17|| ||diagonal: Tarjan (<Elo 2412>) vs. Kramnik (<Elo 2803>) 1-0. Statistical rhubarb: This might be one of the first times or even the first time ever, that a '2800plus' player lost a game in <classical chess> against a '2400something' player. |
Well, there aren't that many players above the nominal 2800 Elo barrier, and these guys don't (like to) play that much versus opponents of 2400 Elo, otherwise..
|Sep-28-17|| ||anilrinsesmare: Haha yodaman J Tarjan!|
|Sep-28-17|| ||diceman: <perfidious: <dicer the remora: Has Tarjan ever played Borislav Ivanov?>|
Have you ever made a comment which makes you appear half bright?>
Whoa, card player rage!
I wonder how often perf's father beat him?
|Sep-29-17|| ||NBZ: Thanks <tamar>: that indeed looked like Kramnik's best shot (both at winning the game and at qualifying for the Candidates!).|
|Sep-29-17|| ||The Kings Domain: Fine upset. Nice to see the elderly player attain some fame and notice this late in his career.|
|Oct-03-17|| ||SeazerCZ: Game of one blunder. But yeah, must feel good for the old man|
|Oct-03-17|| ||RookFile: Good for Tarjan. It seems unbelievable that this game even happened. Of course Kramink would win 9 times out of 10 but Tarjan showed up, did his best, and was rewarded.|
|Oct-03-17|| ||Fusilli: <Clement Fraud: This game is remarkably similar to game 24 of Karpov & Kasparov's 1985 world championship>|
I think you (and others) are giving Tarjan way too much credit. His play was extremely passive and his position was way inferior when he got a gift from Kramnik. I don't buy that this was intentional psychological warfare or a "come get me" kind of dare/strategy. Facing Kramnik most of us would play unintentionally passive too. The truth is that Kramnik committed suicide and the guy across the board from him happened to be Tarjan. We all get lucky now and then.
|Oct-03-17|| ||drleper: <diceman: Has Tarjan ever played Borislav Ivanov? Tarjan vs. Cheat'a.>|
<perfidious: Have you ever made a comment which makes you appear half bright?>
Really? I thought that was a pretty decent pun :)
|Oct-03-17|| ||beatgiant: Tartan Army - Torpedo Vladimir.|
|Oct-06-17|| ||patzer2: While 31...Qxf1 32. Be2 Nxg6 33. Bxf1 Nxf1 34. Kg2 Rxe1 35. Qf4? R8e6! ∓ favors Black as indicated in <tamar>'s posted analysis above, substituting 35. Qb2 = (diagram below)|
click for larger view
appears to hold it level, as play (diagram above) might continue 35...R8e6 36.Rc1 Rg6+ 37.Kh1 Ng3+ 38.Kh2 Re2 39.Rc2 Nf1+ 40.Kh1 Re1 41.Rc1 Ng3+ 42.Kh2 Nf1+ 43.Kh1 Ng3+ 44.Kh2 Nf1+ 45.Kh1 Ng3+ = (0.00 @ 48 depth, Stockfish 8) with a draw by repetition.
|Oct-06-17|| ||patzer2: Since the best Black can get with 30...Bf3!? = is difficult equality, the second player probably needs to look for something better.|
The quiet move 30...b6 ∓ (-0.83 @ 31 depth, Stockfish 8) is one possibility.
Also good for Black might be disturbing White's cramped position with 30...Be2 31. Rg1 Rf6 ∓ (-0.79 @ 34 depth, Stockfish 8.)
|Oct-08-17|| ||cormier: Houdini
-0.82 22. ... Rc6 23. Rxc6 bxc6 24. a4 Nc7 25. Ng1 Nc5 26. Bc3 Rb8 27. Nd2 Nb7 28. Kh1 f6 29. Qc2
-0.43 22. ... Nc7 23. Kg1 Rc6 24. Nd4 Rxc1 25. Qxc1
depth: 12 ply
|Oct-11-17|| ||ex0duz: People are talking like the result of this game happened due to one move blunder by Kramnik.. but wasn't it at least two?|
First is the whole 30.Bf3 idea which was misguided and gave up his initial advantage, after which stockfish gives 0.00 equal position after that.
But then Kramnik plays the 'game losing' 31.Nxg3 and doubles down on the initial idea, which imo counts as another separate move and thus another separate error, after which stockfish gives +2.53(!)
In terms of the psychology behind it, is this a case of being too wrapped up in his initial idea and refusing to admit that he was wrong and he didn't calculate thoroughly and just played by 'instinct'? Or was it *GASP*, him calculating wrong or coming to an incorrect assessment of the resulting position after the 31...Qxf1 32.Be2 Nxg3 33.Bxf1 Nxf1+ line?
So to the kibitzers trying to downplay Tarjans win, there's no need for that. Of course we know Kramnik is the superior player and would win 99/100 games(or whatever the odds are).
Tarjan chose this specific opening/strategy, played well and intentionally gave opportunities for Kramnik to overextend, and then when Kramnik did overextend/blunder, he punished it and continued to play well until the end.. didn't seem like Tarjan played any real mistakes/errors, while Kramnik made at least 2, the second of which was a game losing one(ie 31.Nxg3, since after 30.Bf3 it was still considered as dead equal by stockfish).
Well deserved win Mr Librarian, and interesting game. Gives patzers like myself hope and inspiration for any future games i may play against much stronger opposition.
|Oct-11-17|| ||ex0duz: Sorry for double post but continuing on with the psychological part of it..|
I think 'disrespect' and/or 'underestimation' plays a big part in it. IMO if Kramnik was playing vs 2600+ or someone younger, i don't think he would of played 30.Bf3 or even 31.Nxg3 since he would have assessed the resulting position as worse than if he had just took the rook to begin with.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·