< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
|Nov-24-18|| ||Richard Taylor: <Count Wedgemore: I find Caruana to be much more good-looking than Hillary. And I don't even swing that way.> |
Do you think Caruana might be Putin? I believe he was once a secret agent and he secretly practices karate and necromancy. I don't know what necromancy is but I was told he is involved in it. Hilary is actually Bin Laden. She was the actor they used for Bin Laden appearances in the innocent pre-Trump days...I wont swing on about Obama. All these things should be clear to anyone. Nor are we watching a chess match. Dont be fooled like those suckers who believe the world is round and so on. No we are not watching the Chess Champs. It is actually the world Cheese* Making Championships...
Now I have gotten this far in this hear ol' rant a mine I forgotted what I was sayin' or why. Who am I? What am I? Where are we'all goin'?
*That it is cheese is what has made everyone confused.
|Nov-24-18|| ||Pedro Fernandez: <<Richard Taylor>: <Count Wedgemore: I find Caruana to be much more good-looking than Hillary. And I don't even swing that way.> Do you think Caruana might be Putin? I believe he was once a secret agent and he secretly practices karate and necromancy. I don't know what necromancy is but I was told he is involved in it. Hilary is actually Bin Laden. She was the actor they used for Bin …> |
<That it is incredible!> But I'm not an Anglo-Saxon guy. What a humor!
|Nov-24-18|| ||Pedro Fernandez: Hey <Sargon>, nice to know you! Did you know that MLB rules have not time (better said: innings) to finish a game? Apparently the Commissioner's Office is thinking to put a player on 2B without out in extra-innings, what a "locura" (IMO). What do you think? Greetings.|
|Nov-24-18|| ||whiteshark: Game analysis by GM Niclas Huschenbeth : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLI... (~ 11m:30s)|
"most effortless draw of the match"
|Nov-24-18|| ||That Roger: <Pedro>
<thinking to put a player on 2B without out in extra-innings>
Terrible idea, disgusting thought. Extra inning games are rare (making them not a regular problem with 'pace of play') and when they do occur they are treats and special.
|Nov-24-18|| ||Christoforus Polacco: Very boring game.|
|Nov-24-18|| ||dadrefump: OK, I'm convinced, both sides are expert at e4 openings, it's a shame neither showed more of an adventuresome spirit with their openings. Blitz tiebreaker is a joke. If Caruana can't figure a way to win one game, then he doesn't deserve to be champion.|
|Nov-24-18|| ||Pedro Fernandez: My dear <That Roger>, I appreciate your reply, thanks. We hope never will happen. Look at e.g. Soccer (Football, Calcio), the Universal Game. You will see a classic time, a rapid one, and an Armageddon (that this game is a team game, it is totally immaterial in this question). However I agree that in chess this question is more serious. A solution in chess to this issue it is not so easy. <AylerKupp> has what it seems a good idea, but apparently it is a bit technical and hard that FIDE implement that good (IMO) idea. Gretings!|
|Nov-24-18|| ||optimal play: Queens exchanged at move 13
By move 26 the only remaining pieces are opposite-coloured bishops.
Even with six pawns each it's obviously a draw but I guess they considered 26 moves is too short, so to give the public their monies worth they played on for another 30 odd moves.
|Nov-24-18|| ||Penguincw: Video analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouI....|
|Nov-24-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: Yet another bishops of opposite color ending. Very unusual to see that in a WC match.|
|Nov-24-18|| ||Everett: Who is on Carlsen’s team for preparation?|
|Nov-24-18|| ||drleper: <Sargon: <RookFile: Once upon a time guys like Tal or Fischer played right into their opponents prep and won the game anyway. Today's players go running to Momma as soon as somebody makes a new move.>|
Regarding willingness to walk into preparation, I think computers are pretty clearly the difference across the eras rather than plummeting levels of machismo ;). If you run into unfamiliar preparation these days you're most likely going to be playing against AlphaFish by proxy. Ok, maybe the engine in flesh form can't remember it all exactly, but it's a lot easier to play when you know for sure there's going to be an advantage (especially if there's a very narrow path that the opponent has to follow).
Kind of like how Caruana described missing the winning 68...Bh4!! in game 6—he thought that he could have found the move if he knew that there was something there (basically as a puzzle position), but he believed in the fortress so didn't expend that much energy on it. But even without recalling all preparation, knowing with certainty where to place effort and what the possibilities are must be enormously helpful for strong players, and I don't think we should fault players for attempting to avoid very high level preparation.
|Nov-24-18|| ||breakbad: Must be part of Carlsen's and Caruana's middlegame strategy to have opposite color bishops as soon as possible.|
|Nov-25-18|| ||moronovich: <breakbad: Must be part of Carlsen's and Caruana's middlegame strategy to have opposite color bishops as soon as possible.>|
And even before the first move is made,they have bishops of opposite colors.
|Nov-25-18|| ||Christoforus Polacco: It's good no to pay money for such game as number 11. Petr Swidler's first version of post game analysis was short : 'Game 11 was drawn. Thank U. Bye' :)|
|Nov-25-18|| ||tipareth: Did anyone else think if carlsen wanted to win this sacrificing the rook for caruana's white bishop around move 15 was a legit choice. If it's terrible discuss why. Either way his decision to immediately exchange for caruana's terrible bishop was pretty lame|
|Nov-25-18|| ||Count Wedgemore: <tipareth: Did anyone else think if carlsen wanted to win this sacrificing the rook for caruana's white bishop around move 15 was a legit choice. If it's terrible discuss why.>|
You know, when I watched the game live, my first thought after 17...Rxe7 was: is it possible to sac the exchange here with 18.Rxe6, I wonder? After all, when in possession of the bishop pair, it's sometimes a real possibility. Here White would have B+B vs R+N, so it's worth a consideration!
But it turns out that in this particular position, it doesn't work..at all! In fact, it's more or less losing on the spot. The reason is that after something like: 18.Rxe6 Rxe6 19.f3 Nf2, Black will force White to surrender the bishop pair by exchanging his knight for White's light-squared bishop (there is no way to prevent the knight from getting to f2: playing 19.Rf1 only leads to 19...Nxh2 and is even worse). and after that White may just as well resign.
But I had the same idea, <tipareth>!
|Nov-25-18|| ||Richard Taylor: The sacrifice on e6 is an interesting idea but there is not enough compensation.|
<Sargon: <RookFile: <Once upon a time guys like Tal or Fischer played right into their opponents prep and won the game anyway. Today's players go running to Momma as soon as somebody makes a new move.>
This is a fallacy. Tal once had this against Larsen.
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 dxe5 5. Nxe5 and now Larsen played Nd7 which was his new move. Tal thought for a long time and then played another move than the "Tal-like" Nxf7 which is pretty standard.
In my own games no one has played Nd7 much as I yearn for it to be played!
The reason I think was psychological. Tal knew it was preparation. He feared though that if he played the expected move he would be "cooperating" with Larsen (his Nd7 is just playable and typically dubious move by Larsen). In any case he refused the opportunity to be Tal-like. Good psychology by Larsen (who seemed almost the only fearless player to get to that level in relatively recent times).
But Fischer avoided prepared lines or he was confident of his own preparation in the same line. His knowledge of chess was due to intense study of all aspects of chess, particularly the endgame, and of course the opening.
But his 1 c4 against Spassky was to avoid prep and in fact in his "own opening" the Poisoned Pawn var of the Najdorf he lost. (I think they had two Najdorfs and maybe one was a draw. There was at least on Alekhine's Defence by Fischer).
But he won with c4 both times. One game went into Spassky's territory but the latter missed a strong continuation in that Tartakower Def game which did become a great game by Fischer. In fact the prepartion that he knew he didn't follow in the game.
But the player who did go into preparation was Kasparov against Dorfman and one other in a tournament when he played the Black side of the Botvinnik var of the Slav (the very complex one). He even told his opponent that he would definitely repeat the whole line again. They prepared against him but he still won going into the exact line.
But in those days, c. the mid 70s, he was young and hungry.
To make the kind of gains Tal and others made (and even Botvinnik who beat Tal in their next match with his improved approach to the game and good openings, so that Tal praised him saying that he "played like a young man": even Botters had to avoid to obvious prep or find new moves in lines): to play into positions he wanted he had to combine intuition with preparation.
Nowadays it is not only computer preparation it is that for example Caruana has to play openings he feels good playing and he has done well so far.
But I always hope for something "crazy" which avoids preparation. But Carlsen seems to be able to handle almost any opening.
Carlsen tries a few new things but he seems in this match to be coasting a bit and taking his chances in the shoot outs. But both players are of near equal strength. There is always an element of luck also. Kasparov once joked that luck is an essential part of a chess player's repertoire. He was only partly joking.
Anything can happen in chess: we might see something "crazy" tomorrow but it seems unlikely.
Karjakin, going into the shootouts made the mistake of preparing as in the main match. Carlsen played soccer etc and was more alert in those Rapids etc. Karjakin realized his mistake and conceded this after the end of the match.
But nerves do it. But for him to tire himself preparing was a fatal mistake. He needed to be fresh and alert. The key thing is tactical alertness in those games.
I have spoken.
|Nov-25-18|| ||Richard Taylor: < Penguincw: Video analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouI....>|
A good video. The ending was more tricky than I thought. I saw the last trap of course.
But the course of the game was well presented.
|Nov-25-18|| ||drleper: <The reason I think was psychological. Tal knew it was preparation. He feared though that if he played the expected move he would be "cooperating" with Larsen (his Nd7 is just playable and typically dubious move by Larsen). In any case he refused the opportunity to be Tal-like.>|
It's interesting because Larsen's 5...Nd7 was obviously provoking Tal to take on f7, thereby implying that Larsen had found defences beforehand. I think the effect on Tal then was to significantly raise the evidence threshold for the sacrifice's acceptability (and being pre-computers it was still wholly human work that one was trusting/distrusting). I remember reading in Attack With Mikhail Tal that he thought for nearly an hour before finally rejecting it. Here's one of the quotes from Mark Weeks' website: https://mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa0...
<In the fourth game Larsen had defended with Alekhine's Defense, 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 dxe5 5.Nxe5, and then played the unusual 5...Nd7. Tal spent 50 minutes calculating 6.Nxf7, but played 6.Bc4 instead. He wrote, 'I rejected the sacrifice after prolonged thought, and this was a psychological blunder, for even after I had gained the advantage, my thoughts kept returning to the position.' Suddenly he decided that he had overlooked a line where 'White in fact gains a decisive advantage. This I could not endure, and I played the second part of the game aimlessly, which led after 40 moves to a lost ending.'>
I guess he escaped the lost ending though since the game was drawn after nearly 80 moves.
|Nov-25-18|| ||nok: <I have spoken.> A lot.|
|Nov-28-18|| ||Diademas: In the press conference Carlsen referred to the game Ljubojevic vs Karpov, 1975 , where Karpov pushed on and eventually won a similar endgame, as "a game every chessplayer knows."|
If you didn't, you can take comfort in the fact that on Chess24 Svidler, Giri and Grischuk all confessed to not knowing the game
|Nov-28-18|| ||perfidious: <Diademas>, that is an ending I well remember, as it was analysed in depth by Edmar Mednis in <Chess Life & Review> in 1975. Typical Karpovian persistence.|
|Mar-30-19|| ||joddon: Fischer vs Spassky......looks like those Bishops can get trapped easily.....makes me remember when Fischer took that pawn and realised he blundered after.....im sure they were both remembering that game and the move while they were playing the game ……..LOL|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·