|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-28-09 | | ajile: Thanks GM Nickel for a fun game. I was a bit surprised that you didn't play more agressively for a win in the early middlegame. Many of us were afraid of lines where you would play g4 and try to open up our k-side. After you played h3 I think many of us realized you were playing for the super solid position with draw in hand. Of course waiting for us to over extend or get impatient and make a suboptimal move. So after our slightly suspect opening you gained a positional advantage but didn't really do anything to increase it. This allowed us to catch up in development and equalize the position. |
|
| Feb-28-09 | | whiteshark: I liked our decision <10...h5!> the most. Thus <!>. Until the end of the game White wasn't able to advance his kingside pawns. It simply oppressed the typcal pawn storm in the English attack. As a consequence our kingside development was (good/effective but) quite unusual for one or two. I thought during the game that White's ♗+♘ never managed it to find 'strong squares' for them. |
|
| Feb-28-09 | | Dionyseus: <Arno Nickel> Thanks for the game. I see that you've been reading the comments starting from the end of the game. I'd suggest you start reading the comments from the start of the game, many people became angry at the choices the team made in the opening, and as a result some of the top contributers left the game before the middlegame even started. |
|
| Feb-28-09 | | YouRang: <GM Nickel> I can only imagine how amusing it must be to see our forum after the game, and read how some people speculate about what you are thinking, what your psychological state is, etc, etc... :-D As <hms123> pointed out, we have wide ranging cast of characters on the team, varying from strong CC players to trolls. Please ignore the trolls. :-) |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | lost in space: Thanks GM Arno Nickel for your first comments.
What I learned is that we as a team have to work also on our style of posting. |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | kirchhoff: <GM Nickel>: Being a part of this game was a wonderful experience. I really appreciate being part of a game with such in depth analysis and believe that I learned from the process. Thank you for allowing this game to occur. Kind regards. |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | zanshin: Thank you once again for the game, as well as the comments. The Team will have to remember that of all the GMs, you actually bother to read our posts ;-) As the others have said, there will unfortunately be a few that are not as polite as they should be. When you have a team of about 2,000, you get all sorts of people. |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | pacorrum: <GM Nickel>, regarding what you may consider offensive posts, and aside of the presence of trolls or plainly unpolite people, you have also to consider this: as a collective brain, we cant afford the luxus of being diplomatic all the time, if it is at the expense of communication clarity. What you are reading now are kind of private thoughts of the collective and should be taken with a grain of salt. Surely you have mused, during the game, things like "what a crap of move they've made" or "what a group of patzers", but your thoughts were not being recorded for later, like ours. |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | Arno Nickel: # 03.
Don't get me wrong! I don't mind the style of some users. Such is quite normal in a big community, and I think, I can bear a lot. In general, users on Chessgames.com are very friendly and cultured. What I am talking about, is the lack of "analysis". From my view it looks like many of the active team members accepted central statements just because these were repeated again and again. At least I could not find any analytical proof. Of course, I also also found many interesting thoughts and clever insights. But that's another story.
I am waiting for your* concrete analysis, where I definetly went wrong and should have chosen a different strategy or tactics, before I will be going to provide my own analysis and comments.
Arno
*your = to whom it may concern |
|
| Mar-01-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Essentially, the world team figures that RandomVisitor's analysis is golden. It has worked very well so far. What happens is that when we go to vote for a move, he usually has analysis at his forum from his powerful computers, showing something like 100 hours of analysis that says XX is the best move. Many people don't comment in the forums, but just vote, and his analysis at his forum carries a great weight. Over time, he deletes old analysis and replaces it with current analysis. It is this necessary deletion of old analysis on his part that may give a misleading impression after the game regarding just how valuable his contribution is. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | kb2ct: Arno,
You do know that white was not without chances in the pawn race. Black could not use the g-pawn as a shield like some chess engine like. :0)
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 a6 8. O-O-O Bd7 9. f3 Be7 10. Be3 h5 11. Kb1 Qc7 12. Nxc6 Bxc6 13. Bd3 b5 14. Ne2 Rc8 15. Nd4 Nd7 16. h3 Bb7 17. Bg5 Bxg5 18. Qxg5 Kf8 19. c3 h4 20. Rhe1 Rh6 21. Bc2 Qb6 22. Re2 Nf6 23. Bb3 Qc5 24. Qe3 Re8 25. Red2 Rh5 26. Bc2 g6 27. Qe1 Qc7 28. Ne2 d5 29. exd5 Nxd5 30. Be4 Kg7 31. Qf2 Qe7 32. Nd4 Nf6 33. Bxb7 Qxb7 34. Nc2 Qc7 35. Ne3 Qg3 36. Qg1 Rg5 37. a3 a5 38. Qf1 Re5 39. Rd3 Qf4 40. Re1 Nd5 41. Nxd5 exd5 42. Rxe5 Qxe5 43. Rd4 Qe1+ 44. Qxe1 Rxe1+ 45. Ka2 Re2 46. Rxh4 Rxg2 47. Rd4 Rg3 48. Rxd5 Rxf3 49. Rxb5 Rxh3 50. Rxa5 f5 51. b4 f4 52. Ra7+ Kf6 53. Ra6+ Kg5 54. Ra8 Kg4 55. Rf8 f3 56. a4 Kg3 57. b5 f2 58. Kb3 Kg2 ?59. Rxf2+ Kxf2 60. a5 Rh8 61. b6 g5 62. a6 g4 63. a7 g3 64. b7 g2 65. a8=Q g1=Q 66. Qxh8 Qb1+ 67. Ka3 Qc1+ 68. Kb4 1-0 |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | YouRang: <What I am talking about, is the lack of "analysis". From my view it looks like many of the active team members accepted central statements just because these were repeated again and again. At least I could not find any analytical proof.> A few points:
As you might imagine with team chess, coming up with analysis is only half the job. The other half probably resembles politics more than anything else. Most of the voters aren't great players, so they vote for the move that gets the best marketing effort: exposure (i.e. repetition), endorsents from key analysts, and favorable statistics (i.e. computer evaluations). Most of our "analysis" is produced by sliding and backsliding our computers along various lines, occasionally injecting our own ideas to see how they pan out. These lines might be posted in the main forum, where you are reading, or they might be in one of the other "work" forums (hosted by individual users). Sadly, we typically don't do a good job of understanding and explaining the ideas behind a move, IMO. Rybka is a main influence on our move choices, although not just the deep-ply evaluations. The deep ply evaluations are used mainly as: (1) a starting point for the sliding analysis, and (2) a predictor of what our GM opponent will play. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | DaringSpeculator: Thank you for a well played game. Your comments are much appreciated. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | classF: <GM Nickel: I could not find any analytical proof> you're right, people on the team say many things without objective analysis. Rest assured that no one showed any winning line that you missed. Even chesscard, who usually talks trash about you, said you didn't make any mistake. Of course, most team members, like me, aren't even remotely qualified to say. RandomVisitor posted a very deep Rybka analysis giving the line: 23.Qe3 Kg8 24.f4 Rh5 25.g4 hxg3 26.e5 dxe5 27.fxe5 Ne8 28.Qxg3 b4 29.cxb4 Qxb4 I have no idea if 23.Qe3 is really any better than 23.Bb3, but RandomVisitor's forum probably has a higher concentration of concrete lines than the main forum. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | zanshin: <Over time, he deletes old analysis and replaces it with current analysis.> This is true, but <RV> does dump his outgoing header into his forum so that it is preserved. <GM Nickel> I doubt you will find the type of analysis or lines that you are looking for. I know that <kb2ct> is planning to write a detailed analysis of the game and that <chesscard> wrote an interesting synopsis: A Nickel vs The World, 2008 But as many have lamented, the Team tends think and move 1 ply level at a time. I'm afraid that we did not have much of the human analysis that was key in the other games. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | whatthefat: <Arno Nickel>
Having now taken part in a few of the Team vs. Team correspondence games, I can sympathize with your post-game feelings on reading the opponent's analysis. Even knowing that the forum will later be made public, some people tend to blurt out things that are simply impolite to the opponent. I think it is best to simply accept that such people will always be part of the game, and it's not something worth taking to heart, since the great majority of players have enormous respect for the opponent. In terms of seeing how the Team works, I would echo <Dionyseus>'s sentiment that earlier in the game may be more representative. Without taking anything away from those who kept working to the bitter end, the analysis seemed to be running almost on auto-pilot for the last few moves, with enough strong analysts present to keep the fires burning, but many of the normal mechanics (such as the forum system) shut down. <AnalyzeThis: Many people don't comment in the forums, but just vote, and his analysis at his forum carries a great weight. Over time, he deletes old analysis and replaces it with current analysis. It is this necessary deletion of old analysis on his part that may give a misleading impression after the game regarding just how valuable his contribution is.> In this game, <RandomVisitor> reposted the analysis for each move in his actual forum, so <Arno>, you might be interested in browsing through his forum too. It's quite an interesting resource, and as always, it played an important role in shaping the team's sliding forward analysis: User: RandomVisitor. Analysis of the game with you starts around page 150. |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | WhiteRook48: what surprises me is how the Nickel-World 2008 game got into "notable games" when it's only in 4 collections |
|
| Mar-02-09 | | nonhero: i'm a completely novice player and i didn't add much to the game except some votes here and there, but i'm glad to have been a part of a match against a grandmaster. thank you. |
|
| Mar-03-09 | | tweet77: I've read Arno's reaction to reading the kibitzing about the recent game. It seems to me that he is not complaining that team members were impolite or unthinking, or did not know (or care!) that their comments would later become public knowledge. Rather, he is surprised at the number of unsupported assertions and comments with no basis in analysis. When a team member offers comments without evidence, they quite often do so under the guise of not following the crowd, or not playing the book move, or they claim that they are thinking positionally or strategically. The idea that such comments can be made without any analysis to justify them is...well...wrong. I think that is the point Arno is putting forward. As a tangent, we should ask ourselves how many team members *do* decide on which move to vote for. A user may not see the game page every day and has to run through some of the posts, check on Random Visitor's page for the latest Rybka news and maybe read the latest forum comments. How much time do they actually spend crunching and understanding hard analysis? And how much time so they spend critically evaluating some of the 'marketing' spiel on the main page? I think for the average team member, the answer is 'not a lot'. This is not a criticism of any individual so please don't think I am picking on anyone or being overly negative. I am just offering up some observations on the way our team games have been played. Finally, thank you to Arno Nickel for a fine games and to everyone who participated in the Chessgames Challenge for another excellent result. |
|
Mar-03-09
 | | Tabanus: Hi GM Nickel,
I'm a poor player but a decent engine operator who has followed the game on a daily basis. 26...g6! was first suggested by <kb2ct> on page 706. The move was followed up by <YouRang> and <Tabanus> on page 707, and then it quickly caught interest. (The move was missed by 29-ply Rybka 3 grinding on 25.?.) The analysis continued in good mood until page 710 where <imag> asks <How about <25.Bc2 Nh5 26.Red2 Ng3 27.Bb3>> Eventually (interrupted by some g4 worries produced by Fritz) on page 712 it dawned on some of us that <A. 25.Red2 Rh5 26.Bc2 Qc7 27.Re2 Qc5 28.Qd2 Qc7 B. 25.Bc2 Rh5 26.Qd2 Qc7
same position!
In A we have 26...g6! but in B we reach the position we worried about before g6 was found.> Page 714: <imag: I expect 25.Bc2 and +0.5 scores soon.> The unnatural 25.Bc2 is hard to find. I think that after 25.Red2 was played, a "cult" developed where a few players said that you was predictable, as opposed to us the geniuses who had outplayed Rybka by 25.Red2 Rh5 26.Bc2 <g6> I don't agree, but regards 26...g6 as a turning point. My 2 cents. This is not an analysis but an attempt to summarize what happened during our collective brainstormimg (engine storming). There is hardly any definite analysis of a specific position to be found anywhere, but summarizing posts can be found here and there. |
|
Mar-03-09
| | Tabanus: In short, we are a monster :) |
|
| Mar-03-09 | | chesscard: 1)I would like to congratulate GMAN for his outstanding result in the Simon Webb Memorial! Even though I criticize his play in previous tournaments (too many draws/ not taking enough risks/ too much computer influence etc), this result is at a very high level, and deserves significant respect. 2)Also, the time he devoted for these matches against you is very considerable. Only a person very devoted to chess would sacrifice so much of his free time for this. |
|
| Mar-10-09 | | Arno Nickel: # 04a.
Thanks all for your comments. I am very busy these days organizing the removal of my office to another nice place in Berlin. That’s why I don’t find much time to come here, may be only once a week. But, of course, I am still very interested in the analysis of our memorable game. Some of you wondered, what I meant by “analytical proof”. Well, of course, I did not think of a scientific survey, but at least some instructive lines and arguments, as it is a good tradition in chess magazines and for example in the Chess Informator. Sorry, for repeating, but that’s what I am still missing, given some harsh critics White had spoiled a clear advantage... Talking about “advantage”. – Everybody knows from chess books and from engine play the three stages or categories of advantage: slight, clear and decisive advantage, whereas in practice often it’s not so easy to determine how big (or small) an advantage really is. Practically speaking, the question always is how to increase or (from the defender’s point of view) how to decrease the advantage. So, basically, exact determinations for advantages or disadvantages can only be given according to lines, which realistically show how the advantage will be developing within the next moves. In our game, I suggest (according to this simplified classification) that after 10…h5 (Leko – Morosevich, 2007) and two moves later after the improvement 12…Bxc6!, White enjoys a slight positional advantage:
- better development (rooks connected, safe king),
- more space in the centre (e4-pawn),
- pressure in the d-file
- weakened Black pawn structure at the kingside
But Black also enjoys positive aspects of his position:
- solid pawn structure in the centre: d6/e6, with dynamic options
- active play at the queenside, where White’s king is.
Both sides arranged their minor pieces quite solid according to the pawn structure. |
|
| Mar-10-09 | | Arno Nickel: # 04b.
The most interesting point in my view is the h5-pawn, which is an advanced defender on the kingside with the paradoxical effect that Black’s king cannot castle as easy as in other openings. In the stem game this pawn went to h4 and later on got lost, whereas White won the game by promoting his h-pawn.Now, the main question for White was, how could he increase his ‘slight’ advantage to a ‘clear’ advantage? Extending a slight advantage to a clear advantage (with the potential of a decisive advantage) is the most difficult thing in chess and, in particular, in correspondence chess. In over-the-board chess there are many sources of influence, usually both sides will commit errors, but the psychological pressure on the defender is often so strong that he will blunder first. In computer assisted correspondence chess play generally is much more precise. So, the side with the increasing advantage will not be satisfied with a ‘clear’ advantage, but also ask, whether this can be transformed to a win. Here the answer will – quite surprisingly – often be “no”. You may be a pawn up and also enjoy a positional advantage, but an accurate endgame analysis will drive you mad – your opponent’s ressources are richer as could be expected. (This is one of the reasons, why the rate of draws in correspondence chess is steadily increasing, despite temporarily exceptions from time to time.)
A good correspondence chess player often smells this type of crisis long before. He will abstain from any obvious plan, which leads to a pleasant, but not decisive advantage. So what will he do instead? There is no ‘panacea’ for this, but one logical method is to complicate things, either in a tactical way (see e.g. Alekhine’s or Kasparov’s games) or in a positional way (see e.g. Rubinstein’s or Karpov’s games), and if he is very lucky, he might find a possibility to combine elements of both to a deadly cocktail for his opponent. |
|
| Mar-10-09 | | Arno Nickel: # 04c.
Looking back, the position after 12…Bxc6 reminds me of such a devlish situation. All direct attacks by White’s pieces or pawns (g2-g4, f2-f4-f5, c2-c4, a2-a4) will be parried by Black. It looks like White needs a comprehensive positional plan with play all over the board. Neither side can concentrate only to one focus. The battle can be starting at any place, and the main point will not be a knockout in the first round, but simply a try to seize the initiative – easier said than done.
The most direct way of a piece attack for White would be 13.Bf4, may be followed by Qd2-f2-g3, but then the queen would get in the way of the g2-pawn, giving Black time for a counter attack, and he may even think of castling kingside. For this reason I preferred to continue with the development: 13.Bd3, which was followed by further natural moves: 13…b5 14.Ne2 Rc8.
Now 15.Bg5 was positionally very interesting, as it seems to prevent any freeing manoeuvres combined with Nd7, and Black seems to suffer from an unpleasant pin. But, if I remember right, here I found the tactical blow 15…d5 16.e5 Ne4!, and White would not achieve that much after 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Nd4 Bd5; slightly better may be 17.fxe4!? dxe4 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Bxb5 axb5 20.Nd4 0-0 21.Rhe1, but my impression in a short ad hoc analysis was, Black would achieve sufficient counterplay.
Instead, 15.Nd4 means a strong centralisation of the knight, while it also prevents d6-d5.
Okay, so much for today. Next time I will tell you, why I played 16.h3 after 15…Nd7!?. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
