|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1489 OF 1489 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Feb-02-10 |
| csmath: I am not Kramnik's fan obviously but one thing I shall always recognize with him. He has an excellent sense of position and even more for any danger. His evaluation abilities are quite accurate. Therefore I am quite sure that he knew the game with Carlsen was about survival, I am sure he realized how bad the position was out of opening. When he says "I am not sure what I would have played if Carlsen played this ..." is just phony. He had really nothing to play on Rd1. His position was on the verge of collapse. At that point he knew he had nothing to lose and that he had to engage himself in the tactical battle. From that point on he played excellent game.
His excitement comes out of few things - Carlsen defeated him in previous encounter, Carlsen was a tournament leader and was playing aggressive challenge with Kramnik, and Kasparov is somewhere behind. I am sure all of that makes Kramnik very happy about that win more so than any other win. On the level of preparations I do not think Kramnik is anywhere as prepared as he was in 2000. Of course he works a lot more than casual mortals but there are many players nowadays that work much harder than Kramnik. It shows in his tournament games, just like it did here in Corus. Kramnik will have more problems down the road. His many games with Topalov have shown that his tactical abilities in complex positions can be easily challenged and whoever wants to beat him has to play aggressive and complex tactical battle. Well, except Anand who is the pre-eminent theoretical player nowadays. Younger players like Nakamura, Carlsen, Caruana ... have little respect for defensive players these days so more challenges are coming. This Corus was the maximum result from the minimum effort for Kramnik. The two tactical battle he won against Nakamura and Carlsen will be reversed in the future, I expect that. This "maximum from minimum" principle is very usual for Kramnik's play throughout past 8-9 years and that is the reason why it is good that he is not champion any more. |
 |
| Feb-02-10 |
| vanytchouck: Here is a post wich was initially in the Anand's page. But as the data involve both Anand and Kramnik, i'm posting it here hoping that some might find it interesting (who knows?) : It's the head to head involving Anand and Kramnik when only the tournaments - where both have played in the same time - are taken into account. I.Linares : 7 tournaments.
- Kramnik was ahead of Anand 4 times (twice #1 and once winner in 2004). - Anand was ahead of Kramnik 2 times (once winner in 1998). - They were tied once.
II. Wijk Aan Zee: 10 tournaments.
- Anand was ahead of Kramnik 6 times (winner in 2003, 2004). - Kramnik was ahead of Anand twice (2007, 2010).
- They were tied co-winner once in 1998.
III. Dortmund : 8 tournaments.
- Kramnik was ahead of Anand 5 times (4 times winner in 1997, 1998, 2001 and 2007). - Anand was ahead of Kramnik twice (winner in 1996). - They were tied co-leader once in 2000 (Kramnik finally winner). The 2004 format was ko and the final was ... Anand vs Kramnik wich was won in the tie-break by Anand (no wins in the four classical games). IV. Other tournaments (open, interzonal, super tournaments): 15 tournaments. - Anand was ahead of Kramnik 9 times (winner 2 times & once co-leader). - Kramnik was ahead of Anand 4 times (winner once of Dos Hermanas 96 with Topalov). - They were tied 3 times (Anand winner of Dos Hermanas 97). V. In conclusion :
- Kramnik was ahead of Anand 15 times (6 tournaments won). - Anand was ahead of Kramnik 18 times (7 tournaments won). - They were tied 6 times (four times co-leader). |
|
| Feb-02-10 |
| polarmis: <He had really nothing to play on Rd1. His position was on the verge of collapse. At that point he knew he had nothing to lose and that he had to engage himself in the tactical battle.> At which point? If he'd seen how strong Rd1 was in advance he'd have switched to a passive defence - he had options. Then after Carlsen plays Bh3 Kramnik's position is fine again. There was no fight for survival or desperation (if anything he's trying to avoid giving Carlsen a perpetual). Kramnik chose a position with the white knight out of play on a4, strong pawns on the queenside and the bishop pair, at the expense of a weakened kingside - and then went on to exploit those advantages. It was logical chess, just with the one hole of allowing a very strong plan for white (as mentioned on another thread, Kramnik has a tendency to be a bit too optimistic at times). On the Kramnik Carlsen rivalry. Sure, it's become one of the great match ups in chess. They were the best players of last year and four of the games they've played recently - Kramnik's wins in Wijk & Dortmund, Carlsen's win in London and the draw in Moscow - have been among the best games of the year. Though I disagree if you're claiming Kramnik hasn't tried to win most of his games against other opponents as well. Frankly we have no idea how well prepared Kramnik and others are, or how hard they work, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions after one shaky tournament. In 2000 he managed to guess what Kasparov would do - against Leko & Anand it didn't work out too well - but it's perfectly possible he had more material prepared but didn't get to show it. As for the complex tactical battle comments - that's precisely where Kramnik's impressed in the last year. He's been regularly getting into tactical positions and shown that he's a match for anyone (as he was in his youth). Of course occasionally he'll miss something and lose (e.g. the Anand game), but if a weakness before playing Anand was that he wasn't in the habit of playing complex tactical positions then he's put that right for now. I don't know why you think younger players have no respect for Kramnik's style (Carlsen was an admirer, wasn't he? Giri just said he'd like to play like Kramnik). They can see he's not "defensive". He always plays to win with white and in the last year he's won with black in all the tournaments he's played (though the Petroff situation needs some thought!). The "maximum result for minimum effort" comments make no sense - I don't see anyone who put more effort into their play at Wijk. |
|
| Feb-02-10 |
| Mr. Bojangles: Good rebuttal Polarmis. |
|
| Feb-02-10 |
| yalie: nice video interview with Kramnik post Corus on chessbase (from Europe Echecs). Kramnik basically says he needs to work on his openings with both black and white. he says he got nothing out of white and was lost with black. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| polarmis: As mentioned by <percyblakeney> on the Corus thread, Kramnik comments on his openings at Chesspro. Apart from the general comments about getting nothing (or worse) from the openings he says: - But what happened against Anand?
- I was simply tired and mixed everything up. Of course I'd analysed it, but I mixed it up. - 19...Bf8 - the wrong square?
- No, before that. 17...Na5 is already a mistake. The position was practically resignable by move 20... It was a bit stupid, because I'd analysed it all but suddenly forgot. Usually my memory doesn't let me down. But in any case I'll have to work on my openings as the store of ideas I had after Bonn is beginning to dry up. Now I've got some time before any classical tournaments and I need to work out some fresh ideas. Because in chess today it's impossible to win such tournaments without some interesting opening ideas. Maybe you don't need to dominate in the opening, as Kasparov did in his time, but you can't be inferior. If you're inferior then you can get +2 to +3, but it's hard to win. - Magnus has a lot of ideas?
- He's got a flow of fresh ideas from Kasparov. He sprung an interesting idea on Dominguez, the game with Van Wely was almost decided in the opening. In terms of opening preparation Carlsen was superior to everyone here. - And his play?
- In terms of play two or three players are on the same level. As in London he was ahead of me by half a point. That's not domination, but little by little he's getting better at picking up the essential half points. But it's still not full domination. He's a dangerous opponent, but you can still compete with him. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| kackhander: polarmis: you are the best thing that ever happened to the kramnik page. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| CruyffTurn: <kackhander: polarmis: you are the best thing that ever happened to the kramnik page.> Word. Always good to read polarmis' posts. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| KKDEREK: Great posts <csmath> |
|
Feb-03-10
 |
| Hesam7: <polarmis: As mentioned by <percyblakeney> on the Corus thread, Kramnik comments on his openings at Chesspro.> Any reevaluation of the game with Carlsen? During the post game press conference he seemed very happy with the game calling it one of the best he has ever played. I am thinking his opinion has changed after a closer look with an engine. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| Mr. Bojangles: <I am thinking his opinion has changed after a closer look with an engine.> He was aware of this possibility when he caveated his statement with 'have to check it with computer analysis later'. He was caught up in the emotional euphoria of beating such a strong rival with black. I don't even believe that game is one of Kramnik's best ten games. There are over a dozen better and brutally efficient games he has played in his career. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| polarmis: <Hesam7>, he didn't add anything about the game with Carlsen, but I guess his general comments before the bits I quoted also include the opening of that game (after the opening I still think it was a great game!): "In principle [the tournament] ended up fine. But my openings went very badly here, I don't know why. With white I got nothing and with black I was worse in every game. Coming out of the opening like that it's very hard to try and win such a tournament. In contrast to Moscow and London, where my openings were more or less fine, here they were a complete failure. And I constantly "failed to predict moves" or developed pieces "to the wrong square", like today [against Karjakin]. In the second half of the tournament especially I barely raised my head with black. In the Petroff I was being pressed in every game... I won everything I could, collected the maximum possible points. Except, perhaps, in the game with Leko". http://chesspro.ru/_events/2010/wei... |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| Mr. Bojangles: <And I constantly "failed to predict moves" or developed pieces "to the wrong square" ...> Trait of out-of-form.
I remember in his previous press conferences he said something like "hope my energy keeps up at the end of the tournament" a few times. He just didn't have enough energy. |
|
| Feb-04-10 |
| polarmis: I must admit I thought he was out of form when he failed to beat Leko from a good position with a time advantage early on - but after that, as he said, he got almost the maximum he could out of the rest of the games given his opening problems. Which suggests his general form was pretty good. It was an odd tournament for him :) |
|
| Feb-04-10 |
| jussu: <Carlsen has not played a positional game> Umph?
<[Kramnik's] many games with Topalov have shown that his tactical abilities in complex positions can be easily challenged and whoever wants to beat him has to play aggressive and complex tactical battle.> His games with Topalov have shown that he is at least no inferior to Topalov in tactics. It was Anand who demonstrated that Kramnik can be beaten in this field. |
|
| Feb-04-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: In spite of what many seem to believe, IMO Kramnik might well be the strongest active player in tactics in the world today. In the 1990s, he was the only one with the tactical abilities to slug it out with Kasparov in hair-rising tactical games; and stand his ground. If he could do it to Kasparov, he could do it to any one. Sure, he would lose more games, but he would certainly win more. I think Kramnik should spice up his openings before the Candidates, experimenting with surprise openings and also with highly tactical play. When he has done so in the past few months, he has been pretty successful. Why not continue doing so? He should do so before the Candidates; experimenting during the Candidates itself could lead to a disaster. |
|
| Feb-04-10 |
| visayanbraindoctor: <Mr. Bojangles: There are over a dozen better and brutally efficient games he has played in his career.> Yes. Even Kramnik's Dortmund game with Carlsen himself was IMO more brutally efficient, a King hunt nearly ending in checkmate. For bravery and creativity though, the last Wijk game ranks near his best. In particular, these moves IMO required some imagination: 21... Nd7-e5
click for larger viewThis move is not so much an exchange sac, as Bxc8 is met by obvious play on the d3 and f3 squares (P-d3), than a pawn sac on h7 for tempi. In sharp tactical situations, tempi count for almost everything. 25... Rf8-h8
click for larger viewalso may have had a surprise effect. The not so obvious point is that Kramnik had decided that the best way to proceed is by opening the e-file for his Rook. Finally
29... c4
click for larger viewoffering the exchange came as such a shock to Carlsen that he literally used up most of his time to figure out, unsuccessfully, what to do. The principle that Kramnik was following is that in time-troubled tactical situations, it is best if you are the one with the initiative. Although certainly not his objectively best game, it was a magnificent struggle, wherein from an inferior position right out of the opening, Kramnik succeeded in imaginatively turning the tables around. I believe that almost any other player would have gone down in defeat before Carlsen, who is very proficient in exploiting the positional disadvantages of his opponents' positions. In this case, the f5 square and the b1-h7 diagonal are so weak that Kramnik would have a positionally lost game that could only be saved by energetic tactical play. Kramnik realized this and stood up to the challenge. Not many could have. |
|
Feb-04-10
 |
| Eyal: <In this case, the f5 square and the b1-h7 diagonal are so weak that Kramnik would have a positionally lost game that could only be saved by energetic tactical play. Kramnik realized this and stood up to the challenge.> Or one can put it in an almost opposite way… with 17…exd5, Carlsen was presented with a one-move golden opportunity to get a decisive advantage by 18.Rfd1! using the tactical factors of the weak f5 square and the b1-h7 diagonal (18…d4 19.Qf5! with threats of Nxd4-Be4 in various lines, and if Black can't play d4 and has to give up the pawn on d5, then his game obviously failed strategically). However, once Carlsen missed this opportunity, the long-term advantages of Black's position – strong bishop pair and mass of advanced central pawns, as well as the better coordination of his pieces, especially considering the white knight on a4 left out of the game – turned out to be decisive. On the other hand, the b1-h7 diagonal didn't really help Carlsen much once he constructed his queen-bishop battery the wrong way – in fact, the bishop's moves, taking on h7 and coming back, may have been a waste of time that actually helped Black. |
|
| Feb-08-10 |
| Saul.Richman: Whisper it quietly, I'm becoming a fan of the "boring" Kramnik. I never thought I'd say that!
It all started when I went to Bonn to watch the excellently organised Kramnik-Anand match. I was struck by Kramnik's dignity in defeat - the double-handed handshake, the genuine congratulatory smile to Anand and also by the way he conducted his press conferences there. Kramnik is a credit to his profession.
Recently, I had the pleasure of watching his win against Carlsen. I was pleased to see that in the post-mortem video, Kramnik freely admits that he didn't know what was going on at times! That made me laugh, it's good to know I wasn't alone. Kramnik doesn't have to worry about money again, he's had his 1st child and runs what seems to be a stable family life. Losing to Anand has freed up his game and I hope we see a lot more fighting games like we have in recent months. On top-form, he's a delight to watch.
Enjoy! |
|
| Feb-08-10 |
| rapidcitychess: Yay! Another blazing attacker sees the beauty of the draw. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1489 OF 1489 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
|
