< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 142 OF 142 ·
|Feb-27-14|| ||DcGentle: <morfishine>:
In Bronstein vs Tal, 1968 the move <15. g3> maybe justifiably was criticized, because after <20... Bxb5 21. Bxb5 Rhd8 22. b3 Rab8 23. Bd3 Rf8 24. f5 Rf7 25. Bb2 Rb4> Tal could have saved a draw, as it seems.
click for larger view
Tal for sure didn't maneuver much in this game, and it's doubtful whether he wanted Bronstein to trade the queens so early.
|Feb-27-14|| ||morfishine: <Dcgentle> Thanx 4 looking! I only posted it because I was in a rush this morning and wanted to check it out later|
|Mar-01-14|| ||cro777: Jacob Aagaard on how to think about chess:
"During the last years I have been convinced that chess is built on dynamic rules, in the same way as physics and biology. I believe that most tournament games are not won by superior calculation, but rather due to superior understanding of the very basics of the game (most games are decided on a superiority in the understanding of positional play)."
|Mar-01-14|| ||cro777: Garvin, talking about correspondence, and generally computer assisted, chess (at FICGS):|
"I feel that the quality of engines improved enough so that the brain can take fully part of the game - less time to navigate into the game, more to understand the position."
|Mar-01-14|| ||morfishine: <cro777> Understanding the position is exactly what I am focusing on now. Improving the position is something I'm also studying (ie: Openings)|
|Mar-01-14|| ||DcGentle: <cro777> <morfishine>: Yes, understanding positional play is the key to chess, no question about it. Tactics is only secondary, but unfortunately in engine play it takes the highest priority. Any engine which could set priorities right here, would be more successful, I am sure.|
But just now I have issues to get positional play fully integrated into my algorithm. It's no easy task.
By the way, here (AylerKupp chessforum) I wrote a lengthy article about positional and tactical play.
|Mar-01-14|| ||morfishine: <DcGentle> BTW: With much interest, I read your comments over at the WC 2014 candidates forum. I'm thinking that some people are having a hard time understanding what you are driving at, and with reason. I don't pretend to fully understand. Its easy to fall into the "tactics mindset" thinking "Well if better positional play results in winning tactics, why not winning tactics all along?". I'm starting to think that what Carlsen is doing is creating such a "positional clamp", so to speak, that all the tactics are in the end, in his favor.|
But all roads lead to somewhere, and now I'm back at the crossroads of thinking that Carlsen is the superior tactician, even better than Aronian or Topalov. What this means is Carlsen's positional play dictates matters to the point that he controls and keeps in hand winning tactics; which are hardly ever played, but thats fine for the player being subject to them, who can hardly be blamed for not wanting these to be shown or played
|Mar-01-14|| ||DcGentle: <<morfishine>:
Well if better positional play results in winning tactics, why not winning tactics all along?>|
Carlsen has clearly stated that he finds tactics "boring". How is this possible? Everyone enjoys a tactical combination in chess, only the world champion doesn't?
Strange, but it must be the result of playing against computers too often.
(And maybe even losing to them, but who doesn't?)
You are right, better positional play results in winning tactics, and I am not making this up, I faced at least 2 or 3 situations, where Carlsen could have won his game employing tactics.
No, he ignored it, saying he didn't consider it.
Strange again, if you look at his games in younger years, where he has shown that he is a tactical genius.
All of the sudden this doesn't interest him anymore?
Well, it was a gradual process, I guess. He must have looked at games of Capablanca, who <also> ignored a winning tactic at least in one of his games, which I noticed when going over it with an engine.
Positional players have to take into account the potential tactical maneuvers of their opponents in order to thwart them early enough, by prophylactic moves, something which seems easy for Carlsen to do.
Well, it's his current style, and whether he will ever revert to an earlier playing method, remains to be seen, I doubt it. He is successful, why should he change anything? It would be a different matter though, if a serious rival showed up on the scene. But this one is nowhere to seen by now.
|Mar-01-14|| ||DcGentle: This is, what you can read elsewhere about Carlsen's method (http://kottke.org/13/11/magnus-carl...):|
<Second, Carlsen is demonstrating one of his most feared qualities, namely his "nettlesomeness," to use a term coined for this purpose by Ken Regan. Using computer analysis, you can measure which players do the most to cause their opponents to make mistakes. Carlsen has the highest nettlesomeness score by this metric, because his creative moves pressure the other player and open up a lot of room for mistakes. In contrast, a player such as Kramnik plays a high percentage of very accurate moves, and of course he is very strong, but those moves are in some way calmer and they are less likely to induce mistakes in response.>
Yeah, super analysis. Nettlesome, this is it. What? Of course it's clear that Carlsen's opponents commit an error often, but hey, could it be, that Carlsen's play has something to do with this? Could that be, that the opponent <has no good options> sooner or later?
I shake my head. Basically most people are clueless. Look at his games, folks, I can only say.
|Mar-02-14|| ||morfishine: <DcGentle> Yes, I remember this article on 'nettlesomeness'. Yes on both questions that (1) Carlsen's play has something to do with an opponent making a mistake and (2) his opponents run out of good options (eventually). |
I don't think its very accurate to think Carlsen's opponents simply make a mistake eventually (like I would if a game draws on and I 'slips' for one reason or the other). Carlsen's play forces the mistakes
Two interesting facets, one is his tendency towards 'compactness' [ie: not having any loose pieces hanging] and two, is his ability to play effective, positional chess with offbeat openings like the Ponziani. What next, Anderssens's opening with <1.a3>? or the Grob? :)
Noteworthy too is his reliance on the Berlin Defense in response to <1.e4>. Its almost like he's written his own book here. Great players are great specialists at certain openings, but always have 'backups' since opponent's may focus on their favorite opening.
For example, Karpov, a long time Caro-Kann expert, eschewed this in favor of the Zaitsev variation of the Ruy Lopez in the 1990 match vs Kasparov. More than likely, he was trying to show that Kasparov had wasted time in the event he had devoted much effort to the Caro Kann. In this, he was only partially successful.
Or in the 1972 WC match, Fischer abandoned the KID entirely, which had been one of his favorites.
So, I think Carlsen has focused on the Berlin, but has a number of other solid defenses he can rely on, depending.
|Mar-02-14|| ||DcGentle: <morfishine>: My impression here is that Carlsen will land in similar positions suited to his style, no matter which opening he will use. He will have always traded some pieces already, before the real middlegame starts, and then his positional play will kick in.|
Did you see the discussion on the Candidates Tournament pages? Someone compared Carlsen to Lasker. Well, Lasker never ever "missed" any tactics when playing positionally, he was a more flexible player, but I won't keep the discussion going. I have stated my opinion, if others think otherwise, they can do it.
Maybe the early Carlsen was like Lasker, but not the one we see today.
|Mar-02-14|| ||morfishine: <DcGentle> Perhaps Carlsen is an an amalgamation of all the great positional players (with superior tactical skill thrown in for good measure) |
A truly unbeatable combination
|Mar-02-14|| ||cro777: Simon Williams today in the last round of the Batavia tournament in Amsterdam, playing in his style, missed a simple win against Alina L'Ami.|
Williams - L'Ami. Position after 32.Nf4
click for larger view
White to move. Mate in 5.
The game continued
33. Rxg7+ Kxg7 34. Nf5+? (34.Bf8+! Kxf8 35.Qf6+ Ke8 36.Kf7+ Kd8 37.Qd7#) gxf5 35. Qe7+ Kh8 36. Qf6+ Kh7 37. Qxf5+ Ng6 38. Qf7+ Kh8 39. Kh2 Qc1 Draw
|Mar-02-14|| ||DcGentle: <cro777>: Interestingly GM Williams spent only 26 seconds for move 34, he had around 6 minutes left for 6 moves. He was too quick hare, <34. Bf8+> was his last chance to win, after this move was missed, anything else was only a draw. Pity.|
You can download the games with clock times from here ( http://batavia1920.nl/chess/replay-... ),
but the last rounds are missing if you click on PGN ALL. I downloaded rounds 7 to 9 manually.
|Mar-02-14|| ||cro777: <DcGentle: 34. Bf8+ was his last chance to win.>|
Simon Williams: "I am such a patzer missing this mate in 4. Blaming it on the 'purple haze' downstairs."
Alina l'Ami: "Yayks! I didn't consider this at all...so maybe it is not that easy?! I got lucky indeed."
|Mar-02-14|| ||morfishine: <cro777> & <DcGentle> I don't know what to say about Williams missed opportunity. I feel badly because I like GM Williams due to his cheerful, engaging nature; On the other hand, misses like this remind us lesser players of just how accurate one must be, and how one simple move can make all the difference... |
Perhaps I've sat on brilliancies in the past that will never be known due to one simple miscue :(
|Mar-03-14|| ||Patriot: Hi <morf>! How are things going?|
|Mar-04-14|| ||MarkFinan: Easy Morf 😃. I can't get into my email right now but I will have a look tonight mate.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||Patriot: <morf> Imagine 5 minute basketball--that would be rough!|
|Mar-06-14|| ||Patriot: Thanks <morf>! I didn't quite find some key moves, but really didn't feel like spending a lot of time on it either.|
I noticed you also chose 32.e6 :-) It certainly wins but is pretty tricky after 32...Qb5 33.Ra8 Be8. I considered 32.Nh5+ gxh5 33.Qxh6+ Kg8 but missed 34.e6 (or at least didn't consider it long enough) and thought 32.e6 right away was easy enough.
|Mar-09-14|| ||morfishine: <Pedro Fernandez> Hello! Good to hear from you! No, I'm not British, at least not directly. The family name traces to France in the 1500's when a gentleman married an English lady. Upon immigrating to Maryland in the 1600's one 'L' was dropped from the family name, which is where it stands today. |
As a goof, I subscribed to the National Geographic to trace the family dna lineage, which resulted in originating from East Africa eons ago. I then found out this was a scam since everybody's dna supposedly traced back to East Africa. Oh well
In any case, when anybody asks "Are you from the US?", I'll reply "No, I'm from Texas"
|Mar-09-14|| ||cro777: Hi, Texas Man! In a decisive game of the just finished rapid open in Caxias do Sul, Brazil (XIII Torneio Aberto Internacional de Xadrez Festa da Uva 2014) in a 60 minutes game (without increments) Carlsen had a big time advantage and managed to win a theoretically drawn endgame against his friend and second GM Peter Heine Nielsen (2653)|
Position after 48...Rxa6
click for larger view
This endgame is a draw with best play.
49. Kg3 Ra3 50. f3 Ra1 51. Rb5 Kh6 52. Rxb6
click for larger view
Endings with f- and h-pawns are mostly drawn and this one is no exception. If he starts from a normal position, the attacker usually cannot confine the defending king to the back rank.
52...Kh5 53. Rb5 Kh6 54. Kg4 Rg1 55. Kf5 Ra1 56. f4 Ra2 57. Re5 Ra1 58. Kf6
click for larger view
58...Ra4? A decisive mistake in a drawn position. Nielsen missed 58...Rh1! (the only move) to hold the draw. But it is not so easy to find the draw in this position in a time trouble.
The game continued:
59. f5 Rxh4 60. Re1 Kh5 61. Re8 Ra4 62. Rh8 Kg4 63. Kg6 Ra5 64. f6 Rg5 65. Kf7 Ra5 66. Rh1 Kg5 67. Kg7 Ra7 68. f7 1-0
|Mar-09-14|| ||cro777: As <alexmagnus> pointed out, actually the decisive mistake, according to the tablebases, was 60...Kh5? (Rh3 or Rh2 drew). Of course, the move 58...Ra4? was a grave mistake but, in the game, 59. f5? by Carlsen lets the win out (only 59.Re6 won).|
Mark Dvoretsky thinks that for a practical player it is enough to study the defensive effort by Vasily Smyslov in the game against Svetozar Gligoric (Moscow 1947) to understand the whole ending with f- and h-pawn.
Gligoric vs Smyslov, 1947
|Mar-09-14|| ||cro777: It is intereting that, in correspondence chess, 2013 ICCF Congress decided that for all tournaments started after 01/01/2014, players will be allowed to <claim a win or draw if the position can be resolved in a 6 men tablebase position>.|
|Mar-09-14|| ||cro777: At the FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2004), Carlsen was eliminated in the 1st round tiebreaker by Levon Aronian. Ironically, he lost the endgame with f- and h-pawn and rook vs rook. It was his only loss.|
Carlsen vs Aronian, 2004
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 142 OF 142 ·
A free online game for all chessgames members!