|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 543 OF 543 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jan-30-10
 |
| KingG: <On Thursday evening I had the somewhat intimidating pleasure of analysing a few games on the phone with Garry Kasparov. He had just arrived in New York on a flight from Moscow. Naturally I was armed with a Fritz-on-steroids, while he sat in his apartment staring intensely at the wall (he had not yet booted up his notebook). The games we went through were all by his protégé Magnus Carlsen. I took notes of the rapid-fire lines he produced as best I could – any errors in the following must be blamed on my limited ability to grasp what an impatient 2800+ master is saying.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... You know, I'm a pretty big Kasparov fan, but I'm really getting tired of this type of nonsense repeatedly appearing on chessbase. Every single time they talk to him he never has his computer turned on. They always catch him just as he is arriving or leaving somewhere. Now, it may well be that this is the case, after all he does travel a lot, etc. But does it really need to be highlighted that he isn't using a computer? What exactly does this prove? We know he's a genius, and is capable of finding great moves. I don't really know who to blame here, chessbase for their excessive sycophancy, or Kasparov for being insecure. The way I see it is that Kasparov has nothing to prove to anyone about chess, but if he does want to prove something, he should actually play some games. As for the 'annotations', as far as I could tell there was nothing there that hadn't already been pointed out by dozens of people and their computers. I would have rather he was asked about Carlsen's strange behaviour at the beginning of the game, and whether there really was any uncertainty or disagreement about what opening to play. It's also noteworthy that Kasparov couldn't bring himself to praise a single one of Kramnik's moves, although to be fair to him they were just Freidel's recollections of what Kasparov said. |
 |
| Jan-30-10 |
| Mr. Bojangles: <I don't really know who to blame here, chessbase for their excessive sycophancy, or Kasparov for being insecure.> Probably both.
Mig Greengard too is always "catching Kasparov on the phone at a airport arriving or leaving tell him a raft of endless analysis" blah, blah, blah usually after a big game. His incessant sycophancy always makes me run for my sick bucket. |
|
Feb-01-10
|
| KingG: Kasparov teaches basic endgame theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xVz...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFL...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRh... |
|
| Feb-01-10 |
| suplexer: king g second video is far from basic.
his mastery of this difficult endgame is explosive. |
|
Feb-01-10
|
| KingG: He's basically just showing a triangulation manoeuvre, mixed in with other basic K+P endgame elements. The ending is maybe not trivial, but it's far from a 'complex'. I'm sure it could be solved by anyone who has mastered basic K+P endgame elements like opposition, triangulation, and 'fox in the chicken coop'(as Silman calls it). This is the game it's from by the way: Seirawan vs Kasparov, 1983. |
|
Feb-01-10
 |
| notyetagm: <notyetagm: Kasparov's 36 g5-g6!! would make a great late week puzzle. But it is cooked as it is not the only winning move, just the fastest. http://chessbase.com/news/2010/game...; This entire *beautiful combination is based on the <UNDEFENDED> Black h2-rook, created when Black played 35 ...  e2xh2. Kasparov's next move was the brilliant 36 g5-g6!!, made possible by the newly <UNDEFENDED> Black rook on h2. "There are *always* threats against <UNDEFENDED> pieces." -- Chernev |
|
Feb-01-10
|
| notyetagm: I particularly love how 36 g5-g6!! is a <SELF-BLOCK>-inducing move used to gain a <SINGLE> <TEMPO> so that Kasparov can play 39 a8-h8+ <WITH TEMPO> to create a <PIN> down the h-file against the <UNDEFENDED> Black h2-rook. Brilliant! |
|
| Feb-02-10 |
| Poisonpawns: Here is some video of Kasparov`s reaction after Carlsen blundered vs Kramnik. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqc... |
|
Feb-02-10
|
| notyetagm: <Poisonpawns: Here is some video of Kasparov`s reaction after Carlsen blundered vs Kramnik. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqc... >
DOH! |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| suplexer: I am 2250 and find that ending difficult. I would probably eventually work it out manually, but i dont know the logic and technique behind it (like kasparov) which allows for you to find right ideas instantly. Stuff lke thats probably only taught in russian chess camps |
|
Feb-03-10
 |
| ughaibu: Seriously? Unlike RookFile, a 2100 rated player, you cant completely unravel the complexities of any ten endgames in one day? |
|
Feb-03-10
|
| KingG: <suplexer> I'm sure you can find similar examples in any good endgame book. Unfortunately I don't have any with me at the moment, so I can't check, but maybe someone else will be able to give some kind of reference. |
|
| Feb-03-10 |
| suplexer: i already have ''Mark Dvoretsky's endgame manual'' which is think thought of as the most comprehensive endgame book. Apparently if you really read it all u can go from 2100 to 2400 in 2 years |
|
Feb-03-10
|
| KingG: <i already have ''Mark Dvoretsky's endgame manual''> Ok, and he doesn't have any similar K+P ending as in the Kasparov game? |
|
| Feb-04-10 |
| Wood Mover: Interesting article by Gary. Well worth a look. Not sure if its posted elsewhere on here... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592 |
|
| Feb-05-10 |
| suplexer: king g what is your rating? because u speak of chess as though u are a king in the top 10 players. |
|
Feb-06-10
|
| KingG: <suplexer> <u speak of chess as though u are a king in the top 10 players.> I don't see how you draw that conclusion. I just said that it's the type of endgame I've seen in books, and I don't think it's that difficult compared to a lot of others. The fact that Kasparov was presenting it on TV also probably indicates that. That doesn't mean I think I'm a great chess player. And in my opinion if you want to go around telling people your rating, you should also give your real name. |
|
| Feb-06-10 |
| Kaspablanca: notyetagm: In fact that potential puzzle is not cooked because it isnt a composed problem where there is only a key move, if there is another key move then the problem is cooked whereas endgame composition can have many first moves. |
|
| Feb-06-10 |
| Poisonpawns: Some interesting video of Kasparov`s reaction to Carlsen`s game vs Kramnik.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqc... |
|
Feb-07-10
 |
| wordfunph: Garry Kasparov's wife Daria..
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
Feb-08-10
 |
| Ron: Kasparov has an interesting article about chess and computers in The New York Review of Books.
A point he makes which I find interesting is that chess playing machines have gotton to play at a high level mostly due to brute force, that is, by analyzing a large number of moves. Since this approach seems to work, programs in the future will likely continue to use brute force; but something is lost in this: the original goal of understanding human thinking.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592 |
|
| Feb-09-10 |
| shintaro go: <I think that my chess strength is still okay. If I could spend three or four months on extensive chess playing, cutting everything else, I think I could make a comeback at least in rapid chess. I am not sure about classical chess, but in rapid, I am sure I can face Kramnik or Anand.>
He's still the man. |
|
Feb-09-10
 |
| HeMateMe: Joel Benjamin, who helped program the machine that beat GK said that the computers depth search is limited, and only relatively small gains can be made in this area. In his book, JB said that the software made a large jump in playing strength when Feng Su and his staff were able to isolate the chessboard into 4 quadrants of 16 squares. Then, they were able to very strongly find the best moves for the software to choose, within a small area of the board, then link the 4 quadrants together. I can't remember the finer points on what he described; I barely made it through Calculus myself. Then, Benjamin, Fed, and Nick DeFirmian worked on the opening book. Later, afte losing a game or two, Kasparov said he suspected a "human element" in the choice of moves by the software/hardware configuration, and he implied that IBM had cheated, by having someone of IM/GM strength in a remote location, checking the machines moves for obvious blunders, before the final move(s) were relayed to the board that GK was looking at. I always suspected that this "human elelment" Kaspy noticed was just the individual bias of the programmers and opening book preparers. Feng Su had a lot of help in this; individual tendencies are probably built into the final software program. And then, at the closing ceremony, Kasparov made a bafoon of himself by sulking, refusing to congratulate the winning team, who were on the dais with him. Tsk, tsk, break out the astronaut diapers. |
|
Feb-09-10
 |
| moronovich: <Wood Mover> a most interesting read , this interview with Garry.Thanks ! |
|
| Feb-09-10 |
| protean: <a most interesting read> Yes it was - not much of a book review though! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 543 OF 543 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
