|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 702 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-23-15
 | | mistermac: <<AgentRgent>: <Ceri: One might have thought that a Devil's Coup, yielding the opponents zero trump tricks with a holding of Q,7,3 opposite J,9 would have qualified as interesting...Admittedly, it was for an overtrick in a contract of 3 Spades.>??? Did someone say Estonian?> Yes, I did!
Sorry about that, I will not do it again.
Can you and <Ceri> help me eith my Bridge. I am running out of marriagable widows who are prepared to play with me. Especiaaly the latest, but I will Lasker if she wants to play Arno with me. Put another Nickel in. |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | Xenon Oxide: Thanks for the response, guys. I agree that the analysis tree is useful, but I don't think it is enough, because it is hard to get a "big picture" overview just by looking at it. The analysis tree promotes looking at details but perhaps sometimes at the expense of overall evaluation. That's why I think the subforum system is still necessary. I think what would be good is if we agreed on a culture where we do the big debating, nitty gritty analysis in the relevant subforums, and in the main thread only post the big, important summaries. That way, the average drop-in voter won't feel so overwhelmed by the volume of analysis. It's a way to encourage them to be more engaged with what's happening. |
|
Jan-23-15
 | | OhioChessFan: <Xenon: Thanks for the response, guys. I agree that the analysis tree is useful, but I don't think it is enough, because it is hard to get a "big picture" overview just by looking at it.> Agree completely.
<The analysis tree promotes looking at details but perhaps sometimes at the expense of overall evaluation. That's why I think the subforum system is still necessary.> I don't know about necessary, but I think it would be better to have it than not. <I think what would be good is if we agreed on a culture where we do the big debating, nitty gritty analysis in the relevant subforums, and in the main thread only post the big, important summaries. > <That> has been the biggest problem with the forum system. Without naming names, a few people have continued to post only on the main page. The last couple games it wasn't all that important, but in some previous games, it was a problem. I think that is the primary reason most people gave up on the forum system. <That way, the average drop-in voter won't feel so overwhelmed by the volume of analysis. It's a way to encourage them to be more engaged with what's happening.> I think you make great points but I'm not optimistic the team as a whole agrees. I was really surprised a few games we couldn't even get people to participate in the engine room, where all we asked was for people to set up requested positions and run infinite analysis for a while. That made me think it's maybe a handful of analysts really engaged in the game and a lot of others who are mostly just watching. That's okay, too, but if that is what's happening, I don't think the forums are going to be utilized. |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | Tomlinsky: <OCF: Ummmmmmmmm, hello? Nobody else wants to take <GMAN> up on his offer?> Arnie's suggestion seems a good idea to me, in general, but I think a game of Fischer Random would be a better test to find out who knows what in this format personally. |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | kwid: <yskid:> <Jan-22-15 cormier: Carlsen vs Radjabov, 2015><Does anyone understand why are Black's (Annand did the same as Radjabov) avoiding 5...Nd4 after White moves 0-0? What do they expect? We moved 5.c3 exactly to prevent "drawish" Nd4> It may be best expressed by looking at the most likely reachable positions as shown below. Black has equalized but the c3 setup seem to present white more opportunities for trying to wring out a slight advantage because of its more flexible pawn structure. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. O-O
(5. c3 d6 6. O-O O-O (7. h3 Ne7 8. d4) 7. Nbd2 a6 8. Ba4 Re8 9. b4 Ba7 10. Bb3 Ne7 11. a4 Ng6 12. Re1 c6)
click for larger view
5... Nd4
( 6. Nxd4 Bxd4 7. c3 Bb6 8. Na3 c6 9. Ba4 O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 d6 12. Nc4 Bc7 13. Ne3 Be6 14. Bc2 d5 15. exd5 cxd5 16. d4 exd4 17. Qxd4 Qd6 18. Bg3 Qb6 19. Bxc7 Qxc7 20. Rad1 Rfd8 21. Rfe1 ( Bishop of same color with isolated d5 pawn with slight chance for white)
click for larger view6. Ba4 Nxf3+ 7. Qxf3 O-O 8. Qg3 d6 9. Bg5 c6 10. Bb3 Nh5 11. Qh4 Nf6 12. Nc3 h6
click for larger view |
|
Jan-23-15
 | | AylerKupp: <Xenon Oxide>, <OhioChessFan>: I agree that the main forum should be restricted to analysis summaries and links to where the details can be found if the reader is interested. That would greatly reduce the size of the main page and make analyses easier to find. But that's hard to do given the current circumstances. It's just too easy to post the analysis details in the main page and let it go at that. Yet, if you think about it, for engine analyses all that the main page needs to have is something like: After <move>
<diagram of the position after <move>> <Summary of the engine's analysis; engine identification, top move, evaluation, search depth> Details can be found in <link to where the analysis details can be found> <If applicable, any significant aspects of the analysis details that make this particular analysis noteworthy. But this should be the exception and limited to situations where it is truly thought to be desirable.> If something like this is done it is probably not necessary to have multiple forums dedicated to the various move candidates, the standard Analysis Forum will suffice since using the analyses summaries and links in the main page and the AT any move of interest can be easily found. It would be a valuable enhancement to the AT if it permitted direct links in the Comments field (or maybe it does, I can't remember), although one could always post the URL and whoever is interested can copy and paste it into their browser. <chessgames.com> can assist in "encouraging" this type of behavior by more strictly limiting the number of characters allowed on a post in the main page (characters in a link would not be counted as part of the limit). This might seem like a radical suggestion coming from a notorious verbose poster like me but it's an indication of how seriously I take the suggestion. And, after all, <chessgames.com> already limits the number of characters in one post so it shouldn't be too difficult (particularly since I'm not the one that has to do it) to enforce a much smaller limit on the main page of Challenge (or Team) games. Yes, it's easy to get around this by breaking up a post into smaller subposts but if the allowable number of characters in one post is really small then even someone like me would likely think that it is not worth the hassle. |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | AgentRgent: <mistermac: Can you and <Ceri> help me eith my Bridge.> You misunderstand me... he might as well have been speaking Estonian for all I know of Bridge. ;) |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | MuzioFan: <OhioChessFan: Ummmmmmmmm, hello? Nobody else wants to take <GMAN> up on his offer?> I sure do! |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | lost in space: me too |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | kwid: < AylerKupp:> < Yet, if you think about it, for engine analyses all that the main page needs to have is something like: After <move>
<diagram of the position after <move>> <Summary of the engine's analysis; engine identification, top move, evaluation, search depth>> Well, I would prefer to see either an assessment of a human perception
or a line derived only from a top rated engine with its search depth or number of ply's. Position diagrams only for clarification of a starting point
for alternate line choices. Or indicate the importance of a position in view of our discussions or our suggested goals for us to aim for. This would allow a quick human view assessment and or provide downloading of a line for further investigating via sliding method to verify the stated evaluation and to run deeper searches to get a long horizon view. Yes lines should be posted to trigger reactions based on our different experiences or perceptions and thus enrich the overall team perception to its fullest capacity. |
|
Jan-23-15
| | mistermac: <<AgentRgent>: <mistermac: Can you and <Ceri> help me eith my Bridge.> You misunderstand me... he might as well have been speaking Estonian for all I know of Bridge. ;)> I understood you better than you think. I, too, am ignorant of both, none the better for it. We both need latviatude, Lithe weighing in, and eukelalean. |
|
Jan-23-15
| | mistermac: And a game with Arno, who has come back. |
|
| Jan-23-15 | | yskid: <Jan-23-15
premium
member kwid: <yskid:> <Jan-22-15 cormier: Carlsen vs Radjabov, 2015><Does anyone understand why are Black's (Annand did the same as Radjabov) avoiding 5...Nd4 after White moves 0-0? What do they expect? We moved 5.c3 exactly to prevent "drawish" Nd4>It may be best expressed by looking at the most likely reachable positions as shown below. Black has equalized but the c3 setup seem to present white more opportunities for trying to wring out a slight advantage because of its more flexible pawn structure.......>
Very nicely explained KWid. I gladly accept understanding why we preferred 5.c3 over 5.0-0. However, I do not understand why Radjabov and in the match Annand preferred 5...d6 over, in my assumption safer 5...Nd4 after Carlsen's 0-0. As games showed they did not produce any novel or surprising plan, while Carlsen actually showed some nice and unexpected twists quite suitable for OTB, living up to his reputation, while his opponents did not. |
|
| Feb-13-15 | | Tiggler: Flawless game by white, unless you complain about 36. Rxg7, when 36. Be2 would have led to mate a couple of moves faster. Still, black resigned next move, so it's all good. |
|
Feb-13-15
| | AylerKupp: <Tiggler> FWIW 36.Rxg7 got the highest evaluation by Critter 1.6a, Fire 4.0, and Komodo 8, with 36.Be2 evaluated by all 3 engines as the 2nd best move. And likely other engines as well, I don't remember. But by that time anything but a really stupid move would win, so I guess that 36.Rxg7 with the imminent disappearance of Black's k-side pawns held more appeal to the majority of the team. I had hoped that since GMAN should have been in a good mood after beating Carlsen and finishing in a tie for first in the Grenke 2015 tournament that he might have been willing to comment on this game but I guess not. Or at least not yet (hope springs eternal). Oh well. |
|
| Feb-14-15 | | Tiggler: <AK> Well, I was trying to be provocative ("flawless game", "mate .. faster"), and here you tell me about engine ratings, so I gotta hand it to you: you are more annoying than me by miles. Nice to get an answer though, even though I have to grit my teeth. |
|
| Feb-15-15 | | yskid: Karjakin vs Caruana, 2015 |
|
Feb-16-15
| | AylerKupp: <<Tiggler> I gotta hand it to you: you are more annoying than me by miles.> Well, coming from you that's a high compliment. ;-) But I'm sorry about your teeth, I didn't mean them any harm. Also sorry about taking you at face value, but it's been a while since I've read your posts. Where have you been? And by now you should know that those that are easily provoked have left this page looking for greener pastures, and apparently have found them in other pages. All that still visit this page are old diehards and optimists like me who each time that see the game mentioned in the Recent Kibitzing panel that GMARK has decided to pay us a visit and post some comments about this game. Perhaps some day ... |
|
| Feb-16-15 | | Tiggler: <AylerKupp> question for you on your forum concerning ATSS. |
|
Feb-16-15
| | OhioChessFan: <All that still visit this page are old diehards and optimists like me who each time that see the game mentioned in the Recent Kibitzing panel that GMARK has decided to pay us a visit and post some comments about this game. Perhaps some day ...> Where's Richie Cunningham and his huh huh huh when you need him? |
|
| Feb-16-15 | | kwid: < yskid: Karjakin vs Caruana, 2015> A solid performance from both players.
[Event "Zurich Chess Challenge"]
[Site "Zurich SUI"]
[Date "2015.02.16"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Sergey Karjakin"]
[Black "Fabiano Caruana"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C65"]
[WhiteElo "2760"]
[BlackElo "2811"]
[Annotator "kwid"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "2015.02.14"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. O-O (5. c3 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nbd2
Ne7 8. d4 exd4 9. cxd4 Bb6 10. Re1 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. a3 Bg6 13. Ba4 d5 14. e5
Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Nh4 Qxd4 17. Qxd4 Bxd4 18. Bg5 Nc6 19. Nxg6 fxg6 20. Rxe4
Bxf2+ 21. Kh2 Rf5 22. Bd2 Rd8 23. Bb4 Nxb4 24. axb4 Rd4 25. Re2 Bh4 26. g3 Bg5
27. Bc2 Rf8 28. h4 Be7 29. Bb3+ Kh8 30. b5 g5 31. hxg5 Rb4 32. Be6 Rxb5 33. g6
Rd8 34. Rxa7 hxg6 35. Kh1 Rd1+ 36. Kg2 Kh7 37. Bc8 Rdd5 38. Rxb7 Rbc5 39. Ra7
Kh6 40. Ba6 Kg5 41. Kf3 Rxe5 42. Rxe5+ Rxe5 43. Rxc7 Bc5 $11) 5... Nd4 6. Nxd4
Bxd4 7. c3 Bb6 8. Na3 c6 9. Ba4 d6 10. Bb3 a5 11. Nc4 Bc7 12. Bg5 h6 13. Bh4 g5
14. Bg3 h5 15. f3 Be6 (15... h4 16. Bf2 a4 17. Bc2 b5 18. Ne3 d5 19. d4 Qd6 20.
Re1 dxe4 (20... exd4 21. e5 $18) 21. dxe5 Qxe5 22. Nf1 Bf5 23. Qd2 Qe7 24. Qxg5
Rh5 25. Qe3 Bg6 26. Bxe4 Nxe4 27. fxe4 Kf8 28. Nd2 Re8 29. Qh3 Qe6 30. Qxe6
Rxe6 31. Rad1 Kg8 32. h3 c5 33. Re2 Bf4 34. Rde1 Bxd2 35. Rxd2 Bxe4 36. b3 axb3
37. axb3 Bd5 38. Rxe6 fxe6 39. Bxc5 Bxb3 40. Bf2 Bd5 $11) 16. Ne3 h4 17. Bf2 d5
18. Re1 Kf8 19. h3 Bb6 (19... Kg7 20. Nf1 Nh5 21. exd5 cxd5 22. d4 f6 23. dxe5
fxe5 24. Nh2 Nf4 25. Kh1 b5 26. Qd2 a4 27. Bc2 Qf6 28. Rad1 a3 29. b3 Ra6 30.
Be3 Rd8 31. Ng4 Bxg4 32. fxg4 Kh6 33. Qf2 Rc6 34. Bf5 Kg7 35. Bc5 Bd6 36. Be3
Bc7 37. Bc5 Bd6 38. Be3 Bc7 $11) 20. Qc2 (20. d4 exd4 21. cxd4 Nh5 22. Ng4 Nf4
23. e5 Bxg4 24. fxg4 f6 25. exf6 Qxf6 26. Re5 Kg8 27. Bc2 Bc7 28. Re1 Kg7 29.
Bf5 Qd6 30. Re3 Rae8 31. Qf3 Ne6 32. Bxe6 Rxe6 33. Rae1 Rxe3 34. Qxe3 Qh2+ 35.
Kf1 Bd8 36. Qe6 Qh1+ 37. Ke2 Qxg2 38. Qd7+ Kf6 39. Qf5+ Kg7 40. Qd7+ $11) 20...
Nh5 21. d4 exd4 22. cxd4 Nf4 23. Ng4 a4 24. Bxa4 dxe4 25. Rxe4 Bf5 26. Rd1 Kg7
27. Bb3 Qc7 28. Ne3 Bg6 29. Nc4 Rhe8 30. Kh1 Ba7 31. Ne5 Bxe4 32. fxe4 Rxe5 33.
dxe5 Bxf2 34. Qxf2 Rd8 35. Qe1 Rxd1 36. Qxd1 Qxe5 37. Qd7 Qf6 38. e5 Qg6 39.
Kh2 b6 40. e6 Nxe6 41. Qxc6 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Feb-17-15 | | yskid: <Feb-16-15
premium
member kwid: < yskid: Karjakin vs Caruana, 2015>A solid performance from both players.
....> Back in January I looked into possibility of 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. O-O Nd4 6. Nxd4 Bxd4 7. c3 Bb6 8. Na3 c6 9. Ba4 O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 Bc7 (y) but did not feel quite comfortable after
12. Bb3 a5 (12... b5 13. Nc2) 13. d4 d6 14. Qd3;
Therefore, I find Caruana's treatment with avoiding 0-0 and "quick g5" quite creative; |
|
Feb-17-15
 | | Check It Out: <Ayler Kupp: All that still visit this page are old diehards and optimists like me who each time that see the game mentioned in the Recent Kibitzing panel that GMARK has decided to pay us a visit and post some comments about this game. Perhaps some day ...> Exactly so. |
|
| Feb-18-15 | | cro777: <kwid: Karjakin vs Caruana, Zurich Chess Challenge 2015. A solid performance from both players.> The Anti-Berlin 5...Nd4 line is gaining popularity.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.0–0 Nd4 6.Nxd4 Bxd4 7.c3 (7.Nd2 c6 8. Ba4 d6, in order to save the dark-squared bishop from an exchange, is Chess Openings 24/7 recommendation) Bb6
click for larger viewTony Kosten: "Why is this position so pleasant for Black? He has wasted time with his queen's knight and dark-squared bishop and is currently slightly behind in development. However, the b5–bishop is misplaced and Black will regain tempi by playing ...c6 and ... d5. On top of that Black's knight is ideally placed on f6, both defending his kingside and menacing White's." 8.Na3 (The main alternatives are 8.Nd2 and 8.Bg5) c6 9.Ba4 <d6> <yskid: I find Caruana's treatment with avoiding 0-0 and "quick g5" quite creative.> <9...0-0> 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 d6 R van Kampen vs S Sevian, 2015 or 11...d5 Topalov vs D Andreikin, 2014 have also been recently tried. According to Chess Openings 24/7, the promissing line for White is 7.Nd2 c6 8.Ba4 d6 9.c3 Nb6 10.Bb3 0-0 11.Nc4 Bc7 12.Bg5
click for larger view Efimenko vs Y Kryvoruchko, 2014 In this line, Carlsen's second Fressinet against Efimenko instead of 10...0-0 introduced 10...Bc7. Efimenko vs Fressinet, 2014 |
|
| Feb-18-15 | | cro777: Discussion about 4.d3 Anti-Berlin continues...
Today, at the FIDE Grand Prix tournament in Tbilisi, Anish Giri tried his luck with the white pieces against Dmitry Andreikin. Anish Giri - Dmitry Andreikin
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. Nbd2 d6 6. c3 O-O 7. h3 Ne7
click for larger viewA Giri vs D Andreikin, 2015
The World - Arkadij Naiditsch
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. c3 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nbd2 Ne7
click for larger view |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 702 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
