|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-17-11 | | Ulhumbrus: <fisayo123: <This decision as well as some others suggest that Kramnik is in poor playing form, conceivably in poor health.> Enough with this nonsense! Nepo was better on the day, end of. plang: <Enough with this nonsense! Nepo was better on the day, end of. >
Agreed>
But why was Nepomniachtchi better on the day? This suggests that Kramnik was worse on the day. Why was Kramnik worse on the day? Perhaps he was not only worse than Nepomniachtchi but worse than himself in normal form as well, for example, if he was ill. |
|
| Nov-17-11 | | rapidcitychess: <KKDEREK>
Yes, there is always an excuse for a loss! And when he wins, someone will make up an excuse for the loser, until we have this glorious tree of excuses, thus allowing the tournament to be postponed until everyone feels alright. Maybe around Never. |
|
| Nov-18-11 | | gaatab: i think 34:n:a6 n:a6 b:b5 leads to a draw with carful play by white... |
|
Nov-18-11
 | | Honza Cervenka: <Ezzy><Now Kramnik has 2 connected passed pawns to contend with and is technically lost.> Endgames with opposite colour Bishops are a rare exception where two connected passers are not so great deal. In fact, in OCB endings two extra Pawns usually win only if they are separated by three columns or more. Of course, things are a bit different when connected passed Pawns on the Queenside are accompanied by some Pawns on the other side of board but the outcome of this ending is not so clear to me. I did not analyse it in depth but my first guess would be that white had good chances for draw. I agree with you that 40.h5 was white's best chance. |
|
| Nov-18-11 | | AnalyzeThis: Kramink is the guy that deserves to be rated higher than Fischer? I don't think so. |
|
| Nov-21-11 | | The silent man: Nice game!
By the way, it would be nice that, when someone posts a variant in kibitz, and somebody clicks over the text, a small board would come out in the right side and show the line. This would be a nice feature for chessgames.com |
|
Nov-24-11
 | | Richard Taylor: <The Silent Man> I agree. I use the program WinBoard whereby if you load the game on it you can have that but it is a bit of a chore so I just look at the game on Fritz if I get interested. Nepomniachtchi might be stronger than Fischer. many of Fischer's games don't always hold up to analysis either. But like Capa and Tarrasch etc he was classiscist and played great direct and beautiful plans. Nepo seems very proficient in all aspects of the game. Of course he is younger than Kramnik who has shown he is very good if not better than Fischer, at least as good. But "Nepomniachtchi"? What a bastard of a name to type or write out! He should change it to a proper British name such as Taylor or Smith. Great game though. |
|
| Nov-24-11 | | sethoflagos: I read somewhere that it means 'orphan' or 'forgotten one' in Ukrainian, and was sometimes used as an alias by those wishing to conceal their real name. So it's John Smith, then. |
|
Nov-24-11
| | Richard Taylor: Ian Nepomatchi would do. Have to concede John Smith a bit anonymous! |
|
Nov-25-11
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QEu... |
|
Nov-28-11
 | | harrylime: < Richard Taylor..Nepomniachtchi might be stronger than Fischer. many of Fischer's games don't always hold up to analysis either.> lol .. He's stronger than Tal and Botvinnik too.. and Alekhine.. And Capablanca..And Karpov.. and would destroy Morphy lol .. You do post some rubbish. |
|
| Nov-28-11 | | TheFocus: Nepo better than Fischer? Pure rubbish!
I am constantly amazed at the BS that people post. |
|
Nov-29-11
| | Richard Taylor: <harrylime: < Richard Taylor..Nepomniachtchi... You do post some rubbish.> You are too kind. Fischer played some great strategical games but he also played many many games which have been shown by the strong Russian GMs (and the new 'computer age' of GMs) to be quite dubious...and Kasparov has some sharp things to say about a lot of Fischer's showy moves. Anand prefers Tal as a player...sad when you realise how much he is venerated (mostly by Yanks and his fellow traveler anti-Semites) and how much he actually thought he was so good!! |
|
Nov-29-11
| | Richard Taylor: < TheFocus: Nepo better than Fischer? Pure rubbish! I am constantly amazed at the BS that people post. > Are you amazed by your own posts? |
|
| Nov-29-11 | | drnooo: Anand may prefer Tal as a player, but has he not said that the greatest genius ever for chess was Fischer? |
|
| Nov-29-11 | | drnooo: Not that that means much: since any gm
assessment of another has a lot of weird points to it: ie Petrosian calling Tal the only genius he ever knew etc |
|
| Dec-01-11 | | Xeroxx: Why do all top chessplayers have weird names like Nepomniachtchi, Alekhine, Garri Kassparov etc. Why is there no one with a normal name like Bob Smith or Steve Jones? Ladies and gentlemen your new world champion Bob Smith, sounds strange. |
|
| Dec-01-11 | | whiteshark: <Tal♔ about weirdness> Using tripple x in a web/user name also indicates towards something very special... |
|
| Dec-01-11 | | whiteshark: Just saying... |
|
| Sep-17-15 | | SirRuthless: Stunning win for black in this
English Botvinnik line. |
|
| Sep-17-15 | | visayanbraindoctor: <Richard Taylor..Nepomniachtchi might be stronger than Fischer.> I'm shocked. No offense but if you were a competitive chess player at some point in your life, and had the occasion to play through and think through Fischer's games, you would probably be shocked at someone else posting the above. I don't think you are trying to degrade Fischer; I think you issued such a statement because of honest ignorance. You probably have not studied and thought through Fischer's games, that's all. If you did, you would see that Fischer was playing way better than Nepo ever did. And so did most or all of the World Champions mentioned above by other posters, starting with Lasker. Nepo is a strong master but I don't think he would have been able to handle the so-called weakest World Champion Euwe in a long match, and I would place my money on almost world champions Korchnoi and Keres on soundly beating him had they been born in the same era. Just a kibitzer's comment to other kibitzers; before issuing such statements, it would be wise to examine and think through at least some of the games of the masters being compared. |
|
Sep-17-15
| | Richard Taylor: <<visayanbraindoctor: <Richard Taylor..Nepomniachtchi might be stronger than Fischer.>
I'm shocked. No offense....>> It has been shown by extensive computer and other evaluations that Fischer was really rather a weak player. The details are or have only recently been forthcoming. It is also suspected (in some quarters) that he cheated. It is clear that he feared Karpov...in any case he was only the World Champion once whereas Lasker was the World Champion and won many matches as World Champion for a long time....Now HE was great player. No American could really measure up I am afraid...He was a trickster with a few opening tricks and traps etc and an intimidating way of picking up the board to get more light, and so on, all kinds of tricks and gamesmanship until he put his opponents off. Spasky thought it was quite amusing as he liked Fischer as he told us in 1982 I think it was he gave a simul. In some quarters I have heard him referred to as an "idiot savant"... |
|
Sep-17-15
| | Richard Taylor: He was, in that sense, like a US President. |
|
| Jul-11-21 | | Gaito: A critical moment of the ending:
click for larger viewWHITE TO MOVE
Apparently 34.Nd3? aiming at exchanging knights was the decisive mistake. Probably White might have put up a sturdy resistance after 34.Kg2 or even after the bold 34.Nxa6!? As a matter of fact, the sacrifice of White's knight for the two black passers would have rendered the ending extremely difficult to win for Black. A likely variation might have been something like this: (Stockfish 14 vs. Stockfish 14 at depth 50)
34.Nxa6!? Nxa6 35.Bxb5 Nc5 36.Kg2 Kg7 37.Kf3 Bf6 38.Be2 Bd8 39.Bb5 Bb6 40.Be2 Nd7 41.Kg2 Nc5 42.Kf3 Kf7 43.Bc4+ Kf6 44.Bb5 Ke5 45.Kg4 Ne4 46.f4+ Kf6 47.Bc6 Nf2+ 48.Kf3 Nd1 49.Be4 Kg7 50.f5 Bd8 51.fxg6 hxg6 52.Bd3 Nc3 53.Kg4 (See diagram below)
click for larger viewThe computer evaluates this ending as a likely draw (Evaluation by SF14: -0.68) |
|
| Jul-11-21 | | Gaito: The continuation of the ending from the last hypothetical diagram might run as follows (SF14 vs. SF14 at depth 61): 53...Nd5 54.Be2 Nf6+ 55.Kh3 Bc7 56. Bf3 (Evaluation: 0.00 = total equality. Black cannot make headway) 56...Nd7 57.g4 Nc5 58.g5 Ne6 59.Kg4 Nf4 60.Bd1 Be5 61.Kf3 Bc7 62.Ke4 Bb8 63.Bf3 Bd6 64.h5! Nxh5 65.Bxh5 gxh5 66.Kf3 (see diagram below)
click for larger viewIt is a theoretical draw, as Black's pawn would promote on a square of the wrong color. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
