|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-24-12 | | Eyal: Yeah, Carlsen's practical sense of play proves itself once again; not all the best moves objectively, but it was extremely difficult for Wang Hao to defend such a position accurately, certainly in time trouble. In retrospect, opening the g-file for White with 14...Bxf3 looks rather suicidal. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | boz: OK, I see, ...35.Rf5 can't be played. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | Marmot PFL: 35...Rf5 36 Bxf6 Rxf6 37 f5+ Ke5 38 f4+ and the doubled pawns are strong after all |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | Marmot PFL: Black moves I didn't like-
5...b6 (always thought the c5 6 dc Na6 was a clear equalizer) 14...Bxf3 (gives up an active bishop and worse yet opens the file) No doubt there were later mistakes, but the position was already very hard by then |
|
Jul-24-12
 | | Gypsy: <Marmot PFL: 35...Rf5 36 Bxf6 Rxf6 37 f5+ Ke5 38 f4+ and the doubled pawns are strong after all> How poetic that the march of isolated 'h' and isolated doubled 'f' pawns quickly brought on the end. |
|
Jul-24-12
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <Eyal: *** Carlsen's practical sense of play proves itself once again; not all the best moves objectively, but it was extremely difficult for Wang Hao to defend such a position accurately *** > True enough; and, although (as you pointed out at the time) <23. Bxc5> would have been objectively strongest at that juncture, I think Carlsen's <23. Bd4> was probably objectively (not just practically) stronger than we kibitzers and computers (after a minute or two of evaluation) initially realized. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | Eyal: <Peligroso Patzer> Agreed. Also, 23.Bxc5 & Be6 is a sort of "coincidental" tactics, whereas Bd4-Qd2-Rxg7 is a much more methodical way of following the basic attacking idea(s) that Carlsen was pursuing. Had Wang Hao played more accurately, moves 21-22 are more likely what Carlsen might have regretted; specifically, after <22...Nh5!> Black seems to be ok: unlike 22...Nxd5? this move defends g7, so 23.Bd4 can be met simply by 23...Rxf5; otherwise there's, say, 23.Be6 Rf6 or 23.Be4 Nf4 |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | mrbasso: <Marmot PFL> Whether you like it or not. The game was over after 22...Nxd5, not before. Or do you see a clear refutation of 22...Nh5 23.Be4 Nd7? |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | achieve: <coincidental tactics> Are there players particularly good at spotting those, these days? Van Wely? Aronian?
Some in the past have hinted at that, players who do not miss a trick. But in my vocab we may as well replace "coincidental" with "computer", the more so since most observers have those on their laps. Even noted and respected journalists have stooped to "computer annotation." Until angry letters persuaded them otherwise. Carlsen clearly plays an intuitive game, and only focuses on tactics when almost forced; having saved the energy and time because of his natural feel and planning, he then brings it home "perfectly." |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | kappertjes: I was following the game live and Carlsen was using all his time to calculate alternatives. My take is that he just couldn't see a clear win, despite calculating as much as he could, and his play was therefore aimed at keeping the pressure till he could/would find a way in. After the time-pressure mistakes by Wang he found the way in and deftly finished the KS attack. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | achieve: Let there be no misunderstanding that I think <Eyal> does his utmost to spend time to offer "balanced" analysis on a number of games, each day, for weeks on end sometimes, and is one of the best in the business. I was addressing more a point in general among (professional)and amateur followers of Live games, and some of the lazy journalism that is around, and just in general how <difficult> it is to balance commentary of games given the apparent accuracy of engine evals, available at the touch of a button, or less. It can be distorting reality of OTB play, and a good analyst tries to handle that with care and attention. <Eyal> is one of those. |
|
Jul-24-12
 | | perfidious: A classic from 2006:
< MagnaPsygnosis: <Appaz>
I see you are the one caught with this viral infection... Magnus is very overrated. You see i wont be blinded by the chessmedia
He is only a flavour of the month like Waitzkin once were.be honoust do really think that this kid will ever compare with: Kasparov, Fischer, Karpov, Morphy, Anderssen, etc or even:
Topalov, J. Polgar, Anand, Kramnik ???....> From where I sit, it appears this 'flavour of the month' has gone over right well-except, of course, for his opponents! |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | Eyal: <perfidious: A classic from 2006 [...]> Heh... I suppose you got to enjoy this pearl of wisdom by looking up previous games between Carlsen and Wang Hao, since it appears in Wang Hao vs Carlsen, 2003 (amid some gloating about Carlsen's loss there). Here's some more from the same source: <Finally, If the chess are going to be in the hands of the likes of carlsen, I might consider checkers as it would yield a much more complex game, then [...] Luckilly carlsen and amigos wont reach that status, so looks like i am going to stay in this game very very long. in 2007 or 2008 you will say "Magnus who..."> The guy hasn't posted (or been "seen") here for very very long, so perhaps he made good on his promise and switched to checkers. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | Rolfo: <Let there be no misunderstanding that I think <Eyal> does his utmost to spend time to offer "balanced" analysis on a number of games, each day, for weeks on end sometimes, and is one of the best in the business.> I second!! |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | jhelix70: <Eyal: Yeah, Carlsen's practical sense of play proves itself once again; not all the best moves objectively, but it was extremely difficult for Wang Hao to defend...> Sounds like Emanuel Lasker reborn... |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | ajile: <Marmot PFL: 35...Rf5 36 Bxf6 Rxf6 37 f5+ Ke5 38 f4+ and the doubled pawns are strong after all.> 
click for larger view38.f4+ forces the king away from the rook. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | lost in space: very interesting transformations of his own advantage. First space, later mobility and development, later g-file, bishop pair and active queen. Pure mastership. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | onur87: Please look at position after 19.Rhg1. There is an enough lesson. Positional lesson! |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | ajile: Black can keep fighting but will still lose with 35..Rd7. Point is the bishop will be pinned after exchanges. 35 .....Rd7
36.fxe5 dxe5
37.Qxh6 exd4
38.cxd4 Rd5
39.Qe3+ Kf7
40.h6 Rh5
41.a4 Kg6
42.Qe7 Rxh6
43.Qxa7 Rh3+
44.Kc4 Kf5
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-bit : 20 ply
1.  (4.73): 11.Qb7 Ra3 12.Qc6 Kg5 13.Qb5+ Kg6 14.Kb4 Ra1 15.Qd3+ Kf7 16.Kb5 Rc1 17.Qb3+ Kg7 2. (4.73): 11.Qa8 Ra3 12.Qc6 Kg5 13.Qb5+ Kg6 14.Kb4 Ra1 15.Qd3+ Kf7 16.Kb5 Rc1 17.Qb3+ Kg7 |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | Pedro Fernandez: Without doubt the worst game ever played by Wang Hao in a magisterial tournament. An amateur practically might anticipate almost all the moves Carlsen did. Indeed anyone thinks Carlsen thought deeply in this game? No way! Kinda gift Hao gave to Magnus. |
|
| Jul-24-12 | | HectorChess: <Pedro Fernandez: Without doubt the worst game ever played by Wang Hao in a magisterial tournament.> hmmm...ok I'll believe you
< An amateur practically might anticipate almost all the moves Carlsen did.> Well in that case the <amateur> would be thinking like a top GM, don't you think? <Indeed anyone thinks Carlsen thought deeply in this game?> Maybe, he's a human after all. |
|
| Jul-25-12 | | coolchess1: Carlsen can play lot more games like these only against low rated opposition. He cannot do these on a consistent basis against Anand/Kramnik/Aronian. He punches the low rated opposition rather nicely, hence wants WCC on a tourney basis. He is a superb player against punching bags. |
|
| Jul-25-12 | | Eyal: <kappertjes: I was following the game live and Carlsen was using all his time to calculate alternatives. My take is that he just couldn't see a clear win, despite calculating as much as he could, and his play was therefore aimed at keeping the pressure till he could/would find a way in.> A video in which Carlsen comments about the game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3m9...) seems to support this. Btw, he thinks that 5...b6 was a big mistake right out of the opening and so he was apparently in an especially aggressive mood, feeling that Black has to be "punished" for this. He says that he "couldn't believe his eyes" Bxh6 wasn't winning immediately after 16...h6, and overall gives numerous variations that attempt to force a win, especially with the bishop sac, here and in some later moves. The lines aren't all on "computer level", but overall the analysis is quite accurate and objective. [E.g, he's well aware that 22...Nh5! was much better for Black than Nxd5? and looks quite pissed with himself after showing 23.Be6 Nd3+ 24.Kb1 Rf6 25.Bd4 Rxg6 26.Rxg6 Kh7 and saying that he doesn't know where his attack is going. A couple of things that he missed: he gives 20.Bxh6 gxh6 21.Qd2 Qc7 as saving Black after 22.Qxh6 Nh7, but in fact White is winning after 22.Qd4! followed by Rg6; Black does have a saving move, however, which is 21...Nh7! first and then 22...Qc7 in case of 22.Qxh6. Also, he says that after playing 20.Rg6 he suddenly noticed the possibility of 20...Nfe4 and wasn't sure what to do, giving a couple of lines that lead to unclear positions; Houdini shows a clear win for White after 21.Bxh6! Rxf5 22.Reg1!] |
|
Jul-25-12
 | | HeMateMe: Such a fine eye on how to break open a castled position. Ho seemed on the defensive the whole game. |
|
| Jul-25-12 | | Pedro Fernandez: < HectorChess: <Pedro Fernandez: Without doubt the worst game ever played by Wang Hao in a magisterial tournament.> hmmm...ok I'll believe you
< An amateur practically might anticipate almost all the moves Carlsen did.> Well in that case the <amateur> would be thinking like a top GM, don't you think? <Indeed anyone thinks Carlsen thought deeply in this game?> Maybe, he's a human after all.>
Well my dear Hector, I didn't see the game this morning, just I saw it about a couple hours ago (now is in Caracas 1:10a.m.). Honestly I anticipate absolutely all the crucial moves Magnus did, simply because all of them were totally natural, logic. After ...5.b6?, 6.e4 was logic. ...6.c5?!(d5!?).7.e5 Ne8 (almost necessary) and the black lack of development is already worrying; b4 black bishop is blocked by its own pawns, that's why MC doesn't play the usual a3. 8.d5 continues restricting black space. ...10.f6 11.exf6, obvious! Now g5 white bishop is a lot active. 12.0-0-0! I had the luck to see this move, but look at the black Queen side! An explanation is not needed! ...12.Bxc3. Indeed this bishop hadn't future compared with this dangerous white knight. ...14.Bxf3??, the loser move and everyone agree. Already white h-(p+R) was dangerous and further Wang opens g-column??? Simply suicide! That's why I said Hao played badly (now white long castling is plenty justified). 16.Bd3, natural! Black knight is pinned but also weaken King defense. ...18.Nc5 (Nxd5??? is mortal for black as it is easily seen). 20.Rg6, the most expeditious way to compromise the position of the black king. ...22.Nxd5, not problem, 23.Bd4 is too much strong. Finally 24.Qd2, the winner move which one everybody had in mind. So my friend, it is not necessary you believe in me (which I appreciate, of course)as I'm totally sure you may convince yourself! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 