|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-25-19 | | BOSTER: Thanks <Eyal>.But computer evaluation after 67...Nc6+ is equal. |
|
| Jan-25-19 | | Eyal: <BOSTER> Not really. I mean, when you say "computer evaluation" it always depends on what computer and which ply-depth of analysis - perhaps you looked at some relatively shallow evaluation, but if you let a decent engine run long (that is, deep) enough it will show you the win. |
|
Jan-25-19
 | | keypusher: <BOSTER>
If you run SF on this website for 15 minutes the eval after 67....Nc6+ is +5.11 (54 ply). I don't pretend to understand all the moves, but it follows the variation <Eyal> gave, and White captures the c-pawn and eventually the a-pawn with a simple win. |
|
| Jan-25-19 | | BOSTER: I agree. You both are right.I follow CG engine, and it creates the wrong feeling. |
|
Jan-27-19
 | | Penguincw: Some video footage of the end of this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9M.... |
|
| Jan-28-19 | | fabelhaft: Many were saying stuff like Anand failing to find the draw after 70. a5 will be the blunder of the year etc, but it says something about how tricky it after all was when even Judit Polgar well after the tournament was over thinks Anand was lost after a5 :-) <@GMJuditPolgar: Congratulations to Magnus Carlsen for winning the 7th time the historical event in Wijk aan Zee! Very nice technique against Anand in game 10. After a5 it is over. If bxa5 Kd5 Nf4, Kc5 Ne2, Na3! And black cannot take Nxc3 to Nb5 and the pawn endgame wins. https://twitter.com/GMJuditPolgar/s...> |
|
| Feb-06-19 | | achieve: <Eyal:
Several people already mentioned that 70...b5? (instead of bxa5!) was the losing move, but it should be noted that 70...bxa5 works for a <very> concrete reason, which requires precise calculation: 71.Kd5 Nf4+! > I disagree with the notion that it requires precise and <concrete> calculation. During the game I commented on this position and obviously the only way to get the knight back in position to sac itself is from the side and from under the pawns, so the route via f4 to e2 and c1 to the ideal <a2> even, does <NOT> require precise calculation, they are - to me - quite obvious, and as I said the clear way back to the pawns, and harrassing them. I was fresh at the time, and an endgame freak, admitted, but Anand when fresh ought to have seen and felt that maneuvre, especially since Vishy is a Knight wizard. Only short calculations (in endgames I excel at those, not in middle games!;)) come into play. However to close with a compliment, I want to voice my appreciation for the analysis you did in your familiar precise manner! :) And on a final note; I haven't been around cg much lately, and it was good seeing you again considering the many conversations, including tennis!, we had. ;) |
|
Feb-08-19
 | | HeMateMe: I wonder how much of this was home prep by Anand, putting his king in the middle of the board for an early endgame, and at what point MC took him out of prep? Anand must have thought this was a good position, despite the ugly pawn structure. |
|
| Feb-15-19 | | Everett: <achieve> <I was fresh at the time, and an endgame freak, admitted, but Anand when fresh ought to have seen and felt that maneuvre, especially since <Vishy is a Knight wizard.>> Yes, and so is Carlsen, all the more reason why Carlsen is one of the toughest opponents for Anand. Kramnik I believe once noted just how good Anand is with knights.... |
|
| Feb-25-19 | | Shamboozle: It's not a draw people. If Anand plays b3, then Nd4+ immediately nabs the pawn. If black plays a strong move, Kc5, white's plan is easy - Nc1 followed by Nb3 on the next move. Once white's knight gets to b3,- this blockades both of black's pawns and protects white's only pawn. Black cannot stop white's pawn and protect his own pawns simultaneously, so as black fiddles with his king, white will win both black pawns, and then slowly push his pawn to victory. Any attempts for black to capture white's knight end in white queening his pawn faster. Stockfish gives the final position of the game, ie where Anand resigned as +4.5 for white. |
|
| Mar-30-19 | | joddon: goes to show...Carlsen will go out of his mind to calculate....wow, never seen a white knight moves so many places and not make a mistake on placing it on a bad square....as if he s played all the outcomes before in his head....think he starts playing the game before it even starts....LOL!! |
|
| Apr-03-19 | | Jambow: Carlsen seems to me unique in that he loves an endgame with some minor pieces but unlike Fischer and Karpov he is ruthless with his knights. Kasparov used his knights to great effect as well but with devastating effect in the middle game. This is vintage Magnus if it is ok to call a twenty year old vintage anything. Most players seek clarification in the last section of the game Magnus seeks the opposite. |
|
May-04-19
 | | Plaskett: This ending can be tricky, see, e.g. Miles Vs Korchnoi. last round of Hastings 1976. |
|
| Aug-11-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger view
BLACK TO MOVE
If there is an endgame specialist among the kibitzers, I have a simple question: Why did Anand not capture White's h5-pawn right away? Was there something wrong with that? Vishy played 43...Re6. I have spent about 15 minutes trying to understand the purpose of that move. Wasn't Black's rook already well placed on e7? For example: 43...Nxh5 44.Rg1+ Kf6 45.Rf1+ (if 45. Rh1 Kg6) Kg6, and I do not see how White could make headway. True, White has a pawn majority on the queenside and his plan must be to get a passed pawn on the queenside, but Black has already a passed pawn on the opposite wing. I believe that this ending should be a draw. Or maybe I am missing something. The engines are of little help, because all of them believe that the ending is a draw, but we all know that the engines are not very reliable in their evaluation of endings. |
|
| Aug-11-21 | | Gaito: I must apologize with the engines for the last part of my previous comment. Sorry. Of course the engines (especially Leela Chess Zero and Stockfish 14) are tremendously strong in the endgames, but what I wanted to say was that they are even stronger to find the correct moves when tactical complications of the middle game arise. Maybe fifteen years ago the engines (like Fritz, Hiarcs or Genius) were not very reliable in endings, but now in 2021 the engines play the endings better than any human being, even better than Carlsen, Lasker or Capablanca. And they are becoming stronger every year.
If SF14 assures that this ending was a draw, of course it was a draw. All we have to do is try to find the exact moment when Vishy Anand went astray. Perhaps his mistake was to allow the exchange of rooks. |
|
| Aug-11-21 | | Gaito: 
click for larger viewBLACK TO MOVE
This was the critical position when Vishy Anand made up his mind to allow the exchange of rooks under the belief that the ensuing ending should be a draw. Was it a correct decision? Couldn't 52...Re4 have been a better decision? We could attempt to find out the truth with the aid of an engine: 52....Re4 53.Rg2 Kf5 54.Nh2 Nd5+ 55.Kb2 c4 56.Ka3 b5! (See diagram below):
click for larger view
57.axb5 cxb3 58.cxb3 Rb4 59.Nf3 Kf4! (the b5-pawn is not going to run away anywhere) 60.Ne5 Rxb5 61.Re2 Ra5+ 62.Kb2 Ra2+! (I have added exclamations marks after Black's moves 56, 59 and 62 not because they were difficult to find, but because they seem to be very pretty and accurate moves which incidentally show clearly that the ending was a draw.) 63.Kxa2 Nc3+ 64.Kb2 Nxe2 65.Nc6 Ke4 66.Kc2 Kd5 67.Kd2 Kxc6 68.Kxe2 Kb5 draw. (See diagram below):
click for larger view |
|
| Aug-11-21 | | Gaito: After writing my comments I started to read all the previous comments of other fellow kibitzers, and some of them had already pointed out that Vishy's mistake was to allow the exchange of rooks on move 52.
For example:
<Jan-23-19 Jaburu: I think that 52...Re4 maintaining the rook, is draw.>Yes. Congratulations, Jaburu. You are right. The engine confirmed your suspicion. Vishy had to maintain the rooks on the board, with an easy draw in sight. |
|
| Aug-11-21 | | Gaito: Magnus Carlsen is the champ and Vishy Anand was the champ some years ago. But I see this game as a win through exhaustion by an 18-year-old genius in his prime, full of energy and stamina, against a 50-year-old man who is past his prime. I don't think that an 18-year- old Magnus could win this same ending against an hypothetical 18-year-old Vishy Anand in a parallel universe.
A boy full of energy and talent against a mature man past his prime looks kind of unfair to me. But that's the way it is. I agree with a comment by Caissanist:
< Jan-23-19 Caissanist: Anand is as good or better as he was fifteen years ago in most respects, but he no longer has the stamina he once did. It looks like Carlsen was happy to steer the game into an even-but-not-drawish ending and basically watch Anand die of exhaustion. Not much room for being a nice guy at this level.> |
|
Aug-11-21
 | | Retireborn: <Gaito> Magnus Carlsen is not 18. Just thought I'd mention that. |
|
| Aug-12-21 | | Gaito: < Retireborn: <Gaito> Magnus Carlsen is not 18. Just thought I'd mention that.>
I know, thanks. I realized my error right after I had submitted my post, however there is no "edit" option. If there was an "edit" option, I would quickly have corrected this mistake and other mistakes I have made in my comments. But when I realize that I wrote an unimportant mistake I feel lazy to delete all my comment and write the comment again freom scratch.
Maybe they should always keep open an "edit" option for the author of each comment.
Thanks anyway, Retireborn. |
|
| Aug-12-21 | | Gaito: Moreover, the "delete" option disappears as soon as somebody else has added a new comment. I don't understand why they do that. They deprive the annotator of any possibilty to delete or edit a comment when he realizes that an error crept in. |
|
Aug-12-21
 | | Dionysius1: But that could mean that what the new comment was responding to has disappeared, making the new comment nonsense? |
|
| Aug-12-21 | | Gaito: <Aug-12-21
Premium Chessgames Member Dionysius1: But that could mean that what the new comment was responding to has disappeared, making the new comment nonsense?>
On second thoughts, I believe you are right. This is a good system. And the commentator has a good chance to check the correctness of what they wrote just before pressing "kibitz" |
|
Aug-18-21
| | Dionysius1: Heh <Gaito>. I've done more than my fair share of corrections, and the quickest way I've found is to copy the original, paste as a new Kibitz, edit, then post and delete the earlier version. After doing a few it feels very little hassle. Although I think the delete option for the original only lasts for 20 minutes once it's posted. I posted one in a bad mood, went to delete it cos I thought it was a bit rude, and the option was gone - the kibitz is still there :-( |
|
| Aug-18-21 | | Ulhumbrus: Insetad of 12...exd4 12...f6 puts the f pawn to work |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 