< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-15-05 | | Phoenix: Are we all having fun, yet? I went to the official broadcast page, and it says draw. |
|
Jan-15-05 | | Shams: chessgames, you should bring up
POLGAR-SVIDLER now!
listen to the donkey on this one, it`s gonna be great! |
|
Jan-15-05
 | | chessgames.com: Yes, it's a highly theoretical draw. Next game is tomorrow, same time (7:30am EST, hopefully it will start on time.) |
|
Jan-15-05
 | | cu8sfan: Well, that's been quick... |
|
Jan-15-05 | | Shams: come on guys, just flip the switch. Topalov-Ponomariov also looks good. who`s with me? |
|
Jan-15-05 | | ketchuplover: Are we done here then? |
|
Jan-15-05 | | Phoenix: This is why I like Corus much better than Linares...there will always be at least ONE game that will make it past move 30 (Knock on wood). |
|
Jan-15-05 | | ketchuplover: What about 12...Kd7? |
|
Jan-15-05
 | | chessgames.com: We're now covering Judit Polgar vs Svidler, 2005. |
|
Jan-15-05 | | arthurv: Wasn't move 11 for white, the move
Karpov ever played against Korchnoj,
in their worldmatch in the Filipines?
Or am I mistaken? And Korchnoj did not dare to accept the saccrifice? |
|
Jan-15-05 | | Hinchliffe: <arthurv> You are correct sir. A move which ironically Kasparov later played against Karpov. Still I guess what goes around comes around. Still it is a wonderful little sac. |
|
Jan-15-05 | | SickedChess: this full game was just showed in postmortem to Shirov by the same Anand a few months ago in Germany
a prearranged draw? or the position is a dead draw? who cares =) |
|
Jan-15-05 | | Andrew Chapman: The final position has occurred at least twice before in Shirov vs Anand, 2004 and Morozevich vs Ponomariov, 2004 and both were drawn after simplifying down to white having three pawns on king side and black two on king side and one on the queen side. |
|
Jan-15-05 | | SimonBrazil: <Andrew Chapman> also see Kasparov's win against Shirov Kasparov vs Shirov, 2001 |
|
Jan-15-05 | | bigbear: <Wasn't move 11 for white, the move
Karpov ever played against Korchnoj,
in their worldmatch in the Filipines?> Tal was then in Karpov's team. He's thought to be the man who found the sac. The line with 9.Nbd2 was then almost forgotten. |
|
Jan-15-05 | | aw1988: Timman vs Smyslov, 1979 |
|
Jan-15-05 | | ughaibu: I dont understand why Anand is so popular, this was just another game amounting to the triviality of homework. |
|
Jan-16-05 | | Sonofabishop84: 21 moves in 6 minutes, do those 6 minutes include Vishy writing down the notation? |
|
Jan-16-05 | | bigbear: <I dont understand why Anand is so popular, this was just another game amounting to the triviality of homework>Fischer said that those players with thick glasses like Anand and Kramnik. spend their life with a computer. As a matter of fact, they play chess as if it were a boring job. They seem to have forgotten that is a game, for true gamblers like Tal or Alekhine. |
|
Jan-16-05 | | bigbear: By the way, the most important historical before 1978 with that move isCapablanca vs Lasker, 1914 |
|
Jan-16-05 | | SimonBrazil: <ughaibu> maybe because few can remenber the homework like he does... and maybe cause he won almost everything in 2004... |
|
Jan-27-05 | | Open Defence: Keene said somewhere that the 11Ng5 novelty was probably Tal's invention, wonder if Mr Keene would like to enlighten us on this, it would be a big favour Mr Keene :-) |
|
Jan-27-05 | | AdrianP: <Open Defence> The rook sacrifice in Kasparov vs Anand, 1995 (where Kasparov also played 11. Ng5) was reputedly an idea of Tal's. To get to the Rook sac, you need to play 11. Ng5, so either Tal came up with this idea after Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 (my understanding) or 11. Ng5 should indeed be credited to Tal. |
|
Jan-27-05
 | | Willem Wallekers: 11. Ng5 was first played in Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1978
It could have been Tal's idea, he was in Karpov's team. Sosonko thinks it came from Zaitsev.
(From Timman's book on this match) |
|
Feb-20-05 | | Billage: I don't think of this opening being very exciting..
With 11. Ng5 countered by 11...Qxg5, if played correctly the game will always be a draw. Kind of boring. I read in a tactics book that a guy wayyy back theorized that 1. e4 e5, if played to perfection would be a draw no matter what
I think 11. Ng5 is giving this theory a good possibility. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |