|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-09-05 | | fgh: Kramnik losing again... Booooh. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | Hesam7: I guess 10 ... f5 was the move that lost the game. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | notyetagm: Check my posts on the Kramnik page. <I said that Sutovsky was going to teach Kramnik how to play successful speculative piece sacrifices.> I feel so vindicated now. Where's acire when I need him? :-) |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | aw1988: This isn't a bad game from Kramnik actually. He fails to neutralize the raging attack of the Isreal grandmaster, but no obvious blunders. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | Knight13: Painful game for Kramnik, man. I think he was stil winning in move 25 but he lost material and dropped a bunch of pawns. Not good. Yup. A super GM, 2700, got crushed by a 2600, man. It's pityful how Black messed up. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | Knight13: <<23.cxd6+!? Sutovsky is playing for a win and courageously decides to sacrifice a piece against the classical chess world champion. A more conservative continuation would have been 23.Qxd6+ Qxd6 24.Nxd6. After the game he said: "The piece sacrifice gave me a strong attack. Kramnik could not find a way to defend against it.">> <<28...Kh7? This is the losing move. Perhaps Black could have survived after 28...Qe6.>> |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | molinov: I am not quite sure 16... e4 was the waty to go. You allow the knight to enter d4 thus becoming a great threat.What do you think of 16.... 0-0-0?. Maybe what kept Kramnik from castling was the possibility of 17.Bxa7.
18.b6 looks dangerous for white. If that's not it then I don't now what's wrong with 16....0-0-0. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | Montreal1666: Analysis from "Chessbase.com":
<10.Be3N. A new move, uncorked by Sutovsky in this Steinitz Defence in the Ruy Lopez. 10.a4 led to a draw in Morozevich,A-Georgiev,K, Mallorca 2004. Kramnik was taken by suprise and needed 25 minutes to work out his reply: 10...f5> And the rest of that analysis is posted by <Knight13:> |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | coolchess: this shows again that he is not a real world champion, that he doesnt deserve to be called world champion, i rather call him the guy who beat kasparov 2-0 good, but come on, mr patzer kramnik, improve or retire, your playing like a 1900 player !!! |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | THE pawn: <coolchess> Neither is he impressive, nor innovative, but to say that kramnik doesn't deserve his title is a bit exagerated, he took it from kasparov, we must give him props for this, then he succesfully defended his title against the dangerous Leko. If he does not deserve his crown after that...then...prout. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | roni.chessman: Give Krammy a break. He's just having a tough year. He's on a struggle period like Morozevich was. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | IDestroyChess: 10... f5?!
[Over the board i would prefer 10...h6 and 11...0-0. Not 10...0-0 11.Qd2!  f5 12.Bh6]12... gxf5? [Nxf5 is safer]
If 18...a6, then 19. Nxf5!!  Bxb2 20.Qa4!!
19.Ne6!
22. cxd6+!!
White played very good, typically for this kind of postion, it seems black had no chance after their 12th (or even 10th) move. Kramnik lost positionally. |
|
| Jul-09-05 | | Medusa: THE pawn:Neither is he impressive, nor innovative,
i agree with coolchess he int playing like a world champion, even tough he is still at top ten, i dislike kramnik even more every day, cause he doesnt deserve to be called champion, i agree |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | Catfriend: <Yup. A super GM, 2700, got crushed by a 2600, man. It's pityful how Black messed up.> <knight 13> Note that Sutovski is almost a super-GM, (and still can be), and he's not "some 2600", he's almost 2700, just a little difference, wouldn't you say? |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | crumpy: I cannot see why Kramnik played 18...♔f7. Can anyone tell me why? |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | Catfriend: <Crumpy> Otherwise Ne6 would win material or great position. 18.Ne6 Nxe6 19.dxe6 and the pawn can't be taken because of Nxc7+. Note that Ne6 can't be ignored, as it attacks c7 together with Nb5. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | euripides: Chessbase reports that 10 Be3 is new and Kramnik took 25 minutes on 10...f5. They seem to think it may be OK, but it looks like a dreadful King's Indian with no white-squared bishop and the bayonet threat of Ng5-e6 inducing grotesque convulsions. Kramnik does seem to be having some difficulty when confronted by surprises at the board - he has had a number of strikingly awful positions early in games during the last year, e.g. Topalov's innovation in the Najdorf or a blindfold Albin at Amber where Vallejo murdered him. It' as if he's thinking deeply enough but his intuition for the best solution has become wonky. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | THE pawn: <Catfriend> I think knight13 just wanna post things and say man in them. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | ughaibu: Just pointing out that with "Albin" Euripides refers to a Sicilian, (for the benefit of any like myself who assumed an Albin counter gambit). |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | euripides: <ugh> thanks ! I had remembered that it was something rare-ish and tricky and thought it was an Albin countergambit - it's a Lowenthal Sicilian. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | mymt: Yes it does look like a Kings Indian maybe thats why Kramnik went for 10. ...f5.Now the strength of 10.Be3 is highlighted by Ng5 with e6 threat forcing the "contortionistic" ...Nf8.But what else is there? 10. ...c6? 10. ...0-0? dont like 10. ...h6 because 11.Qd2 & h6 is a target if Black plays ...0-0. |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | mymt: Perhaps we need to go back to move 9. & try ...Qxd7 [ or has that road already been traveled?] |
|
| Jul-10-05 | | Kangaroo: To <mymt>:
Perhaps the mistake by Kramnik was his premature <10... f5>. In my view, <10 ... h6> or <10 ... 0-0> would be much safer. |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | IDestroyChess: 10... h6 11.Qd2 f5! 12.exf5 Nxf5= |
|
| Jul-11-05 | | euripides: 10...Nf6 followed by Ng4 may also be possible. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 24.Qb3