| Jan-15-07 | | Shajmaty: 18...Bc6 secures the draw for Black. Very "Kramnikish". |
|
| Jan-15-07 | | Kajtek: I must say I like Kramnik's style of play. He is uncompromising and solid. |
|
| Jan-15-07 | | alicefujimori: This is all theory right up to move 22.
Rublevsky vs Kramnik, 2005 |
|
| Jan-15-07 | | acirce: So do I but this wasn't even a game. It's not even interesting for me as a Petrov player because since at least 2005 I have essentially this entire game in my file about the 3.d4 Petrov already. (I notice I had entered 24..Re8 leading to the same thing.) This was based on Rublevsky vs Kramnik, 2005 So I don't know if this has actually been played before all the way out but it any case it didn't add anything new at all to our knowledge about the line. Of course for those who are new to this line there is some value in going over the game. |
|
Jan-15-07
 | | JointheArmy: <acirce> Do you know if there are any lines in the 3. d4 Petrov that give black winning chances or some type of exchange sacrifice that is good for black? In any case Kramnik playing a Petrov against Tiviakov, one of the weakest players in the tournament, is not a good sign for his black repertiore. I'd love to see Kramnik going for a win in a regular Ruy Lopez instead. |
|
| Jan-15-07 | | crwynn: "In any case Kramnik playing a Petrov against Tiviakov, one of the weakest players in the tournament, is not a good sign for his black repertiore. I'd love to see Kramnik going for a win in a regular Ruy Lopez instead" People who would love to see Kramnik doing xyz (i.e. something fun) are going to get disappointed; this kind of non-game is part and parcel of Kramnik. But it's not as if the strength difference between these two is so great that Kramnik has any business stirring things up just to "catch a rabbit"; abandoning his preferred style with the Black pieces would be a good way to lose. This, unfortunately, is his preferred style with Black. |
|
| Jan-16-07 | | whithaw: I play the petrov quite a bit, and I can say very certainly that kramnik's play is amazingly instructive. There are those that may find games like this boring, and they are wrong. Draw does not equal boring. There is incredible depth in his play. His level of understanding is awesome and god given. To challenge those that think his play is uninteresting and boring, try to guess his line of play before he plays his move. I will guarantee that you will be more often wrong than right. If a player makes one mistake against him in these seemingly boring games, they are stone cold dead. |
|
| Jan-16-07 | | ganstaman: <whithaw> Please tell me how many moves in this game required Kramnik to actually think? I'd love to try to gain some of his understanding, but I just don't know which moves actually contain it. |
|
| Jan-16-07 | | you vs yourself: <If a player makes one mistake against him in these seemingly boring games, they are stone cold dead.> This is true for most super-GMs. |
|
| Jan-16-07 | | whithaw: gastaman,
I understand what you are trying to say...that this game represents theory that has all been played before...and that there was no thinking involved in this game (e.g. Rublevsky vs Kramnik.) I can only say this: Kramnik plays sound chess. The line that he played and prepared vs Rublevsky was clear and sound and there are no flaws in his defense. I suppose that you are right in some way, that he relies on his past analysis, but isn't that what good players do? Isn't that evidence of his overall knowledge and understanding? To put the ball back into your court (politely, I might add): Is every opening that you play orginal? I am sure that you, like many players, fall back on knowledge and theory at some point. Also, I am sure that you do know the difference between memorization and understanding. So, to answer your question: "Please tell me how many moves in this game required Kramnik to actually think?" The answer is every move, maybe not during this game, but over his entire career I am sure that he had to think through every move of this variation to reach his level. |
|
| Jan-16-07 | | s4life: <whithaw>
So as long as it's sound, you don't mind watching the same game over and over?You have either a lot of time and/or a strange sense of fun. |
|
| Jan-16-07 | | Stonewaller2: wading in, probably well out of my depth, but as a devoted Petrovnik . . . why is it Kramnik's fault to have played 2. ... ♘f6 rather than Tiviakov's to have entered a line he must have known Kramnik could, and would, draw against? (i.e. 12. ♕h5 ) i'd say it's neither's fault; if i ever play Kramnik as White i'll surely trot out this line. ;) someone's going to have to convince me it's some kind of chessic sin to want a draw as Black against a 2660 player in an early round of a top tourney before i buy any of that. |
|
| Jan-17-07 | | s4life: <Stonewaller2: someone's going to have to convince me it's some kind of chessic sin to want a draw as Black against a 2660 player in an early round of a top tourney before i buy any of that.> Not a chess sin, but if you do it at least twice as often as your peers and are rated 100 points higher than your opponent, and on top of that you are the current world champion, I think people would expect you to play for a win... otherwise you'd be labeled as a boring player and your games wouldn't attrack too much attention. |
|
| Jan-18-07 | | Stonewaller2: well, the World Champion surely must cry himself to sleep every night because some people think his game's "boring." my guess would be he'd rather be a "boring" Champion than an "exciting" also-ran. the mark of the world-class player has always been the ability to maneuver one's opponents into positions in which they are less comfortable than oneself (apologies for the tortured grammar but you get the point i hope). that's what both Kramnik and Topalov appear to be trying to do, each in his own way. an analogy to my "sport," croquet, would be that the goal of the top players is to make a lot of simple, "boring" shots. sure, they can make the exciting ones too, but it's the ability to arrange things so as to be in control, winning with "boring" play, that marks the champions. the same might apply to golf: Tiger Woods's play is pretty boring, drive down the center of the fairway, play a short iron on the green, make another birdie, ho-hum, win another boring tournament, cash another boring check. preferring a Topalov or a Bronstein or a Tal to a Kramnik or a Karpov or a Capablanca thus seems to me a matter of taste, not of chess ability or quality per se. |
|
| Jan-18-07 | | Paul123: After the World Championship match against Topalov, I have to say that I don’t mind his draws as much as I used too. He’s a modern day Tigran Petrosian he just has a different aspect of play. I think we are going to look back on his career and say, “Kramnik was really good, with the same respect we give Tigran” It appears we can call him Drawnik during tournaments, but during match play it’s IMO
“Draw with me or be defeated”
|
|
Jan-18-07
 | | chancho: <I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks I consider my method to be right as any superfluous daring runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic. – Jose Raul Capablanca>
|
|
| Jan-18-07 | | s4life: <Stonewaller2: preferring a Topalov or a Bronstein or a Tal to a Kramnik or a Karpov or a Capablanca thus seems to me a matter of taste, not of chess ability or quality per se.> So when did I contest this? You are preaching to the choir. |
|
| Jan-18-07 | | ughaibu: Topalov's play is nothing like either Bronstein or Tal. |
|
Jan-18-07
| | JointheArmy: <Topalov's play is nothing like either Bronstein or Tal.> His play no. The way he approaches a position I'd say is very similar to Bronstein, but nothing like Tal's approach or algorithm. |
|
| Jan-18-07 | | Stonewaller2: <s4life> glad we agree |
|
| Jan-26-07 | | Whack8888: Quick question--after 22. Rd1 does Black just get a perpetual with 22...Qa4 23. Rd2 Qb4 etc. or is there something better for Black? |
|
| Jan-26-07 | | Whack8888: Ok, just looked at Rublevsky vs Kramnik, 2005 and there is my answer--thanks <alicefujimori> and <acirce> |
|
| Jan-21-10 | | visayanbraindoctor: <chancho: <I always play carefully and try to avoid unnecessary risks I consider my method to be right as any superfluous daring runs counter to the essential character of chess, which is not a gamble but a purely intellectual combat conducted in accordance with the exact rules of logic. – Jose Raul Capablanca> >
Translation: I am content to play like a computer. (",) |
|
Kibitzing
