|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 23 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-06-07
 | | tamar: <Eyal> Good explanation. I suppose Cheparinov was just reflexing his moves, and putting his King on dark squares, but the missed draws may haunt him tonight. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | dycotiles: Well Carlsen deserved his win. With his intuition he reached a won position. Yes, there were blunders afterwards, but this is due to the siliness of FIDE's time controls. What a game! |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | Veryrusty: To me, the value of watching a live game, with imprecisions and blunders, is in understanding the thinking that leads to the moves. It's all well and good to have the engines tell us what things drop material (oversight), but I learned more about this endgame by watching two really good players make moves I didn't expect than I would have by following a Rybka or Shredder thread. |
|
Dec-06-07
 | | Peligroso Patzer: < cotdt: <Peligroso Patzer: With regard to comparisons to other GMs who would have played this endgame better, the truth is that no one can play a complicated endgame accurately at 30 sec./move.> I've seen Anand do it in rapids and blitz. > Were those endgames really as difficult as this one?
BTW, this game could be Exhibit A for the proposition that if sudden death time controls are going to be used, they should only be resorted to at the tertiary stage after, for example, a second time control of 20/30+30. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | acirce: <I suppose Cheparinov was just reflexing his moves, and putting his King on dark squares,> Yes, this is what you do intuitively against a light-squared bishop. You were talking about Kramnik, and even though the endgame in Judit Polgar vs Kramnik, 2003 was not exactly like this one, his 74..Ka5? drawing instead of 74..Kb5 winning (according to analysis I've seen - haven't checked it though) must have had the same reason. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | dycotiles: <cotdt: I've seen Anand do it in rapids and blitz.> At 17 years of age? |
|
Dec-06-07
| | tamar: <acirce> wow, looks like the same error. Carlsen could have played 58 Bd5 
click for larger view
instead of 58 Bf1, and it would seem to be a similar error. 58 Bd5 allows 58...Ke5 and there would be no time to check whether that tempo helps Black (it doesn't) while 58 Bf1 seems safer. But as <Eyal> points out, Black's draw depends on going through e4 and the double threat of ...Kf3 and ...Kd3 |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | MoonlitKnight: The funny thing is, in the last World Cup Magnus knocked out Cheparinov in a rook vs. two minors endgame, but that time Magnus was the one with the rook! |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | cotdt: chepa will strike back tomorrow. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | znprdx: Carlsen’s choice of 48.Bc6!! was a real shocker: ...but it had the view to mate as well. But to actually use the kingside bind as a bluff to prepare the ‘c’ pawn steamroller while the ‘a’ pawn was not controlled is beyond brilliance. It is total nonsense to be criticizing their play as some have done. Chess is a game of calculated risks. White simply had more tactical options to further the strategic plan while Black was in desperation mode at best. To claim this could have been drawn begs the question of struggle itself. I’m certain that there may well have been over a dozen reasonable lines possible once they’d made regular time control-maybe some were crushing forced mates. (for example I saw a latent mate threat with Bd5 (poised for Bxc4 also protecting a2) which is why I thought 46.Nf4 with the idea of Nh5 seemed better...or even at move 48.) NOTE to CG I really wish people would stop posting computer analysis during a LIVE game...(if possible could this be prohibited?) They are totally missing the point and in many ways spoiling the game for those of us who like to test our potential capacity. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | HOTDOG: 57...g3?(57...e5! =),58.Bf1?(58.Bd5!  ),58...e5?(58...Ke4! =),59.Kb3?(59.Bg2! )59...Kf4?(59...Ke4! =)
now thinking to the horrible blunders I make in the endgames at least I'm not the only one... |
|
Dec-06-07
| | Peligroso Patzer: < dycotiles:
<cotdt: I've seen Anand do it [play a difficult endgame accurately] in rapids and blitz.> At 17 years of age? >
This was an extremely complicated endgame. I don't believe anyone - not Capablanca, not Smyslov, not Karpov, not Kramnik, not anyone - could have played it accurately at 30 sec./move at any age. BTW, I am not convinced the position was winning for White after 53. ... Kg7. Carlsen's 54. Kd3 was criticized, but where was the forced win? Not good enough, for example, would have been: 54.Ba2 Kxg6 55.c4 Kf6 56.Ke4 e5 57.Kf3 (White only invites problems with 57.c5?! g4 58.c6 Ke7 59.Ke3 [59.Kxe5? g3 60.Bd5 g2  ] 59...Kd6 60.Bd5 Kxd5 61.c7 a2 62.c8Q a1Q 63.Qd7+ with White struggling to draw) 57...Ke7 58.Ke4 (58.Kg4? e4 59.Kg3 Kd6 ) 58...g4 59.Ke3 Kd6 60.Ke4 Kc5 61.Ke3 Kb4 62.Ke4 Kc5=. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | cotdt: I agree. Computer evaluations should be banned for LIVE games, though posting lines generated by computer engines without the score should be fine. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | znprdx: Carlsen’s choice of 48.Bc6!! was a real shocker: ... it had the view to mate - which the object of the game - but to actually use this kingside bind as a bluff to prepare the ‘c’ pawn steamroller while the ‘a’ pawn was not controlled is beyond brilliance. It is total nonsense to be criticizing their play as some have done. Chess is a game of calculated risks. White simply had more tactical options to further the strategic plan while Black was in desperation mode at best. To claim this could have been drawn begs the question of struggle itself. I’m certain that there may well have been over a dozen reasonable lines possible once they’d made regular time control-maybe some were crushing forced mates. (for example I saw a latent mate threat with Bd5 (poised for Bxc4 also protecting a2) which is why I thought 46.Nf4 with the idea of Nh5 seemed better...or even at move 48.) <NOTE to CG> I really wish people would stop posting computer analysis during a LIVE game...(if possible could this be prohibited?) They are totally missing the point and in many ways spoiling the game for those of us who like to test our potential capacity. |
|
Dec-06-07
| | Peligroso Patzer: One important thing to remember about the endgame that arose after 53 ... Kg7 is that in a position such as the following: 
click for larger view
Black's e- and g-pawns are immune from capture. If White plays Ke4, then simply ... g4, and White cannot continue with Kxe5. |
|
Dec-06-07
| | Peligroso Patzer: <<NOTE to CG> I really wish people would stop posting computer analysis during a LIVE game...(if possible could this be prohibited?)> It is easy to identify such posts from the first line. My suggestion is: just skip over them. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | kellmano: <<<NOTE to CG> I really wish people would stop posting computer analysis during a LIVE game...(if possible could this be prohibited?)>> What makes it annoying is the fact that it is so often twinned with criticism of the players. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | percyblakeney: <Carlsen's 54. Kd3 was criticized, but where was the forced win?> Ke5 seems to be the beginning of the winning line. It looked strange with those four moves to bring the king from the centre to a3 to take a pawn that couldn't move, but not easy to find the best moves even with engines. |
|
Dec-06-07
| | Peligroso Patzer: <kellmano: <<<NOTE to CG> I really wish people would stop posting computer analysis during a LIVE game...(if possible could this be prohibited?)>>
What makes it annoying is the fact that it is so often twinned with criticism of the players.> How very true! And all too often (especially with endgame positions) the criticisms are based on naive reliance on computer evaluations that are way off-base. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | frogbert: <cotdt: lol Carlsen is even worse than me in endgames> if it's one thing carlsen has proved during 2007, it is that he's one of the best out there in practical end games! going into an equal, unbalanced end game with carlsen is dangerous for your health, no less. :o) |
|
Dec-06-07
| | tamar: I predict the only bad error Magnus blames himself for is 54 Kd3 since the errors after were time related. It will be interesting if Henrik gives a recap in his blog. I don't see much problem winning after 54 Ba2 or 54 Ke5 |
|
Dec-06-07
| | Peligroso Patzer: <percyblakeney: <Carlsen's 54. Kd3 was criticized, but where was the forced win?>
Ke5 seems to be the beginning of the winning line. It looked strange with those four moves to bring the king from the centre to a3 to take a pawn that couldn't move, but not easy to find the best moves even with engines.> Indeed, it seems that 54.Ke5 Kxg6 55.Ba2 would have placed Black in a curious zugzwang. Winning for White, for example, would be 55. ... Kh5 56.c4 g4 57.Ke4 Kg5 58.c5 Kf6 59.c6 . (Unfortunately for Black, 59. ... Kxe7, capturing his own pawn, is illegal here.) With little time to calculate, I am sure Carlsen did not like the idea of having his Bishop tied down to occupying or covering the a2-square. Although the a3-pawn can't move, it largely neutralizes White's Bishop. Nevertheless, after the line I have quoted above (based on <percyblakeney>’s suggestion of 54. Ke5), it appears that with the use of zugzwang (and thanks to the fact that a Black pawn is occupying the e7-square, denying his own King accesss to it), White could have mobilized his c-pawn with an unstoppable run to the promotion square. |
|
Dec-06-07
| | tamar: <frogbert> exactly.
Which makes 41...Kf6 so crazy. Black had the option of playing 41...Rb2 and ...Rb3 and ...Rb2 until the cows came home. |
|
| Dec-06-07 | | frogbert: the principal variation after 54. ke5 goes like this:
click for larger view54... Kxg6 55.Ba2 Kh5 56.c4 g4 57.Kf4 Kh4 58.c5 g3 59.Kf3 Kh3 60.c6 g2 61.c7 g1Q 62.c8Q+ Kh4 63.Qh8+ Kg5 64.Qg8+ and white picks up the queen. 
click for larger viewblack can possibly try e5 at some point, but i don't think it changes anything. maybe carlsen missed that c8:q was check, or he just didn't calculate the line through. |
|
Dec-06-07
| | Peligroso Patzer: One more variation relating to the analysis given in my previous post: After 54. Ke5 Kxg6 55. Ba2, Black could try sacrificing his e-pawn (to free the e7-square for later transit by his King), but this also seems to fall just short of holding: 55...e6 56.Bxe6 Kh5 57.Ke4 g4 58.Kf4 Kh4 59.Ke3 Kg3 60.Bd5 Kh2 61.Kd3 g3 62.Kc2 g2 63.Bxg2 Kxg2 64.Kb3 Kf3 65.Kxa3 Ke4 66.Kb4 Kd5 67.Kb5 . So, the natural 54. Ke5, as suggested by <percyblakeney>, probably would have been the winning move at that point in the game. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 23 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 28.Rxe5