|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 36 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-22-08 | | Shams: <<qjuice14>but it is hardly an amazing sac when w/ best play white obtains no advantage.> it's chess. with best play, no moves ever obtain advantage. it's amazing because it happened relatively early in a *very* well-trodden line and presented sufficient complications to confuse Kramnik. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | ivan999: chessmoron, in case you missed the link provided here is again
http://chesspro.ru/_events/2008/wei... |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | micartouse: <Tal is one of my favorite players, but even he would need a few days of quiet analysis at home to even consider it. And indeed I dont remember during the past few years seeing such a bombshell as Nxf7 at such a high level.> Any GM would spot it in a blitz game but might not trust it in a serious game for various reasons. Kramnik played the move against Anand in a very similar position and screwed it up. If you don't remember such opening bombshells in recent years, you aren't spending much time at chessgames recently. I can think of half a dozen such examples very easily. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | shach matov: Finding a novelty like Nxf7 is one thing, but destroying kramnik over the board with it is quite another! and topalov did that today. The complexity of this game is spectacular. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | lechonpaksiw: It takes a lot of guts for Topalov to play Nxf7 against a player of Kramnik's caliber. No ordinary GM can be that courageous against Kramnik knowing that an incorrect followup would mean humiliating loss |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | acirce: <<acirce: Perhaps some kind of vague hope in 26.Qf7 Rf8 27.h3 Rxf7 28.hxg4 [Nxf4 29.Nxf7] Ne2+ 30.Kh2 Nxc1 31.Rxc1 Rb8 and counterplay based on the passer - but no, it shouldn't help.> According to Topalov at the press conference, that's the line he didn't like so much when he rejected 27.h3 (he mentions Bg3 being temporarily out of the game here).> I did suspect that was the reason, but it seems to me that in the final analysis the bishop enters the game in time after the f-pawn moves - not that clear though, and in any case much easier to say with a computer running and being allowed to move the pieces around, of course. <only briefly the option of 29...Qe2 (with the threat of Qxf1+ followed by b2) 30.Rc3. He seems pretty certain that White is winning without too much trouble here as well, but is White's advantage really so clear after 30...b2 31.Rb3+ Kc7?> Nope, and I would like to see the clear win after 31..Ka8 too. <Also, it turns out that 12.Nxf7 had already been analyzed by Cheparinov 3 years ago and Topalov was saving it for a "special occasion"...> Not a surprise either... but for a while it seemed like Topalov was running out of these ultra-critical Cheparinov novelties. I guess he made up for it by quite a margin here. Apparently, Cheparinov <said that some specific lines were analyzed all the way to move 40(!)> (from the official site...) |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | parisattack: Classical chess not dead - yet. It certainly has another generation or two as long as players like Topalov are around to keep the others honest. I see ChessBase didn't think the game was anything too special - not unexpected, of course. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | chessmoron: Why do you want me to like this game? Why can't there be different opinions than just WOW! Holy @#$%! Topalov's immortal....yadada. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | acirce: <I see ChessBase didn't think the game was anything too special> What makes you draw this conclusion? That they are waiting until tomorrow to publish analysis so that they can do it properly? |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | Hesam7: 29...Qe2 30 Rc3 b2 31 Rb3+ Ka8 looks like a substantial improvement for Black and most likely will draw:
click for larger viewTop 3 lines for White by Fruit 2.3.1 @ depth 18:
[1] 32.Nxh8 Nc5 33.Rxb2 Qxb2 34.dxe6 Nxe6 35.Nf7 Nd4 36.h3 Qb7 37.Nd6 Qb4 38.Kh2 Ne2 39.Nf5 Qa5 40.Nxh6 Nxg3 41.fxg3 Qxe5 42.Ng4 Qd4 43.Rf8+ Kb7 44.Rf7+ Kc6 <+0.52> [2] 32.dxe6 Nc5 33.Rxb2 Qxb2 34.Nxh8 Nxe6 35.Nf7 Nd4 36.h3 Qb7 37.Nd6 Qb4 38.Kh2 Ne2 39.Nf5 Qa5 40.Nxh6 Nxg3 41.fxg3 Qxe5 42.Nf7 Qe2 <+0.47> [3] 32.Rxb2 Qxb2 33.Nxh8 Nxe5 34.dxe6 Nc6 35.Nf7 Qe2 36.f4 Qe3+ 37.Kh1 Qxe6 38.fxg5 Qc4 39.Kg1 hxg5 40.Nd6 Qd4+ 41.Kh1 Qxa4 42.Rf8+ Nb8 43.h3 Qd1+ 44.Kh2 <-0.15> |
|
Jan-22-08
 | | chancho: <This is a known fact. The question was whether Tal would find it over the board.> My question is would Topalov find it over the board. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | 17.Bxg7: I also had the impression how Chessbase reported the news (not even mentioning a queen sacrifice, but something like "Topalov used a theoretical novelty of someone else and won just because Kramnik fell in time trouble and missed a draw". It would be nice gesture from them to give their recogtnition to probably the most impressive crush Kramnik has received in the last century! But it is Chessbase and the description would be completely different if the winner was other player. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | TrueBlue: Nxf7 is unbelievable move. It is something that even the best computer program will not consider. However, I don't expect kibitzers here to understand that. It is just too great of a move for average players to comprehend. As Topalov said, things are extremely complicated. I don't know if it is winning novelty, but it sure looks this way. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | acirce: Fables aside, what Chessbase <really> said - so far - was <The game went well for Topalov, who was able to spring a dramatic novelty, 12.Nxf7, discovered by his second Ivan Cheparinov three years ago and carefully preserved for an important occasion. Kramnik came under serious pressure and missed clear drawing chances, as Garry Kasparov, watching the games on Playchess.com, pointed out in real time. More about that in the analysis tomorrow. In the end thing went badly downhill for the Russian GM and Topalov was able to chalk up an important psychological victory.> |
|
Jan-22-08
| | chancho: Tal did not have the luxury of computers to help him find his novelties.This game is a beauty though, no doubt about it. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | KamikazeAttack: <"Topalov used a theoretical novelty of someone else and won just because Kramnik fell in time trouble and missed a draw". > Yet you continue to lie...
Do you have the honesty to post exactly what Chessbase said? |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | TrueBlue: and if you don't believe me, try playing the game against Fritz, you will see how the evaluation goes from -2 after Nxf7 to +2 after few moves, simply amazing! |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | 12.Nxf7: re chessbase: the "clear" drawing chances that were so obvious to kasparov in real time (and in the comfort of retirement) might not be so clear at all, at least not to anand and karpov. shame on chessbase for their spin and politicking. topalov himself said that the game is tought to play, especially for black, so yes, there were chances for each side. but give topalov some credit for executing, and for having the balls to play a risky, complicated game against most rational defender and best technician in chess. i can only imagine what they would have reported if the roles were reversed. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | chessmoron: <the "clear" drawing chances that were so obvious to kasparov in real time> Why are you blaming on chessbase? You should blame on Kasparov. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | Shams: man I wish everyone would just chill out. Kasparov also admitted his famous double rook sack against Topalov was probably a draw if black ignored the rook on d4. There's clear drawing chances for you. It doesn't mean the game isn't praiseworthy. what a touchy crowd...let's do a group breathing exercise on 3...2...1...ahhhhh |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | shach matov: The pleasure of this game for many is lying in the fact that kramnik was at the receiving end, destroyed quite badly. But purely objectively, in terms of chess alone, this looks more and more like " topalov's immortal". I am not Bulgarian, but simple superficial look at the game is already enough to see its value. Nxf7-bumbshell-out of the blue...and it seems it would be meaningless if not for the Queen sac 15 moves later in seemingly only slightly inferior position for black! what twilight zone is this? it simply seems that the queen sac had to be seen before the Knight sac. And lets remember that this is not Morphy playing an NN. 2770+ here, with 15 quiet moves between the sacs. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | acirce: You just can't wait for Chessbase's actual analysis and more thorough comments on the game, can you... what they have now is just a brief summary in an <express report>. Only three of the games of the A-group got any kind of comments at all apart from "the other games were drawn"! Geez. |
|
Jan-22-08
| | chancho: Didn't someone earlier on this thread said that the opening analysis prepared for this game went up to 40 moves deep, is this true? If so, Topa sat down with all that analysis at his disposal, while Kramnik had to navigate the complications on the board. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | whatthefat: Who would think such a pretty game could breed such mindless idiocy. Though I suppose the idiocy was already bred; the game merely acting as a catalyst to expose it. What point is there in a group of patzers (yes, that's what we are alongside Tal or Topalov), making arguments of authority on what Tal or Topalov might be capable of seeing/calculating over the board? It's totally absurd. Can we not simply respect the game without resorting to unqualified hyperbole? But then it makes good sense that the vocal fans of Topalov these days are of the diehard variety. It's rather difficult to stomach the Danailov team's conniving ways without being at least partially disconnected from reality. |
|
| Jan-22-08 | | Shams: <chancho> true, but Topalov admitted he had forgotten lots of his analysis. It was three years ago they cooked this up, after all. Anyway, the 40-moves deep lines weren't followed in the game. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 36 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 12.Nxf7